Opinion
October 10, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, the determination is annulled, and the proceeding is remitted to the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mineola for the purpose of issuing the special exception permit requested by the petitioner, subject to such appropriate conditions and restrictions as may be imposed.
Unlike a variance, a special permit or special exception allows an owner to use the subject property in a manner expressly permitted by law (see, Matter of North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appeals, 30 N.Y.2d 238; Matter of C.B.H. Props. v. Rose, 205 A.D.2d 686). Such a classification is tantamount to a legislative finding that, if the special exception conditions are met, such use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood and the surrounding areas (see, Matter of Lee Realty Co. v. Village of Spring Val., 61 N.Y.2d 892; Matter of North Shore Steak House v. Board of Appeals, supra; Matter of C.B.H. Props. v. Rose, supra). While the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mineola (hereinafter the Board of Trustees) was free to consider matters related to the public welfare in determining whether to grant or deny a special exception or permit (see, Cummings v. Town Bd., 62 N.Y.2d 833; Matter of C B Realty Co. v. Town Bd., 139 A.D.2d 510), it was impermissible to deny a special exception or permit solely on the basis of generalized objections and concerns of the neighboring or adjoining community expressed by members thereof, which, in effect, amount to "community pressure" (Matter of Lee Realty Co. v. Village of Spring Val., supra, at 894). Further, generalized complaints about traffic from local residents describing existing conditions are insufficient to counter an expert opinion based on empirical studies that "the existing street system could handle the projected increase in traffic" (Matter of Oyster Bay Dev. Corp. v. Town Bd., 88 A.D.2d 978, 979; see also, Matter of Triangle Inn v. Lo Grande, 124 A.D.2d 737; Green v. Lo Grande, 96 A.D.2d 524; see also, Matter of Old Country Burgers Co. v. Town Bd., 160 A.D.2d 805).
In this instance, the generalized complaints of the residents as to increased traffic and insufficient parking, and the summary recommendation of the Village of Mineola Planning Board, were uncorroborated by any empirical data or expert opinion. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to counter the evidence submitted by the appellant's experts that the area roads were able to handle any increase in traffic. Thus, there was no basis in the record upon which the Board of Trustees could properly base a denial of the application and the petition should have been granted. O'Brien, J.P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.