Opinion
April 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (LaCava, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
We agree with the determination of the Supreme Court that the proposed use of property for the construction of an electrical or utility substation was in conformance with the statutory preconditions for issuance of special permits, and that the denial of the petitioner's application for a special permit was not supported by "substantial evidence". Unlike a variance, which allows the use of property in a manner otherwise prohibited by an ordinance, a special permit or exception authorizes the use of property in a manner expressly permitted (see, Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals, 30 N.Y.2d 238; Matter of Texaco Ref. Mktg. v Valente, 174 A.D.2d 674). Such a classification is tantamount to a legislative finding that, if the special exception conditions are met, the proposed use is compatible with the standards and objectives of the zoning ordinance, 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, 205 A.D.2d 686; Matter of J.P.M. Props. v Town of Oyster Bay, 204 A.D.2d 722; Matter of C B Realty Co. v Town Bd., 139 A.D.2d 510; Matter of Old Ct. Intl. v Gulotta, 123 A.D.2d 634).
Although there is no automatic entitlement to a special permit, where, as here, the petitioner demonstrates that the proposed use is in conformance with the conditions imposed, a permit must be granted unless there are reasonable grounds for denying it which are supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Carrol's Dev. Corp. v Gibson, 53 N.Y.2d 813; Matter of C A Carbone v Holbrook, 188 A.D.2d 599; Matter of Texaco Ref. Mktg. v Valente, 174 A.D.2d 674, supra). While the Town Board of the Town of Stony Point (hereinafter the Town Board) is 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., supra; see generally, 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law Practice § 24.13, at 285 [3d ed]), it may not deny a special exception or permit solely on the basis of generalized objections and concerns of the neighboring or adjoining community which, in effect, amount to "community pressure" (see, Matter of Lee Realty Co. v Village of Spring Val., 61 N.Y.2d 892, supra; Matter of C.B.H. Props. v Rose, 205 A.D.2d 686, supra).
Here, the conclusion of the petitioner's expert witness that there would not be an increase in the amount of electrical or magnetic fields at any residence or at any property line in the area of the substation was unrebutted by anything other than the conclusory statements of the area residents. These conclusory assertions were insufficient to sustain a denial of the special permit (see, Matter of Market Sq. Props. v Town of Guilderland Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 66 N.Y.2d 893; Matter of C A Carbone v Holbrook, 188 A.D.2d 599, supra; Matter of Veysey v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 154 A.D.2d 819). Likewise, the intervenors' contention that the neighboring property values would be diminished is completely unsupported by any evidence.
We have examined the remaining contentions of the Town Board and the intervenors and find that they are without merit. Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.