Descripción de editorial
Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: Special Terms judgment annulling the boards determination denying petitioner a special use permit and directing the board to issue the permit subject to reasonable conditions but without a time restriction should be affirmed. The board admitted that petitioners business is a permitted special use contemplated under the ordinance. As such, it is tantamount to a legislative finding that the use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and that it will not adversely affect the neighborhood (Matter of North Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 N.Y.2d 238, 243-244). Further, the fact that the board had previously issued a special use permit for this same busines is indicative of the fact that it met the necessary criteria. The boards conclusory findings that petitioners business would be undesirable are not supported by the record. Under the circumstances the denial of the special use permit was arbitrary and capricious (see Matter of Carrols Dev. Corp. v Gibson, 73 A.D.2d 1050, affd 53 N.Y.2d 813). Additionally, Special Term properly found that the permit could not be issued subject to a time limitation. Contrary to the contention of the board, such limitation is not a condition to a special permit but results in a temporary special use permit. While such permits will be upheld where there is authority in the ordinance for their issuance (see 3 Anderson, American Law of Zoning [2d ed], Â§ 19.32), the board has not established any legislative authority to issue a permit for a special use that is terminable in one year. The board may not now complain that Special Term improperly directed a hearing inasmuch as it raised no objection at the time and, in fact, participated fully in the hearing. In any event, Special Term has the authority to conduct a hearing if necessary to aid in its determination (Town Law, Â§ 267, subds 7, 10) and it was a proper exercise of its discretion to conduct the hearing in order to clarify and supplement the proceedings before the board (see Thayer v Baybutt, 29 A.D.2d 486, affd 24 N.Y.2d 1018; see, also, 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], Â§ 22.17; 3 Rathkopf, Law of Zoning and Planning, pp 42-83 -- 42-89, 42-98 -- 42-102). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Roy, J. -- art 78.) Present -- Simons, J.P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Denman and Moule, JJ.