Opinion
December 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oshrin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The record does not contain any evidence to support the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Babylon (hereinafter the Zoning Board) that the housing and raising of pigeons for show would cause property values to decline or would conflict with area zoning, particularly in view of the voluntary acceptance of certain conditions by the petitioner's husband, such as limiting the number of pigeons he kept to 50 and moving the shed used to house the pigeons so that it would not be less than eight feet from the property line.
The lack of evidence to support the findings of the Zoning Board is not salvaged by its contention that the findings were, in part, based upon the personal knowledge of its members as presented in their affidavits and the testimony of neighbors at the hearing. The affidavits and testimony consisted of either conclusory statements or generalized and ambiguous objections and concerns without supporting facts (see, e.g., Matter of C B Realty Co. v Town Bd., 139 A.D.2d 510, 511).
We note that the court gave the Zoning Board a substantial opportunity to provide factual support for its determination when the court directed it to make further inquiry with regard to 10 specific issues. As the court accurately concluded, the Zoning Board made "no real effort" to address these issues or to make any findings of fact. Rather, the Zoning Board provided only conclusory opinions and excuses for its failures. Consequently, the court correctly ruled that the Zoning Board's denial of the petitioner's application lacked support in the record and showed "arbitrariness and an abuse of discretion" (cf., Matter of Fuhst v Foley, 45 N.Y.2d 441; Matter of Cowan v Kern, 41 N.Y.2d 591; Conley v Town of Brookhaven Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 40 N.Y.2d 309). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.