MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Respondent's determination that appellant's application for a special use permit did not meet town zoning ordinance standards, in that the proposed shopping center would create undue traffic congestion and hazard to the nearby school, is sufficiently supported by the record (see, Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v Board of Zoning Appeals, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802). While expert opinion regarding traffic patterns may not be disregarded in favor of generalized community objections (see, Green v Lo Grande, 96 A.D.2d 524, appeal dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 758), here there was other basis in the record for respondent's determination, including evidence from the expert that the shopping center would generate significant increased traffic, to which evidence respondent's discretion and commonsense judgments might be applied in accordance with the town ordinance (see, Cummings v Town Bd., 62 N.Y.2d 833, 835; 2 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice § 24.15, at 294 [3d ed]).
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER and TITONE concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.