urch in the Town of Clifton Park, Saratoga County. Respondent denied the application, citing concerns relating to vehicular congestion, water supply and/or pressure, and the plan's incompatibility with the Town's comprehensive plan. Supreme Court annulled the determination, finding it to be arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, and directed the issuance of the permit subject to reasonable conditions and safeguards. Respondent appeals. We affirm. It is well settled that religious institutions are presumed beneficial to a community, and consequently proposed religious uses should be permitted absent convincing evidence that they pose a direct and immediate threat to public health, safety or welfare ( see, Matter of Westchester Reform Temple v. Brown, 22 N.Y.2d 488, 494; Matter of Holy Spirit Assn. v. Rosenfeld, 91 A.D.2d 190, 197, lv denied 63 N.Y.2d 603). Respondent offered no expert testimony to support its generalized claims of potential water and traffic problems ( see, Matter of North Syracuse First Baptist Church v. Village of N. Syracuse, 136 A.D.2d 942). In fact, acting as lead agency for review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8), respondent issued a negative declaration for the project.
oga County. Respondent denied the application, citing concerns relating to vehicular congestion, water supply and/or pressure, and the plan's incompatibility with the Town's comprehensive plan. Supreme Court annulled the determination, finding it to be arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, and directed the issuance of the permit subject to reasonable conditions and safeguards. Respondent appeals. We affirm. It is well settled that religious institutions are presumed beneficial to a community, and consequently proposed religious uses should be permitted absent convincing evidence that they pose a direct and immediate threat to public health, safety or welfare (see, Matter of Westchester Reform Temple v. Brown, 22 N.Y.2d 488, 494; Matter of Holy Spirit Assn. for Unification of World Christianity v. Rosenfeld, 91 A.D.2d 190, 197, lv denied 63 N.Y.2d 603). Respondent offered no expert testimony to support its generalized claims of potential water and traffic problems (see, Matter of North Syracuse First Baptist Church v. Village of N. Syracuse, 136 A.D.2d 942). In fact, acting as lead agency for review pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (ECL art 8), respondent issued a negative declaration for the project.
milarly without evidentiary basis is the determination that the swimming pools will adversely affect the surrounding community, particularly since the appellants concede that an increase in enrollment, regardless of whether or not the pools are installed, cannot be prohibited. It is also evident that the appellants used impermissible criteria in determining whether the application should be granted (see, Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi, supra) and from the appellants' failure at the outset to pay heed to the requirements of ECL article 8 and General Municipal Law ยง 239-m, we can infer only that outright denial of the application was virtually a foregone conclusion and was thus arbitrary and capricious. Since no persuasive expert or other evidence was offered to demonstrate that the addition of two pools would have a significant adverse impact on, among other things, traffic patterns, property values, or municipal services (see, Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi, 68 N.Y.2d 583, 595, supra; see also, Matter of North Syracuse First Baptist Church v Village of N. Syracuse, 136 A.D.2d 942), and since it would appear that reasonable conditions could both alleviate community hostility and address bona fide public welfare considerations, it would appear that the Supreme Court was otherwise correct in granting the petition and remitting the matter for consideration of appropriate conditions. Since this case involves the expansion of a prior nonconforming use to allow the construction of swimming pools, the authorization to do so must emanate from the appellants in the form of a variance with conditions, rather than in the form of a special permit which could be issued by the Board of Trustees.