| Matter of Capriola v Wright |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04379 [73 AD3d 1043] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Jeanette Capriola, Doing Business as Walk in Lovefor Jesus Church, Appellant, v Gerald G. Wright et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Joseph J. Ra, Town Attorney, Hempstead, N.Y. (Charles S. Kovit of counsel), forrespondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Town ofHempstead Board of Appeals, dated July 16, 2008, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner'sapplication, inter alia, for a special exception permit and an off-street parking variance, theappeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Spinola, J.), entered April 21,2009, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, thepetition is granted, the determination is annulled, and the matter is remitted to the Town ofHempstead Board of Appeals for a new determination in accordance herewith.
Walk in Love for Jesus Church, Inc., is the owner of certain premises in North Bellmore.The premises are located in a residential zoning district, but since 2004, religious services havebeen held thereon. The Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Hempstead (hereinafter theBZO) expressly permits religious uses in residential districts (see BZO §§82, 83 [C]; § 399 [B]). However, in 2007, the BZO was amended to require a "specialexception permit" for the establishment or expansion of a religious use in any zoning district(BZO § 401 [A], formerly § 388 [A]). The Town of Hempstead Board of Appeals(hereinafter the Board) may grant the permit if the proposed use will not cause "significantnegative impacts" on the "public's health, safety, welfare and morals," including, inter alia,"significant traffic congestion" or a "substantial adverse effect on surrounding property values"(BZO § 402 [D] [1], [2]; [E] [1], formerly § 389 [D] [1], [2]; [E] [1]). The Boardmay deny the permit upon a finding of significant negative impacts unless such impacts "may besubstantially mitigated by imposition of appropriate conditions that do not, by their cost,magnitude or volume, operate indirectly to exclude the use altogether" (BZO § 402 [E][2], [3], formerly § 389 [E] [2], [3]).
Pastor Jeanette Capriola, doing business as Walk in Love for Jesus Church (hereinafter thepetitioner), filed an application for a special exception permit so that religious services couldcontinue [*2]to be held on the premises. The petitioner alsosought area variances for off-street parking and the installation of a sign. As a condition to thegrant of the application, the petitioner proposed that only 46 people would be allowed to enterthe sanctuary, and while religious services were being conducted in the sanctuary, that no otherarea of the premises would be used. After a public hearing, the Board denied the petitioner'sapplication in its entirety. The petitioner commenced a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78to annul the Board's determination. The Supreme Court denied the petition, finding that theBoard's determination was rational, and not arbitrary and capricious. We reverse.
Contrary to the Board's determination, the petitioner has standing to bring an application fora special exception permit. Section 400 (formerly section 387) of the BZO defines "religioususe" as "[a] house of worship or other place regularly and primarily devoted to religiouspractice" (BZO § 400). This Court has defined religious use as "conduct with a religiouspurpose, the determination of which focuses on the proposed use itself, not the religious natureof the organization, and in 'each case ultimately rests upon its own facts' " (McGann vIncorporated Vil. of Old Westbury, 293 AD2d 581, 583 [2002], quoting Matter ofCommunity Synagogue v Bates, 1 NY2d 445, 453 [1956]). Here, the petitioner proposes touse the premises as a house of worship, and to conduct regular religious services on thepremises. Thus, the petitioner's application proposes a religious use. This conclusion is notchanged by the fact that the certificate of incorporation for Walk in Love for Jesus, Inc.,indicated that it was a charitable corporation, rather than a religious one, since the determinationof "religious use" focuses on the proposed use itself, not the religious nature of the organization(see McGann v Incorporated Vil. of Old Westbury, 293 AD2d at 583). In any event, wenote that the certificate of incorporation had been amended prior to the Board's determination toprovide that Walk in Love for Jesus Church, Inc., is a religious corporation with the statedpurpose of establishing and operating a church.
Furthermore, the Board's unconditional denial of the petitioner's application was arbitraryand capricious. Unlike a use variance, a "special exception allows the property owner to put hisproperty to a use expressly permitted by the ordinance . . . subject only to'conditions' attached to its use to minimize its impact on the surrounding area" (Matter ofNorth Shore Steak House v Board of Appeals of Inc. Vil. of Thomaston, 30 NY2d 238,243-244 [1972]; see Matter of Navaretta v Town of Oyster Bay, 72 AD3d 823, 825[2010]). In connection with her application for a special exception permit, the petitioner properlysought area variances, which may be granted in connection with the permit (see TownLaw § 274-b [3]; Matter of Real Holding Corp. v Lehigh, 304 AD2d 583 [2003],affd 2 NY3d 297 [2004]; Matter of Sunrise Plaza Assoc. v Town Bd. of Town ofBabylon, 250 AD2d 690, 693 [1998]). In addition, the petitioner suggested conditions forthe limitation of her use in order to mitigate the impact on the surrounding community. "[W]hilereligious institutions are not exempt from local zoning laws, greater flexibility is required inevaluating an application for a religious use than an application for another use and every effortto accommodate the religious use must be made" (Matter of Genesis Assembly of God vDavies, 208 AD2d 627, 628 [1994]; see Matter of St. Thomas Malankara Orthodox Church, Inc., Long Is. vBoard of Appeals, Town of Hempstead, 23 AD3d 666 [2005]). A local zoning board isrequired to "suggest measures to accommodate the proposed religious use while mitigating theadverse effects on the surrounding community to the greatest extent possible" (Matter ofGenesis Assembly of God v Davies, 208 AD2d at 628; see Matter of St. ThomasMalankara Orthodox Church, Inc., Long Is. v Board of Appeals, Town of Hempstead, 23AD3d at 667).
Here, the record reflects that the Board suggested no measures that would haveaccommodated the proposed religious use while mitigating the adverse effects on thesurrounding community (see Matter of St. Thomas Malankara Orthodox Church, Inc., LongIs. v Board of Appeals, Town of Hempstead, 23 AD3d at 667). Despite the conditionsproposed by the petitioner, the Board denied the petitioner's application in its entirety, eventhough the proposed religious use could have been substantially accommodated (see Matterof Harrison Orthodox Minyan v Town Bd. of Harrison, 159 AD2d 572, 573 [1990]).Furthermore, the evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumed beneficial effect of theproposed religious use (see Matter ofPine Knolls Alliance Church v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Moreau, 5 NY3d407, 412 [2005]).
Accordingly, we grant the petition, annul the Board's determination, and remit the matter tothe Board with a direction to grant the petitioner's application for a special exception permit andarea [*3]variances under such reasonable conditions as will allowthe proposed religious use while mitigating any detrimental or adverse effects upon thesurrounding community (see Matter of Islamic Socy. of Westchester & Rockland vFoley, 96 AD2d 536, 537 [1983]).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the petitioner's remaining contention.Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Lott, JJ., concur.