In Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi (68 N.Y.2d 583, 589, 503 N.E.2d 509, 510 N.Y.S.2d 861 [1986]), the Court's was to determine how best to balance the needs and rights of educational and religious institutions seeking to expand their facilities in residential neighborhoods against the concerns of local residents who might be harmed or inconvenienced by the proposed construction projects. The Court approved the special permit application process as an effective means of addressing expansion requests but we annulled the two zoning determinations under review because the zoning officials in both cases had impermissibly required the colleges that sought special permits to prove their need to expand. The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the presumption that a religious use is always in furtherance of the public health, safety and morals but in so doing essentially adopted the concurring opinion of then Chief Judge Breitel in Jewish Reconstructionist Synagogue v Incorporated Vil. of Roslyn Harbor (38 NY2d 283), that the presumption is not absolute and conclusive but may be rebutted by a showing of an actual negative impact upon the community. In so doing, the Court specifically rejected defendants' attempt to broaden the criteria used to prohibit a proposed religious use to include a requirement that the church demonstrate some need for its proposal. Church or institutional need is unrelated to the issue of public health, safety and welfare. The imposition of such a requirement is beyond the municipality's police power and thereby the municipality's zoning authority (Cornell Univ. v Bagnardi, supra, at 597).