[brief] Those undisputable facts and relevant "surrounding circumstances" include the following:  1.  That the December 31, 1962 separate Deed (Da166) conveyed the title to Lot 8, and any easement rights in favor of Lot 8 would have logically been included and set forth in that Deed if such were intended.  2.  That the 1963 Agreement did not reference or include the terminology of "permanent", "perpetual", or "easement".  (Da13)  3.  That the 1963 Agreement was not notarized or in recordable form, evidencing an intent that it not be recorded so as to not extend beyond the then owners or be permanent.  (Da13)  4.  That the 1972 Site Plan documents and Resolution establishes: (Da901 to904; Da923 to934; Da938 to 946)  A.  That the synagogue did not assert any easement-parking rights existed in 1972.  B.  That the School site had insufficient parking for its own needs and required a variance for the expansion.  If a Synagogue parking right existed on School property, that would logically be relevant and preclusive to the School expansion and, if it existed, was required to be disclosed and asserted by the Synagogue.  C.  That the 1972 Approved Site Plan does not show or reference any parking in the Sixth Street/Courtyard.  There is no curb cut for vehicle access, and a walkway located in the middle of the Courtyard, indicating the courtyard was solely for pedestrian use.  D.  That the 1972 School Resolution/minutes establish that the Synagogue was on notice, and because the School site parking was particularly deficient for the school's own needs, the Synagogue volunteered its other nearby parcels for the School overflow parking needs.  5.  That there was no curb cut on Sixth Street to allow vehicles access into Lot 5 from the 1960's until the Synagogue chiseled out the curb in 2013 in front of its own Lot 8, not the School Lot 5.  6.  That there is not presently, and no proof that there ever has been, a curb cut on Sixth Street in front of the School Lot 5 that would allow vehicles to access the supposed shared parking lot on the School Courtyard.  It would be totally illogical to conclude that a purported shared parking lot in that courtyard on School property could be put in place in 1963 and exist for 50 years without an approved curb/driveway access on Sixth Street in front of Lot 5.  Further, the School Lot 5 has never had any easement or license on Lot 8 to have its vehicles drive into and over Lot 8 to then access the School's Lot 5.  That School vehicles (Lot 5) never had and do not have any right to drive into and over Lot 8 to access the supposed "shared" parking area in the Lot 5 Courtyard confirms that parking was never contemplated in the Courtyard.  7.  That the Synagogue, recognizing the 1963 Agreement was non-recordable, resorted to a subterfuge to record that document as an attachment to another Document in 2017.  (Da907)  8.  That the [...] in its November 2018 Resolution determined that this off-Site parking facility/use on Lot 5 for Lot 8 staff/Attendees is not now a legal use and has never been a legal pre-existing nonconforming use.  (Da894)  These undisputed facts are the surrounding circumstances that establish that the 1963 "permission" for parking on any portion of the School Lot 5 was, at most, a personal license that was ended no later than 1972.  The Trial Court’s determination and Opinion is clearly legally and factually unwarranted and incorrect.  POINT FIVE