Opinion ID: 1965226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Property Values

Text: We next address the commission's determination that the proposed use of the property would substantially impair property values in the neighborhood in violation of § 8.04.730 of the regulations. The society presented a report by Calciano and Stern Appraisal Associates, Inc., a real estate appraisal firm, in which that firm opined that [the proposed temple] will have no impact on the `[quiet] enjoyment,' utility, or market value of the surrounding properties. In reaching this conclusion, the firm had used a matched pair analysis under which it compared sates of residential properties in other Newtown neighborhoods near existing religious facilities to sales of similar properties where there was no religious facility. It also used a comparative market analysis pursuant to which it examined the impact of similarly intense nonresidential uses on residential neighborhoods. The commission also heard evidence that a family in the neighborhood of the proposed temple had been forced to move as a result of past activities there. When that residence was sold, realtors had inquired whether it was near the society's property, leading the family to believe that the location had made it more difficult to sell the property. [38] In addition, the commission heard evidence that a potential purchaser had canceled plans to buy a property when he learned that the property was near the proposed temple. The commission concluded that the society's appraisal report was of little value because the comparable sales on which the report relied were in the vicinity of churches that had far fewer members than the participants expected at the temple and lower levels of continuous activity. It further concluded that [t]he specific examples provided by the neighbors [were] more persuasive. Accordingly, the commission concluded that the level of activity at the proposed temple would substantially impair neighboring property values. As we have indicated, [t]he credibility of the witnesses and the determination of issues of fact are matters solely within the province of the [commission]. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Municipal Funding, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals, supra, 270 Conn. at 453, 853 A.2d 511. Accordingly, the commission was not required to credit the appraisal firm's conclusion that the proposed temple would have no effect on property values. Similarly, the commission was entitled to credit the anecdotal reports that past activities on the society's property had made neighboring properties less desirable. We already have concluded that the commission's determination that those activities would cause a significantly greater disruption to the neighborhood than any permitted use was supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, it is reasonable to conclude that the effect of the activities on the sale of neighboring properties would continue if the activities were allowed to continue. We therefore conclude that the commission's determination that the disruptive activities would significantly impair property values was supported by substantial evidence.