Opinion ID: 1920450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: IIThe Board's Findings Based on Articles other than Article 10

Text: In finding second (above-designated) the Board asserted a violation of Article 3 of SECTION III because the Board deemed the proposed relocation injurious, bad and otherwise offensive to the surroundings. The presiding Justice, however, reasoning that the language of the Ordinance described a common law nuisance, concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show such nuisance. We agree with the presiding Justice. As explained in Phillips, supra, that the Ordinance permits a school as an exception usei. e., the conditional use dealt with in Phillips connotes an advance legislative determination that a school generally is not injurious, bad and otherwise offensive to the surroundings of its zone. Thus, Board finding second (above-designated) can be upheld only if it is supported by evidence showing unique or distinctive characteristics requiring that Community's particular proposed school use be denied as a nuisance. There is no such factual foundation in the record. Relying on Article 4 of SECTION III of the Ordinance, the Board concluded in finding third (above-designated) that Community's requested use would significantly depreciate the value of adjacent real estate. Underscoring the word significantly, the presiding Justice held the record lacking in evidence proving devaluation to that extent. We agree. Whatever the purported application of Article 4, SECTION III (applicable to all zones) to exceptions such as the school before us, [6] we find the evidence totally inadequate to sustain the burden of establishing significant depreciation. (emphasis supplied) One witness vaguely asserted that Community's project would . . . have a negative effect on the value of existing nearby real estate. Another speculated that the proposed exception would diminish the market value of properties in that area. Whether such inexplicit testimony would buttress a finding of some devaluation is questionable; that it fails to support a conclusion of significant depreciation is plain. In its finding fourth (above-designated) the Board asserted that Article 10 of SECTION III of the Ordinance would be violated because Community's proposed use would lack provision for adequate off-street parking. Once again, the presiding Justice ruled this finding unsupported by the evidence before the Board, and we concur. Various statements at the hearing which may have led to the Board's conclusion described factors more imaginary in their impact than real. Officials for Community testified that the school owned but one vehicle, and permitted the students none. Patently, then, Community's proposed use of its Washington Street property involved no necessity for special parking arrangements since Community's parking needs would be no more, and even less, than those of other dwellings authorized as of right in the Zone. [7] All of the Board's findings being erroneous as a matter of law, the presiding Justice acted correctly in reversing the decision of the Board and ordering summary judgment in favor of Community. The entry is: Appeal denied. [8]