The state’s highest court has rejected a lawsuit brought by neighbors of a proposed affordable housing development in Andover who argued that the project would hurt the value of their properties.

The decision gives a boost to housing developers and affordable housing advocates who had been watching the case closely.

The case involved a 115-unit apartment complex that Virginia-based Avalon Bay Communities is planning to build at the site of a former monastery under the state’s Chapter 40B comprehensive permitting law. Twenty-nine of the apartments are slated for low- to moderate-income households.

The site at 460 River Road is located in an area of Andover that is zoned for single-family homes on one-acre lots. A group of abutters challenged the project, arguing that it would negatively affect the value of their properties.

‘Far More Risky’
In its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court showed that plaintiffs who have concerns about diminished property value must prove that their property will be “harmed” in some way – either through increased traffic or other impacts, explained R. J. Lyman, a partner with Goodwin Procter in Boston.

“This decision is a good decision for anybody who cares about facts and details and not fears and demagoguery,” said Lyman, who submitted a brief on behalf of several groups including the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, Massachusetts Association of Realtors and the Citizens’ Housing and Planning Association.

The decision sends a message that developers, property owners and zoning board officials must focus on the facts and details and the actual impact of a project, Lyman said. “If you’re merely discussing your fears in general terms Â… you’re not going to pursue this to successful conclusion,” he noted.

How mixed-income rental housing affects property values was addressed in a report issued last year. The study, conducted by the MIT Center for Real Estate, found that there was no negative impact on the values of homes located near seven rental housing projects that were built under Chapter 40B.

In the Andover case, neighbors initially argued that the project would cause traffic and storm-water draining problems that would affect their properties. But the developer presented expert testimony that contradicted those claims.

Andover’s Zoning Board denied the developer’s first application for a comprehensive permit in 2001. But after an appeal to the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Housing Appeals Committee, and mediation, the board issued a permit in May 2002.

A group of abutters appealed to the Superior Court maintaining that the apartments would significantly increase traffic and cause storm-water drainage issues. But the court sided with the project developer, saying that experts had addressed and rebutted those issues.

The Superior Court also ruled that the plaintiffs “lacked standing” to challenge the comprehensive permit because their claim that the apartment complex would hurt their property values was “not a concern recognized by” Chapter 40B.

Unsatisfied, the abutters appealed their case to the Appeals Court. The court decided that the developer had not presented sufficient evidence to refute the assertion that abutting property values would be diminished.

But in the ruling issued June 16, the SJC wrote: “The preservation of real estate values of property abutting an affordable housing development is clearly not a concern that [Chapter 40B] is intended to protect. As the developer points out, such a result is antithetical to the purposes of [Chapter 40B], which seeks to provide critically needed affordable housing throughout the commonwealth.”

“It would grant standing to challenge a comprehensive permit to persons who object to the construction any affordable housing project simply by claims that that introduction of affordable housing for low- and moderate-income persons would cause their property values to drop.”

Lyman highlighted the concerns of 40B advocates in the brief that was filed.

“If appeals of 40B projects may be brought by parties whose only provable harm is a diminution in value of their property, then 40B projects will become far more risky and expensive, and far less desirable to homebuilders and developers Â… such a result is inconsistent with the law of standing and would contravene the legislative intent behind 40B to facilitate the construction of badly needed affordable housing,” he wrote.