Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

...
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Supreme Judicial Court
S JC-10 637
Appeals Court
NO. 2009-P-1096
SUFFOLK COUNTY
... .
~ ~~ ~
t BOARD OF aPPEALS OF THE CITY OF WSBURY
P1 a in tiff -Appell an t
V.
HOUSING APPEALS COMMITTEE, et a1
Defendants-Appel Lees
ON APPEhL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT
BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant
JONATHAN 0. WITTEN
EBO 636337
BARBARA M. HUGGINS
BBO 562535
DALEY AND WITTEN, LLC
156 DUCK HILL ROAD
DUXRURY, MA 02332
781-934-0084
DATED: JUNE 30, 2009; JANUARY 4, 2010

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
NO. 2009-P-1096
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF' CONTENTS i
TABJ.E OF AUTHORITIES i.i i
S'I'H'TGMENT OF T$S11E PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1
Did thc Trial Court crr i n upholding the Housing
Hppeals Commj.ttE!e whcre DefendariC Attirash
Views, LLC has failed to demurisfrate that the
conditions imposed by the Plaintiff Board ut
Appcals make the project unecunomic?
STATKMENT OF THE CASE 1
STA'J.'EMENT OF FAC'I'S 2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 4
ARGUMENT 4
STANDARD OF REVIEW
I. The IIAC erred 1.n grxiting At.titash's Motj.on
for Summary Iiecisfon, where Attitash failed to
satisfy its summary decision burden arid the
Trial Court. erred in uphol.ding 'Lhe HAC. 5
A. 1kferidar.it Attitash V iews, LLC failed to
carry its burden of proving t.hat. the conditions
imposed by the Hoard rerider the project
II n E! co nomi c" . 8
I3. The HAC has continually held that it. is
without t.he power to di st-iirb conditions that
do not render the pro~~!.ct uneconomic. 11
i

C. Ucfendant Attitash Views, W C failed io
carry it.s burden of proving t.hat. MavsHousiny
w i l l not filnd the project.
11. 'The HAC improper] y struck condj.ti ons
lawfully imposed by the Bui11.d.
1: 11.. Thc Trial Court improper1.y upheld thc
HAC'S order st.rSkinq the condjtions lawIully
imposcci by t.he Hoard.
IV. The Coiidifj.oriz Imposed by tiic Amesbury
Board of Appeals Were Wj.thin the Board's Power
and the Housiny Appeals (:omitLee Lacks the
Authority to Strikc Conditions That no N o t
Rcnder the Project Uneconomic.
A. 'The IIArJ erred in strikinq Conditions
43b', 43G, and 43H.
B. The HAC erred in stri.kiny Conditions
73, 26, 28 and 29.
C. The HAC erred In strikiny Conditions
38, 39 and 40.
D. The HAC erred i n striking Condition
4 7. -Market ir.iy .
F,. The HAC erred in strikj.ng CondiLion
42-Monitorj ng AgenL.
i?. The HAC erred in striking Condit.j.nn
43E.
G. The IIAC erred in modifying CondiLions
18, 19 and 20.
Ii. The HAC erred iri st.rikiny and/or
modiiying Condi tioris 43A, 43B, 430, 43K,
43L. 43N, 43W, arid 59.
I. The HAC erred in striking Condjt-ion 5.1.
ii
PAGE
13
16
25
29
30
36
38
40
41
42
43
44
45

J. The HAC errcd in strikirig Condition 73
CONCLUS I ON
M. R.A. P. ('.EKTIFICA'I''l:ON
AFFIDAVIT OF sb.:wrcE
Cases :
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Arnone v. Coim'r . ,. of Che - .. Dep't of . ,
-.
-. Social , Services, -. --- 43 Mass.App.Ct. 33 (1.9'17)
-. Roard . nf Appeals of - Hanover v. .,
, Housinq -- Appeals Cumnittee,
363 Mass. 339 (19'73)
Hoard of Appeals . .- of NorLh Andover V,
Housing ,,Appeals Cornmi.ttcc,,
4 Mass.App.Ct. 676 (1976)
Board .- of AiJpeals oL Woburn v. - . Housing
Appeals - . . .. . (:omnittee, 451 Mass. 581 (7008)
Ruchanan v. Warley, 74'1 IJ.S. 60 (1911)
Bureau of Old Aqe A,ssistance .- of Natick
Comniissioner of Fub. Welfare, .~ -
326 Mass 121 (1950)
-. Electronics
,, - Corp. ui America v. Cornmissiurier
Of Kevc?n, 402 Mas&.' 672 (1988)
Goldberq . .. v. Board of Ileailk .. . of Grariby,
444 Mass 62'1 (2005)
FcLcrson v. Bd. of A:jscssors of Buston, .. -
.
62 Mass.Hpp.Ct.- 428 (2004)
Shelley v,Kramae~, 334 1I.S. 1 ( 194H)
iii
..I-
v.
PAGE
4s
47
49
50
4.5
7, 28,29,33
2 ' I
pass i ~ n
25
27
2 'I
28
4
25

0
0
r)
I.
*
a
0
Simiuns v. Clcrk-Mayistrate of the BosLon . .
Div. 0-f t.hc Hdusi ny _. .
~- -
C,obrt. Dcpli
448 Mass. 57'- (2006)
Smith v. Commissioner of Transitional , -.
-. Assistance,
,. 431 Mass I (-138 (-?0UO)
. .. -
Taylor v. .. - Board of Appeals . .- of Lexj.nqton,
453 Mass 270 (2ddo)
THI, Inc. v. 5d of IIcalth of N. Hndover, . --
431 Mass 9 (2000)
- Zoning . Bd. . .~ of Appeals .... - of .. Wel.lesley
v. Ardemore - Apartrncnts Ltd. . -. P'ship,
4116 Mass. 811 (7002)
Administrative decisions:
9 North Walkcr Street DPV., Inc.
v. Rchoboth, No. YY-03 (Housinq
Appcals Comn., Nov. 6, 1006)
Archst.one CommuniCies 'Trust v. Woburn
hard of Appeal.s, No. 01-07 (Ho~isinq
Appeals Corn., June 1 1 , 2003)
Bay Watch Realty Trust v . Marion Road
uf Appeals, NO. 02-78 (Ilousjnq Appea1.s
Comm., Dec. !j, 200.5)
Cooperative Allj ancc of Massach~~seCLs
v. Tauntnn Zoning Board of A ppeals,
No. 90-05 (Housiny Appeals Comm.,
April 2, 1397)
Drumlin Uevelopnient, LLC v. Sudhury
Hoard of Appeals, No. 01-03 (Housing
Appeals Comm., Yeptember 2.1, 2001)
Faraqon Resi dentidl FroperLies, LLC
v. Brookljne Zoning Hoard of Appeals,
No. 04-16 (Housing Appeals Comm., March 26,
2007)
Peppercorn Village R calty 'Trust. TI.
Hopkinton Board of Appcals, Nu. 02-02
iv
27
28
27
4 -/
29
13
12
1Y
12
12
19

(Housiriy Appeals Cnmm., January 76, 20041
Statutes :
G.L. c. 30A, s. 14
G.1,. C. 40B, s . 20-23
G.1,. c. 44, s . 53C
Regulations:
'760 CMH 30.07(4)
760 CMR 31.05(3)
760 CMR 31.06(3)
760 CMR 31.06(7)
760 CMR 31..06(9)
760 CMR 31.W/ (1) (f)
V
12
passim
passim
45,46, 4')
5,1R 19
6
7,8,13,17
-/, 11,12,18,21,36,37
7
11,1.4,30

Statement of Issues Presented for Review
I. Did the Trial Court err in upholding t.he
H ou f; ing Appca 1 s Conmi t t e e where D e i end ant.
Htt i Lash Views, LLC hLlS failed to
demonvLrate that. thc conditions jrnpos~ci by
the Flajntiif Hoard of Appcals make the
project. uneconomic'?
Statement of the Case
This is an appeal by Plaintiff Zoning Hoard of
Appeals of .the Ci.ty of Kmesbury ("Board") from a
Decision by t.he Superi.or Court denying its Motion for
J;idg~ricnt on the Pl.eadings in an appeal under G. L. c.
30A from a dccisj.on of the Ilousinq Appea1.s Committee
("HAC" or "Committee") I
Thc
HAC: decision qraIiLed the
re1 i ef sought by developer Attitash Views, LLC
("Attitash" ~nr "developer") in iLs appeal irom a
decision by the Board grant; ng a comprehcr-isive permit
wiLh conditions
The HAC decision directed t.he Hoard issue ci
comprehensive permit for fhe 40 clwclling units
approved by the Board and, inter alia, ordered struck
numerous condi t.ions imposcid by the Board. The Board
respectfully requests that thl s Court reverse the
Decision of thc Superior Court aid rule thal the IIAC's

decision was arbitrary and capricious, based on errors
of law, arid exceeded the HAC'S aiithoriLy as most.
recently announced by Lhe Supremc Judicial Court i n
Board . of . Appeals of - .. . Woburn -,_v..,.- Housing Appcais -. .
Co~ruiiittee
, . et. al., 451 Mass. 581 (2008). 'The Doacrd
Lurther respectfully requests that the Court rainstale
the Decision of the Uoard.
Statement of Facts'
By decisi.on Filed wjt.h thc City Clerk 011 or about
Scpternber 77, 2006, the Hoard granted a comprehensjve
permit to ALCitash for the c!onstruction of a 40-11nit
residential developmerit at 131A Haverill Road in
limesbury. Thjrty uf the units are market rate 2nd ten
arc "affordable." The approval cont-ained il riumber of
conditions. R4 Vol.1, 15. Atti tash appealed the
Board's llecisio~~i to the HAC. RA Vol .l, 2.
On or a.bout January 17, ZOO'/, Attitash filed cl
Motion for Summary Decision, challenying the
"1.egality" of certain c0ndit.i ons corilained in the
Board's Ilecision. IW Vol .1, 59. The Hoard fi.led an
Opposition to Lhe Motion. R4 Vol.l, 206. The Board
requested a hearing on the Motion folr Sumnary
1
Citations t.o the Lwo-volume administrat.ive record in
this case are to "RA" followed by the relevant volume
and page number (s) .
2

Decision. Ttic Fresidj-nq Of fic.cr denied the request
for a hearing, HA Vol.1, 453.
On October 15, 200'1, the IiAC issued a ":jiimrnary
Cccision," qrariting Attit.ash's Motion and removiriy
mmt of thc condition.? , tu which t.he developcr-
objected. RA Vol.l, 457. The regulations iri ciiect
when Ihe HAC'S decision was rendercd arid cont.ro1 1.j.nq
this rnatt.Fr are Lourid at, 760 CMR 30.00 and 31.00 ct
c
seq.
On or ahout. Novcrrhcr 16, 3007, Plaintiff filed a
timely appeal of thc HAC decision pursuant. to tho
provisions of C.L. c.30A, 5.14. RA Vol..?, 1.7. A
moLion for judyrrtent. on the plcadings with suppurting
memorandum, together with opposition inernoranda were
filed with the Suffolk Superj.or CuurL on or about July
l[), 2008. Oral argument was held before the Honorable
Judye Brassard on (January -1, 2009. KH Vo1.2, 103.
Judge Brassard issued a decision from the bench. The
tran.. -.~ript -. of oral argument arid Judge Brassard' s
decision is iourid at KA Vo1.2, 102-103.
' Thcrc does not appear to be dj.saqreerneriL rcyarding
thc applicability of 760 CMR 30.00 and 31.00 e t seq.
io the case at bar. Rnth were superseded effect-ive
Fcbruary 70118 by 760 CMK 56.00 CL al. The Defendant
HAC concedes as rnuch in 1t.s Opposition to the Motion
for Judgment 011 the Pleadirigs, found at KA Vo1.2, 100-
101, n. 60.
3

Summary of the Argument
Ccneral Laws E. 4OB, s.20-23 provide that t.he
Housing Appeals Currunittee ("Comnit.tee") niay review a
coinprehensive pcrinit j ssued wit.11 conditions where t.he
miidit.ions imposed render the prnject "uneconomic"
(pp. -5-47) . I ssi.ies of materj-al fact remained
unresolved before the Committcc, particularly with
rcyard t.o the economic impact. of the imposed
condi ti.nns, yet t.he Committee rendered a "summary
decision"(pp. 5-13). M;lssIlouuiriy'u "objcclion" to 10
of the 24 conditions inipoucd by the Board did not risc
t.0 the rcbu.tC;lblc prcsuumption of "agency refusal to
furid" iourici in 760 CMR 31.07(1) (f) (pp. 13-16). The
conditions j.mposed by the Hoard were lawful and within
t.he Hoard's ai.ithority (pp. 16-29]. The Committee,
and the Trial Court upuri appeal, crrcd in sLriking or
modifying coridiiiuns imposed by the Board of Appeals
wit.hout. any evidence t.hat. the cnnditi on.? render the
project uneconomic as royuircd by statute and recently
held by t.he Supreme Judicial. Court. (pp. 29-47).
Standard of Review
ARGUMENT
Judicial review of a decision by the IIousinq
Hppcdls Committee is puruuanL Lo Lhc Aclmiriistrative
4

I'roced~irc Act. See G.L.r: . 4I)D, 5.22; G Il2 c.. 30A,
3. 14. The C h ~ i r L inay set asidc an agency's dccisior.i if
j.t deterniincs .that. the "substantiai ricJht.5 of any
party may have hecn prejudiced" bec!ause the aycncy
decision j s in violat.i.on of. curistituti onal provisions;
in excess of thc statiitory authority or jurisdiction
of the agency; based upon an error of law; made upon
un 1
pro ce du r c ; 1.1 n s iipp o r t ed by
ti w i LI 1 subs t x i
t i a1
evidence; unwarrarited by facCs found by the courl on
the record as suhnitted; or arbit.rary or capricious,
dn ahuse oF discreti.on, or otherwise riot in accordance
with law. G.L. c.3OA, s.14(7) (d)-(g); see Arnorie v.
Comm'r of .. -- t.he Uep'L .. of .... .Social . .." Servj.ces, 43 Mass.
H~~.C'I. 33, 34 (1997). The Court.'~ review is based
upori the entire record devcloped before Chc agency.
G.L.c. 3OA, s. 14(g); PcCe.rson v. Bd. of Assessors
. of
Hnston, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 428, 431 (;IOO4). "Tblc
Llpproach must it; oiie of judicial deferericc and
restraint, buC not ahd.i.ca.Lion." Arnone v. Comn'r .. . .. .~ of
the Dcpt.. of :Social S$i:vs., 43 Mass.App.Ct. at 34.
I. The HAC erred . ... in grantinq -- Att.it.ash's Motion . . for
Decision, where Atti.t.;ish failed ~ Summary . . ...
to
satjsfy its surmary decision burden and the Trial
.. -
. - . ._ .- -
Court srrcd in .uphol.diny the ... - HAC.
. . . . . -
760 CMR :

Mot-ions for .- Summary . . . . Decisj.on. Any party may
move, with OL wjthout supporting affidaviCs and a
memorandum of law, for a surmary decision in the
moviriy party's favor upor1 all or any of t.he
issues that Lire the subject. of the appeal. 'The
decisi.on souyht shall be made j.f the record
before the Committee, t-nqether wi t.h the
affidavi t.s shows that there j.s no qenuine issue
as to any material Tact and t.hat the moving part-y
js entitled to a decision
matter of law. . . .
in its favor as a
Atti.Lauh failed t.o carry its burden of proving t.hat.
"there is no genuine issue as to any mat-erial fact"
and that it. "is entiLlcd to a decision in its favor as
a matt-er of law." Issues of material LdcL rcroain
unresolved as Lo whether the condiCions imposed by the
Board rendered the project "uneconomic. " See, G.L.
c.40B, ss. 20 and 22. Moreover, the conditions
complaj.ned of by the developer were iniposcd within the
Eoard's lawful aut.horit.y. Accordinyly i C was CL'L'OL for
the HAC to all.ow Uefendarit Altitash Views, LIC's
Motion.
As noted above, 760 CMR 30.07(4) provides in parL
that summary diecisinn shall bc allowcd "if the record
before the Corrcnittee, together with the affidavits
shows thaL there is no genuine issue as to m y
material. facL arid that. the rnovj.rig party i.s entitled to
a decision in its favor as a rnatt-er of law...".
Thc HAC stat.ed in its decision Cliat it was proper
6

t.o decide this case hy summary decision "since 't.heI-e
is no qeniii.ne issue as to m y niaLeria1 LacL." R4
Vol.1, 462, quoLiriy '760 CMR 30.0714). The HAC
con L inucd :
"In t.his case t.here j s. no di spiite with rreqard t.o
what conditions were imposed by the Board since
they appear clearly in the writicri decision
rendered hy the L3oa1-d. LhaL in, Lhc Board's
Decision or1 ApplicaLion for Comprehensive Permit
. . . . . ThcrcIorc the most appropriat.e way to
address khc developer's legal. chal 1 enqes t.o the
conditions is by summary deci si on. " - 'I d.
Such ruling was in error, where the IlAC
improper1.y equates the "facts" oL Chis case wiLh Che
"cunditi.ons" imposed by the Board. Although the HAC
is correct that there is "no dispute wlth reqard t.o
what conditions were imposed by the Hoard," t-his does
riot mean that there is "no genuiric issue as to ariy
material fact." See 760 CMR 30.07(4). The - LacLs . in
this case extend bcyond the mere exi-stence of t.he
coiiditions in thc Budrd* n Decision. Where Attitash has
~ippealcd an approval with conditions, the issue before
the HAC is whether such conditions "makc tiic
construct.ion or operation of such housing unecorioriiic
and whether t.hey are cnnsi.stent wi t.h 1 oca]. needs. "
G.L. c. 40H, s. 2%. Thus, t.he "material. facts" j.n
this case Lire those Lacts Chat .Lend Lo t;how that thc

permit conditions do - or do not. - render the project
\I uneconomic" and consistent. with local needs.
In iacl
determininy the exi skence (or
riunexiskccnce) of such facts is the resparisihiiity
with whicli Lhe HAC i.s charged. See (-4.1, c. 40B, s . 22.
In this case, neithcr Lhe Fresjding OFLiccr nor t.he
full Committee was privy to any "material facts" that
could iurm a proper evidentiary basis for a firidiriy
tiiaL the permi t curiditions rendered Lhc project
\\
uneconom? c".
l'he IIAC's rulinq that the case cou1.d he decided
on summary dcckion was legal error and prejudiced the
rights of the Hoard. The Tri.al Court shuuld have
rcvcrsed such ruliny. See G.T.,. c. 30A, 8. 14.
A. Ikfendi~nt ." Attit.ash Views, LLC . fail.ed to
carry its ., burden of provinq.-that
", .-.. the
conditions imposed by . the
~.
project I. "uneconomic".
.__
Board render the
Scclion 23 of G.L. c.40B provides iri park ihal;
"the hearing by the housl.nq appeals cormnittee in the
department. of housing and community clevel opment shall
be limited to the issue of whether , . . in tho ca8c
of an approval. uL' an appli.catioi1 with conditions and
requirements imposed, whet-her such conditions and
requirements make the consCructinn or operati on OF
R

sucii hr>usi.ng uricconomj.r: 2nd whet-her thcy a.re
consistent with 1 oca1 rieeds . "' The requlation
assiqni.iiq the parties' burden of proof befor-e the IIAC
provides t.hat "[ilii the case of an approval wj.t.h
conditions, t.he applicant ,shall have t.he burden of
proving t.hat the conditions make the building or
operation UT the housirig uneconomic." 760 CMR
.31.06(3). 4
A municipality's power to condition a
coInprchensi.ve permit is well est.ablished, arid was
~~ ~~
3 r,
~ e also e 760 CMH Sec.Lion 31.05 (3) , which provides
t.hat "[iln t.he case of approval 01 a comprehensive
permit with conditions or requiremerits imposed, the
i.ssucs shall. hE?: (a) first, whether t.he condiCions
considered in agyregate make the buj.1.di.ng or operation
of such housing urieconomjc, and (b) second, whether
the conditions are cnnsistenL with local nccds. The
Commentary to this regulation states '' [a] condj ti on
which makcs a project uriecon0rni.c w i l l not he removed
or modificd if as a result of such action the project
would nut be consistent wit.h local riccds. See also
G.L. c.4@B, s.70 arid the definition of "uneconomic".
1
Wherc the Hoard issued an approval with conditions,
AtCitash had "the burden of provjng that Lhe
condj.tj ons makc the huildiriy or operation of the
hoiisiny uneconornjc." CMR 31..06(3). If Att.it.ash
met its burden, thc burden would then shift to the
Board to prove "that t.here is il valid health, safety,
environmental, des< gn, open space or ot-her local
concern which support such conditions" and that "such
condj.ti 01'1s outweigh the regional housinq necd." 760
CMR 31..06(7). Attitash's burden on rebuttal would be
to prnvc "t.hat. preventive or cnrrectivc measures have
been proposed which w i l l mitigate the local concern,
[Ir t.hat there is a11 alt.ernative means of protecting
local concerns which makes the project economic."
CMR 31.@6(9).
760
9

I,
a
0
a
0
0
a
0
a
a
recognized by the Supreme Judi cia1 Court in the fj rst
decision i.ntcLpreting G.1,. c. 408:
"Our construc:tion of c. 774 [(.;.I,. c..40B, 3.20-231
does not mean t-hat he board must. automatic;llly
qrant comprehensive pam1it.s jn all cases where
the coirununit.y has not met. its minimum housing
obligation as it is spccifj.cal1.y defined in 3.20.
The stati1t.e merely prevents thc board from
xlyiing on local rcquirements or rcyulations ... a s
the T-eason For the board's denial of the permit
or its ylarit. wj.th uneconomic c0ndj.t.i ons. "
Hd. of Appa,J.s of Ilanuvcr v. Housing Appeals
Committee, -. 363 Mas:?. 339, 367 (1973).
The Supreme Judicial Court's reccrit ruling in
Board - of Appeals -. . of Wohurn v. -. - Housing Appeals
.. Committee, - 451 Mass. 501 (2008) re-afflrmed the power
of a board of appeals to attach conditions to the
grant of a comprehensivc permit. 5
WiLh regard to khc present 1 itiyakion, the Woburn
Court made clear that. where the imposed condit.ions do
not render thc project iinecoriornic, the HAT: 1.acks
authority to disturb Lhe conditions: "The board's
prjncipal coriCciit.ion on appeal is that. t.he committee
excccded it statutory authority when it revised the
5 >, ... the committee asserts t.hat s.21 of the act
precludes a local board from limitiny the number of
unils in a proposed development as J. condition of
approval. That assertion is a11 iIisuffici ent. appellatc
argument ... It. also appears to be plain1 y incorrect ."
Woburn, 451 Mass. at 595, 11. 25.
1G

cniirli tioris imposed by ?.he board, iricreasing the
approved project sj7e from 300 units to -540 uriitt;,
after findiny LIlnt t.he board's conditions did riol make
tile projeci uneconomic. We agree." H. at. 590.
\\
I .
It was nefenddr.iL Att.itash's burden tu prove t.hat
. the conditions imposed by the Board make it
irripossi h1.e Lo proceed iri buil ding or operatinq low or
mode.rate iricome hoiisiriy and st-ill reaJ.j.%e a reasonable
return as defined by the app1.i cable subsidizi nq
agency." 760 CMR 31.06(:3) (b). Yet ALtitash made no
ciisc whatsoevcr that any of the conditions imposed by
\\
thc Board rendered tiic project uneconom1.c.
"
The
developer submit.t.ed 110 evj.deiice Lending to show that
the conditions "made it impossiblc to proceed in
building or operati.ny low or modcrate j ncome housing
arid sti Il rcalize a rcasonah1.e rcturn as defined by
the appliciible suhsidiziny agency. "
B. The IIAC has continually -. - held thdL it is
-. withuutthe
. . power . . Lo .. disturb conditions -. .. t-hat
do not. rendr?r - -
L.he project .. ~ir.ieconomi
The 11AC long aqn recognized that its ro1.e
pursuant to utat.ut.e was to review projects approved
wit11 condit ions pursuant Lo the "unecuIioinic" standard
Lound wjtiiin G.L .c.4OB, 9.20-23. Thc HAC has noted in
its decisions t.hat tile appl icarit must . . . . - satisfy its
. .
c.

hiirderi of proof; uthcrwise t.11~ IiAC it; poweir1.e~~ tu
rcmove a conditiun to whj ch a devel.oper ohjecLt;:
\\ Hut even if the Hoard's position i.s ill advised,
the hurdcns of proof sct out. in t.he statute and
niir regulations are designed to ensure Chat we do
not. second guess the Board's imposition uf local
standards unless their .effect i:; tu undermine the
viability of afiordab1.e housiriy. The Hoard may
insist upon a coridit.ion such as the one here if
Lhat. condi t.iuri does not render t.he housiriy
uneconomic. "
Dr'um1.i.n 13evelupr!icnt, I.LC v. Sudbury Hoard uF Appeals,
(Hoiisiny Appeals C:o~run. I No. 01-03, September 2'1,
2001). p.3. See alsn Cooperative Al..liarice of
Massachusett-s v. Taunt.on Zoning RrJard OF Appeals,
(IIousing Appeals Comm,), No. 90-05, Apri.l 2, 1992.
See also, Peppercorn Vi 1 lage Rcalty Trust v.
HopkinLon Hoard of Appeals, (Housing Appeals COI~. ,
No. 02-02, January 26, 2004, p.16. "C:erltainly, the
overall legislativc intent UT the statute is to
minimize state intrusion irilo local preruyatives, and
any bona f j de condition .. , . should hc iiphel d. " Emphasis
~- -
added.
Howevcr, beginniny with. the IIAC' Y decision in
Archstone Communities Trust v. Woburri Board of
Appeals, (Housing Appeals Comm., No. 01-0'7, June 11,
2003) I and presumably, endinq with Lhe SJC's repihaI.id

(3 f
c h
Lhe HAC: in t.hat
one at. bar, ii
6
SiilIle case ,
ve become
HAC: decisions, 1 ncludi nq
nrriuored from the law to
incl iide reinoval of condi t-ions ihat. t.he HAC deemed
"urijustifiEd" and having nothing t.o do with project.
economics. 7
C. Defendant Attitash
........ Vi.ews, ... LLC failed t.o
carry its ..... burden of proving that. MassHousing
fund the p'rojcct:. .
Instcad oL attempting l.o p1.1t forward cvicicrlcc
t.hat Lhe imposed conditions rexidcr the project.
iinecorioruic, Attj.ta:;h moved for .sumdry decision on an
L1iLernat.e theory provided by 760 CMR 31 .07(1) (c),
which allows Lhe developcr t.o prove that "Lhe
conditions would result in a subsidizing agency
retusal to fund." The motion for sununary decision
rcsLed enti rely 01.1 the prnpositior.~ that MassHousing
refused to fund the project (or issue "fi.na1. approval"
jn the case of NF:b' fundir.ig) because certain conditions
iri the permit arc inconsjstent wiLh the agency's
.............. of Appeals of Woburn
Committee, 451 Mass. 581 (2000).
7'", .,ee for examplc, 9 North Walker Strcc.i Ucv. Inc:. v.
Rehoboth, (Housing Appeals Corm., No. 99-03, November
6, 2006, slip up. at 7 . "We found previcrus1.y t.hat that
"the Hoard ha[ d] not articulatcd il reasonable fact-ual
or legal justiiication for this condit.ion rreqiii ring
greater aLiordabilit.y], and Lherefore it. should be
eiiminated. "
Board .-
...... v. Hoiisinq Appeals
13

a
e
a
e
e
e
e
a
R
reyui.reinents. I-n support. of its Motion, AttiLash
submitted LI letter from a represcntative of
MassHousiny staling that cert.ai.n of Chc cor1dj.t.i ons
were inconsistent w i t h agency rcquirement.s, arld Lhat
j.f such conditi ons were not. removed, the aqency would
not issue final approval. (undcr the NEE' proyrm) or
furid the projecl (under the Housinq Starts program).
See RA Vol.1, 67.
760 CMR 31.. 07 (1) (f) states tfic proof necessary Lo
establish "agency refusal. t o furid":
Une c on omi c /A y cnc y KF: fu s ill . t. o Fu n d " Pro o f t h a t
the subsidizing agency w i l l not fund tiic project.
because of a condition Imposed by thc Board, that
the applicant has request-ed a waiver of tiic
subsidizing agency requirement Lhat leads to this result, and that the subsidizing aqency has
denied a waiver, shall creat.e a rcbuttab1.e
presumption that the condition of the Board makes
the project uneconomic. "
Attitasti was thus required to ofLcr proof that it ~riadc
a request. to MassHoiising Lhat the agency waive t.hose
requireriicnts wi.th which the Board's Der!: sion is
inconsistent arid fur%her, ofter proof that MassNousing
denied any such request for a waiver. Attitash made no
These conditions are numbercd, in the order
ident.ified by MassHousinq, as 38, 39, 23, 26, 28, 23,
43K, 43F, 43G and 43il. RA Vo1.3, 69-70. MassHouslng
makes no mention of the reroakninq fourteen condit.ions
imposed by the Board. Thcse conditions are numbered
18, 19, 20, 40, 42, 43, 43A, 43H, 43D, 43K, 431,, 43N,
43w and 59.
14

showing that 1) iC reqi.iested a waiver; and/or 2)
MassHousinq denied the waiver. 'Thus, i L fajled t.o
establ.ish a presumpti on of "agency refusal to fiind. "
Where Attitash fa< led Lo establish either "aqency
refusal Lo fund," or that the conditions "make it
impossible to proceed in buildiriy or operatiny low or
moderate incomc housj ng arid stil1 realizc L? reasonahle
return as defined by the applichible subsidiziny
aqency," the develoller failed to satjsfy its burden of
prnof on t.he motion for siimmary decision.
The HAC and the 'Trial Court ignored Attitash's
failure to oifer any proof that the conditi.ons
rendered the project "uneconomic, " and t.he develuper's
failure to satisfy either burden under 760 CMH
31 . 06(3). .I.nste;id, the HAC excused Attitash from its
burden of proof on grnunds nenti oned nowhere in G. 1,.
c. 40ti or the applicable requlations. Specifically,
the HAC concludcd "that the normal requirement that
the devel-oper prove that the condit.ions imposed render
the proposed deveI.ojmerit urieconoInic is not applj cable
since the challenyc is to thc legality of Lhc
conditions." KA Vol.1, 461. This was error.
The Trial Coiirt brushed aside the affj.rmatjve
obligati oris of the devcloper-specifically codified

wilrhin the regulations-by stating, “What could be more
economi-c t.han not being able to ycL financing from
Mass Hoi.isiiny to construct such a project”. KA Vo1.2,
1.18, KespccLLully, the requlaCion overl.ooked hy the
Hoi.isi nq Appe;ils Commi t.t.ee and Lhe Tria 1 I:niirt required
t.he cunipletion of a siriiple, non-burdensome procedure,
Once st-ated by thc 3ubsi.d.i zi.nq aycricy that j.t wi.ll. not
fund the project due to certain conditions, Lhe
r-egulation, for qood reason, requi res the developer to
request a waiver from ihc subsidizing aycricy. Only if
that waiver is denied is tiicre a rehuttable
pr-esumpt.i on thal the condition (the “unwaived”
condition) makes the projccL uneconomjc. See .76O CMR
31.0-I (1) (f) . Given the presumptive auLIiority of the
subsidizing agency’s determination, it is hard1.y t.oo
much to ask that Lhe developer arid the agency comply
wit.h the unambiyuous requiremunL of the requlation.
11. The . HAC jmproperiy struck conditions
imposed Ir by the Boalld:
-
_- . . . lawfully
There is 110 pirovjsion in G.L. c. 40.B for a
devel oper to challenge the “lcyality” of any condition
imposed by the board in issuing a coniprehensive
permit. The HAC: is neither aiuthurizcd nor tasked
under G.1,. c. 4OB with determining the ”1egali.ty” of
16

iiny such condiLion. The HAC is a hearing tribunal
gjveri IirniLed jurisdiction to decide Lhe iss11e of
“whcLhcr, in t.he case of a dcnial. of LLI comprehensivc
perrriiL] an applicat.jon . . . the decision of the board
was rcasonable and consisLcnt. wi.th local. needs and, in
thc case of ;in approval . . . with conditions and
requi remariCs imposed, whet-her such conditions and
requireIricnts make the constructj on or operat-i on of
such housing uneconomic and wl2et.he.r they are
consj.st.ent with local needs.” G.L. c. dOB, s. 22.
To the extent the I-1AC has asscrted powers
heyond such hearirlg on these narrow issues, it has
acted ult.ra vircs and in excess oi Its authoriLy and
Che Trial Court erred in upholding the HAC.
‘The Supreme Judicial Court’s riiliny in Woburri,
451 Mass. 581 (2008) j.s precisely on point and was
discussed j.n detail driririy oral. argument. before Lhe
Trial. Court.
Iri Wohurn, the HAC ”evaluated whether each
condilion limposed by the board oi appeals] was
supported by a local concern that o1.1tweighs the
regional need for low and modcrate jncomo housing”
wit.hout first. subjecting the conditions to t.he
economic t.est. required hy G.L. c.4OB, 5.23. ‘Id. at
-
1 7

g91. "Absent. siich a showiriy [that the conditions
render t.he projcct. uneconoruic] , t.he board . , . .. . .. is .- not
- 1wquJre.q either under the act or the department's
regulations Lo denioristratc that it:; cu1idit.i ons are
consi st-eiit wit.h local riccds".. Id. (Ernphasj s added) .
"The board therefore, complied with the act in
grdntinq a comprehensive pcrmit with curiditions t.hat
were determined not to be uneconomic, and the
comittce lacked the power to revise 01- revoke Lhose
. .. .
cnntlitions". -- - Td. at 546. (E~riphasis added) .
.- . --
The Trial Court siigqestcd t.hat WohurIi could be
distinguished irom the case at bar in that in Wohurn,
Lhe HAC: WAY reversed where the dispute j-nvolved tIic
deteririinati.on of the niimher 01 dwelling units and the
case at bar consLituted the strjkinq of unlawful
conditions. (KA Vo1.2, 167). b'rom tiic openinq
paragraph in Wuburn, howevcr, the SJC rncide clear, the
limits of the HAC'S authorci.ty.
\I ... we must. decide whet-her the Hniising Appcals
Committee ... has Lhe aiit.hori.ty to a1 ter thc conditions
placed nn Llie approval uF a comprehcrisive permit,
where the developer ha.; failed Lo demonst-rate that
those c:oiiditi ons make the housing project uneconomic.
WE conclude tht t.he plain Ianquaye of t.he
18

0
0
0
a
0
a
comprehensive pcrmit. act, G.L. c.40l3, 3s. 20-73
precludes such aut.hority. " - I:d. at 582.
Following woburri, it cannot be disputed LhaL
where the hoard of appeals approves a projcct wit.h
conditions, t.he IIAC musL engaqe in the statuCe's t.wo-
part tesL. k'irut, the HAC must determine Chat the
condiLions imposed rcricicr t.hc proj ect uneconomic.
Yjecond, and only if Che fi.rst test concludes that Lhe
project will bc unecunornic as d I-esiilt of t.he
condi t-ioris jnposed, the board must demot1sLrat.e that
the conditj oris imposed are cons< sterit with local
needs. - Only if . the HAC properly concludes that Lhe
conditions imposed will rendcr the project tinecotiomic-
LI burden imposed UII t.he dcveloper, not t.he board-will
the burden shi.ft Lo t.he sccond tesL.'
The HAC is aware of the clcar requirement-s of Che
statut.?: "Once the appel larit has demonst.rated ti1a.L
conditions in the Roard's decj.si.on woul.d, in thc
agqreyate, rendcr t.hp project. iineconomi c, the burden
then shifts Lo the Uo;lrd to prove first, Ihat. there is
a valid heiilLh, safety, environmental, dcsign, open
space or oLher local concern which supports each of
the contested conditions irriposed, arid then, t.hat such
concerti outweiqlis the regional need Lor ].ow and
moderdte income housi.nq. " Faraqnn Res1dent.j a1
Properties, LLC, v. Hrookline 7,oniriq Boai-d of AppeaJ s,
(Housinq Appeal:: Coiiini.), No. 04-16, March 26, 2007.
See also Hay Wa.tch Real.ty Trust. v. Marion Hoard of
Appeals, (llousirig Appeals Cornm.), No. 07-28, December
5, 2005, "When the Hoard has qrarited a comprckensive
permit wiLh conditions, t.he u1Limat.e yucsLion beforc
19

I
"In other words, the commitLee may revicw an
appr-oval wiih conditions only ii t.hnse condiCions
render thc projec:C uneconomic. Consistent with thj s
statutory rcyuiremcnt, the ciepdrLment's rcgulaLions
provide Chat the dcvcloper musL demonstrale t.hat. the
conditioris are uncconornic before thc conmi ttee
considers whether they are "consisterit with local
needs, G.1.. c. 40B, 5 23. 760 Code Mass. Keqs. 5
31. 06 (3) (2001) . DemonsLrating thiiC the cnnditions
rcnder a project uneconomic i s, Lherefoi-e, a necessary
elcinent oi the developer's prima facie cas(:
relief ." Woburn
. . . - at 590-593. (emphasis in oriyirial) .
for-
Where no evidence was presented t h L the project
is rendered "uneconomic" by any of t.he condiLions
imposed by the Board, .Lhe HAC: was wjt-hnut pclwer or
reason t o strike such conditions, and the &vel-oper't;
inot.ion for summary decisi nn should have been denied
and the Trial Court should have overturncd the
decision of Chc HAC. 10
the Camnittee is whether the decision of t.he Hoard it;
consistent with local. necds. r)iirsu~~~lt t.o the
Cormittee's procedures, however, Lhere j s a shilting
burden of proof. 'The Appell.ant musL first prove Lliat
the conditions in 2qgregat.e make constructiori of t.he
housiny uneconomic. ... Specifically, the dcveloper must
provc that ""the conditions imposed . . . make i.t.
impossible to proceed . . . arid still realize a
reasonah1.e return [or profit.] as defiricd by t.he
appl icable subsidiziny agency . . . .".
The IIAC nolcs in its decj.sion thaL "just ;?s thc
developer has introduced no evidence that the
conditions affect thc ecrinomics of t.he development,
the Board has presented no local hedth, safety, or
environmental concerns to support. the condit.ions. " HA
Vol. 1, 461. This observation is mi slcadiing and wrnny,
where the Board has - no burden of proof un1.ess and
until the developer satisfies ~ it.s burden of proving

'The HAC frames t.his care as present.ing the
question of whet.he:r "oversiyht" nf regulatory aspccts
of the comprehensive permiL proccss "may he 1.aken on
by a local board ui appeals ox whethcr it. is murc
app.ropri.ately left in the hands of state housing
agencies . " RA Vol.1, 458. Such reyulatory aspecls
identiiied by the HAC include affordabi1it.y
restrict: nns, det.erminations of el< qi.bility; project
marketiny; cal culaLion of profit lirnj-tati on; and
sel.flctioi1 of projcct monitorinq aqent. RA Vol. 1, 458.
Ttic HAC opines t.hat "under the statutory scheme,
[such functiuris] havc been reserved Lor state
government," and on lhat hasis stri.kes most. of t.he
conditions imposed by the Board to which Attitash has
objected. In particular, the HAC strikes condiLions
it. found to be "in conflict or inronsj st.ent with t.he
core proqr;lnunati.c approach" of Massliousing, the
"oversiyh.C" agency and possible fundiny source of this
project. RA Vol.1, 463.
The HAC'S errail axe-wielding is based on its
belj ef in agreement with DHCD - that the Board in
this case "exceeded it.5 aiithority under G.L. c. 400
that the permit conditions render the project
"uneconomic." Set? 760 CMR 31 .06(7).
21

e
0
0
a
a
e
0
and has infrinqed upon the jurj sdicLion and authorit-y
of the T'rojecl Administrator, MnssHousjnq." RA Vol. I,
463-464, cifririy DHCD'z "Interested Person's Memorandum
oi TIaw." Yct contrary tn l)IlCD's asscrLions and Ltic
HAC'S ayrccrnent, thcre is no statwtory, regulatory, or
judicial authoriiy supporCirig a claim that MassHousinq
has excIusivc authorily with respect Lo project
muriitori.ny, cost. cerCification, and other 40B project
components. Similarly, Chere it; no statutory,
requlalory or judicia. aulhorj ty iimitjnq the right nf
znniriy boards to addrcss sucti project components.
Pinally, thcre i.s no statutory authority for the
proposi.tion that where the positian of the zoninq
board of appeals and Lhe subuidizing aycncy with
respecl: t o such issiies conflict, that the positj.on oF
the subsidiziny agency "trump" those of the board.
Section 21 oF G.L. c.40B,. empuwcring hoards of
appeals to "issue a comprehensive permit. or approval, "
docs not. excclpt regulatory issues from the Board's
consi deraLion, ?.et alone rescrve regulatory issues for
the aycncy' s corisideratiori. Tn fact, G.L,. c. 40B, s.
22 quite explicitly places - no limitalions on Lhc scope
of j ssiies that the Hoard may addr-css t.hrnuyh
appropriate conditions:
22

'The board of appeals shall request Lhe
appearance at said h e a ring of such
represcntativeo o said local boards a: are
deemed necessary or helpful in maki.ng its
decision upon such applicatioii and shall have the
same power to issue permits or apprc)vals as any
lucal. board 01' ofLicial who wou1.d otherwise act
with respect to such application, - including but
not. 1i1iiiLed -. ... to the powar t.o att.ach - to said permit
or approvzndj
- .. t.i on:: .mu~,r.eme:nts w i -. L ... h
respec-lr .. 'to .- heiqht, . . site plan, sizc . or .. . shape, or .-
biiildir.iy . materials as are . consistent.
. .. with the .
terms of this 3ection."
.-
-.
[.;.Id. c. 40B, s. 21. (rxqhasjs suppl.ied). See also,
Woburn, 151 Mass. aL 595, 11. 25.
-
NO provision of G.L. c. 400 places reyulatnry
issues out,si.de the board's a11thorit.y in eiLher a
substanLive or procedural sense. Moreover, no
secLion of G.L. c. 40B states, or even irnp1l.e~ that a
project' 3 subsidizing aqency - .such as MassHousing -
has aut1iorit.y exccedlng Chat of thc board or Lhat t.he
subsidizing ayency is jmbued wj t.h preemptive
autk1orj.t.y. Thus the HAC'S belief that Lhc Board "has
infri.ngcd upon the jurisdiction and authori t.y of the
ProjecC Administrator, MassHousiny, " see above, his it
exaclly backwards: i L is ~. the . . Board's author- to
impose conditions pursuant. to E.L. c. 40B that may nu-t
be iisurpcd by tfic subsi.dizing agency. Accordi nqly, Lhe
HAC'S rcrno.va1 of conditions it believes Lc) infringe on
a.reat; "reserved for staLe governmcnt" is withuul legal
23

hasi s.
Not. content with limjting its arqi.imerit to uric of
prcernpt.i.on, duririy oral aryument hefore Lhe Trial
Court, Cht. Ilousing Appcalt; Committee wcriL further and
stated thaL a rouqe hard could impose condi t.i.ons thaL
includcd "no bIacks, no doqs, no married same-sex
couples, whatcvcr j.t. will be, may livc in t.his
dcvelopment ...". RA Vol.2, 41. 'In the Committee's
rJppnsi.tior.1 Memorandum submitted to the Trj.al Courk,
t.he HAC suggest.ed thdt '' [W] ohurri cannot reasonably be
understood to require thc committee to uphold
curiditjoins imposed by a local board forbidding blacks
or Jews or married same-sex couples Lroin living wjthin
a proposed developmcnt.. HA. Vo1.2, 98.
The CommitLee's airgumcrits are absurd and
irisult.ing nut just to Arriesbury, hut to any city or
Lown that, in good iaith, wrestles wit.h the
cnmplexiLies of the comprehensivc permit stat-ute and
Issucs of qrowt-h arid chanqe within their juri sdiction.
It goes without sayir.iy that a condition that
forbade "blacks or Jews or married same-sex cml~ples
r
1 rain liviiiq within a proposed development" would be
void as against public policy. Such a condition would
24

111. The Trial CourL ... jmproperly .. upheld t.he HAC'S
.. st.ri kinq the condit-ioins lawful1
Hoard.
. order
. . y imposed by .-. the
Iri Iiuldiny for the HAC, t.he Trial Court. stated:
"To say t.hat. thaL anal.ysis has Lo be driven hy
whether somet.hiny is uneconomic and by a complex
burden shifting paradigm, it would scclrn t.o elevate a
form over import-ant subst.ance, as wc are 31.1. fami1i;ir
with Lliis concept. No one, no agency is above Chc
law. A 1oc;il ZBA cannot do whatever it wishes and
cannot, so thc HAC ruled here, so unnecessarily
complicate lhe administration of a low and moderate
income development ;IS 1.0 make it unworkahl e." RA
Vol.2, 169.
The '1'1-ial Court's conccrri that a local board of
appeals clrnild impose "imworkable" cmiditi~m~ on a
comprehensivc permi.t project j.s understood. [:hi.ef
Just-ice Marshall articulat.ed t.his cxact concern in her
Plaintiff rcyrets haviny to inform the ACLorney
Gcneral's office of the couriLless number of federal
and 3tat.e cascs holdi iiq thaL rest.ri cti.ons on Lhe
ownership OL 1iabl.t.at.iuii of real proper-ty due to race,
re1 iqion, national oriyiri or a1 jenagc is void as
ayainst public pnlicy. See among many others,
Uuchar.lan ,- v. Warley, 245 U.!;. 60 (1917) (restrict-ions on
the convenience of real property to nonwhites in
vio1at.i on oi thr: Constit.utiori's Fourteenth Amcncirr~ciit j
and Shelley v. ...,. -.. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) (restrictive
covenants, which have as their purpose Chc cxclusion
of persons of desiyriated race or color from the
ownership OL occi.ipancy of real. property rulcd inval id
as violati.on of equal prot-ection yuararitees j . There
is simply no support for the reckless suggest.ion t.hat
the Housiny Appeals Committee must st.and guard to
ensure that Chc illegal conditions proffered by the
At.torney Gcricral are struck ciowri. Such a cundilrion,
if ever a cit.y or t-own werc to impose same, would be
void ab initin as against public: policy.
15

concurrm~cc in Woburn.
"Our decision lhus allows A local l:~oi3rd
unfetCcrcd discreti-on to st.yrnie thc corist..ruct.ion of an
aifordable housiny project without actual 1 y denyinq i C
or renderj ng it uneconomic, and j.iis11.lates such ii
board's deci.siori from review by the HAC. " Wobluiri, . . . . - . . 451
Mass. at 597.
NotwiLhstandi nq Lke possibiliLy that a 1 oca1
board oL appeals could at.tempt, to abuse t.17j.s provision
in Che st.at.nte--nuC at al.1 relevant in t.he case at bar
Che st-afute is cl-ear, " [A] bsent a showiriy that
conditions placed on a i approval rcndcr the project
uneconomic, the cumnittee is not cinpowered t.o review
I 7.
them under t.he rieni~l standard." -. Id. at. 594.
'The Trial Court's coricern was that 1imiLing the
aut-hnrity of the HAC Lo only that provided by G.L.
c. 40B, 3.22 (regarding the suhjec.Ling the project. to
the uneconomic Lcst) could ''-- uu unnecessarily
complicate the admj.ni stratiori of a 1 ow- and modcralc-
income development as to make it. unworkdblc". RA
vo1.2 67.
The Trial Uourt.'s desire t u imbue power.? upon the
Committ.ee that do not exist is beyond t.he 'l'rial
CourL's authority. "Wc w ill not add wnr~ls to a
The "denial standard" piirsuanl to G .L. c..1IJEi, .?.%O-
23 i:; the same whether t.he review is of a project
deemed uneconomjc or a project denied hy the hoard oi
appeals. Woburn, 451 Mass. at 594.
7. 6

. . ..
specific statute that. the Lagfslat.ure did not p ~ ~ t
t-here, ei.ther by i nadvcrtent Lomissiuri iir by desI.qn. "
- Taylor v. Hoard of Appeals of Lcxington,
. .. . - 4.51 Mass.
270, 2'/Y (2008) citing ~. Sinunons v. Clerk-MagisLraLe
-. .. . of
the f3ostoI'i Div. .- of the Hour;. -Court. bept., 448 Mass.
57, 64 (2006).
Notwi thstandiny the Tri a1 CourL' ,s cioncern, the
lirnj.ts of the Housing Appeals Committee's authority it;
clearly framed by the statut-e and - Wohrn. . .
13
. . .
I ,
d. 11 e
Housing Appeals ComiLtee is an ;iycncy wit.h limited
authorit.y and thaC authority docs not j.ncliide strikiny
those conditions imposed by a board of appeals
pursuant to G.L. ~.40B, s.20-23 unless the cor.iditions
l3 "The position of the Hoiisiny Appea1.s Commi ttee
seems, at mosL, to be t.hat such a power would bo
helpful in eficctuatinq the lcyislat.j.ve purpose
underlying ss 20-73. That is qu1t.e possibly true, but
it is not a basis fur Lhis court to irivcst the Housj.ng
Appeals Committee with powers beyond those yi'ven it by
the Legj.sl.ature. " Board of Appeals of North -. Andover
v. , .,. Housinq Appeals -. Committee,
.. 4 Mass.App.Ct. 676,
680 (19.76) (Goodman, ,I. and Brown, J. djssenti.ng) (Court
concluded that the HAC lacked the power to impose
speciiic condition on ordcr Lo board of appeals). Sce
also, El.ectronics Corp. of America v. CoIrunissiuncr . . . .- of
Revenue, 407 Mass. 672 (1988), 676-6'/'/, yuotiriy Bureau
of 01d Age Assistance of Natick v. Commissioner or
. ., .. -. ... .~
- Pub. Welfare, 326 Mass. 121, 124 (1950). "[Aln
admini.stra'Live board nr officer has no authority to
promwlgate rules arld regulations which are in mnfl ict.
with the stdLutes or exceed the authority conferred hy
the statutes by whjch such board nr office was
crealed. ''
21

14
render the project uncconomic.
not
"Although we havc noted t.liat Che ilcL'3 text 'is
without its antbiguities' , thc sLarridard3 t.o be
appl.ied by the cormittee in reviewinq board deci si.ons
are clear from the express I.anguage of the act. The
committee is einpowered to 'order [t.he.] hoard to modiLy
or remove... [a] conditjon or requirement" only when thc
board' s decision 'makes Chu build< nq or opcration of
such housinq uneconomic and is not consistent wit.h
local needs". Wohurn, 451 Mass. at 593, cit.inq to
- Board of Appeals of Hanover v. H- H eals
-. --
Committee,
- 363 Mass. 339, 354 (1973) (emphasis added by
the Court) .
'The limitations on the HAC's authority and the
powers lefk with local boards of appeals, clear i n the
r;tatute15, made even clearer hy the Court jn Wnhurn,
has been understood since the statut.e's adoption in
"'I'he accompanying bill, whi.1 e nut permitting cities
or towns to unreasonably obs%ruct ihe construction of
a limited amount of adequate low cost housi.ny,
encourages such conununities .~ . to csLablish condl ti.ons or1
such housing wIiich . . -. wi 11 be .. consistent with local . .-needs.
This mcasure provides the 1 east imtcrference
with the power of a community to plan. for i C s own
future iri accomodati.ny Lhc housi.ng c:risis which we
face. I' (Emphasis added) Zoning Bd. Orpeals . . . .- of
Weller;lcy_ , .
v. Ardemore .. .. Apartment-s, Ltd. ParLnershQ, . .-
436 Mass. 011, 823 (2001) citiny to the Housinq
la ",., we determi.ne, using conveintional tools oi
stdtutory interpretation, whether the Leyislature has
spoken wjth certainty on t.he topic in yuestjon, and if
we conclude that the statute is uiian\biguous, we give
effect to the Lcgislature's intent." Goldbery v.
Board of Ilealth of .- Granhy, 444 Mass. 627, 632-633
(200.5) , ciLiriy Smith v. Co~rmissioner ~- of Transitional
Assistance, 431-Mass. 638, 646 (2000).
l5 G.L. c.40B, s.70-23.
2R

e
0
rn
a
a
rn
0
Conunittee on Urban Airairs anti , Board . of AppcAls of
Hanovcr .- v. Hous5.nq A~JJC~~S Corn., 363 Mass. 3:39, 342-
342. Emphasis added-.. .I
3.V. 'The Conditions Imposed . - by ttic . .- Ilmesbury Hoard .- of
Appeals Were
~~ . . Within Hoard's Power and the Ilousi- -.
~~~
Appeals Committee
. Lacks .. the Aut.hority
-. to strike -
Condj %ions That Do NUL Render the Prpject .. Uneconomic. -.
Thi. HAC struck twenty-Four (24) conditions
iricluded in thc decision uL the Hoard of Appeals, each
deletion irnpermi-ssibly upheld by t.he 'Trial Court.
NuLably, the Trial Court distinqui shed Lhe cnndi tionr
iriLu two qroups. The first group beinq thosc
conditions identified by MassHousiricj (conditions 23,
26, 28, 29, 38, 39. 43E, 43k', 43G and 43H) (scc RA
Vol.1, 67; the second group being thc remaining
fourteen coriditi ons not idcriL if ied by
M~~sHousjiig(coridit.ir)ns 18, 19, 20, 40, 42, 43, 43A.
438, 43D, 43K, 43L, 43N, 43W and 59).
As djsciissed in Section I.C. above, 760 CMK
31.07(1) (f) provides 211 opportuniCy for the
suhsidi ziriy agency (here, MassHoiisiny) to announce its
rcLusal to fund a project "bccause of a coriditj.on
imposed hy thc Board" subject to the rcyulatj on's
procedures. (AB discussed, these requircments were
not. sati-sficd in the present matter). In other words,
if the HAC is correct t-hat. sonic areas of the
29

comprehensive periniL law are " reserved for :;tat.e
qovcrrirrierit", it would be because thc subsidizing
aycricy staCcd so pursuant. t.o its claim oi auChority
ur-idcr '160 CMH 31..07 [I) (f) . Accordingly, even ii . . the
provisions of 760 C:MK 31.0'/ (1) (f) had been compl.Ied
wit.h-which they were not-14 of the 74 conditions
st-ruck by Lhc HAC would nevertheless remsliri in Lact.
'i'he Tridi Court ac!knowledged this aryuinenL
In dj.sti ngui.slhiiiq . thcsc condit.ions, the 'Tri a].
Court stat.ed that, if "...I a111 wrong on t.he 1.aw ...",
particular on the question of whether the HAC
indeed has this inherent power to determine under Chc
statute arid all the r:eqs, t.o deterrniric whcthcr- a local
board has acted wit.hin its authority in a general way,
i.n the cvent I am wrong, t-hen I would rule as follows.
What should be done in my view is to affj.rm the
dccisinn of t.he HAC with rcspect to the ten condit-ions
idcntifj ed in the housing MHFA 1 Fitter ... However, with
respect to the othcr 14 conditjons found by the IIAC to
be invaljd because beyond t.he purview ur outside thc
rea1.m of powor of the local %HA, if I am wrony in par'L
one of my ruling, then what must happen is a remand to
the HAC or1 Chose 14 condlti.ons. AL Chat rernand, the
burden would be jnitially upon the developer to
dernonsLrate t.hat. ei.ther one-by-one or in some
combinations, or in combination of all 14, and t.hat
it.self I recognize is an import.ant leqal iss~~e, that
t.hese conditions arc uneconoml c. " KA Vol. 2 , 171.
A. The HAC erred in strikiriy Conditions 43F,
43G, 4%
Identi f i ed by MassHou3illg1', Conditions 43E', 431:,
ar.id 43H pertain to a Deed Rider, Monitoriny Aqreemeril,
l6 RA Vol.1, 67
30

0
and Reqiil atory Agreement. tc; be execuLc?i:i by the
devFlopcr, UHC13, and t.he Hoard, requiri nq that thc
dnr.urriEriCs be "similar in form" to those prep;ired by
MassHuusing, hilt "revised in cant-ent as required for
a coiisivLcncy wi.th [the Hoard's Decision] ." RA Vol.1,
24.
'The HAC st.ruck conditions 43F, 43G, and 43H,
replaciriy t.hem wiL1-1 a coridition requirinij the
moriitorj nq services aqreairient, requlatory agreement,
ar-id deed ridcrs t.o he "in form and conLent as approved
by MassIioL1::iJlg." HA Vol.1, 464. As grounds, the. HAC
cited i.ts own decisions for the proposit.ion that whilc
e t.he Board "has primary responsibility for thc local
0
0
hcalth, safety, and environmental concerns t.hat. are
'aL t.he he~irt of any cornprehensivc permit revi.ew,
other isvucs 'such 2s Lhe fi nariciriy arrangements, the
profit projections, the developer's qiialifications,
and marketabiliLy' are solcly wj.thi.n the pro.vince of
the subsidizing aqency." RA Vol. 1, 463, quoti.ng CMA,
Inc. v. Westborouyk, No. 8Y-25, slip op. at 6-7.
As additional aiithoriCy, the HAC cites a
rrieriuraridtirn by thc former direcLor of DHCI), Jane Wallis
Gumhle dated Aplri.1 27, 200G, which stated in part:
" [zloriing board:; of appeal may not iinder any
31

circtirnstznce impose conditions i n a corriprchcrisive
permit that impinge 0 11 the re gu 1 at. o r y
res pun s i lr, i 1 i ti e s o F L he s uk, s id i z ing agency I
Accordinyly ZBAs should not imposc driy condi ti.ons
that spccify how cust cerLificaLion, projecC
monitoriny, 07: Lhc sale or rcntal of affordable
units is t.o ha pcrformed, or by whom ?.hose tasks
w i l l be periormed diirirly t.he period the
suhsidizj ng aycncy ret-ains requl afory oversiyhl.
If 1 ncal oificj.al s have specific co~i~crns about.
stat.e oversight of 40E dcvelopments, wc are fully
prepared to ad.dress thcrri directly. "
KA Vol.1, 463, quotinq 131iCD Memorandi.im dated
Aprj.1 T/, 2006 at 2, RA Vol -1, 55. Contrary to thy.
assertions of both DHCD and the HAC, not-hing in G.L.
c. 40B supports the claims coriLained in above lctter
asserting t.he supremacy oi the srihsidiziny agency over
Lhe municipality issuing the comprchcnsive permit. As
discussed above, Chcre is simply no statutory
aiit.horiLy .. - for t.he proposition Lhat a zoniriy board of
appeals may not impose condiLions with r~spcct to cost
certj.fi.catiori, project rnoni toring, or other matters
pert-aininy Lo the salc or rental 01 affoxdahle 40B
units. Moreover, Lhere is -. 110 . . statutory
. . .. authority for-
the proposition that. wherc t.he position uf Lhe 7,oniny
hoard oi appeals arid the subsidizing aqericy with
respccL Lo such issues conflict, Lhat t.he posiLiori of
tiic suhsidizjnq agency "t.ruriip" Lhose of the hoard. It,
is of rio ~
1eqa.l jmport Chat the Hoard's rcgul.atory

document.s may be inconsi .?tent with those oi
NasslIousinq; Massllousiny policy i.s not. law. To the
extent that. any HAC decision has purport-ed to
11
recogni ze" the auLhoriLy of a .:;ubsi di zing aqency 0 ~ ~ 1 7 -
any municipal board, such decision is iilt-ra vires and
exceeds the sLatutory aut.hnrity of the HAC. see
17
Woburn, 451 Mass. 501 (2008).
." ~.
The Board's concerns pertainirig 'Io reyulatory
documents, and Lo MassHousj.ng' s capaci t.y and
willingncss Lo provide requl atory oversiqht of this
project, are well-founded. As tiic IrispccLor Gcncral
of the Commonwealth has amply docurricriLcd, past
performance in monitoriny the 1imit.ed dividend
"As additional leqal authority ior i C s posiLiori, Llic
~
HAC citev Hanover v. Ilousinq Appcals
- .. . . Conunittee,
_. 363
Mass. 339, 379 (1973). KA Vol.1, 4G3. Yet the
reliance on Hanover is misplaced ;md Chc quolaLiori is
misleading. 'The quoted lariyuagc stands for nothing
more than what it says: the standards for
qualifj cation as a IiIniLcd dividend orqanizatj.on are
left to state and federal fundjnq ,aqenci.es. The very
scritericc following the one quoted by thp IIAC reaffirms
the Board's authori.ty to require rcyulatory currip1i;irice
and comp1.etel.y undermines thc HAC'S positiuri. The SJC
st.ated t.hat j.ts "interprcLation [with rcs:pec!t. t.o
standards for 1 imi.ted dividend organizations] does not
prevent the hoard or committee frorii rcquiri.ng full
disclosure of the organization's lcgal stat.i.is and
further rcyuiriny compliance wit.h pert< nent st.atutory
and regulatory requirements." Board of Appeals of
Hanover v. ... Housing Appeals Committee, 36.3 Mass. at
, ~.. .,.. ,, ,.. -
3.19. Thc HAC'S attempt. to present its ow11 opinion as
Chat of t.he SJC
fail.
thirt-y-five years i~yo niusll obviously
33

cyuirement
Chapter 401
and
proj
overseeinq cost ccrlificaliuri
zts tunded through the New Engl
Fund or the Housinq StarCs Program has been
unsuccessfiJ1. SpcciLic;illy, the Inspector General has
advised MassHousing's Executive Ilirector that Li] C is
clear . . . that the cost, certificxLiun and monitoring
process is 'hroken.'" LcLLer of Inspector General
Gregory W. Su1liv;m dated Sept-ernher 13, 2006, RA
Vol.1, 233. Specifical1.y with regard tu Ncw Enylar.ld
Fund and Housing Starts projects, "reported developer
profits were rout.ine1y and subsLantially understat.ed,"
resulting "j.n many cases . . . [in] profit windfa1l.s
to the developers which deprived the respective
municipalit.ies of the excess profits that should have
bccn paid to the municipality under the regulat.ory
3greement.s ." - .Id. See also Letter of 1nspect.o.r General
Sullj.van dated January 2, 2007 (detaj.li.ng res1.11 t.s of
independent audit of a New hgland Furid project in
Reading, finding gross understatcmcnt oL developer
profit, i.mpermissiblc larid valuati ons, related-party
t.ransactions, and other abuses), HA Vol .1, 236; and
LeCLcr of Irispcctorr General. Sul.1 i.vari to Aaron
Gornstein, Lxecutive 13i.rector OF CIIAPA, dated Dc.ccrriber
6, 2006, RA Vol .I, 247 (discussing CIIAPA's rriethodoloyy
34
n f
11 d

for cost. certification arid suggest.j ng that. such
nicthodoloqy "could rcuulL in the transfer oL profits
from a muinicipality's affnrdahlc LrusL fund to a
devcloper' s pcrsonal. bank account .") . In l j qht. of the
documented rcports by the. Cutnmonweal th's .Inspector
General rcyarding the 1 ack oL the requi si te oversiyhL
OF project financiriy arid developer proLiLccriny, the
Board's election oi it.s own regulaLory documents is
who 1 1 y j LIS L i f i ed .
In sum, where there is no evidence thaL Lhe
conditions perta i.ning to regu1,atory docuiocrits render
the project "unecoriorriic"; and where each condition
rcrlects the City's knowledge oi its affordabl e
housing needs, and is suppurled by a valid local
concern," khc HAC I.acked authority to alt-er or delc.Cc
the condition. Further, where nothinq in G.L c. 40R
or applicable requlations prohi bi.ts the Board from
imposj ng conditions wit-h respect to regulatory
documents (such as a deed rider, monitorinq service::
zyreement, or regulatory agreement), Lhu HAC was
wiLhout. power to delete any siich condiLiori and t.he
Trial Court erred in uphoI.dj.iig the IIAC.
See 760 I:MR 31.06('/)

e
E.
The HAC erred in r,tr-iki.ng Conditions
26(par.t.ial), 28, . .- '.?q
-"
. . . ... - 23,
'Identiiied hy MassHnusiriy", Conditions 23, 26,
?R, aind 29 pertdin t.o thc ownership nature of the
projecC, the riurrtber of affordable units and means nf
calcuiat.inq income eliyibil j t y, and the manner of
ensurinq I m i L affnrdability in perpet-uity through 211
affordiablc housiny restr.ictio1.i. RA Vol.1, 1.9-20. The
cievel.opcr complained t-hat these conditj.ons conflict.
wit.h MassHousing's Form 8-13.4, xid as.?ertcd that
because such conditions a.re "not accepLable to
Massllousing, " they must be removed nr modified to
conform to Form 0-114. HA Vo1.3, 8'/. The developer
further asserted L h t thesc conditions are beyond t.he
Roard's authority t.o impose. KA Vo1.3., 88. The HAC
struck each of the conditions, or the portiuii of the
EondiLion to whi.ch Lhe developer objected. At;
yrounds, the HAC stated that. the issues involved were
"proqramaLic mattcr[s]" thaC "should be left to .Lhe
discret-ion of MdssHousing." KA Vol.1, 464.
,rhis was lerjal error. First, a5 di.scusscd above,
nothing in G.!,. c. 408 prohibits thc Board from
imposing cnndikions perLaining to "proqrairunatic"
l9 Fa VOl.1, 67

0
e
e
e
e
e
0
a
Inat L c r s ; res e rve .Y '' p r ogr armna t. i c " mrl L 't e r s to t h e
s;ubsi dizinq aqency; or provides that. where t.he
psition of the Board and thc subsjdi.%ing aqericy wiLti
respect to such isr;ues cunilii-t, that the pusilion of
tile subsidizing aqency "Lrumps" that of Lhc board.
'I'hus, Llic HAC hsd 110 legal hasis Lor striking
Conditions 23, 26, 28 and 79.
\\
Second, arid cant-rary to the HAC'S riilinq thaL
t-herc is 1itt.l.e kjasis Lor the technical changes the
Hoard would impose," scc RA Vol .l., 464, cach of t.hese
condi L ion s reflecLs t.he City' 5 assessment. of
2iLordabJ.e housing needs, and each is supported by a
valid l.ocal concern. See '160 CMR 31 . 06(7). Further,
therc is no evi dencc that. t.he condiCion reriders t.he
projcct "uneconomic. " , The . HAC: thus lacks . , . . authority __ to
2lLc.r or de1.ete thcse
-
.. .-- c:ondi t.i.ons.
1 t. is irrelevant that the Fannie Mae/MassHousing
Affordable Housinq ResCrict.ion "already has dIi Witire
, . . which prohihits rental of units wit.hout
the pri.or written consent of the Monitoring Agent." RA
Voi.1, 464. The IIAC has no st.at.utory or rcyulatory
a~utliority to decide which provision - the Board's UT
>\ '
MassHousing's - 1s tlir; more reasonable approach" 0.r
Lo strikc Liic Board's condition, number 23. RA Vol.1,
37

464. Quitc siniy-Jl.y, the fiAC is riot a pol.i.(:y-mdItiriy
hody. For the same reasoris, the HAC has no aulhority
Lo redefine t.he income eliqihj.1 ity cor1Lairit.d in the
Board's Decision, or to st.ri ke the Roard's cnnditj on
defj ni iiq low or moderate iricoinc housi nq as housing
affoi-dablc Lo household:; "cdrriinq no more than 8O!k of
t.he median i iicome oL current. residcriCs of lur\e:;bury. "
RA Vol.1, 464, quoLirig Condition 26. Finally, the HAC
has no authoriLy to deterrniric that neqoti ations
between t.he dcveloper and Che Cit.y reqardinq thc
affordable housinq resLriction are too "CUII~C~SOI~~, "
aind Chat the develupcr must. he proLctcted from such
ncgotiatj ons. R4 Vol. I., 465.
The IIAC's de3.etion of conciit.j.oii 2.3; a porkion of
condition 26; ccndit-ions 28, and 39 was without lcyal
basis arid beyond the Committee' s statutory ;lu.thority
and Lhe Trjal Court erred j.n upholdiriy the HAC.
C. Thc HAC -
- 40
erred in strikinq Conditi.ons 38, 3Y,
Condit.ions 38 and 39 (both idcnLiLicd by
MassHousiinq") , and 40 pert.ajr1 to aliowablc proiit; t.he
inet.hod oL 1a1-1d valuation; and Financi.al documentation.
RA Vol..l, 22. Thc HAC struck Lhese t.hree conditions,
38

characterizing them as ":juperflwus"; "attempt [ s] to
interj cct the Board iritu thc review and compliance
process" and "impropcrly iriLerfere linyi w i t h rnatLcr,3
within the proviricc of the suhsidizirig aycricy. " RA
Vol. 1, 466. The IlAC stated,. apparcnlly wiLhout. irony,
thaL "[tlhere is no area of policy Ltiialyois or project
review thaL is more squarely wit.lij.11 the expertise ui
Masslluusing than the financi.al analysis of each
pro'ject for which i L provides furidiriy." RA Vol.3, 465.
As discussed above (and miply documented by the
Inspector Gener;il), as a resull of past. failures wiLh
regard tu oversight obligaLions for New Enylarid Fund
and Housing :;tarts projects, "rcpurled deve oper
pr0fit.s were routinely and subslantiall y understated, "
\I '
rcsultj.nq 111 many cases . . . [in] profit windfalls
to t.he developers which dcprived the respective
muni cipalitics of the excess pr0fj.t.s that should have
been paid t.o the 1riuriicipal.i ty uridcr Lhe regul.at.nry
agreements. " R4 Vol .I, 233.
Equally importantly, Lhc HAC'S assertions uf
MassHousiny' B supremacy arid preemptj-ve authority art-
unLounded. Not.hinq iri C.L. c. 4UB or iippli.cab1.P
regu1at.j ons prohibits the Hoard from imposinq
cond

1 and valuat iori, or f i nanci a1 docuiiicntation. Whi 1 e
MdssHousinq may have i C s own pol.icies with respect. to
such mat.ters, such policic- are not law. There is
simply nri leqal basis for Massllousinq to irrtposc i L s
policies on m y municipal ity..
Each of the above condiCions reflects t.he Ci.t.y' s
assessment of affordhic housinq needs, and each is
supported by a valid local concern. See ./GO CMR
31.. 06 ( ' I ) . FurLher, theire i.s no cviderice that the
condition rcnders the project "uneconomic. " The HAC
Lhus lacked authority Lo alt.elr or delete these
conditions and the Trial Court erred in uphoiciirly Lhe
HAC.
D. The HAC erred in strikinq - ... Conditj.on 42 -
~ , - -
-.-. Marketjnq.
The Board's Decision requires Board approva 1 of t.he
market-ing plan for the deve1,opment. PA Vol.1, 22. Thc
HAC characterized thj s as "unwarranted iriterlcrerica"
and struck this condition, irisisLiny instead or1 "a
marketing pl all ap@roveci by MassHousing and supervised
by the Monitoring Agent." HA Vol.1, 466. For Lhc
reasons discussed j n secti.ons 1V.A-C above, the Board
was withjn its aut-hurity under G.L. c. 40R in imposing
t.his condition, and the IIAC had no power to strike it
40

and the Tr;.al CourL erred in upholding t.he HAC
E. -
The HAC erred iri sLrikinq . Condition 42 .-
-. Monitoring
. . . __ Aqent.
The Board's Ilecision also requires Board approval
of Che project's Monit.orj.ng AyenL, the entity
responsible (among other tasks) for conductinq cost
certi ficatiori lo ens~ire compliance with profiC
limiCations, affordability restrictions, and other
rcgulatory aspects UT the project. RA Vo1.3., 77. 'l'he
HAC stnick this conditi-on, stating t.hat "appointmcnL
of the Monitoring Agent [is] wit.hin the province of
Massllousiny, but further, MassHousing's responsibility
to supervj.se the work of the Monitoring Agent
should no% be diluted by gi-ving thc Board vet.o power."
RA V ol. 1, 466.
'The Board was well wi.thin j.ts authority Lo
require approval of Lhe project's rrwriiloring agent.
As discussed above, the Lnspector General has
specifically rioLed t.he failure of designated
monitoring agent.s to identify abuses of (;.I.,. c.4OU:
"In the opinion of this Office, many
rauriicipal.itics havc a false sense oi security
t.hat effective cost certi.ficatinn monitoring and
enforcement is being conducted by Ihe subsidizing
agencies or1 their behalf. The rea1it.y is that.
developers are takinq advaritage of a weak
ovcrsiyht system and arc enriching themse1.ves at
the expense of the municipalities and t-heir
41

affordable housinq initiatives. Thus, 1.oc:al
initiatives t.o expand cirid create affordable
housjng, with these excess profits, have heen
t.hwart.ed by the apparent manipill ati.on by
devel opers in d poorly-monitored nversiqlit
svstem. "
I,et.ter of InspocCor General to Executive Director of
MassHousiny daCed September 13, 2006, RA Vol.1, 233.
rurthcr-, for the reasons discussed in sectj.ons 1 I I .A-C
above, the board was wi.Lhin j.t.5 statutory authuriLy in
irnposjng t.his coridilion and t.he HAC had no power t.o
strike it. and the Trial Court erred iri upholding t.he
HAC
F. - The HAC erred in sLrikinq
Assiqnahility.
. Kondition 43E:
'The Board' ~i Decision provides Che MassHousing' s
stated commi.tment to provide fundiny under the Housing
starts p ro y ram Is "nun-transferable and
nonassignable ." RA Vol.. 1, 24. Inexplicably, the HAC
dcscribed t.hj.s as "an obscure formi.11 at.i.on"; struck Lhe
conditi.on; and rewroic it in accordance with the
developer's wishes. Such action was bcyond the
statutory authority of the IlAC. 'The Hoard's refusal
to accept some lender-to-be-named-lat-er is well-
founded and well within the Board's authority to
cnndit.ion projccLs under G,J,. c. 40B. For these and
the oLher reasons disciissed in sections 1V.A-b: abovc,
47

the Hoard WAS wilhj.n its aiuthorily iii imposing t.his
coIiditj.on, and the IIAC had no power to strike it and
t.he 7ri a1 Coi.irt erred in upholding t.he f.lAC.
G ? The HAC erred . . . , i, n . "modi fyi nq" CoIidiLions 18,
19, 2[1 .
'The i3o;ird's Decj si.on requires Liial the project
comply wilh the reqiii rements oL Lhe Arnesbury %oni iiq
By,-Law, !3iiM.ivi sion Kulcu and Kequlations, Wetlarids
Bylaw, Conservation Cummission Regulations, and Board
oi Hea1t.h requirements in effect at the Lime of the
Decision. RA Vol.1, 1.9. The HAC noted that it.5 own
\\ requlations arid precedents establish, however, that
the dcveloper need only cornply wit.h Inca1 requircnients
i.n cifect on the date of the application to 'the
Board," aiid ordered the conditions so "modified." HA
VOl.7, 46.7.
Thc HAC was without leyal authori.ty tn require
such "modifications." NoLhinrj in G.1,. c. 40B
requires, or provides authori.ty for Ut-ICD rcquiatioIls
or IIAC decisions to "trump" a condition imposed by a
local board, where there is no evidence that the
cor.iditj.on renders the prujcct "uneconornj.~" or that the
condition i.s not "corisisLcrik wit.h 1 oca1 needs ." To
the ext.ent the HAC has held otherwise, such holdiriys
43

are beyond its staLutory aiithoriiy and the Trial. Court
er-red in uphol.dinq the HAC.
H. The HA(.: errcd . in stri kiriy and/or - . modifying
,_ ..
Condit.ions
. . 43A, . 43B, 430, 43K, 43L, . . 43N, . , .
43W, . . . and 5Y.
Thc Roa~:d's Decision incl.uded curLdir.1 "conditions
prccedent." to SiLe dj.sturbanco, e. g., revi ew and
approval by the Board of detaj I.ed construction
drawings (43A), and of tirial landscapinq pldris (43K) .
KA Vo1.1, 23, 25. The HAC characterized Lhcee and the
other above conditions as "impropcr condition [sl
subsequent," KA Vol. 1, 46R and modified t-hem pursuar1L
Lo At,t.it.ash's suggestions so as to relieve Lhe
devel.oper of "t.he burdcri of further review and
approvdi." The HAC rclied upon its own prior decj-sions
and rccjtilatjnn in so rulinq. Ayain, t.he HAC was
without 1 eqal aut.ho.ri ty to re qu j. re such
"rnudificat-ions." Nothj.ng in C.L. c. 40H requires, UT
provides authority for DHCD reqiilation~ 01 HAC:
decisions t.o "trump" a condition imposed by a local
board, wherc there is no cviderice that t.he condition
renders t.he project "unecmnwnic" or that the cundit.ion
j s not "consisLent. wj.tI1 lucal needs. " See G.L. e.
40U, 5. 22. To t.he exLcnL the HAC: has heid otherwise,
such hold~nqs arc ultra vires and beyond the

CommiLlee’s authority and the TT-ial Court erred iri
upkoldinq the HAC.
I. ‘The HAC erred . . in stri.kiriy
. - Condition
.. . .. . . . -. . . . . 54.
Condition 54 of t.he Board‘s Decision requires
t.hat affordable uni.ts be ” construct.ed and sold
coincident wit.h t.he development. of mal-ket rate units.”
RA Vol.]., 31. Even thouyh MassHousiny was silent as t.o
condj tion 54”, thc. HAC characterized this conditj on as
“a deviaCion from normal Ma~sHousing procedures. ” RA
Vml.1, 470. On t.he qrourids that. “such policy matters
are riorinally wj t.l?in thc province of MasuHousing, ” the
HAC struck the refcrcr~ces t.o “soId.” For the reasons
discussed ahove, tiic Board was w ithin its aut.horjty i.n
imposinq this condition and Lhe HAC: had no power Lo
st.rike it arid the :Crl.al Court erred jn ~~pholdirig thc
HAC.
J. The HAC err-cd in st.rikinq CoridiLion 79.
-.-
Finally, Condj.tj.on 7Y uF Lhe Decj ?ion provides
t.hat “lt]he fees for t.he enyincering and 1.egal reviews
and the town‘s coriaLrucCion oversiyiit u h i i be the
obligati.on of thc Applicant. ” RA Vol. 1, 35. Such
condition was imposcd pursuant to G.L. c. G.1,. c. 44,
s.53G, which provides t.hat. “any ci.ty or town t-hat
21
4 5

provides by rules promulgated iiridcr . . . s;c~:tiori 21
ui c:haptet- 40R [,mionq othcr pcrmit.ting prncesses]. . .
for the irnposi t.ion of reasonah1.e fees for t.he
empl.oyment of outside consult.ants may deposit such
fees in a special account.."
The HAC ~Lated j.13 j.ts decision Lhat condition 79
"may be interpreted to require payment. of the board's
fees for qeneral legal represent,at.i.on," arid held ChaL
\I
[SI ince this is riot perinj.tt.ed, the curidition shall be
const.riied to permiL the Hoard t:o iisscss only peer
review fees Lhat are pr0pe.r undcr our precedei1t.s." KA
Vol.1, 470 (ci.ting HAC decisions). Althoi~qh it did not
claborat-e, such prcccdents express the HAC'S apparent
posj ti on thaC attorneys are iiot "outside consu1tant.s"
and thus caririuL be paj.d with 53G Lurid:;. There is no
basis in law for such position. Nothing in G.L, c. 44,
s. 53G distinguishes betwecri attorneys and other
professional consultants ret.ained by rriuriicipai bards,
or othcrwisc disqual i fies atturr'icys from 53G funds.
Not.hjng in G.1,. c.rl@B makes such a distinction, or
even addresses the issue of consultant. fees. No Court
has ever held that ntLorneys, either in the Chapter
4(lB context, or in any context, are disqualified irom
.53G funds. In the only reported case acidrcssir.iy t.he
46

propriety of 53G iunds, tho SJC stated that a~t.hoiiqh cl
st.stute more specific than G.L. c. 44, s. 53G
\\
governrs] ice assessments for [DEI?] site assiqnment.
heari.nqs . . . -. the more - general . .. provj.sioris of s. 53G
govern othcr . . ... . 1.ocal board proceed-." - TBI ,,,,. Lnc. v.
Ed. oi -- Health of North Andovcr, . - 431 Mass. 9, 1H-19
(2000) (emphasis supplied). There is sjmp1.y iiu h3sI.s
lor concluding that hearinqs or1 G.L. c. 4OB perrnjt.:;
are not "uLher local board proccedings. "
The HAC'S statement t.haL payment- of the Hoard'5
fees for legal representation "is riot permit-terri' is
without legal basis and ultra vi.res.
CONCLUSION
Because the 'Trial Court and the Housing Appeals
Committee improperly a7 1 owed Attj t-ash's Motion fur
Summary Deci sion, Plai nt.iff respectfully reqiiests Chat.
this Honorable Court eriLer a judyrnent that Lhe
Uccision by Che Housing Appeals Committee dated
October 15, 2007 be set aside and be rendered iiull and
void and without force or effacl; reinst-ate the
dccision nf the Board grantiny Lhc Comprciicrisive
Pcrinit to AttiLash Viers, I.LC with 31.1 conditions
int.act; or iri Lhe aiLcrnat.ive, rerniind this matter to
rhe CnmmiLtee for hcaring on thc question of whether
47

the conditions iiripovcd by the board render t.he project
I\ uneconomic" .
Respectfully suhmi ttcd,
On beh;llL of the Plaintiff Arnesbury Zoning Hoard nf
. .
BO 636331
arhara Iluygins
HO 562535
OAl.,F:Y AND WITTEN, L1,C
1156 Duck H ill Road
l)uxhury, MA 02337
781-Y31-0084
DATED: June 30, 2009
-.
48