Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases 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
- Page 2 and 3: COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEA
- Page 4 and 5: J. The HAC errcd in strikirig Condi
- Page 6 and 7: (Housiriy Appeals Cnmm., January 76
- Page 8 and 9: decision was arbitrary and capricio
- Page 10 and 11: Summary of the Argument Ccneral Law
- Page 12 and 13: Mot-ions for .- Summary . . . . Dec
- Page 14 and 15: permit conditions do - or do not. -
- Page 16 and 17: I, a 0 a 0 0 a 0 a a recognized by
- Page 18 and 19: hiirderi of proof; uthcrwise t.11~
- Page 20 and 21: a e a e e e e a R reyui.reinents. I
- Page 22 and 23: wilrhin the regulations-by stating,
- Page 24 and 25: g91. "Absent. siich a showiriy [tha
- Page 26 and 27: I "In other words, the commitLee ma
- Page 28 and 29: e 0 0 a a e 0 and has infrinqed upo
- Page 30 and 31: hasi s. Not. content with limjting
- Page 32 and 33: concurrm~cc in Woburn. "Our decisio
- Page 34 and 35: 14 render the project uncconomic. n
- Page 36 and 37: comprehensive periniL law are " res
- Page 38 and 39: circtirnstznce impose conditions i
- Page 40 and 41: cyuirement Chapter 401 and proj ove
- Page 42 and 43: e E. The HAC erred in r,tr-iki.ng C
- Page 44 and 45: 464. Quitc siniy-Jl.y, the fiAC is
- Page 46 and 47: 1 and valuat iori, or f i nanci a1
- Page 48 and 49: affordable housinq initiatives. Thu
- Page 50 and 51: are beyond its staLutory aiithoriiy
...<br />
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS<br />
<strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Judicial</strong> <strong>Court</strong><br />
S JC-10 637<br />
Appeals <strong>Court</strong><br />
NO. 2009-P-1096<br />
SUFFOLK COUNTY<br />
... .<br />
~ ~~ ~<br />
t BOARD OF aPPEALS OF THE CITY OF WSBURY<br />
P1 a in tiff -Appell an t<br />
V.<br />
HOUSING APPEALS COMMITTEE, et a1<br />
Defendants-Appel Lees<br />
ON APPEhL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE<br />
SUPERIOR COURT<br />
BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT<br />
Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant<br />
JONATHAN 0. WITTEN<br />
EBO 636337<br />
BARBARA M. HUGGINS<br />
BBO 562535<br />
DALEY AND WITTEN, LLC<br />
156 DUCK HILL ROAD<br />
DUXRURY, MA 02332<br />
781-934-0084<br />
DATED: JUNE 30, 2009; JANUARY 4, 2010
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS<br />
APPEALS COURT<br />
NO. 2009-P-1096<br />
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
PAGE<br />
TABLE OF' CONTENTS i<br />
TABJ.E OF AUTHORITIES i.i i<br />
S'I'H'TGMENT OF T$S11E PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1<br />
Did thc Trial <strong>Court</strong> crr i n upholding the Housing<br />
Hppeals Commj.ttE!e whcre DefendariC Attirash<br />
Views, LLC has failed to demurisfrate that the<br />
conditions imposed by the Plaintiff Board ut<br />
Appcals make the project unecunomic?<br />
STATKMENT OF THE CASE 1<br />
STA'J.'EMENT OF FAC'I'S 2<br />
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 4<br />
ARGUMENT 4<br />
STANDARD OF REVIEW<br />
I. The IIAC erred 1.n grxiting At.titash's Motj.on<br />
for Summary Iiecisfon, where Attitash failed to<br />
satisfy its summary decision burden arid the<br />
Trial <strong>Court</strong>. erred in uphol.ding 'Lhe HAC. 5<br />
A. 1kferidar.it Attitash V iews, LLC failed to<br />
carry its burden of proving t.hat. the conditions<br />
imposed by the Hoard rerider the project<br />
II n E! co nomi c" . 8<br />
I3. The HAC has continually held that it. is<br />
without t.he power to di st-iirb conditions that<br />
do not render the pro~~!.ct uneconomic. 11<br />
i
C. Ucfendant Attitash Views, W C failed io<br />
carry it.s burden of proving t.hat. MavsHousiny<br />
w i l l not filnd the project.<br />
11. 'The HAC improper] y struck condj.ti ons<br />
lawfully imposed by the Bui11.d.<br />
1: 11.. Thc Trial <strong>Court</strong> improper1.y upheld thc<br />
HAC'S order st.rSkinq the condjtions lawIully<br />
imposcci by t.he Hoard.<br />
IV. The Coiidifj.oriz Imposed by tiic Amesbury<br />
Board of Appeals Were Wj.thin the Board's Power<br />
and the Housiny Appeals (:omitLee Lacks the<br />
Authority to Strikc Conditions That no N o t<br />
Rcnder the Project Uneconomic.<br />
A. 'The IIArJ erred in strikinq Conditions<br />
43b', 43G, and 43H.<br />
B. The HAC erred in stri.kiny Conditions<br />
73, 26, 28 and 29.<br />
C. The HAC erred In strikiny Conditions<br />
38, 39 and 40.<br />
D. The HAC erred i n striking Condition<br />
4 7. -Market ir.iy .<br />
F,. The HAC erred in strikj.ng CondiLion<br />
42-Monitorj ng AgenL.<br />
i?. The HAC erred in striking Condit.j.nn<br />
43E.<br />
G. The IIAC erred in modifying CondiLions<br />
18, 19 and 20.<br />
Ii. The HAC erred iri st.rikiny and/or<br />
modiiying Condi tioris 43A, 43B, 430, 43K,<br />
43L. 43N, 43W, arid 59.<br />
I. The HAC erred in striking Condjt-ion 5.1.<br />
ii<br />
PAGE<br />
13<br />
16<br />
25<br />
29<br />
30<br />
36<br />
38<br />
40<br />
41<br />
42<br />
43<br />
44<br />
45
J. The HAC errcd in strikirig Condition 73<br />
CONCLUS I ON<br />
M. R.A. P. ('.EKTIFICA'I''l:ON<br />
AFFIDAVIT OF sb.:wrcE<br />
<strong>Cases</strong> :<br />
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES<br />
Arnone v. Coim'r . ,. of Che - .. Dep't of . ,<br />
-.<br />
-. Social , Services, -. --- 43 <strong>Mass</strong>.App.Ct. 33 (1.9'17)<br />
-. Roard . nf Appeals of - Hanover v. .,<br />
, Housinq -- Appeals Cumnittee,<br />
363 <strong>Mass</strong>. 339 (19'73)<br />
Hoard of Appeals . .- of NorLh Andover V,<br />
Housing ,,Appeals Cornmi.ttcc,,<br />
4 <strong>Mass</strong>.App.Ct. 676 (1976)<br />
Board .- of AiJpeals oL Woburn v. - . Housing<br />
Appeals - . . .. . (:omnittee, 451 <strong>Mass</strong>. 581 (7008)<br />
Ruchanan v. Warley, 74'1 IJ.S. 60 (1911)<br />
Bureau of Old Aqe A,ssistance .- of Natick<br />
Comniissioner of Fub. Welfare, .~ -<br />
326 <strong>Mass</strong> 121 (1950)<br />
-. Electronics<br />
,, - Corp. ui America v. Cornmissiurier<br />
Of Kevc?n, 402 Mas&.' 672 (1988)<br />
Goldberq . .. v. Board of Ileailk .. . of Grariby,<br />
444 <strong>Mass</strong> 62'1 (2005)<br />
FcLcrson v. Bd. of A:jscssors of Buston, .. -<br />
.<br />
62 <strong>Mass</strong>.Hpp.Ct.- 428 (2004)<br />
Shelley v,Kramae~, 334 1I.S. 1 ( 194H)<br />
iii<br />
..I-<br />
v.<br />
PAGE<br />
4s<br />
47<br />
49<br />
50<br />
4.5<br />
7, 28,29,33<br />
2 ' I<br />
pass i ~ n<br />
25<br />
27<br />
2 'I<br />
28<br />
4<br />
25
0<br />
0<br />
r)<br />
I.<br />
*<br />
a<br />
0<br />
Simiuns v. Clcrk-Mayistrate of the BosLon . .<br />
Div. 0-f t.hc Hdusi ny _. .<br />
~- -<br />
C,obrt. Dcpli<br />
448 <strong>Mass</strong>. 57'- (2006)<br />
Smith v. Commissioner of Transitional , -.<br />
-. Assistance,<br />
,. 431 <strong>Mass</strong> I (-138 (-?0UO)<br />
. .. -<br />
Taylor v. .. - Board of Appeals . .- of Lexj.nqton,<br />
453 <strong>Mass</strong> 270 (2ddo)<br />
THI, Inc. v. 5d of IIcalth of N. Hndover, . --<br />
431 <strong>Mass</strong> 9 (2000)<br />
- Zoning . Bd. . .~ of Appeals .... - of .. Wel.lesley<br />
v. Ardemore - Apartrncnts Ltd. . -. P'ship,<br />
4116 <strong>Mass</strong>. 811 (7002)<br />
Administrative decisions:<br />
9 North Walkcr Street DPV., Inc.<br />
v. Rchoboth, No. YY-03 (Housinq<br />
Appcals Comn., Nov. 6, 1006)<br />
Archst.one CommuniCies 'Trust v. Woburn<br />
hard of Appeal.s, No. 01-07 (Ho~isinq<br />
Appeals Corn., June 1 1 , 2003)<br />
Bay Watch Realty Trust v . Marion Road<br />
uf Appeals, NO. 02-78 (Ilousjnq Appea1.s<br />
Comm., Dec. !j, 200.5)<br />
Cooperative Allj ancc of <strong>Mass</strong>ach~~seCLs<br />
v. Tauntnn Zoning Board of A ppeals,<br />
No. 90-05 (Housiny Appeals Comm.,<br />
April 2, 1397)<br />
Drumlin Uevelopnient, LLC v. Sudhury<br />
Hoard of Appeals, No. 01-03 (Housing<br />
Appeals Comm., Yeptember 2.1, 2001)<br />
Faraqon Resi dentidl FroperLies, LLC<br />
v. Brookljne Zoning Hoard of Appeals,<br />
No. 04-16 (Housing Appeals Comm., March 26,<br />
2007)<br />
Peppercorn Village R calty 'Trust. TI.<br />
Hopkinton Board of Appcals, Nu. 02-02<br />
iv<br />
27<br />
28<br />
27<br />
4 -/<br />
29<br />
13<br />
12<br />
1Y<br />
12<br />
12<br />
19
(Housiriy Appeals Cnmm., January 76, 20041<br />
Statutes :<br />
G.L. c. 30A, s. 14<br />
G.1,. C. 40B, s . 20-23<br />
G.1,. c. 44, s . 53C<br />
Regulations:<br />
'760 CMH 30.07(4)<br />
760 CMR 31.05(3)<br />
760 CMR 31.06(3)<br />
760 CMR 31.06(7)<br />
760 CMR 31..06(9)<br />
760 CMR 31.W/ (1) (f)<br />
V<br />
12<br />
passim<br />
passim<br />
45,46, 4')<br />
5,1R 19<br />
6<br />
7,8,13,17<br />
-/, 11,12,18,21,36,37<br />
7<br />
11,1.4,30
Statement of Issues Presented for Review<br />
I. Did the Trial <strong>Court</strong> err in upholding t.he<br />
H ou f; ing Appca 1 s Conmi t t e e where D e i end ant.<br />
Htt i Lash Views, LLC hLlS failed to<br />
demonvLrate that. thc conditions jrnpos~ci by<br />
the Flajntiif Hoard of Appcals make the<br />
project. uneconomic'?<br />
Statement of the Case<br />
This is an appeal by Plaintiff Zoning Hoard of<br />
Appeals of .the Ci.ty of Kmesbury ("Board") from a<br />
Decision by t.he Superi.or <strong>Court</strong> denying its Motion for<br />
J;idg~ricnt on the Pl.eadings in an appeal under G. L. c.<br />
30A from a dccisj.on of the Ilousinq Appea1.s Committee<br />
("HAC" or "Committee") I<br />
Thc<br />
HAC: decision qraIiLed the<br />
re1 i ef sought by developer Attitash Views, LLC<br />
("Attitash" ~nr "developer") in iLs appeal irom a<br />
decision by the Board grant; ng a comprehcr-isive permit<br />
wiLh conditions<br />
The HAC decision directed t.he Hoard issue ci<br />
comprehensive permit for fhe 40 clwclling units<br />
approved by the Board and, inter alia, ordered struck<br />
numerous condi t.ions imposcid by the Board. The Board<br />
respectfully requests that thl s <strong>Court</strong> reverse the<br />
Decision of thc Superior <strong>Court</strong> aid rule thal the IIAC's
decision was arbitrary and capricious, based on errors<br />
of law, arid exceeded the HAC'S aiithoriLy as most.<br />
recently announced by Lhe Supremc <strong>Judicial</strong> <strong>Court</strong> i n<br />
Board . of . Appeals of - .. . Woburn -,_v..,.- Housing Appcais -. .<br />
Co~ruiiittee<br />
, . et. al., 451 <strong>Mass</strong>. 581 (2008). 'The Doacrd<br />
Lurther respectfully requests that the <strong>Court</strong> rainstale<br />
the Decision of the Uoard.<br />
Statement of Facts'<br />
By decisi.on Filed wjt.h thc City Clerk 011 or about<br />
Scpternber 77, 2006, the Hoard granted a comprehensjve<br />
permit to ALCitash for the c!onstruction of a 40-11nit<br />
residential developmerit at 131A Haverill Road in<br />
limesbury. Thjrty uf the units are market rate 2nd ten<br />
arc "affordable." The approval cont-ained il riumber of<br />
conditions. R4 Vol.1, 15. Atti tash appealed the<br />
Board's llecisio~~i to the HAC. RA Vol .l, 2.<br />
On or a.bout January 17, ZOO'/, Attitash filed cl<br />
Motion for Summary Decision, challenying the<br />
"1.egality" of certain c0ndit.i ons corilained in the<br />
Board's Ilecision. IW Vol .1, 59. The Hoard fi.led an<br />
Opposition to Lhe Motion. R4 Vol.l, 206. The Board<br />
requested a hearing on the Motion folr Sumnary<br />
1<br />
Citations t.o the Lwo-volume administrat.ive record in<br />
this case are to "RA" followed by the relevant volume<br />
and page number (s) .<br />
2
Decision. Ttic Fresidj-nq Of fic.cr denied the request<br />
for a hearing, HA Vol.1, 453.<br />
On October 15, 200'1, the IiAC issued a ":jiimrnary<br />
Cccision," qrariting Attit.ash's Motion and removiriy<br />
mmt of thc condition.? , tu which t.he developcr-<br />
objected. RA Vol.l, 457. The regulations iri ciiect<br />
when Ihe HAC'S decision was rendercd arid cont.ro1 1.j.nq<br />
this rnatt.Fr are Lourid at, 760 CMR 30.00 and 31.00 ct<br />
c<br />
seq.<br />
On or ahout. Novcrrhcr 16, 3007, Plaintiff filed a<br />
timely appeal of thc HAC decision pursuant. to tho<br />
provisions of C.L. c.30A, 5.14. RA Vol..?, 1.7. A<br />
moLion for judyrrtent. on the plcadings with suppurting<br />
memorandum, together with opposition inernoranda were<br />
filed with the Suffolk Superj.or CuurL on or about July<br />
l[), 2008. Oral argument was held before the Honorable<br />
Judye Brassard on (January -1, 2009. KH Vo1.2, 103.<br />
Judge Brassard issued a decision from the bench. The<br />
tran.. -.~ript -. of oral argument arid Judge Brassard' s<br />
decision is iourid at KA Vo1.2, 102-103.<br />
' Thcrc does not appear to be dj.saqreerneriL rcyarding<br />
thc applicability of 760 CMR 30.00 and 31.00 e t seq.<br />
io the case at bar. Rnth were superseded effect-ive<br />
Fcbruary 70118 by 760 CMK 56.00 CL al. The Defendant<br />
HAC concedes as rnuch in 1t.s Opposition to the Motion<br />
for Judgment 011 the Pleadirigs, found at KA Vo1.2, 100-<br />
101, n. 60.<br />
3
Summary of the Argument<br />
Ccneral Laws E. 4OB, s.20-23 provide that t.he<br />
Housing Appeals Currunittee ("Comnit.tee") niay review a<br />
coinprehensive pcrinit j ssued wit.11 conditions where t.he<br />
miidit.ions imposed render the prnject "uneconomic"<br />
(pp. -5-47) . I ssi.ies of materj-al fact remained<br />
unresolved before the Committcc, particularly with<br />
rcyard t.o the economic impact. of the imposed<br />
condi ti.nns, yet t.he Committee rendered a "summary<br />
decision"(pp. 5-13). M;lssIlouuiriy'u "objcclion" to 10<br />
of the 24 conditions inipoucd by the Board did not risc<br />
t.0 the rcbu.tC;lblc prcsuumption of "agency refusal to<br />
furid" iourici in 760 CMR 31.07(1) (f) (pp. 13-16). The<br />
conditions j.mposed by the Hoard were lawful and within<br />
t.he Hoard's ai.ithority (pp. 16-29]. The Committee,<br />
and the Trial <strong>Court</strong> upuri appeal, crrcd in sLriking or<br />
modifying coridiiiuns imposed by the Board of Appeals<br />
wit.hout. any evidence t.hat. the cnnditi on.? render the<br />
project uneconomic as royuircd by statute and recently<br />
held by t.he <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Judicial</strong>. <strong>Court</strong>. (pp. 29-47).<br />
Standard of Review<br />
ARGUMENT<br />
<strong>Judicial</strong> review of a decision by the IIousinq<br />
Hppcdls Committee is puruuanL Lo Lhc Aclmiriistrative<br />
4
I'roced~irc Act. See G.L.r: . 4I)D, 5.22; G Il2 c.. 30A,<br />
3. 14. The C h ~ i r L inay set asidc an agency's dccisior.i if<br />
j.t deterniincs .that. the "substantiai ricJht.5 of any<br />
party may have hecn prejudiced" bec!ause the aycncy<br />
decision j s in violat.i.on of. curistituti onal provisions;<br />
in excess of thc statiitory authority or jurisdiction<br />
of the agency; based upon an error of law; made upon<br />
un 1<br />
pro ce du r c ; 1.1 n s iipp o r t ed by<br />
ti w i LI 1 subs t x i<br />
t i a1<br />
evidence; unwarrarited by facCs found by the courl on<br />
the record as suhnitted; or arbit.rary or capricious,<br />
dn ahuse oF discreti.on, or otherwise riot in accordance<br />
with law. G.L. c.3OA, s.14(7) (d)-(g); see Arnorie v.<br />
Comm'r of .. -- t.he Uep'L .. of .... .Social . .." Servj.ces, 43 <strong>Mass</strong>.<br />
H~~.C'I. 33, 34 (1997). The <strong>Court</strong>.'~ review is based<br />
upori the entire record devcloped before Chc agency.<br />
G.L.c. 3OA, s. 14(g); PcCe.rson v. Bd. of Assessors<br />
. of<br />
Hnston, 62 <strong>Mass</strong>.App.Ct. 428, 431 (;IOO4). "Tblc<br />
Llpproach must it; oiie of judicial deferericc and<br />
restraint, buC not ahd.i.ca.Lion." Arnone v. Comn'r .. . .. .~ of<br />
the Dcpt.. of :Social S$i:vs., 43 <strong>Mass</strong>.App.Ct. at 34.<br />
I. The HAC erred . ... in grantinq -- Att.it.ash's Motion . . for<br />
Decision, where Atti.t.;ish failed ~ Summary . . ...<br />
to<br />
satjsfy its surmary decision burden and the Trial<br />
.. -<br />
. - . ._ .- -<br />
<strong>Court</strong> srrcd in .uphol.diny the ... - HAC.<br />
. . . . . -<br />
760 CMR :
Mot-ions for .- Summary . . . . Decisj.on. Any party may<br />
move, with OL wjthout supporting affidaviCs and a<br />
memorandum of law, for a surmary decision in the<br />
moviriy party's favor upor1 all or any of t.he<br />
issues that Lire the subject. of the appeal. 'The<br />
decisi.on souyht shall be made j.f the record<br />
before the Committee, t-nqether wi t.h the<br />
affidavi t.s shows that there j.s no qenuine issue<br />
as to any material Tact and t.hat the moving part-y<br />
js entitled to a decision<br />
matter of law. . . .<br />
in its favor as a<br />
Atti.Lauh failed t.o carry its burden of proving t.hat.<br />
"there is no genuine issue as to any mat-erial fact"<br />
and that it. "is entiLlcd to a decision in its favor as<br />
a matt-er of law." Issues of material LdcL rcroain<br />
unresolved as Lo whether the condiCions imposed by the<br />
Board rendered the project "uneconomic. " See, G.L.<br />
c.40B, ss. 20 and 22. Moreover, the conditions<br />
complaj.ned of by the developer were iniposcd within the<br />
Eoard's lawful aut.horit.y. Accordinyly i C was CL'L'OL for<br />
the HAC to all.ow Uefendarit Altitash Views, LIC's<br />
Motion.<br />
As noted above, 760 CMR 30.07(4) provides in parL<br />
that summary diecisinn shall bc allowcd "if the record<br />
before the Corrcnittee, together with the affidavits<br />
shows thaL there is no genuine issue as to m y<br />
material. facL arid that. the rnovj.rig party i.s entitled to<br />
a decision in its favor as a rnatt-er of law...".<br />
Thc HAC stat.ed in its decision Cliat it was proper<br />
6
t.o decide this case hy summary decision "since 't.heI-e<br />
is no qeniii.ne issue as to m y niaLeria1 LacL." R4<br />
Vol.1, 462, quoLiriy '760 CMR 30.0714). The HAC<br />
con L inucd :<br />
"In t.his case t.here j s. no di spiite with rreqard t.o<br />
what conditions were imposed by the Board since<br />
they appear clearly in the writicri decision<br />
rendered hy the L3oa1-d. LhaL in, Lhc Board's<br />
Decision or1 ApplicaLion for Comprehensive Permit<br />
. . . . . ThcrcIorc the most appropriat.e way to<br />
address khc developer's legal. chal 1 enqes t.o the<br />
conditions is by summary deci si on. " - 'I d.<br />
Such ruling was in error, where the IlAC<br />
improper1.y equates the "facts" oL Chis case wiLh Che<br />
"cunditi.ons" imposed by the Board. Although the HAC<br />
is correct that there is "no dispute wlth reqard t.o<br />
what conditions were imposed by the Hoard," t-his does<br />
riot mean that there is "no genuiric issue as to ariy<br />
material fact." See 760 CMR 30.07(4). The - LacLs . in<br />
this case extend bcyond the mere exi-stence of t.he<br />
coiiditions in thc Budrd* n Decision. Where Attitash has<br />
~ippealcd an approval with conditions, the issue before<br />
the HAC is whether such conditions "makc tiic<br />
construct.ion or operation of such housing unecorioriiic<br />
and whether t.hey are cnnsi.stent wi t.h 1 oca]. needs. "<br />
G.L. c. 40H, s. 2%. Thus, t.he "material. facts" j.n<br />
this case Lire those Lacts Chat .Lend Lo t;how that thc
permit conditions do - or do not. - render the project<br />
\I uneconomic" and consistent. with local needs.<br />
In iacl<br />
determininy the exi skence (or<br />
riunexiskccnce) of such facts is the resparisihiiity<br />
with whicli Lhe HAC i.s charged. See (-4.1, c. 40B, s . 22.<br />
In this case, neithcr Lhe Fresjding OFLiccr nor t.he<br />
full Committee was privy to any "material facts" that<br />
could iurm a proper evidentiary basis for a firidiriy<br />
tiiaL the permi t curiditions rendered Lhc project<br />
\\<br />
uneconom? c".<br />
l'he IIAC's rulinq that the case cou1.d he decided<br />
on summary dcckion was legal error and prejudiced the<br />
rights of the Hoard. The Tri.al <strong>Court</strong> shuuld have<br />
rcvcrsed such ruliny. See G.T.,. c. 30A, 8. 14.<br />
A. Ikfendi~nt ." Attit.ash Views, LLC . fail.ed to<br />
carry its ., burden of provinq.-that<br />
", .-.. the<br />
conditions imposed by . the<br />
~.<br />
project I. "uneconomic".<br />
.__<br />
Board render the<br />
Scclion 23 of G.L. c.40B provides iri park ihal;<br />
"the hearing by the housl.nq appeals cormnittee in the<br />
department. of housing and community clevel opment shall<br />
be limited to the issue of whether , . . in tho ca8c<br />
of an approval. uL' an appli.catioi1 with conditions and<br />
requirements imposed, whet-her such conditions and<br />
requirements make the consCructinn or operati on OF<br />
R
sucii hr>usi.ng uricconomj.r: 2nd whet-her thcy a.re<br />
consistent with 1 oca1 rieeds . "' The requlation<br />
assiqni.iiq the parties' burden of proof befor-e the IIAC<br />
provides t.hat "[ilii the case of an approval wj.t.h<br />
conditions, t.he applicant ,shall have t.he burden of<br />
proving t.hat the conditions make the building or<br />
operation UT the housirig uneconomic." 760 CMR<br />
.31.06(3). 4<br />
A municipality's power to condition a<br />
coInprchensi.ve permit is well est.ablished, arid was<br />
~~ ~~<br />
3 r,<br />
~ e also e 760 CMH Sec.Lion 31.05 (3) , which provides<br />
t.hat "[iln t.he case of approval 01 a comprehensive<br />
permit with conditions or requiremerits imposed, the<br />
i.ssucs shall. hE?: (a) first, whether t.he condiCions<br />
considered in agyregate make the buj.1.di.ng or operation<br />
of such housing urieconomjc, and (b) second, whether<br />
the conditions are cnnsistenL with local nccds. The<br />
Commentary to this regulation states '' [a] condj ti on<br />
which makcs a project uriecon0rni.c w i l l not he removed<br />
or modificd if as a result of such action the project<br />
would nut be consistent wit.h local riccds. See also<br />
G.L. c.4@B, s.70 arid the definition of "uneconomic".<br />
1<br />
Wherc the Hoard issued an approval with conditions,<br />
AtCitash had "the burden of provjng that Lhe<br />
condj.tj ons makc the huildiriy or operation of the<br />
hoiisiny uneconornjc." CMR 31..06(3). If Att.it.ash<br />
met its burden, thc burden would then shift to the<br />
Board to prove "that t.here is il valid health, safety,<br />
environmental, des< gn, open space or ot-her local<br />
concern which support such conditions" and that "such<br />
condj.ti 01'1s outweigh the regional housinq necd." 760<br />
CMR 31..06(7). Attitash's burden on rebuttal would be<br />
to prnvc "t.hat. preventive or cnrrectivc measures have<br />
been proposed which w i l l mitigate the local concern,<br />
[Ir t.hat there is a11 alt.ernative means of protecting<br />
local concerns which makes the project economic."<br />
CMR 31.@6(9).<br />
760<br />
9
I,<br />
a<br />
0<br />
a<br />
0<br />
0<br />
a<br />
0<br />
a<br />
a<br />
recognized by the <strong>Supreme</strong> Judi cia1 <strong>Court</strong> in the fj rst<br />
decision i.ntcLpreting G.1,. c. 408:<br />
"Our construc:tion of c. 774 [(.;.I,. c..40B, 3.20-231<br />
does not mean t-hat he board must. automatic;llly<br />
qrant comprehensive pam1it.s jn all cases where<br />
the coirununit.y has not met. its minimum housing<br />
obligation as it is spccifj.cal1.y defined in 3.20.<br />
The stati1t.e merely prevents thc board from<br />
xlyiing on local rcquirements or rcyulations ... a s<br />
the T-eason For the board's denial of the permit<br />
or its ylarit. wj.th uneconomic c0ndj.t.i ons. "<br />
Hd. of Appa,J.s of Ilanuvcr v. Housing Appeals<br />
Committee, -. 363 Mas:?. 339, 367 (1973).<br />
The <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Judicial</strong> <strong>Court</strong>'s reccrit ruling in<br />
Board - of Appeals -. . of Wohurn v. -. - Housing Appeals<br />
.. Committee, - 451 <strong>Mass</strong>. 501 (2008) re-afflrmed the power<br />
of a board of appeals to attach conditions to the<br />
grant of a comprehensivc permit. 5<br />
WiLh regard to khc present 1 itiyakion, the Woburn<br />
<strong>Court</strong> made clear that. where the imposed condit.ions do<br />
not render thc project iinecoriornic, the HAT: 1.acks<br />
authority to disturb Lhe conditions: "The board's<br />
prjncipal coriCciit.ion on appeal is that. t.he committee<br />
excccded it statutory authority when it revised the<br />
5 >, ... the committee asserts t.hat s.21 of the act<br />
precludes a local board from limitiny the number of<br />
unils in a proposed development as J. condition of<br />
approval. That assertion is a11 iIisuffici ent. appellatc<br />
argument ... It. also appears to be plain1 y incorrect ."<br />
Woburn, 451 <strong>Mass</strong>. at 595, 11. 25.<br />
1G
cniirli tioris imposed by ?.he board, iricreasing the<br />
approved project sj7e from 300 units to -540 uriitt;,<br />
after findiny LIlnt t.he board's conditions did riol make<br />
tile projeci uneconomic. We agree." H. at. 590.<br />
\\<br />
I .<br />
It was nefenddr.iL Att.itash's burden tu prove t.hat<br />
. the conditions imposed by the Board make it<br />
irripossi h1.e Lo proceed iri buil ding or operatinq low or<br />
mode.rate iricome hoiisiriy and st-ill reaJ.j.%e a reasonable<br />
return as defined by the app1.i cable subsidizi nq<br />
agency." 760 CMR 31.06(:3) (b). Yet ALtitash made no<br />
ciisc whatsoevcr that any of the conditions imposed by<br />
\\<br />
thc Board rendered tiic project uneconom1.c.<br />
"<br />
The<br />
developer submit.t.ed 110 evj.deiice Lending to show that<br />
the conditions "made it impossiblc to proceed in<br />
building or operati.ny low or modcrate j ncome housing<br />
arid sti Il rcalize a rcasonah1.e rcturn as defined by<br />
the appliciible suhsidiziny agency. "<br />
B. The IIAC has continually -. - held thdL it is<br />
-. withuutthe<br />
. . power . . Lo .. disturb conditions -. .. t-hat<br />
do not. rendr?r - -<br />
L.he project .. ~ir.ieconomi<br />
The 11AC long aqn recognized that its ro1.e<br />
pursuant to utat.ut.e was to review projects approved<br />
wit11 condit ions pursuant Lo the "unecuIioinic" standard<br />
Lound wjtiiin G.L .c.4OB, 9.20-23. Thc HAC has noted in<br />
its decisions t.hat tile appl icarit must . . . . - satisfy its<br />
. .<br />
c.
hiirderi of proof; uthcrwise t.11~ IiAC it; poweir1.e~~ tu<br />
rcmove a conditiun to whj ch a devel.oper ohjecLt;:<br />
\\ Hut even if the Hoard's position i.s ill advised,<br />
the hurdcns of proof sct out. in t.he statute and<br />
niir regulations are designed to ensure Chat we do<br />
not. second guess the Board's imposition uf local<br />
standards unless their .effect i:; tu undermine the<br />
viability of afiordab1.e housiriy. The Hoard may<br />
insist upon a coridit.ion such as the one here if<br />
Lhat. condi t.iuri does not render t.he housiriy<br />
uneconomic. "<br />
Dr'um1.i.n 13evelupr!icnt, I.LC v. Sudbury Hoard uF Appeals,<br />
(Hoiisiny Appeals C:o~run. I No. 01-03, September 2'1,<br />
2001). p.3. See alsn Cooperative Al..liarice of<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>achusett-s v. Taunt.on Zoning RrJard OF Appeals,<br />
(IIousing Appeals Comm,), No. 90-05, Apri.l 2, 1992.<br />
See also, Peppercorn Vi 1 lage Rcalty Trust v.<br />
HopkinLon Hoard of Appeals, (Housing Appeals COI~. ,<br />
No. 02-02, January 26, 2004, p.16. "C:erltainly, the<br />
overall legislativc intent UT the statute is to<br />
minimize state intrusion irilo local preruyatives, and<br />
any bona f j de condition .. , . should hc iiphel d. " Emphasis<br />
~- -<br />
added.<br />
Howevcr, beginniny with. the IIAC' Y decision in<br />
Archstone Communities Trust v. Woburri Board of<br />
Appeals, (Housing Appeals Comm., No. 01-0'7, June 11,<br />
2003) I and presumably, endinq with Lhe SJC's repihaI.id
(3 f<br />
c h<br />
Lhe HAC: in t.hat<br />
one at. bar, ii<br />
6<br />
SiilIle case ,<br />
ve become<br />
HAC: decisions, 1 ncludi nq<br />
nrriuored from the law to<br />
incl iide reinoval of condi t-ions ihat. t.he HAC deemed<br />
"urijustifiEd" and having nothing t.o do with project.<br />
economics. 7<br />
C. Defendant Attitash<br />
........ Vi.ews, ... LLC failed t.o<br />
carry its ..... burden of proving that. <strong>Mass</strong>Housing<br />
fund the p'rojcct:. .<br />
Instcad oL attempting l.o p1.1t forward cvicicrlcc<br />
t.hat Lhe imposed conditions rexidcr the project.<br />
iinecorioruic, Attj.ta:;h moved for .sumdry decision on an<br />
L1iLernat.e theory provided by 760 CMR 31 .07(1) (c),<br />
which allows Lhe developcr t.o prove that "Lhe<br />
conditions would result in a subsidizing agency<br />
retusal to fund." The motion for sununary decision<br />
rcsLed enti rely 01.1 the prnpositior.~ that <strong>Mass</strong>Housing<br />
refused to fund the project (or issue "fi.na1. approval"<br />
jn the case of NF:b' fundir.ig) because certain conditions<br />
iri the permit arc inconsjstent wiLh the agency's<br />
.............. of Appeals of Woburn<br />
Committee, 451 <strong>Mass</strong>. 581 (2000).<br />
7'", .,ee for examplc, 9 North Walker Strcc.i Ucv. Inc:. v.<br />
Rehoboth, (Housing Appeals Corm., No. 99-03, November<br />
6, 2006, slip up. at 7 . "We found previcrus1.y t.hat that<br />
"the Hoard ha[ d] not articulatcd il reasonable fact-ual<br />
or legal justiiication for this condit.ion rreqiii ring<br />
greater aLiordabilit.y], and Lherefore it. should be<br />
eiiminated. "<br />
Board .-<br />
...... v. Hoiisinq Appeals<br />
13
a<br />
e<br />
a<br />
e<br />
e<br />
e<br />
e<br />
a<br />
R<br />
reyui.reinents. I-n support. of its Motion, AttiLash<br />
submitted LI letter from a represcntative of<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>Housiny staling that cert.ai.n of Chc cor1dj.t.i ons<br />
were inconsistent w i t h agency rcquirement.s, arld Lhat<br />
j.f such conditi ons were not. removed, the aqency would<br />
not issue final approval. (undcr the NEE' proyrm) or<br />
furid the projecl (under the Housinq Starts program).<br />
See RA Vol.1, 67.<br />
760 CMR 31.. 07 (1) (f) states tfic proof necessary Lo<br />
establish "agency refusal. t o furid":<br />
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<br />
the subsidizing agency w i l l not fund tiic project.<br />
because of a condition Imposed by thc Board, that<br />
the applicant has request-ed a waiver of tiic<br />
subsidizing agency requirement Lhat leads to this result, and that the subsidizing aqency has<br />
denied a waiver, shall creat.e a rcbuttab1.e<br />
presumption that the condition of the Board makes<br />
the project uneconomic. "<br />
Attitasti was thus required to ofLcr proof that it ~riadc<br />
a request. to <strong>Mass</strong>Hoiising Lhat the agency waive t.hose<br />
requireriicnts wi.th which the Board's Der!: sion is<br />
inconsistent arid fur%her, ofter proof that <strong>Mass</strong>Nousing<br />
denied any such request for a waiver. Attitash made no<br />
These conditions are numbercd, in the order<br />
ident.ified by <strong>Mass</strong>Housinq, as 38, 39, 23, 26, 28, 23,<br />
43K, 43F, 43G and 43il. RA Vo1.3, 69-70. <strong>Mass</strong>Houslng<br />
makes no mention of the reroakninq fourteen condit.ions<br />
imposed by the Board. Thcse conditions are numbered<br />
18, 19, 20, 40, 42, 43, 43A, 43H, 43D, 43K, 431,, 43N,<br />
43w and 59.<br />
14
showing that 1) iC reqi.iested a waiver; and/or 2)<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>Housinq denied the waiver. 'Thus, i L fajled t.o<br />
establ.ish a presumpti on of "agency refusal to fiind. "<br />
Where Attitash fa< led Lo establish either "aqency<br />
refusal Lo fund," or that the conditions "make it<br />
impossible to proceed in buildiriy or operatiny low or<br />
moderate incomc housj ng arid stil1 realizc L? reasonahle<br />
return as defined by the applichible subsidiziny<br />
aqency," the develoller failed to satjsfy its burden of<br />
prnof on t.he motion for siimmary decision.<br />
The HAC and the 'Trial <strong>Court</strong> ignored Attitash's<br />
failure to oifer any proof that the conditi.ons<br />
rendered the project "uneconomic, " and t.he develuper's<br />
failure to satisfy either burden under 760 CMH<br />
31 . 06(3). .I.nste;id, the HAC excused Attitash from its<br />
burden of proof on grnunds nenti oned nowhere in G. 1,.<br />
c. 40ti or the applicable requlations. Specifically,<br />
the HAC concludcd "that the normal requirement that<br />
the devel-oper prove that the condit.ions imposed render<br />
the proposed deveI.ojmerit urieconoInic is not applj cable<br />
since the challenyc is to thc legality of Lhc<br />
conditions." KA Vol.1, 461. This was error.<br />
The Trial Coiirt brushed aside the affj.rmatjve<br />
obligati oris of the devcloper-specifically codified
wilrhin the regulations-by stating, “What could be more<br />
economi-c t.han not being able to ycL financing from<br />
<strong>Mass</strong> Hoi.isiiny to construct such a project”. KA Vo1.2,<br />
1.18, KespccLLully, the requlaCion overl.ooked hy the<br />
Hoi.isi nq Appe;ils Commi t.t.ee and Lhe Tria 1 I:niirt required<br />
t.he cunipletion of a siriiple, non-burdensome procedure,<br />
Once st-ated by thc 3ubsi.d.i zi.nq aycricy that j.t wi.ll. not<br />
fund the project due to certain conditions, Lhe<br />
r-egulation, for qood reason, requi res the developer to<br />
request a waiver from ihc subsidizing aycricy. Only if<br />
that waiver is denied is tiicre a rehuttable<br />
pr-esumpt.i on thal the condition (the “unwaived”<br />
condition) makes the projccL uneconomjc. See .76O CMR<br />
31.0-I (1) (f) . Given the presumptive auLIiority of the<br />
subsidizing agency’s determination, it is hard1.y t.oo<br />
much to ask that Lhe developer arid the agency comply<br />
wit.h the unambiyuous requiremunL of the requlation.<br />
11. The . HAC jmproperiy struck conditions<br />
imposed Ir by the Boalld:<br />
-<br />
_- . . . lawfully<br />
There is 110 pirovjsion in G.L. c. 40.B for a<br />
devel oper to challenge the “lcyality” of any condition<br />
imposed by the board in issuing a coniprehensive<br />
permit. The HAC: is neither aiuthurizcd nor tasked<br />
under G.1,. c. 4OB with determining the ”1egali.ty” of<br />
16
iiny such condiLion. The HAC is a hearing tribunal<br />
gjveri IirniLed jurisdiction to decide Lhe iss11e of<br />
“whcLhcr, in t.he case of a dcnial. of LLI comprehensivc<br />
perrriiL] an applicat.jon . . . the decision of the board<br />
was rcasonable and consisLcnt. wi.th local. needs and, in<br />
thc case of ;in approval . . . with conditions and<br />
requi remariCs imposed, whet-her such conditions and<br />
requireIricnts make the constructj on or operat-i on of<br />
such housing uneconomic and wl2et.he.r they are<br />
consj.st.ent with local needs.” G.L. c. dOB, s. 22.<br />
To the extent the I-1AC has asscrted powers<br />
heyond such hearirlg on these narrow issues, it has<br />
acted ult.ra vircs and in excess oi Its authoriLy and<br />
Che Trial <strong>Court</strong> erred in upholding the HAC.<br />
‘The <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Judicial</strong> <strong>Court</strong>’s riiliny in Woburri,<br />
451 <strong>Mass</strong>. 581 (2008) j.s precisely on point and was<br />
discussed j.n detail driririy oral. argument. before Lhe<br />
Trial. <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
Iri Wohurn, the HAC ”evaluated whether each<br />
condilion limposed by the board oi appeals] was<br />
supported by a local concern that o1.1tweighs the<br />
regional need for low and modcrate jncomo housing”<br />
wit.hout first. subjecting the conditions to t.he<br />
economic t.est. required hy G.L. c.4OB, 5.23. ‘Id. at<br />
-<br />
1 7
g91. "Absent. siich a showiriy [that the conditions<br />
render t.he projcct. uneconoruic] , t.he board . , . .. . .. is .- not<br />
- 1wquJre.q either under the act or the department's<br />
regulations Lo denioristratc that it:; cu1idit.i ons are<br />
consi st-eiit wit.h local riccds".. Id. (Ernphasj s added) .<br />
"The board therefore, complied with the act in<br />
grdntinq a comprehensive pcrmit with curiditions t.hat<br />
were determined not to be uneconomic, and the<br />
comittce lacked the power to revise 01- revoke Lhose<br />
. .. .<br />
cnntlitions". -- - Td. at 546. (E~riphasis added) .<br />
.- . --<br />
The Trial <strong>Court</strong> siigqestcd t.hat WohurIi could be<br />
distinguished irom the case at bar in that in Wohurn,<br />
Lhe HAC: WAY reversed where the dispute j-nvolved tIic<br />
deteririinati.on of the niimher 01 dwelling units and the<br />
case at bar consLituted the strjkinq of unlawful<br />
conditions. (KA Vo1.2, 167). b'rom tiic openinq<br />
paragraph in Wuburn, howevcr, the SJC rncide clear, the<br />
limits of the HAC'S authorci.ty.<br />
\I ... we must. decide whet-her the Hniising Appcals<br />
Committee ... has Lhe aiit.hori.ty to a1 ter thc conditions<br />
placed nn Llie approval uF a comprehcrisive permit,<br />
where the developer ha.; failed Lo demonst-rate that<br />
those c:oiiditi ons make the housing project uneconomic.<br />
WE conclude tht t.he plain Ianquaye of t.he<br />
18
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
a<br />
0<br />
a<br />
comprehensive pcrmit. act, G.L. c.40l3, 3s. 20-73<br />
precludes such aut.hority. " - I:d. at 582.<br />
Following woburri, it cannot be disputed LhaL<br />
where the hoard of appeals approves a projcct wit.h<br />
conditions, t.he IIAC musL engaqe in the statuCe's t.wo-<br />
part tesL. k'irut, the HAC must determine Chat the<br />
condiLions imposed rcricicr t.hc proj ect uneconomic.<br />
Yjecond, and only if Che fi.rst test concludes that Lhe<br />
project will bc unecunornic as d I-esiilt of t.he<br />
condi t-ioris jnposed, the board must demot1sLrat.e that<br />
the conditj oris imposed are cons< sterit with local<br />
needs. - Only if . the HAC properly concludes that Lhe<br />
conditions imposed will rendcr the project tinecotiomic-<br />
LI burden imposed UII t.he dcveloper, not t.he board-will<br />
the burden shi.ft Lo t.he sccond tesL.'<br />
The HAC is aware of the clcar requirement-s of Che<br />
statut.?: "Once the appel larit has demonst.rated ti1a.L<br />
conditions in the Roard's decj.si.on woul.d, in thc<br />
agqreyate, rendcr t.hp project. iineconomi c, the burden<br />
then shifts Lo the Uo;lrd to prove first, Ihat. there is<br />
a valid heiilLh, safety, environmental, dcsign, open<br />
space or oLher local concern which supports each of<br />
the contested conditions irriposed, arid then, t.hat such<br />
concerti outweiqlis the regional need Lor ].ow and<br />
moderdte income housi.nq. " Faraqnn Res1dent.j a1<br />
Properties, LLC, v. Hrookline 7,oniriq Boai-d of AppeaJ s,<br />
(Housinq Appeal:: Coiiini.), No. 04-16, March 26, 2007.<br />
See also Hay Wa.tch Real.ty Trust. v. Marion Hoard of<br />
Appeals, (llousirig Appeals Cornm.), No. 07-28, December<br />
5, 2005, "When the Hoard has qrarited a comprckensive<br />
permit wiLh conditions, t.he u1Limat.e yucsLion beforc<br />
19
I<br />
"In other words, the commitLee may revicw an<br />
appr-oval wiih conditions only ii t.hnse condiCions<br />
render thc projec:C uneconomic. Consistent with thj s<br />
statutory rcyuiremcnt, the ciepdrLment's rcgulaLions<br />
provide Chat the dcvcloper musL demonstrale t.hat. the<br />
conditioris are uncconornic before thc conmi ttee<br />
considers whether they are "consisterit with local<br />
needs, G.1.. c. 40B, 5 23. 760 Code <strong>Mass</strong>. Keqs. 5<br />
31. 06 (3) (2001) . DemonsLrating thiiC the cnnditions<br />
rcnder a project uneconomic i s, Lherefoi-e, a necessary<br />
elcinent oi the developer's prima facie cas(:<br />
relief ." Woburn<br />
. . . - at 590-593. (emphasis in oriyirial) .<br />
for-<br />
Where no evidence was presented t h L the project<br />
is rendered "uneconomic" by any of t.he condiLions<br />
imposed by the Board, .Lhe HAC: was wjt-hnut pclwer or<br />
reason t o strike such conditions, and the &vel-oper't;<br />
inot.ion for summary decisi nn should have been denied<br />
and the Trial <strong>Court</strong> should have overturncd the<br />
decision of Chc HAC. 10<br />
the Camnittee is whether the decision of t.he Hoard it;<br />
consistent with local. necds. r)iirsu~~~lt t.o the<br />
Cormittee's procedures, however, Lhere j s a shilting<br />
burden of proof. 'The Appell.ant musL first prove Lliat<br />
the conditions in 2qgregat.e make constructiori of t.he<br />
housiny uneconomic. ... Specifically, the dcveloper must<br />
provc that ""the conditions imposed . . . make i.t.<br />
impossible to proceed . . . arid still realize a<br />
reasonah1.e return [or profit.] as defiricd by t.he<br />
appl icable subsidiziny agency . . . .".<br />
The IIAC nolcs in its decj.sion thaL "just ;?s thc<br />
developer has introduced no evidence that the<br />
conditions affect thc ecrinomics of t.he development,<br />
the Board has presented no local hedth, safety, or<br />
environmental concerns to support. the condit.ions. " HA<br />
Vol. 1, 461. This observation is mi slcadiing and wrnny,<br />
where the Board has - no burden of proof un1.ess and<br />
until the developer satisfies ~ it.s burden of proving
'The HAC frames t.his care as present.ing the<br />
question of whet.he:r "oversiyht" nf regulatory aspccts<br />
of the comprehensive permiL proccss "may he 1.aken on<br />
by a local board ui appeals ox whethcr it. is murc<br />
app.ropri.ately left in the hands of state housing<br />
agencies . " RA Vol.1, 458. Such reyulatory aspecls<br />
identiiied by the HAC include affordabi1it.y<br />
restrict: nns, det.erminations of el< qi.bility; project<br />
marketiny; cal culaLion of profit lirnj-tati on; and<br />
sel.flctioi1 of projcct monitorinq aqent. RA Vol. 1, 458.<br />
Ttic HAC opines t.hat "under the statutory scheme,<br />
[such functiuris] havc been reserved Lor state<br />
government," and on lhat hasis stri.kes most. of t.he<br />
conditions imposed by the Board to which Attitash has<br />
objected. In particular, the HAC strikes condiLions<br />
it. found to be "in conflict or inronsj st.ent with t.he<br />
core proqr;lnunati.c approach" of <strong>Mass</strong>liousing, the<br />
"oversiyh.C" agency and possible fundiny source of this<br />
project. RA Vol.1, 463.<br />
The HAC'S errail axe-wielding is based on its<br />
belj ef in agreement with DHCD - that the Board in<br />
this case "exceeded it.5 aiithority under G.L. c. 400<br />
that the permit conditions render the project<br />
"uneconomic." Set? 760 CMR 31 .06(7).<br />
21
e<br />
0<br />
0<br />
a<br />
a<br />
e<br />
0<br />
and has infrinqed upon the jurj sdicLion and authorit-y<br />
of the T'rojecl Administrator, MnssHousjnq." RA Vol. I,<br />
463-464, cifririy DHCD'z "Interested Person's Memorandum<br />
oi TIaw." Yct contrary tn l)IlCD's asscrLions and Ltic<br />
HAC'S ayrccrnent, thcre is no statwtory, regulatory, or<br />
judicial authoriiy supporCirig a claim that <strong>Mass</strong>Housinq<br />
has excIusivc authorily with respect Lo project<br />
muriitori.ny, cost. cerCification, and other 40B project<br />
components. Similarly, Chere it; no statutory,<br />
requlalory or judicia. aulhorj ty iimitjnq the right nf<br />
znniriy boards to addrcss sucti project components.<br />
Pinally, thcre i.s no statutory authority for the<br />
proposi.tion that where the positian of the zoninq<br />
board of appeals and Lhe subuidizing aycncy with<br />
respecl: t o such issiies conflict, that the positj.on oF<br />
the subsidiziny agency "trump" those of the board.<br />
Section 21 oF G.L. c.40B,. empuwcring hoards of<br />
appeals to "issue a comprehensive permit. or approval, "<br />
docs not. excclpt regulatory issues from the Board's<br />
consi deraLion, ?.et alone rescrve regulatory issues for<br />
the aycncy' s corisideratiori. Tn fact, G.L,. c. 40B, s.<br />
22 quite explicitly places - no limitalions on Lhc scope<br />
of j ssiies that the Hoard may addr-css t.hrnuyh<br />
appropriate conditions:<br />
22
'The board of appeals shall request Lhe<br />
appearance at said h e a ring of such<br />
represcntativeo o said local boards a: are<br />
deemed necessary or helpful in maki.ng its<br />
decision upon such applicatioii and shall have the<br />
same power to issue permits or apprc)vals as any<br />
lucal. board 01' ofLicial who wou1.d otherwise act<br />
with respect to such application, - including but<br />
not. 1i1iiiLed -. ... to the powar t.o att.ach - to said permit<br />
or approvzndj<br />
- .. t.i on:: .mu~,r.eme:nts w i -. L ... h<br />
respec-lr .. 'to .- heiqht, . . site plan, sizc . or .. . shape, or .-<br />
biiildir.iy . materials as are . consistent.<br />
. .. with the .<br />
terms of this 3ection."<br />
.-<br />
-.<br />
[.;.Id. c. 40B, s. 21. (rxqhasjs suppl.ied). See also,<br />
Woburn, 151 <strong>Mass</strong>. aL 595, 11. 25.<br />
-<br />
NO provision of G.L. c. 400 places reyulatnry<br />
issues out,si.de the board's a11thorit.y in eiLher a<br />
substanLive or procedural sense. Moreover, no<br />
secLion of G.L. c. 40B states, or even irnp1l.e~ that a<br />
project' 3 subsidizing aqency - .such as <strong>Mass</strong>Housing -<br />
has aut1iorit.y exccedlng Chat of thc board or Lhat t.he<br />
subsidizing ayency is jmbued wj t.h preemptive<br />
autk1orj.t.y. Thus the HAC'S belief that Lhc Board "has<br />
infri.ngcd upon the jurisdiction and authori t.y of the<br />
ProjecC Administrator, <strong>Mass</strong>Housiny, " see above, his it<br />
exaclly backwards: i L is ~. the . . Board's author- to<br />
impose conditions pursuant. to E.L. c. 40B that may nu-t<br />
be iisurpcd by tfic subsi.dizing agency. Accordi nqly, Lhe<br />
HAC'S rcrno.va1 of conditions it believes Lc) infringe on<br />
a.reat; "reserved for staLe governmcnt" is withuul legal<br />
23
hasi s.<br />
Not. content with limjting its arqi.imerit to uric of<br />
prcernpt.i.on, duririy oral aryument hefore Lhe Trial<br />
<strong>Court</strong>, Cht. Ilousing Appcalt; Committee wcriL further and<br />
stated thaL a rouqe hard could impose condi t.i.ons thaL<br />
includcd "no bIacks, no doqs, no married same-sex<br />
couples, whatcvcr j.t. will be, may livc in t.his<br />
dcvelopment ...". RA Vol.2, 41. 'In the Committee's<br />
rJppnsi.tior.1 Memorandum submitted to the Trj.al Courk,<br />
t.he HAC suggest.ed thdt '' [W] ohurri cannot reasonably be<br />
understood to require thc committee to uphold<br />
curiditjoins imposed by a local board forbidding blacks<br />
or Jews or married same-sex couples Lroin living wjthin<br />
a proposed developmcnt.. HA. Vo1.2, 98.<br />
The CommitLee's airgumcrits are absurd and<br />
irisult.ing nut just to Arriesbury, hut to any city or<br />
Lown that, in good iaith, wrestles wit.h the<br />
cnmplexiLies of the comprehensivc permit stat-ute and<br />
Issucs of qrowt-h arid chanqe within their juri sdiction.<br />
It goes without sayir.iy that a condition that<br />
forbade "blacks or Jews or married same-sex cml~ples<br />
r<br />
1 rain liviiiq within a proposed development" would be<br />
void as against public policy. Such a condition would<br />
24
111. The Trial CourL ... jmproperly .. upheld t.he HAC'S<br />
.. st.ri kinq the condit-ioins lawful1<br />
Hoard.<br />
. order<br />
. . y imposed by .-. the<br />
Iri Iiuldiny for the HAC, t.he Trial <strong>Court</strong>. stated:<br />
"To say t.hat. thaL anal.ysis has Lo be driven hy<br />
whether somet.hiny is uneconomic and by a complex<br />
burden shifting paradigm, it would scclrn t.o elevate a<br />
form over import-ant subst.ance, as wc are 31.1. fami1i;ir<br />
with Lliis concept. No one, no agency is above Chc<br />
law. A 1oc;il ZBA cannot do whatever it wishes and<br />
cannot, so thc HAC ruled here, so unnecessarily<br />
complicate lhe administration of a low and moderate<br />
income development ;IS 1.0 make it unworkahl e." RA<br />
Vol.2, 169.<br />
The '1'1-ial <strong>Court</strong>'s conccrri that a local board of<br />
appeals clrnild impose "imworkable" cmiditi~m~ on a<br />
comprehensivc permi.t project j.s understood. [:hi.ef<br />
Just-ice Marshall articulat.ed t.his cxact concern in her<br />
Plaintiff rcyrets haviny to inform the ACLorney<br />
Gcneral's office of the couriLless number of federal<br />
and 3tat.e cascs holdi iiq thaL rest.ri cti.ons on Lhe<br />
ownership OL 1iabl.t.at.iuii of real proper-ty due to race,<br />
re1 iqion, national oriyiri or a1 jenagc is void as<br />
ayainst public pnlicy. See among many others,<br />
Uuchar.lan ,- v. Warley, 245 U.!;. 60 (1917) (restrict-ions on<br />
the convenience of real property to nonwhites in<br />
vio1at.i on oi thr: Constit.utiori's Fourteenth Amcncirr~ciit j<br />
and Shelley v. ...,. -.. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) (restrictive<br />
covenants, which have as their purpose Chc cxclusion<br />
of persons of desiyriated race or color from the<br />
ownership OL occi.ipancy of real. property rulcd inval id<br />
as violati.on of equal prot-ection yuararitees j . There<br />
is simply no support for the reckless suggest.ion t.hat<br />
the Housiny Appeals Committee must st.and guard to<br />
ensure that Chc illegal conditions proffered by the<br />
At.torney Gcricral are struck ciowri. Such a cundilrion,<br />
if ever a cit.y or t-own werc to impose same, would be<br />
void ab initin as against public: policy.<br />
15
concurrm~cc in Woburn.<br />
"Our decision lhus allows A local l:~oi3rd<br />
unfetCcrcd discreti-on to st.yrnie thc corist..ruct.ion of an<br />
aifordable housiny project without actual 1 y denyinq i C<br />
or renderj ng it uneconomic, and j.iis11.lates such ii<br />
board's deci.siori from review by the HAC. " Wobluiri, . . . . - . . 451<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>. at 597.<br />
NotwiLhstandi nq Lke possibiliLy that a 1 oca1<br />
board oL appeals could at.tempt, to abuse t.17j.s provision<br />
in Che st.at.nte--nuC at al.1 relevant in t.he case at bar<br />
Che st-afute is cl-ear, " [A] bsent a showiriy that<br />
conditions placed on a i approval rcndcr the project<br />
uneconomic, the cumnittee is not cinpowered t.o review<br />
I 7.<br />
them under t.he rieni~l standard." -. Id. at. 594.<br />
'The Trial <strong>Court</strong>'s coricern was that 1imiLing the<br />
aut-hnrity of the HAC Lo only that provided by G.L.<br />
c. 40B, 3.22 (regarding the suhjec.Ling the project. to<br />
the uneconomic Lcst) could ''-- uu unnecessarily<br />
complicate the admj.ni stratiori of a 1 ow- and modcralc-<br />
income development as to make it. unworkdblc". RA<br />
vo1.2 67.<br />
The Trial Uourt.'s desire t u imbue power.? upon the<br />
Committ.ee that do not exist is beyond t.he 'l'rial<br />
CourL's authority. "Wc w ill not add wnr~ls to a<br />
The "denial standard" piirsuanl to G .L. c..1IJEi, .?.%O-<br />
23 i:; the same whether t.he review is of a project<br />
deemed uneconomjc or a project denied hy the hoard oi<br />
appeals. Woburn, 451 <strong>Mass</strong>. at 594.<br />
7. 6
. . ..<br />
specific statute that. the Lagfslat.ure did not p ~ ~ t<br />
t-here, ei.ther by i nadvcrtent Lomissiuri iir by desI.qn. "<br />
- Taylor v. Hoard of Appeals of Lcxington,<br />
. .. . - 4.51 <strong>Mass</strong>.<br />
270, 2'/Y (2008) citing ~. Sinunons v. Clerk-MagisLraLe<br />
-. .. . of<br />
the f3ostoI'i Div. .- of the Hour;. -<strong>Court</strong>. bept., 448 <strong>Mass</strong>.<br />
57, 64 (2006).<br />
Notwi thstandiny the Tri a1 CourL' ,s cioncern, the<br />
lirnj.ts of the Housing Appeals Committee's authority it;<br />
clearly framed by the statut-e and - Wohrn. . .<br />
13<br />
. . .<br />
I ,<br />
d. 11 e<br />
Housing Appeals ComiLtee is an ;iycncy wit.h limited<br />
authorit.y and thaC authority docs not j.ncliide strikiny<br />
those conditions imposed by a board of appeals<br />
pursuant to G.L. ~.40B, s.20-23 unless the cor.iditions<br />
l3 "The position of the Hoiisiny Appea1.s Commi ttee<br />
seems, at mosL, to be t.hat such a power would bo<br />
helpful in eficctuatinq the lcyislat.j.ve purpose<br />
underlying ss 20-73. That is qu1t.e possibly true, but<br />
it is not a basis fur Lhis court to irivcst the Housj.ng<br />
Appeals Committee with powers beyond those yi'ven it by<br />
the Legj.sl.ature. " Board of Appeals of North -. Andover<br />
v. , .,. Housinq Appeals -. Committee,<br />
.. 4 <strong>Mass</strong>.App.Ct. 676,<br />
680 (19.76) (Goodman, ,I. and Brown, J. djssenti.ng) (<strong>Court</strong><br />
concluded that the HAC lacked the power to impose<br />
speciiic condition on ordcr Lo board of appeals). Sce<br />
also, El.ectronics Corp. of America v. CoIrunissiuncr . . . .- of<br />
Revenue, 407 <strong>Mass</strong>. 672 (1988), 676-6'/'/, yuotiriy Bureau<br />
of 01d Age Assistance of Natick v. Commissioner or<br />
. ., .. -. ... .~<br />
- Pub. Welfare, 326 <strong>Mass</strong>. 121, 124 (1950). "[Aln<br />
admini.stra'Live board nr officer has no authority to<br />
promwlgate rules arld regulations which are in mnfl ict.<br />
with the stdLutes or exceed the authority conferred hy<br />
the statutes by whjch such board nr office was<br />
crealed. ''<br />
21
14<br />
render the project uncconomic.<br />
not<br />
"Although we havc noted t.liat Che ilcL'3 text 'is<br />
without its antbiguities' , thc sLarridard3 t.o be<br />
appl.ied by the cormittee in reviewinq board deci si.ons<br />
are clear from the express I.anguage of the act. The<br />
committee is einpowered to 'order [t.he.] hoard to modiLy<br />
or remove... [a] conditjon or requirement" only when thc<br />
board' s decision 'makes Chu build< nq or opcration of<br />
such housinq uneconomic and is not consistent wit.h<br />
local needs". Wohurn, 451 <strong>Mass</strong>. at 593, cit.inq to<br />
- Board of Appeals of Hanover v. H- H eals<br />
-. --<br />
Committee,<br />
- 363 <strong>Mass</strong>. 339, 354 (1973) (emphasis added by<br />
the <strong>Court</strong>) .<br />
'The limitations on the HAC's authority and the<br />
powers lefk with local boards of appeals, clear i n the<br />
r;tatute15, made even clearer hy the <strong>Court</strong> jn Wnhurn,<br />
has been understood since the statut.e's adoption in<br />
"'I'he accompanying bill, whi.1 e nut permitting cities<br />
or towns to unreasonably obs%ruct ihe construction of<br />
a limited amount of adequate low cost housi.ny,<br />
encourages such conununities .~ . to csLablish condl ti.ons or1<br />
such housing wIiich . . -. wi 11 be .. consistent with local . .-needs.<br />
This mcasure provides the 1 east imtcrference<br />
with the power of a community to plan. for i C s own<br />
future iri accomodati.ny Lhc housi.ng c:risis which we<br />
face. I' (Emphasis added) Zoning Bd. Orpeals . . . .- of<br />
Weller;lcy_ , .<br />
v. Ardemore .. .. Apartment-s, Ltd. ParLnershQ, . .-<br />
436 <strong>Mass</strong>. 011, 823 (2001) citiny to the Housinq<br />
la ",., we determi.ne, using conveintional tools oi<br />
stdtutory interpretation, whether the Leyislature has<br />
spoken wjth certainty on t.he topic in yuestjon, and if<br />
we conclude that the statute is uiian\biguous, we give<br />
effect to the Lcgislature's intent." Goldbery v.<br />
Board of Ilealth of .- Granhy, 444 <strong>Mass</strong>. 627, 632-633<br />
(200.5) , ciLiriy Smith v. Co~rmissioner ~- of Transitional<br />
Assistance, 431-<strong>Mass</strong>. 638, 646 (2000).<br />
l5 G.L. c.40B, s.70-23.<br />
2R
e<br />
0<br />
rn<br />
a<br />
a<br />
rn<br />
0<br />
Conunittee on Urban Airairs anti , Board . of AppcAls of<br />
Hanovcr .- v. Hous5.nq A~JJC~~S Corn., 363 <strong>Mass</strong>. 3:39, 342-<br />
342. Emphasis added-.. .I<br />
3.V. 'The Conditions Imposed . - by ttic . .- Ilmesbury Hoard .- of<br />
Appeals Were<br />
~~ . . Within Hoard's Power and the Ilousi- -.<br />
~~~<br />
Appeals Committee<br />
. Lacks .. the Aut.hority<br />
-. to strike -<br />
Condj %ions That Do NUL Render the Prpject .. Uneconomic. -.<br />
Thi. HAC struck twenty-Four (24) conditions<br />
iricluded in thc decision uL the Hoard of Appeals, each<br />
deletion irnpermi-ssibly upheld by t.he 'Trial <strong>Court</strong>.<br />
NuLably, the Trial <strong>Court</strong> distinqui shed Lhe cnndi tionr<br />
iriLu two qroups. The first group beinq thosc<br />
conditions identified by <strong>Mass</strong>Housiricj (conditions 23,<br />
26, 28, 29, 38, 39. 43E, 43k', 43G and 43H) (scc RA<br />
Vol.1, 67; the second group being thc remaining<br />
fourteen coriditi ons not idcriL if ied by<br />
M~~sHousjiig(coridit.ir)ns 18, 19, 20, 40, 42, 43, 43A.<br />
438, 43D, 43K, 43L, 43N, 43W and 59).<br />
As djsciissed in Section I.C. above, 760 CMK<br />
31.07(1) (f) provides 211 opportuniCy for the<br />
suhsidi ziriy agency (here, <strong>Mass</strong>Hoiisiny) to announce its<br />
rcLusal to fund a project "bccause of a coriditj.on<br />
imposed hy thc Board" subject to the rcyulatj on's<br />
procedures. (AB discussed, these requircments were<br />
not. sati-sficd in the present matter). In other words,<br />
if the HAC is correct t-hat. sonic areas of the<br />
29
comprehensive periniL law are " reserved for :;tat.e<br />
qovcrrirrierit", it would be because thc subsidizing<br />
aycricy staCcd so pursuant. t.o its claim oi auChority<br />
ur-idcr '160 CMH 31..07 [I) (f) . Accordingly, even ii . . the<br />
provisions of 760 C:MK 31.0'/ (1) (f) had been compl.Ied<br />
wit.h-which they were not-14 of the 74 conditions<br />
st-ruck by Lhc HAC would nevertheless remsliri in Lact.<br />
'i'he Tridi <strong>Court</strong> ac!knowledged this aryuinenL<br />
In dj.sti ngui.slhiiiq . thcsc condit.ions, the 'Tri a].<br />
<strong>Court</strong> stat.ed that, if "...I a111 wrong on t.he 1.aw ...",<br />
particular on the question of whether the HAC<br />
indeed has this inherent power to determine under Chc<br />
statute arid all the r:eqs, t.o deterrniric whcthcr- a local<br />
board has acted wit.hin its authority in a general way,<br />
i.n the cvent I am wrong, t-hen I would rule as follows.<br />
What should be done in my view is to affj.rm the<br />
dccisinn of t.he HAC with rcspect to the ten condit-ions<br />
idcntifj ed in the housing MHFA 1 Fitter ... However, with<br />
respect to the othcr 14 conditjons found by the IIAC to<br />
be invaljd because beyond t.he purview ur outside thc<br />
rea1.m of powor of the local %HA, if I am wrony in par'L<br />
one of my ruling, then what must happen is a remand to<br />
the HAC or1 Chose 14 condlti.ons. AL Chat rernand, the<br />
burden would be jnitially upon the developer to<br />
dernonsLrate t.hat. ei.ther one-by-one or in some<br />
combinations, or in combination of all 14, and t.hat<br />
it.self I recognize is an import.ant leqal iss~~e, that<br />
t.hese conditions arc uneconoml c. " KA Vol. 2 , 171.<br />
A. The HAC erred in strikiriy Conditions 43F,<br />
43G, 4%<br />
Identi f i ed by <strong>Mass</strong>Hou3illg1', Conditions 43E', 431:,<br />
ar.id 43H pertain to a Deed Rider, Monitoriny Aqreemeril,<br />
l6 RA Vol.1, 67<br />
30
0<br />
and Reqiil atory Agreement. tc; be execuLc?i:i by the<br />
devFlopcr, UHC13, and t.he Hoard, requiri nq that thc<br />
dnr.urriEriCs be "similar in form" to those prep;ired by<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>Huusing, hilt "revised in cant-ent as required for<br />
a coiisivLcncy wi.th [the Hoard's Decision] ." RA Vol.1,<br />
24.<br />
'The HAC st.ruck conditions 43F, 43G, and 43H,<br />
replaciriy t.hem wiL1-1 a coridition requirinij the<br />
moriitorj nq services aqreairient, requlatory agreement,<br />
ar-id deed ridcrs t.o he "in form and conLent as approved<br />
by <strong>Mass</strong>IioL1::iJlg." HA Vol.1, 464. As grounds, the. HAC<br />
cited i.ts own decisions for the proposit.ion that whilc<br />
e t.he Board "has primary responsibility for thc local<br />
0<br />
0<br />
hcalth, safety, and environmental concerns t.hat. are<br />
'aL t.he he~irt of any cornprehensivc permit revi.ew,<br />
other isvucs 'such 2s Lhe fi nariciriy arrangements, the<br />
profit projections, the developer's qiialifications,<br />
and marketabiliLy' are solcly wj.thi.n the pro.vince of<br />
the subsidizing aqency." RA Vol. 1, 463, quoti.ng CMA,<br />
Inc. v. Westborouyk, No. 8Y-25, slip op. at 6-7.<br />
As additional aiithoriCy, the HAC cites a<br />
rrieriuraridtirn by thc former direcLor of DHCI), Jane Wallis<br />
Gumhle dated Aplri.1 27, 200G, which stated in part:<br />
" [zloriing board:; of appeal may not iinder any<br />
31
circtirnstznce impose conditions i n a corriprchcrisive<br />
permit that impinge 0 11 the re gu 1 at. o r y<br />
res pun s i lr, i 1 i ti e s o F L he s uk, s id i z ing agency I<br />
Accordinyly ZBAs should not imposc driy condi ti.ons<br />
that spccify how cust cerLificaLion, projecC<br />
monitoriny, 07: Lhc sale or rcntal of affordable<br />
units is t.o ha pcrformed, or by whom ?.hose tasks<br />
w i l l be periormed diirirly t.he period the<br />
suhsidizj ng aycncy ret-ains requl afory oversiyhl.<br />
If 1 ncal oificj.al s have specific co~i~crns about.<br />
stat.e oversight of 40E dcvelopments, wc are fully<br />
prepared to ad.dress thcrri directly. "<br />
KA Vol.1, 463, quotinq 131iCD Memorandi.im dated<br />
Aprj.1 T/, 2006 at 2, RA Vol -1, 55. Contrary to thy.<br />
assertions of both DHCD and the HAC, not-hing in G.L.<br />
c. 40B supports the claims coriLained in above lctter<br />
asserting t.he supremacy oi the srihsidiziny agency over<br />
Lhe municipality issuing the comprchcnsive permit. As<br />
discussed above, Chcre is simply no statutory<br />
aiit.horiLy .. - for t.he proposition Lhat a zoniriy board of<br />
appeals may not impose condiLions with r~spcct to cost<br />
certj.fi.catiori, project rnoni toring, or other matters<br />
pert-aininy Lo the salc or rental 01 affoxdahle 40B<br />
units. Moreover, Lhere is -. 110 . . statutory<br />
. . .. authority for-<br />
the proposition that. wherc t.he position uf Lhe 7,oniny<br />
hoard oi appeals arid the subsidizing aqericy with<br />
respccL Lo such issues conflict, Lhat t.he posiLiori of<br />
tiic suhsidizjnq agency "t.ruriip" Lhose of the hoard. It,<br />
is of rio ~<br />
1eqa.l jmport Chat the Hoard's rcgul.atory
document.s may be inconsi .?tent with those oi<br />
NasslIousinq; <strong>Mass</strong>llousiny policy i.s not. law. To the<br />
extent that. any HAC decision has purport-ed to<br />
11<br />
recogni ze" the auLhoriLy of a .:;ubsi di zing aqency 0 ~ ~ 1 7 -<br />
any municipal board, such decision is iilt-ra vires and<br />
exceeds the sLatutory aut.hnrity of the HAC. see<br />
17<br />
Woburn, 451 <strong>Mass</strong>. 501 (2008).<br />
." ~.<br />
The Board's concerns pertainirig 'Io reyulatory<br />
documents, and Lo <strong>Mass</strong>Housj.ng' s capaci t.y and<br />
willingncss Lo provide requl atory oversiqht of this<br />
project, are well-founded. As tiic IrispccLor Gcncral<br />
of the Commonwealth has amply docurricriLcd, past<br />
performance in monitoriny the 1imit.ed dividend<br />
"As additional leqal authority ior i C s posiLiori, Llic<br />
~<br />
HAC citev Hanover v. Ilousinq Appcals<br />
- .. . . Conunittee,<br />
_. 363<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>. 339, 379 (1973). KA Vol.1, 4G3. Yet the<br />
reliance on Hanover is misplaced ;md Chc quolaLiori is<br />
misleading. 'The quoted lariyuagc stands for nothing<br />
more than what it says: the standards for<br />
qualifj cation as a IiIniLcd dividend orqanizatj.on are<br />
left to state and federal fundjnq ,aqenci.es. The very<br />
scritericc following the one quoted by thp IIAC reaffirms<br />
the Board's authori.ty to require rcyulatory currip1i;irice<br />
and comp1.etel.y undermines thc HAC'S positiuri. The SJC<br />
st.ated t.hat j.ts "interprcLation [with rcs:pec!t. t.o<br />
standards for 1 imi.ted dividend organizations] does not<br />
prevent the hoard or committee frorii rcquiri.ng full<br />
disclosure of the organization's lcgal stat.i.is and<br />
further rcyuiriny compliance wit.h pert< nent st.atutory<br />
and regulatory requirements." Board of Appeals of<br />
Hanover v. ... Housing Appeals Committee, 36.3 <strong>Mass</strong>. at<br />
, ~.. .,.. ,, ,.. -<br />
3.19. Thc HAC'S attempt. to present its ow11 opinion as<br />
Chat of t.he SJC<br />
fail.<br />
thirt-y-five years i~yo niusll obviously<br />
33
cyuirement<br />
Chapter 401<br />
and<br />
proj<br />
overseeinq cost ccrlificaliuri<br />
zts tunded through the New Engl<br />
Fund or the Housinq StarCs Program has been<br />
unsuccessfiJ1. SpcciLic;illy, the Inspector General has<br />
advised <strong>Mass</strong>Housing's Executive Ilirector that Li] C is<br />
clear . . . that the cost, certificxLiun and monitoring<br />
process is 'hroken.'" LcLLer of Inspector General<br />
Gregory W. Su1liv;m dated Sept-ernher 13, 2006, RA<br />
Vol.1, 233. Specifical1.y with regard tu Ncw Enylar.ld<br />
Fund and Housing Starts projects, "reported developer<br />
profits were rout.ine1y and subsLantially understat.ed,"<br />
resulting "j.n many cases . . . [in] profit windfa1l.s<br />
to the developers which deprived the respective<br />
municipalit.ies of the excess profits that should have<br />
bccn paid to the municipality under the regulat.ory<br />
3greement.s ." - .Id. See also Letter of 1nspect.o.r General<br />
Sullj.van dated January 2, 2007 (detaj.li.ng res1.11 t.s of<br />
independent audit of a New hgland Furid project in<br />
Reading, finding gross understatcmcnt oL developer<br />
profit, i.mpermissiblc larid valuati ons, related-party<br />
t.ransactions, and other abuses), HA Vol .1, 236; and<br />
LeCLcr of Irispcctorr General. Sul.1 i.vari to Aaron<br />
Gornstein, Lxecutive 13i.rector OF CIIAPA, dated Dc.ccrriber<br />
6, 2006, RA Vol .I, 247 (discussing CIIAPA's rriethodoloyy<br />
34<br />
n f<br />
11 d
for cost. certification arid suggest.j ng that. such<br />
nicthodoloqy "could rcuulL in the transfer oL profits<br />
from a muinicipality's affnrdahlc LrusL fund to a<br />
devcloper' s pcrsonal. bank account .") . In l j qht. of the<br />
documented rcports by the. Cutnmonweal th's .Inspector<br />
General rcyarding the 1 ack oL the requi si te oversiyhL<br />
OF project financiriy arid developer proLiLccriny, the<br />
Board's election oi it.s own regulaLory documents is<br />
who 1 1 y j LIS L i f i ed .<br />
In sum, where there is no evidence thaL Lhe<br />
conditions perta i.ning to regu1,atory docuiocrits render<br />
the project "unecoriorriic"; and where each condition<br />
rcrlects the City's knowledge oi its affordabl e<br />
housing needs, and is suppurled by a valid local<br />
concern," khc HAC I.acked authority to alt-er or delc.Cc<br />
the condition. Further, where nothinq in G.L c. 40R<br />
or applicable requlations prohi bi.ts the Board from<br />
imposj ng conditions wit-h respect to regulatory<br />
documents (such as a deed rider, monitorinq service::<br />
zyreement, or regulatory agreement), Lhu HAC was<br />
wiLhout. power to delete any siich condiLiori and t.he<br />
Trial <strong>Court</strong> erred in uphoI.dj.iig the IIAC.<br />
See 760 I:MR 31.06('/)
e<br />
E.<br />
The HAC erred in r,tr-iki.ng Conditions<br />
26(par.t.ial), 28, . .- '.?q<br />
-"<br />
. . . ... - 23,<br />
'Identiiied hy <strong>Mass</strong>Hnusiriy", Conditions 23, 26,<br />
?R, aind 29 pertdin t.o thc ownership nature of the<br />
projecC, the riurrtber of affordable units and means nf<br />
calcuiat.inq income eliyibil j t y, and the manner of<br />
ensurinq I m i L affnrdability in perpet-uity through 211<br />
affordiablc housiny restr.ictio1.i. RA Vol.1, 1.9-20. The<br />
cievel.opcr complained t-hat these conditj.ons conflict.<br />
wit.h <strong>Mass</strong>Housing's Form 8-13.4, xid as.?ertcd that<br />
because such conditions a.re "not accepLable to<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>llousing, " they must be removed nr modified to<br />
conform to Form 0-114. HA Vo1.3, 8'/. The developer<br />
further asserted L h t thesc conditions are beyond t.he<br />
Roard's authority t.o impose. KA Vo1.3., 88. The HAC<br />
struck each of the conditions, or the portiuii of the<br />
EondiLion to whi.ch Lhe developer objected. At;<br />
yrounds, the HAC stated that. the issues involved were<br />
"proqramaLic mattcr[s]" thaC "should be left to .Lhe<br />
discret-ion of MdssHousing." KA Vol.1, 464.<br />
,rhis was lerjal error. First, a5 di.scusscd above,<br />
nothing in G.!,. c. 408 prohibits thc Board from<br />
imposing cnndikions perLaining to "proqrairunatic"<br />
l9 Fa VOl.1, 67
0<br />
e<br />
e<br />
e<br />
e<br />
e<br />
0<br />
a<br />
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<br />
s;ubsi dizinq aqency; or provides that. where t.he<br />
psition of the Board and thc subsjdi.%ing aqericy wiLti<br />
respect to such isr;ues cunilii-t, that the pusilion of<br />
tile subsidizing aqency "Lrumps" that of Lhc board.<br />
'I'hus, Llic HAC hsd 110 legal hasis Lor striking<br />
Conditions 23, 26, 28 and 79.<br />
\\<br />
Second, arid cant-rary to the HAC'S riilinq thaL<br />
t-herc is 1itt.l.e kjasis Lor the technical changes the<br />
Hoard would impose," scc RA Vol .l., 464, cach of t.hese<br />
condi L ion s reflecLs t.he City' 5 assessment. of<br />
2iLordabJ.e housing needs, and each is supported by a<br />
valid l.ocal concern. See '160 CMR 31 . 06(7). Further,<br />
therc is no evi dencc that. t.he condiCion reriders t.he<br />
projcct "uneconomic. " , The . HAC: thus lacks . , . . authority __ to<br />
2lLc.r or de1.ete thcse<br />
-<br />
.. .-- c:ondi t.i.ons.<br />
1 t. is irrelevant that the Fannie Mae/<strong>Mass</strong>Housing<br />
Affordable Housinq ResCrict.ion "already has dIi Witire<br />
, . . which prohihits rental of units wit.hout<br />
the pri.or written consent of the Monitoring Agent." RA<br />
Voi.1, 464. The IIAC has no st.at.utory or rcyulatory<br />
a~utliority to decide which provision - the Board's UT<br />
>\ '<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>Housing's - 1s tlir; more reasonable approach" 0.r<br />
Lo strikc Liic Board's condition, number 23. RA Vol.1,<br />
37
464. Quitc siniy-Jl.y, the fiAC is riot a pol.i.(:y-mdItiriy<br />
hody. For the same reasoris, the HAC has no aulhority<br />
Lo redefine t.he income eliqihj.1 ity cor1Lairit.d in the<br />
Board's Decision, or to st.ri ke the Roard's cnnditj on<br />
defj ni iiq low or moderate iricoinc housi nq as housing<br />
affoi-dablc Lo household:; "cdrriinq no more than 8O!k of<br />
t.he median i iicome oL current. residcriCs of lur\e:;bury. "<br />
RA Vol.1, 464, quoLirig Condition 26. Finally, the HAC<br />
has no authoriLy to deterrniric that neqoti ations<br />
between t.he dcveloper and Che Cit.y reqardinq thc<br />
affordable housinq resLriction are too "CUII~C~SOI~~, "<br />
aind Chat the develupcr must. he proLctcted from such<br />
ncgotiatj ons. R4 Vol. I., 465.<br />
The IIAC's de3.etion of conciit.j.oii 2.3; a porkion of<br />
condition 26; ccndit-ions 28, and 39 was without lcyal<br />
basis arid beyond the Committee' s statutory ;lu.thority<br />
and Lhe Trjal <strong>Court</strong> erred j.n upholdiriy the HAC.<br />
C. Thc HAC -<br />
- 40<br />
erred in strikinq Conditi.ons 38, 3Y,<br />
Condit.ions 38 and 39 (both idcnLiLicd by<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>Housiinq") , and 40 pert.ajr1 to aliowablc proiit; t.he<br />
inet.hod oL 1a1-1d valuation; and Financi.al documentation.<br />
RA Vol..l, 22. Thc HAC struck Lhese t.hree conditions,<br />
38
characterizing them as ":juperflwus"; "attempt [ s] to<br />
interj cct the Board iritu thc review and compliance<br />
process" and "impropcrly iriLerfere linyi w i t h rnatLcr,3<br />
within the proviricc of the suhsidizirig aycricy. " RA<br />
Vol. 1, 466. The IlAC stated,. apparcnlly wiLhout. irony,<br />
thaL "[tlhere is no area of policy Ltiialyois or project<br />
review thaL is more squarely wit.lij.11 the expertise ui<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>lluusing than the financi.al analysis of each<br />
pro'ject for which i L provides furidiriy." RA Vol.3, 465.<br />
As discussed above (and miply documented by the<br />
Inspector Gener;il), as a resull of past. failures wiLh<br />
regard tu oversight obligaLions for New Enylarid Fund<br />
and Housing :;tarts projects, "rcpurled deve oper<br />
pr0fit.s were routinely and subslantiall y understated, "<br />
\I '<br />
rcsultj.nq 111 many cases . . . [in] profit windfalls<br />
to t.he developers which dcprived the respective<br />
muni cipalitics of the excess pr0fj.t.s that should have<br />
been paid t.o the 1riuriicipal.i ty uridcr Lhe regul.at.nry<br />
agreements. " R4 Vol .I, 233.<br />
Equally importantly, Lhc HAC'S assertions uf<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>Housiny' B supremacy arid preemptj-ve authority art-<br />
unLounded. Not.hinq iri C.L. c. 4UB or iippli.cab1.P<br />
regu1at.j ons prohibits the Hoard from imposinq<br />
cond
1 and valuat iori, or f i nanci a1 docuiiicntation. Whi 1 e<br />
MdssHousinq may have i C s own pol.icies with respect. to<br />
such mat.ters, such policic- are not law. There is<br />
simply nri leqal basis for <strong>Mass</strong>llousinq to irrtposc i L s<br />
policies on m y municipal ity..<br />
Each of the above condiCions reflects t.he Ci.t.y' s<br />
assessment of affordhic housinq needs, and each is<br />
supported by a valid local concern. See ./GO CMR<br />
31.. 06 ( ' I ) . FurLher, theire i.s no cviderice that the<br />
condition rcnders the project "uneconomic. " The HAC<br />
Lhus lacked authority Lo alt.elr or delete these<br />
conditions and the Trial <strong>Court</strong> erred in uphoiciirly Lhe<br />
HAC.<br />
D. The HAC erred in strikinq - ... Conditj.on 42 -<br />
~ , - -<br />
-.-. Marketjnq.<br />
The Board's Decision requires Board approva 1 of t.he<br />
market-ing plan for the deve1,opment. PA Vol.1, 22. Thc<br />
HAC characterized thj s as "unwarranted iriterlcrerica"<br />
and struck this condition, irisisLiny instead or1 "a<br />
marketing pl all ap@roveci by <strong>Mass</strong>Housing and supervised<br />
by the Monitoring Agent." HA Vol.1, 466. For Lhc<br />
reasons discussed j n secti.ons 1V.A-C above, the Board<br />
was withjn its aut-hurity under G.L. c. 40R in imposing<br />
t.his condition, and the IIAC had no power to strike it<br />
40
and the Tr;.al CourL erred in upholding t.he HAC<br />
E. -<br />
The HAC erred iri sLrikinq . Condition 42 .-<br />
-. Monitoring<br />
. . . __ Aqent.<br />
The Board's Ilecision also requires Board approval<br />
of Che project's Monit.orj.ng AyenL, the entity<br />
responsible (among other tasks) for conductinq cost<br />
certi ficatiori lo ens~ire compliance with profiC<br />
limiCations, affordability restrictions, and other<br />
rcgulatory aspects UT the project. RA Vo1.3., 77. 'l'he<br />
HAC stnick this conditi-on, stating t.hat "appointmcnL<br />
of the Monitoring Agent [is] wit.hin the province of<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>llousiny, but further, <strong>Mass</strong>Housing's responsibility<br />
to supervj.se the work of the Monitoring Agent<br />
should no% be diluted by gi-ving thc Board vet.o power."<br />
RA V ol. 1, 466.<br />
'The Board was well wi.thin j.ts authority Lo<br />
require approval of Lhe project's rrwriiloring agent.<br />
As discussed above, the Lnspector General has<br />
specifically rioLed t.he failure of designated<br />
monitoring agent.s to identify abuses of (;.I.,. c.4OU:<br />
"In the opinion of this Office, many<br />
rauriicipal.itics havc a false sense oi security<br />
t.hat effective cost certi.ficatinn monitoring and<br />
enforcement is being conducted by Ihe subsidizing<br />
agencies or1 their behalf. The rea1it.y is that.<br />
developers are takinq advaritage of a weak<br />
ovcrsiyht system and arc enriching themse1.ves at<br />
the expense of the municipalities and t-heir<br />
41
affordable housinq initiatives. Thus, 1.oc:al<br />
initiatives t.o expand cirid create affordable<br />
housjng, with these excess profits, have heen<br />
t.hwart.ed by the apparent manipill ati.on by<br />
devel opers in d poorly-monitored nversiqlit<br />
svstem. "<br />
I,et.ter of InspocCor General to Executive Director of<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>Housiny daCed September 13, 2006, RA Vol.1, 233.<br />
rurthcr-, for the reasons discussed in sectj.ons 1 I I .A-C<br />
above, the board was wi.Lhin j.t.5 statutory authuriLy in<br />
irnposjng t.his coridilion and t.he HAC had no power t.o<br />
strike it. and the Trial <strong>Court</strong> erred iri upholding t.he<br />
HAC<br />
F. - The HAC erred in sLrikinq<br />
Assiqnahility.<br />
. Kondition 43E:<br />
'The Board' ~i Decision provides Che <strong>Mass</strong>Housing' s<br />
stated commi.tment to provide fundiny under the Housing<br />
starts p ro y ram Is "nun-transferable and<br />
nonassignable ." RA Vol.. 1, 24. Inexplicably, the HAC<br />
dcscribed t.hj.s as "an obscure formi.11 at.i.on"; struck Lhe<br />
conditi.on; and rewroic it in accordance with the<br />
developer's wishes. Such action was bcyond the<br />
statutory authority of the IlAC. 'The Hoard's refusal<br />
to accept some lender-to-be-named-lat-er is well-<br />
founded and well within the Board's authority to<br />
cnndit.ion projccLs under G,J,. c. 40B. For these and<br />
the oLher reasons disciissed in sections 1V.A-b: abovc,<br />
47
the Hoard WAS wilhj.n its aiuthorily iii imposing t.his<br />
coIiditj.on, and the IIAC had no power to strike it and<br />
t.he 7ri a1 Coi.irt erred in upholding t.he f.lAC.<br />
G ? The HAC erred . . . , i, n . "modi fyi nq" CoIidiLions 18,<br />
19, 2[1 .<br />
'The i3o;ird's Decj si.on requires Liial the project<br />
comply wilh the reqiii rements oL Lhe Arnesbury %oni iiq<br />
By,-Law, !3iiM.ivi sion Kulcu and Kequlations, Wetlarids<br />
Bylaw, Conservation Cummission Regulations, and Board<br />
oi Hea1t.h requirements in effect at the Lime of the<br />
Decision. RA Vol.1, 1.9. The HAC noted that it.5 own<br />
\\ requlations arid precedents establish, however, that<br />
the dcveloper need only cornply wit.h Inca1 requircnients<br />
i.n cifect on the date of the application to 'the<br />
Board," aiid ordered the conditions so "modified." HA<br />
VOl.7, 46.7.<br />
Thc HAC was without leyal authori.ty tn require<br />
such "modifications." NoLhinrj in G.1,. c. 40B<br />
requires, or provides authori.ty for Ut-ICD rcquiatioIls<br />
or IIAC decisions to "trump" a condition imposed by a<br />
local board, where there is no evidence that the<br />
cor.iditj.on renders the prujcct "uneconornj.~" or that the<br />
condition i.s not "corisisLcrik wit.h 1 oca1 needs ." To<br />
the ext.ent the HAC has held otherwise, such holdiriys<br />
43
are beyond its staLutory aiithoriiy and the Trial. <strong>Court</strong><br />
er-red in uphol.dinq the HAC.<br />
H. The HA(.: errcd . in stri kiriy and/or - . modifying<br />
,_ ..<br />
Condit.ions<br />
. . 43A, . 43B, 430, 43K, 43L, . . 43N, . , .<br />
43W, . . . and 5Y.<br />
Thc Roa~:d's Decision incl.uded curLdir.1 "conditions<br />
prccedent." to SiLe dj.sturbanco, e. g., revi ew and<br />
approval by the Board of detaj I.ed construction<br />
drawings (43A), and of tirial landscapinq pldris (43K) .<br />
KA Vo1.1, 23, 25. The HAC characterized Lhcee and the<br />
other above conditions as "impropcr condition [sl<br />
subsequent," KA Vol. 1, 46R and modified t-hem pursuar1L<br />
Lo At,t.it.ash's suggestions so as to relieve Lhe<br />
devel.oper of "t.he burdcri of further review and<br />
approvdi." The HAC rclied upon its own prior decj-sions<br />
and rccjtilatjnn in so rulinq. Ayain, t.he HAC was<br />
without 1 eqal aut.ho.ri ty to re qu j. re such<br />
"rnudificat-ions." Nothj.ng in C.L. c. 40H requires, UT<br />
provides authority for DHCD reqiilation~ 01 HAC:<br />
decisions t.o "trump" a condition imposed by a local<br />
board, wherc there is no cviderice that t.he condition<br />
renders t.he project "unecmnwnic" or that the cundit.ion<br />
j s not "consisLent. wj.tI1 lucal needs. " See G.L. e.<br />
40U, 5. 22. To t.he exLcnL the HAC: has heid otherwise,<br />
such hold~nqs arc ultra vires and beyond the
CommiLlee’s authority and the TT-ial <strong>Court</strong> erred iri<br />
upkoldinq the HAC.<br />
I. ‘The HAC erred . . in stri.kiriy<br />
. - Condition<br />
.. . .. . . . -. . . . . 54.<br />
Condition 54 of t.he Board‘s Decision requires<br />
t.hat affordable uni.ts be ” construct.ed and sold<br />
coincident wit.h t.he development. of mal-ket rate units.”<br />
RA Vol.]., 31. Even thouyh <strong>Mass</strong>Housiny was silent as t.o<br />
condj tion 54”, thc. HAC characterized this conditj on as<br />
“a deviaCion from normal Ma~sHousing procedures. ” RA<br />
Vml.1, 470. On t.he qrourids that. “such policy matters<br />
are riorinally wj t.l?in thc province of MasuHousing, ” the<br />
HAC struck the refcrcr~ces t.o “soId.” For the reasons<br />
discussed ahove, tiic Board was w ithin its aut.horjty i.n<br />
imposinq this condition and Lhe HAC: had no power Lo<br />
st.rike it arid the :Crl.al <strong>Court</strong> erred jn ~~pholdirig thc<br />
HAC.<br />
J. The HAC err-cd in st.rikinq CoridiLion 79.<br />
-.-<br />
Finally, Condj.tj.on 7Y uF Lhe Decj ?ion provides<br />
t.hat “lt]he fees for t.he enyincering and 1.egal reviews<br />
and the town‘s coriaLrucCion oversiyiit u h i i be the<br />
obligati.on of thc Applicant. ” RA Vol. 1, 35. Such<br />
condition was imposcd pursuant to G.L. c. G.1,. c. 44,<br />
s.53G, which provides t.hat. “any ci.ty or town t-hat<br />
21<br />
4 5
provides by rules promulgated iiridcr . . . s;c~:tiori 21<br />
ui c:haptet- 40R [,mionq othcr pcrmit.ting prncesses]. . .<br />
for the irnposi t.ion of reasonah1.e fees for t.he<br />
empl.oyment of outside consult.ants may deposit such<br />
fees in a special account.."<br />
The HAC ~Lated j.13 j.ts decision Lhat condition 79<br />
"may be interpreted to require payment. of the board's<br />
fees for qeneral legal represent,at.i.on," arid held ChaL<br />
\I<br />
[SI ince this is riot perinj.tt.ed, the curidition shall be<br />
const.riied to permiL the Hoard t:o iisscss only peer<br />
review fees Lhat are pr0pe.r undcr our precedei1t.s." KA<br />
Vol.1, 470 (ci.ting HAC decisions). Althoi~qh it did not<br />
claborat-e, such prcccdents express the HAC'S apparent<br />
posj ti on thaC attorneys are iiot "outside consu1tant.s"<br />
and thus caririuL be paj.d with 53G Lurid:;. There is no<br />
basis in law for such position. Nothing in G.L, c. 44,<br />
s. 53G distinguishes betwecri attorneys and other<br />
professional consultants ret.ained by rriuriicipai bards,<br />
or othcrwisc disqual i fies atturr'icys from 53G funds.<br />
Not.hjng in G.1,. c.rl@B makes such a distinction, or<br />
even addresses the issue of consultant. fees. No <strong>Court</strong><br />
has ever held that ntLorneys, either in the Chapter<br />
4(lB context, or in any context, are disqualified irom<br />
.53G funds. In the only reported case acidrcssir.iy t.he<br />
46
propriety of 53G iunds, tho SJC stated that a~t.hoiiqh cl<br />
st.stute more specific than G.L. c. 44, s. 53G<br />
\\<br />
governrs] ice assessments for [DEI?] site assiqnment.<br />
heari.nqs . . . -. the more - general . .. provj.sioris of s. 53G<br />
govern othcr . . ... . 1.ocal board proceed-." - TBI ,,,,. Lnc. v.<br />
Ed. oi -- Health of North Andovcr, . - 431 <strong>Mass</strong>. 9, 1H-19<br />
(2000) (emphasis supplied). There is sjmp1.y iiu h3sI.s<br />
lor concluding that hearinqs or1 G.L. c. 4OB perrnjt.:;<br />
are not "uLher local board proccedings. "<br />
The HAC'S statement t.haL payment- of the Hoard'5<br />
fees for legal representation "is riot permit-terri' is<br />
without legal basis and ultra vi.res.<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
Because the 'Trial <strong>Court</strong> and the Housing Appeals<br />
Committee improperly a7 1 owed Attj t-ash's Motion fur<br />
Summary Deci sion, Plai nt.iff respectfully reqiiests Chat.<br />
this Honorable <strong>Court</strong> eriLer a judyrnent that Lhe<br />
Uccision by Che Housing Appeals Committee dated<br />
October 15, 2007 be set aside and be rendered iiull and<br />
void and without force or effacl; reinst-ate the<br />
dccision nf the Board grantiny Lhc Comprciicrisive<br />
Pcrinit to AttiLash Viers, I.LC with 31.1 conditions<br />
int.act; or iri Lhe aiLcrnat.ive, rerniind this matter to<br />
rhe CnmmiLtee for hcaring on thc question of whether<br />
47
the conditions iiripovcd by the board render t.he project<br />
I\ uneconomic" .<br />
Respectfully suhmi ttcd,<br />
On beh;llL of the Plaintiff Arnesbury Zoning Hoard nf<br />
. .<br />
BO 636331<br />
arhara Iluygins<br />
HO 562535<br />
OAl.,F:Y AND WITTEN, L1,C<br />
1156 Duck H ill Road<br />
l)uxhury, MA 02337<br />
781-Y31-0084<br />
DATED: June 30, 2009<br />
-.<br />
48