Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

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