Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

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