Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

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