Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

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