Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
hiirderi of proof; uthcrwise t.11~ IiAC it; poweir1.e~~ tu rcmove a conditiun to whj ch a devel.oper ohjecLt;: \\ Hut even if the Hoard's position i.s ill advised, the hurdcns of proof sct out. in t.he statute and niir regulations are designed to ensure Chat we do not. second guess the Board's imposition uf local standards unless their .effect i:; tu undermine the viability of afiordab1.e housiriy. The Hoard may insist upon a coridit.ion such as the one here if Lhat. condi t.iuri does not render t.he housiriy uneconomic. " Dr'um1.i.n 13evelupr!icnt, I.LC v. Sudbury Hoard uF Appeals, (Hoiisiny Appeals C:o~run. I No. 01-03, September 2'1, 2001). p.3. See alsn Cooperative Al..liarice of Massachusett-s v. Taunt.on Zoning RrJard OF Appeals, (IIousing Appeals Comm,), No. 90-05, Apri.l 2, 1992. See also, Peppercorn Vi 1 lage Rcalty Trust v. HopkinLon Hoard of Appeals, (Housing Appeals COI~. , No. 02-02, January 26, 2004, p.16. "C:erltainly, the overall legislativc intent UT the statute is to minimize state intrusion irilo local preruyatives, and any bona f j de condition .. , . should hc iiphel d. " Emphasis ~- - added. Howevcr, beginniny with. the IIAC' Y decision in Archstone Communities Trust v. Woburri Board of Appeals, (Housing Appeals Comm., No. 01-0'7, June 11, 2003) I and presumably, endinq with Lhe SJC's repihaI.id
(3 f c h Lhe HAC: in t.hat one at. bar, ii 6 SiilIle case , ve become HAC: decisions, 1 ncludi nq nrriuored from the law to incl iide reinoval of condi t-ions ihat. t.he HAC deemed "urijustifiEd" and having nothing t.o do with project. economics. 7 C. Defendant Attitash ........ Vi.ews, ... LLC failed t.o carry its ..... burden of proving that. MassHousing fund the p'rojcct:. . Instcad oL attempting l.o p1.1t forward cvicicrlcc t.hat Lhe imposed conditions rexidcr the project. iinecorioruic, Attj.ta:;h moved for .sumdry decision on an L1iLernat.e theory provided by 760 CMR 31 .07(1) (c), which allows Lhe developcr t.o prove that "Lhe conditions would result in a subsidizing agency retusal to fund." The motion for sununary decision rcsLed enti rely 01.1 the prnpositior.~ that MassHousing refused to fund the project (or issue "fi.na1. approval" jn the case of NF:b' fundir.ig) because certain conditions iri the permit arc inconsjstent wiLh the agency's .............. of Appeals of Woburn Committee, 451 Mass. 581 (2000). 7'", .,ee for examplc, 9 North Walker Strcc.i Ucv. Inc:. v. Rehoboth, (Housing Appeals Corm., No. 99-03, November 6, 2006, slip up. at 7 . "We found previcrus1.y t.hat that "the Hoard ha[ d] not articulatcd il reasonable fact-ual or legal justiiication for this condit.ion rreqiii ring greater aLiordabilit.y], and Lherefore it. should be eiiminated. " Board .- ...... v. Hoiisinq Appeals 13
- Page 1 and 2: ... COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS S
- Page 3 and 4: C. Ucfendant Attitash Views, W C fa
- Page 5 and 6: 0 0 r) I. * a 0 Simiuns v. Clcrk-Ma
- Page 7 and 8: Statement of Issues Presented for R
- Page 9 and 10: Decision. Ttic Fresidj-nq Of fic.cr
- Page 11 and 12: I'roced~irc Act. See G.L.r: . 4I)D,
- Page 13 and 14: t.o decide this case hy summary dec
- Page 15 and 16: sucii hr>usi.ng uricconomj.r: 2nd w
- Page 17: cniirli tioris imposed by ?.he boar
- Page 21 and 22: showing that 1) iC reqi.iested a wa
- Page 23 and 24: iiny such condiLion. The HAC is a h
- Page 25 and 26: 0 0 0 a 0 a comprehensive pcrmit. a
- Page 27 and 28: 'The HAC frames t.his care as prese
- Page 29 and 30: 'The board of appeals shall request
- Page 31 and 32: 111. The Trial CourL ... jmproperly
- Page 33 and 34: . . .. specific statute that. the L
- Page 35 and 36: e 0 rn a a rn 0 Conunittee on Urban
- Page 37 and 38: 0 and Reqiil atory Agreement. tc; b
- Page 39 and 40: document.s may be inconsi .?tent wi
- Page 41 and 42: for cost. certification arid sugges
- Page 43 and 44: 0 e e e e e 0 a Inat L c r s ; res
- Page 45 and 46: characterizing them as ":juperflwus
- Page 47 and 48: and the Tr;.al CourL erred in uphol
- Page 49 and 50: the Hoard WAS wilhj.n its aiuthoril
- Page 51 and 52: CommiLlee’s authority and the TT-
- Page 53 and 54: propriety of 53G iunds, tho SJC sta
(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
Change language