Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT NO. 2009-P-1096 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF' CONTENTS i TABJ.E OF AUTHORITIES i.i i S'I'H'TGMENT OF T$S11E PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1 Did thc Trial Court crr i n upholding the Housing Hppeals Commj.ttE!e whcre DefendariC Attirash Views, LLC has failed to demurisfrate that the conditions imposed by the Plaintiff Board ut Appcals make the project unecunomic? STATKMENT OF THE CASE 1 STA'J.'EMENT OF FAC'I'S 2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 4 ARGUMENT 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW I. The IIAC erred 1.n grxiting At.titash's Motj.on for Summary Iiecisfon, where Attitash failed to satisfy its summary decision burden arid the Trial Court. erred in uphol.ding 'Lhe HAC. 5 A. 1kferidar.it Attitash V iews, LLC failed to carry its burden of proving t.hat. the conditions imposed by the Hoard rerider the project II n E! co nomi c" . 8 I3. The HAC has continually held that it. is without t.he power to di st-iirb conditions that do not render the pro~~!.ct uneconomic. 11 i
C. Ucfendant Attitash Views, W C failed io carry it.s burden of proving t.hat. MavsHousiny w i l l not filnd the project. 11. 'The HAC improper] y struck condj.ti ons lawfully imposed by the Bui11.d. 1: 11.. Thc Trial Court improper1.y upheld thc HAC'S order st.rSkinq the condjtions lawIully imposcci by t.he Hoard. IV. The Coiidifj.oriz Imposed by tiic Amesbury Board of Appeals Were Wj.thin the Board's Power and the Housiny Appeals (:omitLee Lacks the Authority to Strikc Conditions That no N o t Rcnder the Project Uneconomic. A. 'The IIArJ erred in strikinq Conditions 43b', 43G, and 43H. B. The HAC erred in stri.kiny Conditions 73, 26, 28 and 29. C. The HAC erred In strikiny Conditions 38, 39 and 40. D. The HAC erred i n striking Condition 4 7. -Market ir.iy . F,. The HAC erred in strikj.ng CondiLion 42-Monitorj ng AgenL. i?. The HAC erred in striking Condit.j.nn 43E. G. The IIAC erred in modifying CondiLions 18, 19 and 20. Ii. The HAC erred iri st.rikiny and/or modiiying Condi tioris 43A, 43B, 430, 43K, 43L. 43N, 43W, arid 59. I. The HAC erred in striking Condjt-ion 5.1. ii PAGE 13 16 25 29 30 36 38 40 41 42 43 44 45
- Page 1: ... COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS S
- 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 and 18: cniirli tioris imposed by ?.he boar
- Page 19 and 20: (3 f c h Lhe HAC: in t.hat one at.
- 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-
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS<br />
APPEALS COURT<br />
NO. 2009-P-1096<br />
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
PAGE<br />
TABLE OF' CONTENTS i<br />
TABJ.E OF AUTHORITIES i.i i<br />
S'I'H'TGMENT OF T$S11E PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1<br />
Did thc Trial <strong>Court</strong> crr i n upholding the Housing<br />
Hppeals Commj.ttE!e whcre DefendariC Attirash<br />
Views, LLC has failed to demurisfrate that the<br />
conditions imposed by the Plaintiff Board ut<br />
Appcals make the project unecunomic?<br />
STATKMENT OF THE CASE 1<br />
STA'J.'EMENT OF FAC'I'S 2<br />
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 4<br />
ARGUMENT 4<br />
STANDARD OF REVIEW<br />
I. The IIAC erred 1.n grxiting At.titash's Motj.on<br />
for Summary Iiecisfon, where Attitash failed to<br />
satisfy its summary decision burden arid the<br />
Trial <strong>Court</strong>. erred in uphol.ding 'Lhe HAC. 5<br />
A. 1kferidar.it Attitash V iews, LLC failed to<br />
carry its burden of proving t.hat. the conditions<br />
imposed by the Hoard rerider the project<br />
II n E! co nomi c" . 8<br />
I3. The HAC has continually held that it. is<br />
without t.he power to di st-iirb conditions that<br />
do not render the pro~~!.ct uneconomic. 11<br />
i
Change language