Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
wilrhin the regulations-by stating, “What could be more economi-c t.han not being able to ycL financing from Mass Hoi.isiiny to construct such a project”. KA Vo1.2, 1.18, KespccLLully, the requlaCion overl.ooked hy the Hoi.isi nq Appe;ils Commi t.t.ee and Lhe Tria 1 I:niirt required t.he cunipletion of a siriiple, non-burdensome procedure, Once st-ated by thc 3ubsi.d.i zi.nq aycricy that j.t wi.ll. not fund the project due to certain conditions, Lhe r-egulation, for qood reason, requi res the developer to request a waiver from ihc subsidizing aycricy. Only if that waiver is denied is tiicre a rehuttable pr-esumpt.i on thal the condition (the “unwaived” condition) makes the projccL uneconomjc. See .76O CMR 31.0-I (1) (f) . Given the presumptive auLIiority of the subsidizing agency’s determination, it is hard1.y t.oo much to ask that Lhe developer arid the agency comply wit.h the unambiyuous requiremunL of the requlation. 11. The . HAC jmproperiy struck conditions imposed Ir by the Boalld: - _- . . . lawfully There is 110 pirovjsion in G.L. c. 40.B for a devel oper to challenge the “lcyality” of any condition imposed by the board in issuing a coniprehensive permit. The HAC: is neither aiuthurizcd nor tasked under G.1,. c. 4OB with determining the ”1egali.ty” of 16
iiny such condiLion. The HAC is a hearing tribunal gjveri IirniLed jurisdiction to decide Lhe iss11e of “whcLhcr, in t.he case of a dcnial. of LLI comprehensivc perrriiL] an applicat.jon . . . the decision of the board was rcasonable and consisLcnt. wi.th local. needs and, in thc case of ;in approval . . . with conditions and requi remariCs imposed, whet-her such conditions and requireIricnts make the constructj on or operat-i on of such housing uneconomic and wl2et.he.r they are consj.st.ent with local needs.” G.L. c. dOB, s. 22. To the extent the I-1AC has asscrted powers heyond such hearirlg on these narrow issues, it has acted ult.ra vircs and in excess oi Its authoriLy and Che Trial Court erred in upholding the HAC. ‘The Supreme Judicial Court’s riiliny in Woburri, 451 Mass. 581 (2008) j.s precisely on point and was discussed j.n detail driririy oral. argument. before Lhe Trial. Court. Iri Wohurn, the HAC ”evaluated whether each condilion limposed by the board oi appeals] was supported by a local concern that o1.1tweighs the regional need for low and modcrate jncomo housing” wit.hout first. subjecting the conditions to t.he economic t.est. required hy G.L. c.4OB, 5.23. ‘Id. at - 1 7
- 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 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: showing that 1) iC reqi.iested a wa
- 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
wilrhin the regulations-by stating, “What could be more<br />
economi-c t.han not being able to ycL financing from<br />
<strong>Mass</strong> Hoi.isiiny to construct such a project”. KA Vo1.2,<br />
1.18, KespccLLully, the requlaCion overl.ooked hy the<br />
Hoi.isi nq Appe;ils Commi t.t.ee and Lhe Tria 1 I:niirt required<br />
t.he cunipletion of a siriiple, non-burdensome procedure,<br />
Once st-ated by thc 3ubsi.d.i zi.nq aycricy that j.t wi.ll. not<br />
fund the project due to certain conditions, Lhe<br />
r-egulation, for qood reason, requi res the developer to<br />
request a waiver from ihc subsidizing aycricy. Only if<br />
that waiver is denied is tiicre a rehuttable<br />
pr-esumpt.i on thal the condition (the “unwaived”<br />
condition) makes the projccL uneconomjc. See .76O CMR<br />
31.0-I (1) (f) . Given the presumptive auLIiority of the<br />
subsidizing agency’s determination, it is hard1.y t.oo<br />
much to ask that Lhe developer arid the agency comply<br />
wit.h the unambiyuous requiremunL of the requlation.<br />
11. The . HAC jmproperiy struck conditions<br />
imposed Ir by the Boalld:<br />
-<br />
_- . . . lawfully<br />
There is 110 pirovjsion in G.L. c. 40.B for a<br />
devel oper to challenge the “lcyality” of any condition<br />
imposed by the board in issuing a coniprehensive<br />
permit. The HAC: is neither aiuthurizcd nor tasked<br />
under G.1,. c. 4OB with determining the ”1egali.ty” of<br />
16
Change language