Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

0
0
0
a
0
a
comprehensive pcrmit. act, G.L. c.40l3, 3s. 20-73
precludes such aut.hority. " - I:d. at 582.
Following woburri, it cannot be disputed LhaL
where the hoard of appeals approves a projcct wit.h
conditions, t.he IIAC musL engaqe in the statuCe's t.wo-
part tesL. k'irut, the HAC must determine Chat the
condiLions imposed rcricicr t.hc proj ect uneconomic.
Yjecond, and only if Che fi.rst test concludes that Lhe
project will bc unecunornic as d I-esiilt of t.he
condi t-ioris jnposed, the board must demot1sLrat.e that
the conditj oris imposed are cons< sterit with local
needs. - Only if . the HAC properly concludes that Lhe
conditions imposed will rendcr the project tinecotiomic-
LI burden imposed UII t.he dcveloper, not t.he board-will
the burden shi.ft Lo t.he sccond tesL.'
The HAC is aware of the clcar requirement-s of Che
statut.?: "Once the appel larit has demonst.rated ti1a.L
conditions in the Roard's decj.si.on woul.d, in thc
agqreyate, rendcr t.hp project. iineconomi c, the burden
then shifts Lo the Uo;lrd to prove first, Ihat. there is
a valid heiilLh, safety, environmental, dcsign, open
space or oLher local concern which supports each of
the contested conditions irriposed, arid then, t.hat such
concerti outweiqlis the regional need Lor ].ow and
moderdte income housi.nq. " Faraqnn Res1dent.j a1
Properties, LLC, v. Hrookline 7,oniriq Boai-d of AppeaJ s,
(Housinq Appeal:: Coiiini.), No. 04-16, March 26, 2007.
See also Hay Wa.tch Real.ty Trust. v. Marion Hoard of
Appeals, (llousirig Appeals Cornm.), No. 07-28, December
5, 2005, "When the Hoard has qrarited a comprckensive
permit wiLh conditions, t.he u1Limat.e yucsLion beforc
19