Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

I
"In other words, the commitLee may revicw an
appr-oval wiih conditions only ii t.hnse condiCions
render thc projec:C uneconomic. Consistent with thj s
statutory rcyuiremcnt, the ciepdrLment's rcgulaLions
provide Chat the dcvcloper musL demonstrale t.hat. the
conditioris are uncconornic before thc conmi ttee
considers whether they are "consisterit with local
needs, G.1.. c. 40B, 5 23. 760 Code Mass. Keqs. 5
31. 06 (3) (2001) . DemonsLrating thiiC the cnnditions
rcnder a project uneconomic i s, Lherefoi-e, a necessary
elcinent oi the developer's prima facie cas(:
relief ." Woburn
. . . - at 590-593. (emphasis in oriyirial) .
for-
Where no evidence was presented t h L the project
is rendered "uneconomic" by any of t.he condiLions
imposed by the Board, .Lhe HAC: was wjt-hnut pclwer or
reason t o strike such conditions, and the &vel-oper't;
inot.ion for summary decisi nn should have been denied
and the Trial Court should have overturncd the
decision of Chc HAC. 10
the Camnittee is whether the decision of t.he Hoard it;
consistent with local. necds. r)iirsu~~~lt t.o the
Cormittee's procedures, however, Lhere j s a shilting
burden of proof. 'The Appell.ant musL first prove Lliat
the conditions in 2qgregat.e make constructiori of t.he
housiny uneconomic. ... Specifically, the dcveloper must
provc that ""the conditions imposed . . . make i.t.
impossible to proceed . . . arid still realize a
reasonah1.e return [or profit.] as defiricd by t.he
appl icable subsidiziny agency . . . .".
The IIAC nolcs in its decj.sion thaL "just ;?s thc
developer has introduced no evidence that the
conditions affect thc ecrinomics of t.he development,
the Board has presented no local hedth, safety, or
environmental concerns to support. the condit.ions. " HA
Vol. 1, 461. This observation is mi slcadiing and wrnny,
where the Board has - no burden of proof un1.ess and
until the developer satisfies ~ it.s burden of proving