Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

e
0
0
a
a
e
0
and has infrinqed upon the jurj sdicLion and authorit-y
of the T'rojecl Administrator, MnssHousjnq." RA Vol. I,
463-464, cifririy DHCD'z "Interested Person's Memorandum
oi TIaw." Yct contrary tn l)IlCD's asscrLions and Ltic
HAC'S ayrccrnent, thcre is no statwtory, regulatory, or
judicial authoriiy supporCirig a claim that MassHousinq
has excIusivc authorily with respect Lo project
muriitori.ny, cost. cerCification, and other 40B project
components. Similarly, Chere it; no statutory,
requlalory or judicia. aulhorj ty iimitjnq the right nf
znniriy boards to addrcss sucti project components.
Pinally, thcre i.s no statutory authority for the
proposi.tion that where the positian of the zoninq
board of appeals and Lhe subuidizing aycncy with
respecl: t o such issiies conflict, that the positj.on oF
the subsidiziny agency "trump" those of the board.
Section 21 oF G.L. c.40B,. empuwcring hoards of
appeals to "issue a comprehensive permit. or approval, "
docs not. excclpt regulatory issues from the Board's
consi deraLion, ?.et alone rescrve regulatory issues for
the aycncy' s corisideratiori. Tn fact, G.L,. c. 40B, s.
22 quite explicitly places - no limitalions on Lhc scope
of j ssiies that the Hoard may addr-css t.hrnuyh
appropriate conditions:
22