Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
concurrm~cc in Woburn. "Our decision lhus allows A local l:~oi3rd unfetCcrcd discreti-on to st.yrnie thc corist..ruct.ion of an aifordable housiny project without actual 1 y denyinq i C or renderj ng it uneconomic, and j.iis11.lates such ii board's deci.siori from review by the HAC. " Wobluiri, . . . . - . . 451 Mass. at 597. NotwiLhstandi nq Lke possibiliLy that a 1 oca1 board oL appeals could at.tempt, to abuse t.17j.s provision in Che st.at.nte--nuC at al.1 relevant in t.he case at bar Che st-afute is cl-ear, " [A] bsent a showiriy that conditions placed on a i approval rcndcr the project uneconomic, the cumnittee is not cinpowered t.o review I 7. them under t.he rieni~l standard." -. Id. at. 594. 'The Trial Court's coricern was that 1imiLing the aut-hnrity of the HAC Lo only that provided by G.L. c. 40B, 3.22 (regarding the suhjec.Ling the project. to the uneconomic Lcst) could ''-- uu unnecessarily complicate the admj.ni stratiori of a 1 ow- and modcralc- income development as to make it. unworkdblc". RA vo1.2 67. The Trial Uourt.'s desire t u imbue power.? upon the Committ.ee that do not exist is beyond t.he 'l'rial CourL's authority. "Wc w ill not add wnr~ls to a The "denial standard" piirsuanl to G .L. c..1IJEi, .?.%O- 23 i:; the same whether t.he review is of a project deemed uneconomjc or a project denied hy the hoard oi appeals. Woburn, 451 Mass. at 594. 7. 6
. . .. specific statute that. the Lagfslat.ure did not p ~ ~ t t-here, ei.ther by i nadvcrtent Lomissiuri iir by desI.qn. " - Taylor v. Hoard of Appeals of Lcxington, . .. . - 4.51 Mass. 270, 2'/Y (2008) citing ~. Sinunons v. Clerk-MagisLraLe -. .. . of the f3ostoI'i Div. .- of the Hour;. -Court. bept., 448 Mass. 57, 64 (2006). Notwi thstandiny the Tri a1 CourL' ,s cioncern, the lirnj.ts of the Housing Appeals Committee's authority it; clearly framed by the statut-e and - Wohrn. . . 13 . . . I , d. 11 e Housing Appeals ComiLtee is an ;iycncy wit.h limited authorit.y and thaC authority docs not j.ncliide strikiny those conditions imposed by a board of appeals pursuant to G.L. ~.40B, s.20-23 unless the cor.iditions l3 "The position of the Hoiisiny Appea1.s Commi ttee seems, at mosL, to be t.hat such a power would bo helpful in eficctuatinq the lcyislat.j.ve purpose underlying ss 20-73. That is qu1t.e possibly true, but it is not a basis fur Lhis court to irivcst the Housj.ng Appeals Committee with powers beyond those yi'ven it by the Legj.sl.ature. " Board of Appeals of North -. Andover v. , .,. Housinq Appeals -. Committee, .. 4 Mass.App.Ct. 676, 680 (19.76) (Goodman, ,I. and Brown, J. djssenti.ng) (Court concluded that the HAC lacked the power to impose speciiic condition on ordcr Lo board of appeals). Sce also, El.ectronics Corp. of America v. CoIrunissiuncr . . . .- of Revenue, 407 Mass. 672 (1988), 676-6'/'/, yuotiriy Bureau of 01d Age Assistance of Natick v. Commissioner or . ., .. -. ... .~ - Pub. Welfare, 326 Mass. 121, 124 (1950). "[Aln admini.stra'Live board nr officer has no authority to promwlgate rules arld regulations which are in mnfl ict. with the stdLutes or exceed the authority conferred hy the statutes by whjch such board nr office was crealed. '' 21
- 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 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: 111. The Trial CourL ... jmproperly
- 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
concurrm~cc in Woburn.<br />
"Our decision lhus allows A local l:~oi3rd<br />
unfetCcrcd discreti-on to st.yrnie thc corist..ruct.ion of an<br />
aifordable housiny project without actual 1 y denyinq i C<br />
or renderj ng it uneconomic, and j.iis11.lates such ii<br />
board's deci.siori from review by the HAC. " Wobluiri, . . . . - . . 451<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>. at 597.<br />
NotwiLhstandi nq Lke possibiliLy that a 1 oca1<br />
board oL appeals could at.tempt, to abuse t.17j.s provision<br />
in Che st.at.nte--nuC at al.1 relevant in t.he case at bar<br />
Che st-afute is cl-ear, " [A] bsent a showiriy that<br />
conditions placed on a i approval rcndcr the project<br />
uneconomic, the cumnittee is not cinpowered t.o review<br />
I 7.<br />
them under t.he rieni~l standard." -. Id. at. 594.<br />
'The Trial <strong>Court</strong>'s coricern was that 1imiLing the<br />
aut-hnrity of the HAC Lo only that provided by G.L.<br />
c. 40B, 3.22 (regarding the suhjec.Ling the project. to<br />
the uneconomic Lcst) could ''-- uu unnecessarily<br />
complicate the admj.ni stratiori of a 1 ow- and modcralc-<br />
income development as to make it. unworkdblc". RA<br />
vo1.2 67.<br />
The Trial Uourt.'s desire t u imbue power.? upon the<br />
Committ.ee that do not exist is beyond t.he 'l'rial<br />
CourL's authority. "Wc w ill not add wnr~ls to a<br />
The "denial standard" piirsuanl to G .L. c..1IJEi, .?.%O-<br />
23 i:; the same whether t.he review is of a project<br />
deemed uneconomjc or a project denied hy the hoard oi<br />
appeals. Woburn, 451 <strong>Mass</strong>. at 594.<br />
7. 6
Change language