Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

. . ..
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