Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

14
render the project uncconomic.
not
"Although we havc noted t.liat Che ilcL'3 text 'is
without its antbiguities' , thc sLarridard3 t.o be
appl.ied by the cormittee in reviewinq board deci si.ons
are clear from the express I.anguage of the act. The
committee is einpowered to 'order [t.he.] hoard to modiLy
or remove... [a] conditjon or requirement" only when thc
board' s decision 'makes Chu build< nq or opcration of
such housinq uneconomic and is not consistent wit.h
local needs". Wohurn, 451 Mass. at 593, cit.inq to
- Board of Appeals of Hanover v. H- H eals
-. --
Committee,
- 363 Mass. 339, 354 (1973) (emphasis added by
the Court) .
'The limitations on the HAC's authority and the
powers lefk with local boards of appeals, clear i n the
r;tatute15, made even clearer hy the Court jn Wnhurn,
has been understood since the statut.e's adoption in
"'I'he accompanying bill, whi.1 e nut permitting cities
or towns to unreasonably obs%ruct ihe construction of
a limited amount of adequate low cost housi.ny,
encourages such conununities .~ . to csLablish condl ti.ons or1
such housing wIiich . . -. wi 11 be .. consistent with local . .-needs.
This mcasure provides the 1 east imtcrference
with the power of a community to plan. for i C s own
future iri accomodati.ny Lhc housi.ng c:risis which we
face. I' (Emphasis added) Zoning Bd. Orpeals . . . .- of
Weller;lcy_ , .
v. Ardemore .. .. Apartment-s, Ltd. ParLnershQ, . .-
436 Mass. 011, 823 (2001) citiny to the Housinq
la ",., we determi.ne, using conveintional tools oi
stdtutory interpretation, whether the Leyislature has
spoken wjth certainty on t.he topic in yuestjon, and if
we conclude that the statute is uiian\biguous, we give
effect to the Lcgislature's intent." Goldbery v.
Board of Ilealth of .- Granhy, 444 Mass. 627, 632-633
(200.5) , ciLiriy Smith v. Co~rmissioner ~- of Transitional
Assistance, 431-Mass. 638, 646 (2000).
l5 G.L. c.40B, s.70-23.
2R