Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

e
0
rn
a
a
rn
0
Conunittee on Urban Airairs anti , Board . of AppcAls of
Hanovcr .- v. Hous5.nq A~JJC~~S Corn., 363 Mass. 3:39, 342-
342. Emphasis added-.. .I
3.V. 'The Conditions Imposed . - by ttic . .- Ilmesbury Hoard .- of
Appeals Were
~~ . . Within Hoard's Power and the Ilousi- -.
~~~
Appeals Committee
. Lacks .. the Aut.hority
-. to strike -
Condj %ions That Do NUL Render the Prpject .. Uneconomic. -.
Thi. HAC struck twenty-Four (24) conditions
iricluded in thc decision uL the Hoard of Appeals, each
deletion irnpermi-ssibly upheld by t.he 'Trial Court.
NuLably, the Trial Court distinqui shed Lhe cnndi tionr
iriLu two qroups. The first group beinq thosc
conditions identified by MassHousiricj (conditions 23,
26, 28, 29, 38, 39. 43E, 43k', 43G and 43H) (scc RA
Vol.1, 67; the second group being thc remaining
fourteen coriditi ons not idcriL if ied by
M~~sHousjiig(coridit.ir)ns 18, 19, 20, 40, 42, 43, 43A.
438, 43D, 43K, 43L, 43N, 43W and 59).
As djsciissed in Section I.C. above, 760 CMK
31.07(1) (f) provides 211 opportuniCy for the
suhsidi ziriy agency (here, MassHoiisiny) to announce its
rcLusal to fund a project "bccause of a coriditj.on
imposed hy thc Board" subject to the rcyulatj on's
procedures. (AB discussed, these requircments were
not. sati-sficd in the present matter). In other words,
if the HAC is correct t-hat. sonic areas of the
29