Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
comprehensive periniL law are " reserved for :;tat.e qovcrrirrierit", it would be because thc subsidizing aycricy staCcd so pursuant. t.o its claim oi auChority ur-idcr '160 CMH 31..07 [I) (f) . Accordingly, even ii . . the provisions of 760 C:MK 31.0'/ (1) (f) had been compl.Ied wit.h-which they were not-14 of the 74 conditions st-ruck by Lhc HAC would nevertheless remsliri in Lact. 'i'he Tridi Court ac!knowledged this aryuinenL In dj.sti ngui.slhiiiq . thcsc condit.ions, the 'Tri a]. Court stat.ed that, if "...I a111 wrong on t.he 1.aw ...", particular on the question of whether the HAC indeed has this inherent power to determine under Chc statute arid all the r:eqs, t.o deterrniric whcthcr- a local board has acted wit.hin its authority in a general way, i.n the cvent I am wrong, t-hen I would rule as follows. What should be done in my view is to affj.rm the dccisinn of t.he HAC with rcspect to the ten condit-ions idcntifj ed in the housing MHFA 1 Fitter ... However, with respect to the othcr 14 conditjons found by the IIAC to be invaljd because beyond t.he purview ur outside thc rea1.m of powor of the local %HA, if I am wrony in par'L one of my ruling, then what must happen is a remand to the HAC or1 Chose 14 condlti.ons. AL Chat rernand, the burden would be jnitially upon the developer to dernonsLrate t.hat. ei.ther one-by-one or in some combinations, or in combination of all 14, and t.hat it.self I recognize is an import.ant leqal iss~~e, that t.hese conditions arc uneconoml c. " KA Vol. 2 , 171. A. The HAC erred in strikiriy Conditions 43F, 43G, 4% Identi f i ed by MassHou3illg1', Conditions 43E', 431:, ar.id 43H pertain to a Deed Rider, Monitoriny Aqreemeril, l6 RA Vol.1, 67 30
0 and Reqiil atory Agreement. tc; be execuLc?i:i by the devFlopcr, UHC13, and t.he Hoard, requiri nq that thc dnr.urriEriCs be "similar in form" to those prep;ired by MassHuusing, hilt "revised in cant-ent as required for a coiisivLcncy wi.th [the Hoard's Decision] ." RA Vol.1, 24. 'The HAC st.ruck conditions 43F, 43G, and 43H, replaciriy t.hem wiL1-1 a coridition requirinij the moriitorj nq services aqreairient, requlatory agreement, ar-id deed ridcrs t.o he "in form and conLent as approved by MassIioL1::iJlg." HA Vol.1, 464. As grounds, the. HAC cited i.ts own decisions for the proposit.ion that whilc e t.he Board "has primary responsibility for thc local 0 0 hcalth, safety, and environmental concerns t.hat. are 'aL t.he he~irt of any cornprehensivc permit revi.ew, other isvucs 'such 2s Lhe fi nariciriy arrangements, the profit projections, the developer's qiialifications, and marketabiliLy' are solcly wj.thi.n the pro.vince of the subsidizing aqency." RA Vol. 1, 463, quoti.ng CMA, Inc. v. Westborouyk, No. 8Y-25, slip op. at 6-7. As additional aiithoriCy, the HAC cites a rrieriuraridtirn by thc former direcLor of DHCI), Jane Wallis Gumhle dated Aplri.1 27, 200G, which stated in part: " [zloriing board:; of appeal may not iinder any 31
- 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 and 32: 111. The Trial CourL ... jmproperly
- Page 33 and 34: . . .. specific statute that. the L
- Page 35: e 0 rn a a rn 0 Conunittee on Urban
- 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
0<br />
and Reqiil atory Agreement. tc; be execuLc?i:i by the<br />
devFlopcr, UHC13, and t.he Hoard, requiri nq that thc<br />
dnr.urriEriCs be "similar in form" to those prep;ired by<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>Huusing, hilt "revised in cant-ent as required for<br />
a coiisivLcncy wi.th [the Hoard's Decision] ." RA Vol.1,<br />
24.<br />
'The HAC st.ruck conditions 43F, 43G, and 43H,<br />
replaciriy t.hem wiL1-1 a coridition requirinij the<br />
moriitorj nq services aqreairient, requlatory agreement,<br />
ar-id deed ridcrs t.o he "in form and conLent as approved<br />
by <strong>Mass</strong>IioL1::iJlg." HA Vol.1, 464. As grounds, the. HAC<br />
cited i.ts own decisions for the proposit.ion that whilc<br />
e t.he Board "has primary responsibility for thc local<br />
0<br />
0<br />
hcalth, safety, and environmental concerns t.hat. are<br />
'aL t.he he~irt of any cornprehensivc permit revi.ew,<br />
other isvucs 'such 2s Lhe fi nariciriy arrangements, the<br />
profit projections, the developer's qiialifications,<br />
and marketabiliLy' are solcly wj.thi.n the pro.vince of<br />
the subsidizing aqency." RA Vol. 1, 463, quoti.ng CMA,<br />
Inc. v. Westborouyk, No. 8Y-25, slip op. at 6-7.<br />
As additional aiithoriCy, the HAC cites a<br />
rrieriuraridtirn by thc former direcLor of DHCI), Jane Wallis<br />
Gumhle dated Aplri.1 27, 200G, which stated in part:<br />
" [zloriing board:; of appeal may not iinder any<br />
31
Change language