Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

document.s may be inconsi .?tent with those oi
NasslIousinq; Massllousiny policy i.s not. law. To the
extent that. any HAC decision has purport-ed to
11
recogni ze" the auLhoriLy of a .:;ubsi di zing aqency 0 ~ ~ 1 7 -
any municipal board, such decision is iilt-ra vires and
exceeds the sLatutory aut.hnrity of the HAC. see
17
Woburn, 451 Mass. 501 (2008).
." ~.
The Board's concerns pertainirig 'Io reyulatory
documents, and Lo MassHousj.ng' s capaci t.y and
willingncss Lo provide requl atory oversiqht of this
project, are well-founded. As tiic IrispccLor Gcncral
of the Commonwealth has amply docurricriLcd, past
performance in monitoriny the 1imit.ed dividend
"As additional leqal authority ior i C s posiLiori, Llic
~
HAC citev Hanover v. Ilousinq Appcals
- .. . . Conunittee,
_. 363
Mass. 339, 379 (1973). KA Vol.1, 4G3. Yet the
reliance on Hanover is misplaced ;md Chc quolaLiori is
misleading. 'The quoted lariyuagc stands for nothing
more than what it says: the standards for
qualifj cation as a IiIniLcd dividend orqanizatj.on are
left to state and federal fundjnq ,aqenci.es. The very
scritericc following the one quoted by thp IIAC reaffirms
the Board's authori.ty to require rcyulatory currip1i;irice
and comp1.etel.y undermines thc HAC'S positiuri. The SJC
st.ated t.hat j.ts "interprcLation [with rcs:pec!t. t.o
standards for 1 imi.ted dividend organizations] does not
prevent the hoard or committee frorii rcquiri.ng full
disclosure of the organization's lcgal stat.i.is and
further rcyuiriny compliance wit.h pert< nent st.atutory
and regulatory requirements." Board of Appeals of
Hanover v. ... Housing Appeals Committee, 36.3 Mass. at
, ~.. .,.. ,, ,.. -
3.19. Thc HAC'S attempt. to present its ow11 opinion as
Chat of t.he SJC
fail.
thirt-y-five years i~yo niusll obviously
33