Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

for cost. certification arid suggest.j ng that. such
nicthodoloqy "could rcuulL in the transfer oL profits
from a muinicipality's affnrdahlc LrusL fund to a
devcloper' s pcrsonal. bank account .") . In l j qht. of the
documented rcports by the. Cutnmonweal th's .Inspector
General rcyarding the 1 ack oL the requi si te oversiyhL
OF project financiriy arid developer proLiLccriny, the
Board's election oi it.s own regulaLory documents is
who 1 1 y j LIS L i f i ed .
In sum, where there is no evidence thaL Lhe
conditions perta i.ning to regu1,atory docuiocrits render
the project "unecoriorriic"; and where each condition
rcrlects the City's knowledge oi its affordabl e
housing needs, and is suppurled by a valid local
concern," khc HAC I.acked authority to alt-er or delc.Cc
the condition. Further, where nothinq in G.L c. 40R
or applicable requlations prohi bi.ts the Board from
imposj ng conditions wit-h respect to regulatory
documents (such as a deed rider, monitorinq service::
zyreement, or regulatory agreement), Lhu HAC was
wiLhout. power to delete any siich condiLiori and t.he
Trial Court erred in uphoI.dj.iig the IIAC.
See 760 I:MR 31.06('/)