Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

e
E.
The HAC erred in r,tr-iki.ng Conditions
26(par.t.ial), 28, . .- '.?q
-"
. . . ... - 23,
'Identiiied hy MassHnusiriy", Conditions 23, 26,
?R, aind 29 pertdin t.o thc ownership nature of the
projecC, the riurrtber of affordable units and means nf
calcuiat.inq income eliyibil j t y, and the manner of
ensurinq I m i L affnrdability in perpet-uity through 211
affordiablc housiny restr.ictio1.i. RA Vol.1, 1.9-20. The
cievel.opcr complained t-hat these conditj.ons conflict.
wit.h MassHousing's Form 8-13.4, xid as.?ertcd that
because such conditions a.re "not accepLable to
Massllousing, " they must be removed nr modified to
conform to Form 0-114. HA Vo1.3, 8'/. The developer
further asserted L h t thesc conditions are beyond t.he
Roard's authority t.o impose. KA Vo1.3., 88. The HAC
struck each of the conditions, or the portiuii of the
EondiLion to whi.ch Lhe developer objected. At;
yrounds, the HAC stated that. the issues involved were
"proqramaLic mattcr[s]" thaC "should be left to .Lhe
discret-ion of MdssHousing." KA Vol.1, 464.
,rhis was lerjal error. First, a5 di.scusscd above,
nothing in G.!,. c. 408 prohibits thc Board from
imposing cnndikions perLaining to "proqrairunatic"
l9 Fa VOl.1, 67