Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases
Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases 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
0 e e e e e 0 a Inat L c r s ; res e rve .Y '' p r ogr armna t. i c " mrl L 't e r s to t h e s;ubsi dizinq aqency; or provides that. where t.he psition of the Board and thc subsjdi.%ing aqericy wiLti respect to such isr;ues cunilii-t, that the pusilion of tile subsidizing aqency "Lrumps" that of Lhc board. 'I'hus, Llic HAC hsd 110 legal hasis Lor striking Conditions 23, 26, 28 and 79. \\ Second, arid cant-rary to the HAC'S riilinq thaL t-herc is 1itt.l.e kjasis Lor the technical changes the Hoard would impose," scc RA Vol .l., 464, cach of t.hese condi L ion s reflecLs t.he City' 5 assessment. of 2iLordabJ.e housing needs, and each is supported by a valid l.ocal concern. See '160 CMR 31 . 06(7). Further, therc is no evi dencc that. t.he condiCion reriders t.he projcct "uneconomic. " , The . HAC: thus lacks . , . . authority __ to 2lLc.r or de1.ete thcse - .. .-- c:ondi t.i.ons. 1 t. is irrelevant that the Fannie Mae/MassHousing Affordable Housinq ResCrict.ion "already has dIi Witire , . . which prohihits rental of units wit.hout the pri.or written consent of the Monitoring Agent." RA Voi.1, 464. The IIAC has no st.at.utory or rcyulatory a~utliority to decide which provision - the Board's UT >\ ' MassHousing's - 1s tlir; more reasonable approach" 0.r Lo strikc Liic Board's condition, number 23. RA Vol.1, 37
- 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 and 36: e 0 rn a a rn 0 Conunittee on Urban
- Page 37 and 38: 0 and Reqiil atory Agreement. tc; b
- Page 39 and 40: document.s may be inconsi .?tent wi
- Page 41: for cost. certification arid sugges
- 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 />
e<br />
e<br />
e<br />
e<br />
e<br />
0<br />
a<br />
Inat L c r s ; res e rve .Y '' p r ogr armna t. i c " mrl L 't e r s to t h e<br />
s;ubsi dizinq aqency; or provides that. where t.he<br />
psition of the Board and thc subsjdi.%ing aqericy wiLti<br />
respect to such isr;ues cunilii-t, that the pusilion of<br />
tile subsidizing aqency "Lrumps" that of Lhc board.<br />
'I'hus, Llic HAC hsd 110 legal hasis Lor striking<br />
Conditions 23, 26, 28 and 79.<br />
\\<br />
Second, arid cant-rary to the HAC'S riilinq thaL<br />
t-herc is 1itt.l.e kjasis Lor the technical changes the<br />
Hoard would impose," scc RA Vol .l., 464, cach of t.hese<br />
condi L ion s reflecLs t.he City' 5 assessment. of<br />
2iLordabJ.e housing needs, and each is supported by a<br />
valid l.ocal concern. See '160 CMR 31 . 06(7). Further,<br />
therc is no evi dencc that. t.he condiCion reriders t.he<br />
projcct "uneconomic. " , The . HAC: thus lacks . , . . authority __ to<br />
2lLc.r or de1.ete thcse<br />
-<br />
.. .-- c:ondi t.i.ons.<br />
1 t. is irrelevant that the Fannie Mae/<strong>Mass</strong>Housing<br />
Affordable Housinq ResCrict.ion "already has dIi Witire<br />
, . . which prohihits rental of units wit.hout<br />
the pri.or written consent of the Monitoring Agent." RA<br />
Voi.1, 464. The IIAC has no st.at.utory or rcyulatory<br />
a~utliority to decide which provision - the Board's UT<br />
>\ '<br />
<strong>Mass</strong>Housing's - 1s tlir; more reasonable approach" 0.r<br />
Lo strikc Liic Board's condition, number 23. RA Vol.1,<br />
37
Change language