Supreme Judicial Court - Mass Cases

the Hoard WAS wilhj.n its aiuthorily iii imposing t.his
coIiditj.on, and the IIAC had no power to strike it and
t.he 7ri a1 Coi.irt erred in upholding t.he f.lAC.
G ? The HAC erred . . . , i, n . "modi fyi nq" CoIidiLions 18,
19, 2[1 .
'The i3o;ird's Decj si.on requires Liial the project
comply wilh the reqiii rements oL Lhe Arnesbury %oni iiq
By,-Law, !3iiM.ivi sion Kulcu and Kequlations, Wetlarids
Bylaw, Conservation Cummission Regulations, and Board
oi Hea1t.h requirements in effect at the Lime of the
Decision. RA Vol.1, 1.9. The HAC noted that it.5 own
\\ requlations arid precedents establish, however, that
the dcveloper need only cornply wit.h Inca1 requircnients
i.n cifect on the date of the application to 'the
Board," aiid ordered the conditions so "modified." HA
VOl.7, 46.7.
Thc HAC was without leyal authori.ty tn require
such "modifications." NoLhinrj in G.1,. c. 40B
requires, or provides authori.ty for Ut-ICD rcquiatioIls
or IIAC decisions to "trump" a condition imposed by a
local board, where there is no evidence that the
cor.iditj.on renders the prujcct "uneconornj.~" or that the
condition i.s not "corisisLcrik wit.h 1 oca1 needs ." To
the ext.ent the HAC has held otherwise, such holdiriys
43