Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 8 i ~ The Background/Facts: Canton Propeity Holding, LLC ("CPH") sought to construct 227 units of housing in the town. Most of the pro- - posed units would be rental units. All of the units would qualify for inclusion in the town's inventory of law and moderate income housing. In furtherance of this proposed construction, CPH applied to the town for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws c. 40 B, §§ 20-23 (the "Act"). The Act governs regional plan- ning of low and moderate income housing in Massachusetts. Among other things, it requires towns in Massachusetts to allocate a minimum 10 percent of their housing,stock to affordable housing. At the time of CPH's application, the town was below the ten percent minimum. Ultimately, the town's zoning board of appeals (the "Board") denied the comprehensive permit application. The denial was based on the Board's conclusion that CPH's proposed development would result in a greater traffic accident rate at an intersection two miles west of the proposed development. The Board concluded that CPH's proposed de- velopment would have a negative impact on safety. CPH appealed to the state's Housing Appeals Committee ("HAC") of the Department of Housing and Community Development. Because the town was below the 10% minimum at the time of CPH's applica- tion, HAC had authority to consider CPH's appeal. j. HAC determined that the impact of CPH's proposed development "did not constitute a local safety concern outweighing the need for af- fordable housing." HAC found that increases in traffic that would be caused by CPH's proposed development would be an inconvenience, "not a local safety issue or other local concern that outweighs the need for affordable housing." The Board appealed. The Superior Court upheld HAC's decision vacating the Board's de- vial of the permit. The court ordered the Board to issue the permit. The Boazd again appealed. While its appeal to HAC had been pend- ing, the Board had. approved construction of additional affordable units in the town, thus increasing the town's affordable housing stock to more than 12%. Now, the Board argued that "requiring the town to allocate [more than 12 percent] of its housing stock to affordable housing, as compared to the ten percent minimum required by G.L. c. 40B, § 20, [was] an `unreasonable overage."' It also argued that HAC's decision that traffic impacts did not warrant denial of the permit was not supported by evidence. The Court's Deasion: Judgment of the Superior Court affirmed. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts first held that the Board's "un- I j reasonable overage" argument was "not supported by the Act or by - " case authority." Attainment of the 10% minimum by the statutorily prescribed time would only mean that HAC would not have jurisdic- tion to hear an appeal from a local board's denial of a comprehensive © 2010 Thomson Reuters - ., 63