Laserfiche WebLink
16 <br />October 10, 20101 Volume 41 No. 19 - Zoning Bulletin <br />since innovations in the production of energy and other technologies <br />could not have been `established by custom; usual or habitual' at the <br />time of the adoption of the [Ordinance]." Moreover, the court found <br />the Homeowners failed to produce any evidence that residential wind <br />turbines were "uncommon (or not customary) in [the county]." <br />See also: Saurer v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 629 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. Ct. <br />App. 1994). <br />Authority— Zoning Board of Appeals Imposes <br />94 Conditions on Permit Approval for <br />Affordable Housing Development <br />Developer contends many of those conditions are beyond <br />the . board's power <br />Citation: Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Amesbury v. Housing Appeals <br />Committee, 457 Mass. 748, 2010 WL 3436828 (2010) <br />MASSACHUSETTS (09/03/10) —This case addressed the following <br />two issues related to statutory authority (under Mass. Gen. L. c. 40B, <br />§§ 20 -23): (1) What is the scope of a Local zoning board's authority <br />under c. 40B, § 21, to impose conditions on the issuance of a compre- <br />hensive permit to construct low or moderate income housing; and (2) <br />what is the extent of authority vested in the Housing Appeals Com- <br />mittee ( "HAC ") of the Department of Housing and Community Devel- <br />opment ( "DHCD ") under c. 40B, § 23, to review any conditions that <br />have been imposed? <br />The Background/Facts: Attitash Views, LLC ( "Attitash ") sought <br />to construct a 40 -unit condominium development in the city. The de- <br />velopment was to contain 10 affordable units. As such, it was subject <br />to Massachusetts statutory laws governing low and moderate income <br />housing, Mass. Gen. L. c. 40B, §§ 20 -23 (the "Act "). Pursuant to c. <br />40B, § 21, Attitash submitted an application to the city's zoning board <br />of appeals (the "ZBA ") for a comprehensive permit. <br />In September 2006, the ZBA granted the permit application. How- <br />ever, the ZBA also attached 94 conditions to its approval. <br />Attitash appealed to the HAC. It argued that several of the condi- <br />tions imposed by the ZBA were legally beyond the authority of the <br />ZBA to impose. Attitash pointed to c. 40B, § 21, which specified the <br />authority of boards of appeal. Section 21 provided that boards of ap- <br />peal had: <br />4 © 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />