Laserfiche WebLink
18 <br />October 10, 20101 Volume 4 1 No. 19 Zoning Bulletin <br />In so holding, the court first analyzed § 21. The court found that <br />§ 21 gave the ZBA the power, when acting on an application for a <br />comprehensive permit under the Act, the powers collectively possessed <br />by other local boards. The court said that because the ZBA's author- <br />ity was tied to the authority of other local boards, the ZBA could only <br />impose conditions (on a comprehensive permit) that were within the <br />"types of concerns and powers of th[ose] boards." Those concerns and <br />powers were limited to local concerns such as: "building construction, <br />zoning and subdivision control, land use planning, as well as health <br />and safety of local residents." Those powers did not, as the ZBA had <br />contended, encompass all issues surrounding low- or moderate - income <br />housing. Thus, the court concluded, any ZBA imposed conditions <br />that went beyond Local concerns and powers —such as "project fund- <br />ing, regulatory documents, financial documents, and the timing of sale <br />of affordable units" —were beyond the ZBA's authority and had to be <br />struck from the permit issued to Attitash. <br />In determining that the HAC had the authority to decide whether a <br />ZBA condition was permissible as within the authority of the ZBA, the <br />court said that to hold otherwise would "frustrate the purposes of the <br />act." A developer would then have to file separate appeals: one with <br />the HAC to challenge conditions that would render a project "uneco- <br />nomic"; and another in court to challenge conditions that went beyond <br />the board's authority. "Such inefficiency," said the court, was "nor <br />consistent with the purpose of the statute ...." <br />See also: Dennis Housing Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Dennis, <br />439 Mass. 71, 785 N.E.2d 682 (2003). <br />• <br />See also: Standerwick v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Andover, 447 Mass. <br />20, 849 N.E.2d 197 (2006). <br />Case Note: Although affirming the judgment of the superior court, <br />the Supreme Judicial Court remanded the matter back to the low- <br />er court with the direction to remand it to the HAC for modifica- <br />tion—to "reflect precisely which of the conditions challenged by <br />Attitash have been struck, which have been modified, and which <br />have been retained." <br />6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />