Zoning Board of Appeals v. Housing Appeals Committee

7 Citing cases

  1. Reynolds v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Stow

    88 Mass. App. Ct. 339 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Thus, the question is whether, in these circumstances, presuming the system meets other applicable State standards, it was reasonable for the board to waive the local, more restrictive, provisions of the bylaw. The judge relied on Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Holliston v. Housing Appeals Comm., 80 Mass.App.Ct. 406, 416 & n. 9, 953 N.E.2d 721 (2011) (Holliston ), for the proposition that because the waste disposal system will comply with DEP regulations, it was lawful to issue the comprehensive permit. It is true that our appellate courts have upheld permits issued where wastewater disposal or stormwater discharge plans were not finalized but approval was conditioned on meeting State requirements.

  2. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Woburn v. Hous. Appeals Comm.

    92 Mass. App. Ct. 1115 (Mass. App. Ct. 2017)

    Review of a local board's decision by HAC "is limited to the issue whether ‘the decision of the board of appeals was reasonable and consistent with local needs.’ " Eisai, 89 Mass. App. Ct. at 609, quoting from Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Holliston v. Housing Appeals Comm., 80 Mass. App. Ct. 406, 414 (2011). Appeal of the HAC's decision is in accordance with G. L. c. 30A, and the "reviewing judge considers whether the HAC's decision was arbitrary, capricious, lacking substantial evidence, or otherwise contrary to the law, and whether the substantial rights of any party have been prejudiced."

  3. Eisai, Inc. v. Hous. Appeals Comm.

    89 Mass. App. Ct. 604 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016)   Cited 5 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Thus, the board concluded that “[t]he stated purpose of the Industrial ‘D’ zoning district is inexorably inconsistent with residential uses.” See Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Holliston v. Housing Appeals Comm., 80 Mass.App.Ct. 406, 414, 953 N.E.2d 721 (2011), and discussion infra. The developer appealed to the HAC under G.L. c. 40B, § 22.

  4. Fish v. Accidental Auto Body, Inc.

    95 Mass. App. Ct. 355 (Mass. App. Ct. 2019)   Cited 14 times

    We recognize that at least in the realm of comprehensive permits issued pursuant to the Comprehensive Permit Act, G. L. c. 40B, §§ 20 - 23, we have suggested that it would be unreasonable to deny a plan that could be approved conditioned upon submission, for example, of a waste disposal system plan that would comply with State standards. See, e.g., Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Holliston v. Housing Appeals Comm., 80 Mass. App. Ct. 406, 416-418 & n.9, 953 N.E.2d 721 (2011). Even in c. 40B appeals, however, "[c]ompliance with State standards ... is not necessarily the end of the inquiry."

  5. Zoning Board of Appeals of Holliston v. Housing Appeals Committee

    460 Mass. 1116 (Mass. 2011)

    November 3, 2011. Reported below: 80 Mass. App. Ct. 406 (2011). Orders.

  6. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Norwell v. Hous. Appeals Comm. of Mass. Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Dev.

    99 Mass. App. Ct. 1123 (Mass. App. Ct. 2021)

    The committee assesses credibility of witnesses, and "we must indulge all rational presumptions in favor of the validity of the [committee]'s determinations, including its choice between two fairly conflicting views, giving due weight to its experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge." Id. at 611, quoting Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Holliston v. Housing Appeals Comm., 80 Mass. App. Ct. 406, 415 (2011). Here, the sole issue raised before us is whether the committee erred in concluding that White Barn met its burden of demonstrating that the proposed project, as approved, would be uneconomic.

  7. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Hanover v. Hous. Appeals Comm.

    90 Mass. App. Ct. 111 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016)   3 Legal Analyses

    The act “is designed to facilitate the development of low and moderate income housing in communities throughout the Commonwealth.” Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Holliston v. Housing Appeals Comm., 80 Mass.App.Ct. 406, 413, 953 N.E.2d 721 (2011). “The procedural path and applicable standards of review have been ‘thoroughly canvassed in earlier opinions.’ ”