Zoning Bd. App. Canton v. Housing App. Com

6 Citing cases

  1. Pokwa v. Dep't of Hous. & Cmty. Dev.

    96 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (Mass. App. Ct. 2020)

    We draw our summary of the facts from the administrative record, deferring to the department's findings and reserving certain facts for later discussion. See McGovern v. State Ethics Comm'n, 96 Mass. App. Ct. 221, 222 (2019) ; Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Canton v. Housing Appeals Comm., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 467, 473 (2010). Pokwa's participation in the department's EA program began in July 2015.

  2. Zoning Board of Appeals v. Housing Appeals Committee

    80 Mass. App. Ct. 406 (Mass. App. Ct. 2011)   Cited 7 times
    In Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Holliston v. Housing Appeals Comm., 80 Mass. App. Ct. 406 (2011), we held that even where plans were incomplete, a developer that proposed to modify its plans to comply with State and Federal statutes or regulations had established a prima facie case.Id. at 416.

    There exists a rebuttable presumption that the regional affordable housing need outweighs local concerns where the town's stock of low and moderate income housing is less than ten percent. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Canton v. Housing Appeals Comm., 76 Mass.App.Ct. 467, 469–470, 923 N.E.2d 114 (2010). Here, it is undisputed that the town's stock of low or moderate income housing is less than ten percent.

  3. Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.

    10-P-2013 (Mass. Mar. 9, 2012)

    Doe asserts insufficiency of the evidence, claiming that the hearing examiner's decision is 'contrary to common sense' and 'lacks a basis of reasonable expectations.' Doe, 'as the appealing party, has the 'heavy' burden of showing that the agency decision . . . is not supported by substantial evidence.' Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Canton v. Housing Appeals Comm., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 467, 472 (2010), quoting from DSCI Corp. v. Department of Telecomm. & Energy, 449 Mass. 597, 603 (2007). 'Substantial evidence is 'such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10216 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 779, 787 (2006), quoting from G. L. c. 30A, § 1(6). 'This standard is highly deferential to an agency . . . .' Ten Local Citizen Group v. New England Wind, LLC, 457 Mass. 222, 228 (2010).

  4. Zoning Bd. of Appeals v. Housing Appeals Comm

    457 Mass. 1104 (Mass. 2010)

    June 18, 2010. Reported below: 76 Mass. App. Ct. 467 (2010). Further appellate review granted:

  5. Chhan v. Sec'y of the Exec. Office of Health & Human Servs.

    No. 22-P-1068 (Mass. App. Ct. Dec. 14, 2023)

    "An agency decision will be upheld 'unless it is based on an error of law, unsupported by substantial evidence, unwarranted by facts found on the record as submitted, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.'" Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Canton v. Housing Appeals Comm., 76 Mass.App.Ct. 467, 473 (2010), quoting DSCI Corp. v. Department of Telecomm. & Energy, 449 Mass. 597, 603 (2007). See G. L. c. 30A, § 14 (7).

  6. Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd.

    13-P-1187 (Mass. App. Ct. Dec. 19, 2014)

    On appeal, however, the plaintiff "has the 'heavy' burden of showing that the agency decision . . . is not supported by substantial evidence." Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Canton v. Housing Appeals Comm., 76 Mass. App. Ct. 467, 472-473 (2010), quoting from DSCI Corp. v. Department of Telecommunication & Energy, 449 Mass. 597, 603 (2007). "Substantial evidence is 'such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Doe, Sex Offender Registry Bd. No. 10216 v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 447 Mass. 779, 787 (2006) (Doe, No. 10216), quoting from G. L. c. 30A, § 1 (6). "This standard is highly deferential to an agency . . . .