X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
BOSTON — A Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision ruled that a town that had met its minimum affordable housing requirement under the state’s regional planning law could give a developer a so-called comprehensive permit that fast-tracks affordable housing developments. The June 14 decision ruled that the zoning board of appeals of Amherst could consider the regional need for affordable housing when granting a comprehensive permit, which is a consolidated town permit giving approvals normally granted by several town boards. John Boothroyd v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Amherst, SJC-09896 (Mass.) “A municipality’s attainment of its minimum affordable housing obligation in many cases does not eliminate the need for affordable housing within its borders,” said the opinion authored by Associate Justice John M. Greaney. “Application of the regional needs test, however, ensures that local boards of appeal will balance the competing considerations involved.” The Boothroyd case is the first Massachusetts appellate case to squarely address the issue of whether a city or town that has reached the 10% threshold under the law can continue to grant more comprehensive permits, said Don Pinto, a director at Boston’s Rackemann, Sawyer & Brewster. Pinto represented Springfield, Mass.-based Hap Inc., a non-profit affordable housing agency that sought to build 26 units of affordable rental housing in Amherst. The plaintiffs don’t believe that a town with more than 10% of low- and moderate-income housing should be subject to the same permitting review standard that allows comprehensive permits, said plaintiffs’ lawyer John E. Garber of Weinberg & Garber in Northampton, Mass. “This is 100 middle class homeowners in Amherst,” Garber said. “Our position is, it doesn’t make sense to use the same standard that was designed to circumvent local zoning rules.” About 50 communities in Massachusetts have reached the 10% affordable housing target, said David Weiss, a director at Boston’s Goulston & Storrs, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of two housing advocacy groups and two cities in Massachusetts. “More communities will now feel free to welcome additional mixed income developments without fear of getting tied up in endless legal challenges over their power to do so,” Weiss said.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.