Posted by: Patricia Salkin | April 7, 2010

Meeting State Minimum for Affordable Housing Does Not Necessarily Mean Need for Affordable Housing Has Been Satisfied

The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that although when the litigation first began the town was below the state’s ten percent requirement for affordable housing units (the town had under 8%), but the town has now exceeded the mandate, it is nonetheless required to approve construction of proposed additional units that would increase its affordable housing stock to more than twelve percent.  The Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) determined that the proposed 180 units that would provide both market rate and affordable housing should be approved, but the town argued that it would create an “unreasonable overage” of affordable housing. The appeals court held that “(A)ttainment of the ten percent will not necessarily demonstrate that a locality’s need for affordable housing has been satisfied.”  Further, the Court held that the HAC decision should be affirmed in light of evidence supporting the HAC’s conclusion that the board’s concern over increased traffic did not constitute a local safety concern outweighing the need for affordable housing. 

Zoning Board of Appeals of Canton v. Housing Appeals Committee, 2010 WL 924273 (Mass. App. Ct. 3/18/10) 

The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.universalhub.com/2010/zoning-board-appeals-canton-vs-housing-appeals-com


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 242 other followers