The narrow rigorous standard of section dictates that commission cannot deny an application on broad grounds such as noncompliance with zoning. 37 CA 303. Cited. Id., 788. Court construed language of section to apply to every type of application filed with a commission in connection with an affordable housing project whether application is submitted to change zoning at a particular site or to build affordable housing on land previously zoned for that purpose. 42 CA 94. Burden of proof on commission to show by specific evidence that denial was necessary to protect substantial public interests in health and safety or that public interests clearly outweighed need for affordable housing. 59 CA 608. Statute requires applicant in an affordable housing appeal to prove that he or she is aggrieved pursuant to Sec. 8-8(b). 66 CA 631.
Subsec. (a):
Plaintiff's floating zone creation application and its accompanying single page conceptual site plan failed to satisfy definitional requirement to be considered an “affordable housing development” because it failed to demonstrate that it received or should be receiving financial assistance under any governmental program for its development and, in the alternative, the conceptual site plan also did not indicate an intention to restrict the deed language in accordance with the definitional language in section. 142 CA 300.
Subsec. (f) (former Subsec. (b)):
Statute provides no right of direct appeal to Appellate Court from a final judgment of Superior Court and, as in other zoning cases, such an appeal requires certification by Appellate Court as required in Sec. 8-8(o). 245 C. 257.