Comprehensive Permit Fees Decision Deferred
What just happened? That's the question on everyone's lips following the Millbury Board of Appeals meeting on Wednesday, September 27, 2023. People are buzzing about the Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit Fee proposal put forth by developers, Steven F. Venincasa and James Venincasa, and what transpired during the debate by the Millbury Board of Appeals.
Steven F. Venincasa's proposal was straightforward: he argued that Millbury's Comprehensive Permit Fees, calculated per market rate unit, were “unreasonable” with no real justification provided for his assertion. However, he initially did not specify a particular figure. Later, he attempted various approaches to persuade the Millbury Board of Appeals, testing different ideas to gauge their response and how he might manipulate them into reducing or eliminating the fees altogether.
Steven F. Venincasa may not be a contender for an Emmy, but he tried to portray himself as a struggling builder with altruistic intentions. However, the reality is that his proposed project, by his own estimates contained in his Chapter 40B application as submitted to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities, would generate over $5.7 million annually. Clearly, Steven F. Venincasa is not the struggling builder he claims to be, yet he resists paying the town's application fees, which amount to a base fee of $5,000 and $200 per market rate unit, totaling $33,800. Lowering or waiving the existing application fees only serves the interests of the developers, Steven F. Venincasa and James Venincasa. There is no advantage for the taxpayers or the town in reducing or abolishing these fees for this project or any future ones. Therefore, it remains puzzling why the Millbury Board of Appeals would even consider the developer's proposal to amend the Comprehensive Permit Rules and Regulation fees. Amending a policy demands thoughtful and comprehensive consideration due to its potential far-reaching consequences.
As an aside, Millbury is currently grappling with one of Steven F. Venincasa's supposedly altruistic efforts in his recent project, the 19 Canal Street Apartments. In this development, he arranged for an offsite group home for individuals with brain injuries in an established neighborhood through a Millbury Planning Board project condition. However, within a span of 60 days, the Millbury Police Department has been dispatched to this location over 20 times. One alarming incident involved threats made with a weapon—a knife. This matter was brought before the Millbury Board of Selectmen, where Christopher Naff said he was aware of the issues, but it was not the town’s problem to deal with.
After the Chapter 40B Comprehensive Permit Fee discussion concluded, the matter was postponed until a special meeting could be arranged by the Millbury Board of Appeals to accommodate the developer.
It is genuinely unfortunate that the Millbury Board of Appeals did not hold a public hearing on this issue, giving the community a chance to contribute their perspectives, especially given its substantial implications for the town and its taxpayers. While the final decision rests with the Board of Appeals, public input could offer valuable insights to inform their deliberations. It's not too late for the Board of Appeals to opt for a public hearing.
Outside the town hall, attendees were engrossed in discussing the proceedings. Meanwhile, Steven F. Venincasa and James Venincasa were heard laughing, presumably at how effortlessly they had manipulated the board and asserted their dominance over the situation. A resident, who had appeared before the Board of Appeals for a different issue, commented to the assembled group, “That’s what we have running our town. That explains so much.”
This situation echoes a similar incident after the first in-person Millbury Planning Board meeting for a prior project on the same site for a condominium project, where Steven F. Venincasa had confidently declared to neighbors that the Millbury Planning Board members were kind-hearted, but that he would bulldoze right over them and get whatever he wanted in the end. However, that approach proved unsuccessful, and we hope that the Millbury Board of Appeals will likewise prove him wrong this time, but that remains to be seen.
The Millbury Planning Board rejected the previous project primarily because the developers didn't address public safety concerns and didn't comply with local rules and regulations. None of these issues have been resolved, and they persist for this latest proposed project, which is four times larger in scale. How does that not amplify the public safety issues and other concerns?