Understanding the genesis of the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project is crucial. It primarily stems from the developers, Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa, operating under different limited liability corporations, failing to address public safety concerns and not adhering to Millbury Zoning Bylaws and Subdivision Rules and Regulations in their initial development attempt at 17 Rice Road in Millbury, Massachusetts. This appears to be a recurring trait characterized by arrogance and entitlement. The developers appear to believe that rules don't pertain to them. Steven Venincasa suggested to residents that our Planning Board members were compassionate, but essentially conveyed his intention to push through and secure the desired project regardless. However, this strategy didn't prove successful, as the initial proposed project faced rejection due to neglecting public safety and non-compliance with local zoning and development regulations. Evidently, the crucial lesson that ought to have been absorbed was not, as these developers have returned with plans and documentation that are once again incomplete and poorly conceived.

It is essential to understand these reasons to grasp why the Millbury Planning Board deemed the prior development plans non-compliant with the Millbury Zoning Bylaws and Subdivision Rules and Regulations. None of these conditions have changed, and increasing the housing units from 46 to 192 will not enhance public safety or the compatibility with the single-family neighborhood. Some interpret this as a retaliatory campaign by Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa. According to many (as recorded in town records), Steven Venincasa allegedly threatened the neighborhood and the Millbury Planning Board, insisting that unless they overlooked public safety concerns, there would be consequences—in this case, the submission of a Chapter 40B project application with 192 apartments, which he has now done. The chairperson of the Millbury Planning Board, Richard Gosselin, Jr., confronted Steven Venincasa and inquired whether he was issuing threats to the board during the public hearing. It's worth noting that Chapter 40B was not intended to be weaponized against communities.

Excerpts From The Denial Decision

The denial decision rendered by the Millbury Planning Board articulates in part the following rationale for its denial:

9. After the hearing was closed and the waiver requests acted upon, the Planning Board, in accordance with Section 14.1l(a), Section 14.3, Section 32.6, and Section 12.46(b) of the Zoning Bylaws, based upon its review of the projected development impacts and the proposed methods of mitigating such impacts, voted to deny the special permit and site plan review for a multifamily use based upon the following findings and reasons:

a. Section 14.3 of the Zoning Bylaws and M.G.L. c. 40A, Sec. 9, provide that a special permit may be granted if the proposed use is in harmony with the general purpose or the general and specific provisions of the applicable bylaw. The Planning Board found that the Project, as proposed, is not in harmony with the general purpose or the general and specific provisions of the applicable bylaw for the following reasons:

(i) Section 32.6 of the Zoning Bylaws provides that no more than one residential structure shall be erected on any lot, except that more than one multifamily structure may be placed on a lot if the Planning Board, in its deliberations on an application for a special permit for multifamily dwellings under Section 14.1l(a), determines that each such multifamily structure will be served by access equivalent to that required for single or two-family structures on separate lots under the Planning Board's Subdivision Rules and Regulations. As set forth in #8(a) through #8(e) above, the Project is designed so that its roadway and means of access deviate from several requirements in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Planning Board denied the Applicant's requests for waivers, finding that conformance to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations is necessary to provide access for the Project's multifamily structures equivalent to that required for single or two-family structures on separate lots, and therefore the Project is designed contrary to the requirements of Section 32.6 of the Zoning Bylaws.

(ii) The Project would have just a single means of access, where the Subdivision Rules and Regulations require at least two means of access for a development of 20 units or more. The single means of access would be a roadway that is undersized based upon the minimum width required by the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. The Project's inadequate access would present a public safety risk for the residents of the Project and existing residents in the neighborhood with respect to vehicular access and circulation, pedestrian activity in the neighborhood, and accessibility to police, fire, and ambulances services, contrary to the requirements of Section 32.6 of the Zoning Bylaws.

(iii) Section 22 of the Zoning Bylaws governs uses in the Residential I Zoning District, and states that the intent of the district is to provide for a range of dwelling types in areas "having existing development at relatively high densities." The residential neighborhood in the vicinity of the Project currently has relatively low density development consisting of single family homes on lots ranging from one-third of an acre to more than half an acre. The Project would add 46 new residential units in 23 multifamily dwelling structures on the Property, significantly increasing the density in the neighborhood and having a detrimental impact upon the character of the neighborhood, contrary to the purposes of Section 22 of the Zoning Bylaws.

b. Section 12.46(b) of the Zoning Bylaws provides that the Planning Board must disapprove an application for site plan review if it is unable to make the written findings required for approval, that that the proposed development is in conformance with the Zoning Bylaws. The Planning Board found that the Project, as proposed, is not in conformance with the Zoning Bylaws for the reasons set forth in #9.a(i), #9.a(ii), and #9.a(iii) above, and the following additional reasons:

(i) The application remains incomplete and fails to furnish adequate information required by the Zoning Bylaws based upon the waiver requests denied by the Board as set forth in #8(1) through #8(h) above.

(ii) The Project's inadequate access and roadway design, as described in #9.a(i) and #9.a(ii) are not in conformance with Section 12.45(1) of the Zoning Bylaws with respect to vehicular and pedestrian circulation and would detract from the use and enjoyment of the proposed buildings and structures and neighboring properties.

(iii) The Project's high density, as described in #9.a(iii) is not in conformance with Section 22 of the Zoning Bylaws as the Project would add 46 new residential units in 23 multifamily dwelling structures on the Property, significantly increasing the density in a neighborhood that currently has relatively low density development, contrary to the purposes of Section 22 of the Zoning Bylaws.

The neighborhood and community supports the Millbury Planning Board's decision, considering it the right choice given the circumstances and facts. If the developers had addressed the public safety concerns and adhered to local regulations, a different result might have been attainable.

Zoning Changed

The residents surrounding Rice Road initiated a zoning district amendment to align the north side's Residential I designation with Suburban II, mirroring the zoning of the south side of Rice Road. This amendment successfully passed through Town Meeting and was subsequently enacted. However, the Suburban II Zoning District prohibits multifamily dwelling units on a minor road, especially one with pavement widths less than 22 feet in certain areas. Considering the proposed scale of the Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project, the Millbury Subdivision Rules and Regulations mandate a minimum pavement width of 32 feet, a 3-foot grass strip, and a minimum 5-foot sidewalk with a 60 foot wide right-of-way. Rice Road only has a 40 foot right-of-way and no sidewalk.

Our comprehension of eminent domain law in Massachusetts indicates that it does not authorize the seizure of private land to facilitate another property owner's development. We consulted with the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) at an early stage, and they explicitly affirmed that they have never encountered a situation where a developer could leverage eminent domain laws for such purposes.

Excerpts From The LIP Agreement

The Millbury Board of Selectmen entered the town into a Local Initiative Program (LIP) agreement with Rice Pond Village, LLC, with the principals being Steve Venincasa and James Venincasa. The LIP agreement stipulates in part the following:

(d) The Developer agrees to install stop signs and stop lines that conform with current MUTCD standards at the northbound approach of Thomas Hill Road at its intersection with Rice Road, at the southbound approach of Hillcrest Circle [the name of the development’s private driveway] at its intersection with Rice Road, at the Rice Road approach to its intersection with Providence Street, and at the Aldrich Avenue approach to its intersection with Rice Road.

(e) The Developer agrees to submit an intersection improvement plan, prepared in consultation with a traffic engineer, of the intersection of Rice Road and Providence Street to address the geometry of the intersection. Such traffic survey and intersection improvement plan shall address the following:

i. Survey of existing conditions including location, width, curbing, paving, right-of-way, topography, utilities, etc.;

ii. Widening of Providence Street travelled way and shifting the centerline to the east to address the geometry of the right turn onto Rice Road from Providence Street;

iii. Shifting Rice Road's travelled way centerline to the south;

iv. Flattening the horizontal curve on Providence Street, extending it past the Rice Road intersection to reduce the angle of the right turn.

(f) The Developer shall be responsible for installing a sidewalk and appropriate berm on the north side of Rice Road extending from the driveway of the Project location to and connecting with the existing sidewalk on South Main Street. Said sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with Massachusetts DOT and Town of Millbury standards and/or regulations and in such a way as to maintain existing road width. The Town agrees to assist in securing any temporary construction easements to enable work on private property that may be required to ensure a reasonable transition between residents' driveways and Rice Road; such driveway work shall adhere to Town of Millbury standards.

(g) The Developer shall coordinate with the Director of the Millbury Department of Public Works to ensure that the post-Project-construction condition of Rice Road is substantially similar to its pre-construction condition.

(h) The Developer promises to provide a monetary gift or donation to the Town in the amount of $100,000.00 (the "Donation"). Said Donation be due and payable in installments corresponding to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each of the buildings associated with the Project. Said Donation is in addition to and not as a substitute for the other commitments above, which Donation shall be made pursuant to G.L. c. 44, §53A. The Town agrees to use a portion of the Donation for improvements to Windle Field, a municipally-owned open space parcel located on Canal Street, Map 46, Lot 142. Expenditure(s) of the Donation shall be by the Town, in its sole discretion.

Although the Millbury Board of Selectmen believes they accomplished something with this LIP agreement, it falls short of adequately addressing the documented public safety concerns and other crucial concerns. These concerns are well-documented, including the inadequacy of Rice Road (classified as less than a minor road), the unprotected Providence & Worcester Railroad crossing, the intersections at both ends of Rice Road, the Millbury Planning Board’s written findings for denial, and the assertion that the project would "significantly increase the density in the neighborhood and have a detrimental impact upon the character of the neighborhood, contrary to the purposes of Section 22 of the Zoning Bylaws." In public meetings, the majority of the Millbury Board of Selectmen asserted that signing the LIP agreement doesn't constitute an endorsement of the project, but this statement lacks clarity. It is hoped that the majority of the Millbury Board of Selectmen will consistently attend the Millbury Board of Appeals public hearings to reiterate their objections to this project. We have reached a juncture where actions must align with words, and it's time for tangible results.

Chapter 40B Proposal

A brief examination of the most recent site plans and documents for the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project underscores the absence of adherence to the LIP agreement, as outlined below:

• There is no traffic control and markings plan that illustrates the traffic controls (i.e., the stop signs and stop lines) within the plan set or documentation for Thomas Hill Road, Aldrich Avenue, or Rice Road.

• No plan is included in the submitted plan set for the intersection of Providence Street (Route 122A) and Rice Road. It should be noted that any changes within the property owned by the Providence & Worcester Railroad must be agreed upon and approved by the railroad.

• There is no sidewalk along Rice Road on the submitted plans in the plan set.

• According to the LIP agreement, a donation of $100,000 will be made to the town for Windle Field. This contradicts the public statements made by certain members of the Board of Selectmen, who suggested that the funds should ideally be utilized within the affected neighborhood.

Some of the identified defects in and around the development that remain unaddressed or newly introduced through the developer’s development plans are as follows:

• Insufficient access through a sole entry/exit point on an inadequate road, falling below the criteria for a minor road, raises significant public safety concerns. This situation constrains existing residents in the neighborhood in terms of vehicular access, circulation, pedestrian activity, and accessibility to emergency services such as police, fire, and ambulances.

• The substantial increase in neighborhood density, as proposed, has an adverse impact on the neighborhood's character, contradicting the objectives of the Millbury Zoning Bylaws. Moreover, this design deviates from the design guidelines outlined for Chapter 40B.

• The inadequate access and roadway design, concerning both vehicular and pedestrian circulation, would diminish the utility and enjoyment of the proposed buildings, structures, and neighboring properties.

• In a Suburban II zoning district, the maximum allowable building height is 30 feet. However, this project proposes three 4+ story buildings with an average roof height of 54 feet 6 inches and a peak roof height of 65 feet 6 inches, significantly surpassing the permissible height in a Suburban II zoning district. It's noteworthy that Millbury currently has only two four-story residential buildings and 35 three-story residential buildings, rendering the proposed heights inconsistent with the town's established architectural typography. The surrounding neighborhoods are mostly single-story homes and a few two-story homes, so 4+ story buildings are totally out of character with the proposed project’s surroundings.

• Numerous individuals have raised doubts about the reliability of both the initial and updated traffic impact studies. The investigation took place within two distinct two-hour peak-hour windows amid the COVID pandemic, a period when a substantial portion of the population was engaged in telecommuting and predominantly remained at home. Throughout previous public hearings, considerable time was devoted to scrutinizing the details of the traffic impact study, with residents and Millbury Planning Board members offering contradictions to the presented information. Common traffic studies, as recognized by some neighbors, typically extend over 24 hours per day for multiple days or even longer periods. The consensus among most individuals is that a one-day, four-hour condensed traffic study is probably not reflective of real-world traffic volumes. Many believe that a new traffic study, spanning 24 hours over multiple days, should be commissioned for a more accurate assessment that does not ignore the public safety impacts of the Providence & Worcester Railroad unprotected crossing and includes the traffic movements for the intersection of Aldrich Avenue.

• The site plans and documentation submitted by developers Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa exhibit a fragmented identity, as they (the plans and document set) seemingly suffer from a multiple personality disorder. The applications to the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), now renamed to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) through the limited liability corporation known as Rice Pond Village, LLC, and subsequently the package submitted to the Town of Millbury reveal various other limited liability corporations they manage, including Whitney Street Home Builders, LLC, SJV Investments, LLC, and Elite Homes, LLC. This has sparked concerns about the identities of the individuals involved and the entities with whom the town and state are truly engaging. It should also be noted that Azimuth Land Design, LLC, the project engineer for this project, is another limited liability corporation owned by Steven Venicasa.

The issues outlined here are not exhaustive, as there is a burgeoning list that will be presented in the upcoming public hearings. Residents, town officials, and employees are encouraged to meticulously examine all documents for accuracy and adherence to the Millbury Zoning Bylaws, Millbury Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Chapter 40B, the design guidelines for Chapter 40B, and any other pertinent regulations or laws.

Please document and bring forward all identified concerns to the Millbury Board of Appeals public hearing on Wednesday, November 29, 2023, or any subsequent hearings commencing at 7:00 PM. The venue for the public hearing is the Millbury Memorial Junior/Senior High School situated at 12 Martin Street in Millbury, Massachusetts. Active participation from everyone is crucial to shape the result of the proposed project. Although some may perceive it as futile, other communities have successfully rejected or scaled-back Chapter 40B projects in the past that shared similar characteristics with the present one.