Mandatory Density Regulations: A Flawed Approach To Housing Growth In Millbury

Massachusetts is aggressively pushing for more housing, with one of its main strategies being mandated higher-density zoning—particularly in suburban towns like Millbury. On the surface, it might sound reasonable: allow more multi-family buildings, increase supply, and supposedly lower prices. But these claims of improved affordability come with little to no real evidence. In reality, this one-size-fits-all approach is far more complex—and in towns like ours, it risks doing more harm than good.

This isn’t a new debate. Back in 1975, a report by the Massachusetts Department of Community Affairs strongly cautioned against using mandatory density regulations as a tool for housing growth. The report warned that such policies were unfair to already-developed towns and often lacked proper justification. Nearly 50 years later, that warning still rings true. Millbury is not an undeveloped blank slate—it’s a historic town with limited space, aging infrastructure, and a unique character worth preserving.

Our water, sewer, and road systems weren’t built to accommodate a sudden influx of large apartment complexes. Many neighborhoods, particularly in West Millbury, rely on private septic systems and weren’t designed for high-density development. Piling on more units without upgrading basic services is a recipe for failure and much higher taxes. Traffic near Route 146 and Route 122A is already an issue, and our schools, police, fire, and EMS departments are stretched thin. We’ve made major recent investments in public facilities—including a $21 million fire station and a middle school that cost around $61 million—with more proposals on the table for a new police station and possible town hall renovations. These projects, while some will argue are necessary, have already pushed local taxes higher, leading some residents to leave because they can no longer afford to live here. Now imagine what would happen if we added a large population surge on top of that.

None of this means we should avoid housing growth altogether. The 1975 report didn’t reject all density regulations—just those that aren’t thoughtfully planned. And that’s the key. If Millbury is to grow, we must do it smartly and sustainably. That means focusing on infrastructure first, preserving our town’s character, and ensuring that new development actually addresses true affordability—not just developer profits.

Millbury has seen a growing number of large, market-rate apartment complexes in recent years, yet housing remains out of reach for many. Rents continue to climb, and there’s growing concern that the town’s largest landlord—who may soon control over half of all rental units—could dominate the market in ways that hurt current tenants. For working families, the promise of more housing means little if they still can’t afford a place to live. Simply increasing the number of units isn’t a solution without real affordability built in.

We’ve also seen developers push for zoning variances and exploit loopholes to force through dense projects that don’t align with Millbury’s long-term needs. Instead of caving to one-size-fits-all state mandates, we need a local approach that supports thoughtful solutions—like allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) that fit within existing homes or within existing lot setbacks, encouraging housing near commercial zones rather than historic neighborhoods, and requiring true affordability protections in every new development.

The bottom line is this: Millbury deserves smart growth, not forced growth. We can’t allow outside pressure to override local planning (i.e., the Master Plan (2019) and the Housing Production Plan (2025)). We must advocate for infrastructure improvements before approving large developments. We must demand that housing serves real community needs. And we must protect what makes Millbury a special place to live—its history, its character, and its sense of community. These are the things that attracted people to Millbury in the first place. Millbury has a lot of multi-generational families who were born here and continue to call the our small town their home.

But all of this only happens if we get involved. Speak up at Planning Board and Board of Selectmen meetings. Attend public hearings. Ask hard questions. And vote. Elections matter. If our current leaders aren’t putting Millbury’s needs first, it’s time to elect people who will. The future of our town is on the line. With local elections coming up later this month, now is the time to act. Let’s work together to make sure Millbury’s growth is thoughtful, sustainable, and genuinely serves the people who live here, and for those who will in the future.

The MBTA Communities Act and Chapter 40B are not the right solutions for Millbury—or for the other 176 affected communities. Despite what state officials claim, these policies have failed to deliver true housing affordability. Instead, they serve as windfalls for developers eager to expand the corporate rental trap, often at the expense of local residents. The MBTA Communities Act zoning amendment isn’t the path to homeownership or community stability—it’s a step away from the American Dream. And that dream isn’t dead—not yet. Although, that seems to be some people’s goal of eliminating single-family zoning.

Let’s be honest—how many people truly dream of living in a massive apartment complex? For most, it’s not an ideal choice, but rather the only option left when better alternatives aren’t available. That’s why the decision Millbury made on November 9, 2024, to reject the MBTA Communities Act was so important. Now it’s time to move forward with real solutions that reflect what our community actually wants. The majority of residents support modest homes on smaller lots, cluster developments, and other creative ideas outlined in the Housing Production Plan (2025), which closely aligns with the goals of the Master Plan (2019). We don’t need a top-down, one-size-fits-all zoning mandate that doesn’t fit anyone—we need smart, locally focused planning that truly works for Millbury.

Make your voice heard—vote a strong “NO” on Articles 28 and 29 at the Annual Town Meeting on May 6, 2025, just as we did on November 9, 2024, when Millbury stood united against the MBTA Communities Act zoning amendments. Don’t stop there—contact the Board of Selectmen today and demand they file a petition to exempt Millbury from this unfunded state mandate before Annual Town Meeting as several other communities have done already. It’s time to protect our town, our values, and our future. Let’s keep the power to shape Millbury’s growth where it belongs—with us.

We don’t need three-story apartment buildings crammed at 15 units per acre, with relaxed parking regulations (i.e., not enough parking that spills over into existing neighborhood streets), no minimum bedroom sizes, no cap on the number of bedrooms per unit, and no limits on how many people can live in each one. That’s not smart planning—it’s a recipe for overcrowding and strain on our community. Millbury isn’t Boston—and it doesn’t want to be. What’s striking is that Boston itself is exempt from the MBTA Communities Act. While state officials claim there’s a statewide housing shortage, their so-called solution only places the burden on about half the communities. Even worse, it doesn’t actually address the root of the crisis. This isn’t fair, and it certainly isn’t effective.