Recap Of Chapter 40B Public Hearing #2
Project Overview Plan presented by the project engineer, with the property lines added for clarify and context.
Upon opening the second public hearing regarding the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project, a point of order was raised following Robert’s Rules of Order. However, Kenneth Perro, the chairperson of the Millbury Board of Appeals, chose not to address it. Instead, he notified the roughly 50 attending residents that they would not have the opportunity to speak until at least January 10, 2024. This announcement did not resonate positively with those who had intended to actively participated in the public process by attending the meeting in person and remotely.
The meeting proceeded with Town Counsel providing the Millbury Board of Appeals members with an overview of Chapter 40B, then the developer’s project engineer, James Tetreault, from Azimuth Land Design, LLC (another of Steven Venincasa’s limited liability corporations) provided a high-level overview of the project and its composition, Board members were able to ask questions. A particular Board member expressed significant concern about the volume of attendees and the potential time it would consume if each person were allotted three minutes to speak. This Chapter 40B project’s public hearings are poised to be unlike any previous challenges faced by this Board. Unlike cases involving only an Applicant and a handful of contributing abutters resulting in decisions within a meeting or two, this process is expected to extend over several months with lengthy meetings. Without extensions, these public hearings must conclude by the end of May 2024. The Millbury Planning Board meetings for the previously denied Rice Pond Village project spanned approximately 10 months. However, whether viewed positively or negatively, the majority of identified public safety and environmental impacts remain unchanged and unaddressed. Instead, they have only worsened due to a nearly 4.1-fold increase in the number of dwelling units. The assessment of this Chapter 40B project involves an intricate process that demands significant effort to grasp the project itself, its implications, and ultimately arrive at a decision that prioritizes public safety and environmental concerns. Simultaneously, it aims to address housing needs in a fitting location, considering aspects like mass, density, and integration with the surrounding environment, and the design of the building and the proposed site layout to be consistency with the design requirements outlined in 760 CMR 56.04(4)(c) and the related Guidelines.
The task ahead for the members of the Millbury Board of Appeals won’t be straightforward, as the decisions they face won't be solely guided by the town's local regulations.
For those keeping up with the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project, a significant portion of the shared information was already familiar. This includes details like the project consisting of 192 apartments across three 4+ story buildings, with a single entry and exit point. In line with their usual behavior, Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa are seeking three waivers from local regulations:
The Applicant's proposal includes a density of multifamily housing that exceeds the limit permitted with a special permit according to Section 23.2 of the Zoning Bylaws. This contradicts the essence of the Suburban II Zoning District, which explicitly prohibits multifamily dwelling units on minor roads.
Furthermore, the Applicant plans three apartment buildings that surpass the permissible 30-foot maximum height specified in Section 23.32 of the Zoning Bylaws, with proposed heights reaching 65.5 feet. This height discrepancy significantly overshadows the majority of neighboring single-story and two-story, single-family homes.
Additionally, the proposal suggests parking at a ratio of 1.66 spaces per unit, contrary to the requirement of two spaces per unit and an additional third space for each three-bedroom unit as outlined in Section 33.2 of the Zoning Bylaws. While local regulations mandate 498 parking spaces, the developer proposes only 319, indicating a reduction of 179 parking spaces with no supporting data.
It's interesting that the project engineer, James Tetreault, highlighted aspects in the presentation that didn't align with local regulations. Surprisingly, no waivers were sought for these disparities. For instance, he mentioned 24-foot travel ways while regulations mandate 32 feet for over 150 dwelling units. Moreover, James Tetreault didn't mention the inclusion of "compact" parking spaces, which are not an option in our local regulations. There are many other deviations between our local regulations and their development plans. It seems their perspective persists in believing that rules don't apply to them.
James Tetreault and James Venincasa conspicuously disregarded all public safety and environmental concerns during their presentation, despite their clear awareness of these issues. Their deliberate choice to dismiss and ignore these matters is evident.
Absent from the public hearing was Steven Venincasa.