Recap Of Chapter 40B Public Hearing #3
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024, the third public hearing for the proposed Rice Pond Village project under Chapter 40B took place. The session included updates from the developers, peer reviews, outstanding requirements from Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa, and public comments from those individuals who wished to provide information and feedback to the Millbury Board of Appeals.
The presentation presented is available for viewing by tapping or clicking the thumbnail above.
Steve Stearns, acting as the designated neighborhood and community spokesperson, delivered a concise presentation lasting less than 30 minutes. His critique covered the development plans, emphasizing compliance with local and state regulations as mandated by our zoning bylaws, subdivision rules, state building and fire codes, the wetlands protection act, and other pertinent design and development criteria. Based on his engagements with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC), previously identified as the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), it is stressed that strict compliance with all state laws is mandatory and cannot be waived.
M.G.L. c. 40B § 20, Consistent with Local Needs in part is defined as “…to protect the health or safety of the occupants of the proposed housing or of the residents of the city or town, to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings, or to preserve open spaces, and if such requirements and regulations are applied as equally as possible to both subsidized and unsubsidized housing…”
M.G.L. c. 40B § 20, Uneconomic in part is defined as “…any condition brought about by any single factor or combination of factors to the extent that it makes it impossible for a public agency or nonprofit organization to proceed in building or operating low or moderate income housing without financial loss, or for a limited dividend organization to proceed and still realize a reasonable return in building or operating such housing within the limitations set by the subsidizing agency…”
760 CMR 56.04(4)(c) - Findings in Determination “…that the conceptual project design is generally appropriate for the site on which it is located, taking into consideration factors that may include proposed use, conceptual site plan and building massing, topography, environmental resources, and integration into existing development patterns (such finding, with supporting reasoning, to be set forth in reasonable detail)…”
310 CMR 10.00 – The Wetlands Protection Act encompasses regulations governing the procedures and criteria for issuing permits related to activities within areas protected under the Wetlands Protection Act in Massachusetts. These regulations provide guidelines for conservation commissions and MassDEP in evaluating and granting permits for work in wetlands, waterways, and other environmentally sensitive areas. The aim is to ensure the conservation and protection of these vital ecosystems while allowing for necessary activities under specified conditions.
527 CMR 18.2.3.3 requires “More than one fire department access road shall be provided when it is determined by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) that access by a single road could be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions, or other factors that could limit access.” The Millbury Fire Chief, designated as the Authority Having Jurisdiction, possesses a degree of discretion under this statute in accordance with the established regulation. Nevertheless, we request careful consideration of public safety, particularly due to the challenges presented by Rice Road, which is categorized as less than a minor road.
527 CMR 18.2.3.4.8 requires “Travel in the Opposing Lane. The use of the opposite travel lane is prohibited in the design of all new fire apparatus access roads.” While the Millbury Fire Chief serves as the Authority Having Jurisdiction has discretion over this statute as outlined in the regulation, it is crucial to note that, given the scale of this project and its potential approval as proposed, the application of this standard becomes particularly pertinent, considering it would be the largest development with three four-story buildings.
780 CMR 427.9 requires “Fire Department Access Roadways. Fire department access roadways shall be provided on at least two sides of the building with such access to be approved by the head of the fire department prior to any construction. Fire hydrants shall be provided in locations approved by the head of the fire department.” This regulation allows no room for discretion. It mandates a requirement that the proposed project must not overlook.
Section 11 of the Millbury Zoning Bylaw mandates “The purpose of this Bylaw is to promote the health, safety, convenience, amenity and general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Millbury, through encouraging the most appropriate use of land, as authorized by Chapter 40A of the General Laws, and by Article 89 of the Amendments to the Constitution.”
Section 23 of the Millbury Zoning Bylaw mandates “The intent of Suburban Districts is to provide for low-density one- and two-family development at moderate density where public services are provided and at low density where they are not.” The current neighborhood maintains a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre, while the developer is suggesting a density of 12± dwelling units per acre, without aligning with the characteristics of the surrounding area.
Section 23.11 of the Millbury Zoning Bylaw mandates “Permitted Residential Uses: One family dwelling other than a mobile home; boarding, lodging or tourist homes; and residential use in accordance with Section 47.”
Section 23.2 of the Millbury Zoning Bylaw provides that “In a Suburban District, the following principal uses are permitted if granted a Special Permit for an exception by the special permit granting authority: Multifamily dwelling, provided that it is serviced by public sewerage and public water, and provided that access from a major street as herein defined does not require use of a minor street substantially developed for single-family homes.” Rice Road is categorized as a minor road rather than a major street, and as such, it should not be contemplated for a waiver in light of public safety concerns and is sustainably developed with single-family houses. Granting a waiver to the local bylaw in this case could potentially expose the town to liability if any injuries occur.
Section 5 of the Millbury Zoning Bylaw defines (as cleaned up) “Major Street, all state-numbered highways (Routes 20, 122, 122A, and 146) and Interstate I-90, Auburn Road, Carleton Road, Elm Street, Grafton Street, Greenwood Street, Howe Avenue, Martin Street, Millbury Avenue, McCracken Road east of Greenwood, North Main Street, Stone Road, Sutton Road, West Main Street, plus any street subsequently laid out with right-of-way width of sixty feet (60’) or more.”
Section 23.32 of the Millbury Zoning Bylaw defines several requirements for development in Suburban II Zoning Districts, such as minimum lot size, minimum lot frontage, minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks, maximum lot coverage of 30%, and a maximum building height of 30-feet. The developers have proposed constructing three four-story buildings with a roof peak height of 65 feet 6 inches, which stands in stark contrast to the surrounding neighborhood and town. Notably, the entire town only has one four-story building.
Section 6.7(4)(i) of the Millbury Subdivision Rules and Regulations requires in part “…two or more points of access are necessary to provide access equivalent to that required for single or two-family structures…” per Section 32.6 of the Millbury Zoning Bylaw. The developers are suggesting a sole point of access via a minor road that has been documented and acknowledged by town officials as posing public safety concerns and risks.
Section 6.7(6) of the Millbury Subdivision Rules and Regulations requires in part “…a 32-foot wide traveled way is necessary to provide access equivalent to that required for single or two-family structures…” per Section 32.6 of the Millbury Zoning Bylaw.
Section 7.5 of the Millbury Subdivision Rules and Regulations requires in part “…a grass strip between the curb and the sidewalk is necessary to provide access equivalent to that required for single or two-family structures…” per Section 32.6 of the Millbury Zoning Bylaw.
Section 12.44(f) of the Millbury Subdivision Rules and Regulations requires “Development impact statements which shall describe potential impacts on the proposed development, compare them to the impacts of uses which are or can be made of the site without a requirement of site plan review, identify all significant positive or adverse impacts, and propose an acceptable program to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts.”
Section 28.7.3 of the Millbury Subdivision Rules and Regulations requires in part “Use, Dimensional, and Parking Requirements, 3. For all new buildings and structures, the dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning district shall apply. For all new buildings and structures, the following use densities or intensities shall apply: (a) Multifamily dwellings: four (4) dwelling units per acres.”
Section 33.2 of the Millbury Subdivision Rules and Regulations requires in part “Schedule of Requirements, Dwellings: One (1) space per two (2) dwelling units if serving subsidized elderly housing, two (2) spaces per dwelling unit and three spaces (3) per two-bedroom, multi-family dwelling unit. One (1) additional space per bedroom shall be added for each multi-family dwelling unit containing an excess of two bedrooms.” According to our zoning bylaw, accommodating 192 apartments featuring a mix of 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom floor plans necessitates 498 parking spaces. Nonetheless, the developers have put forth a proposal of 1.66 parking spaces per unit, incorporating compact parking spaces that are not specified in our zoning bylaw. This proposal amounts to a total of 319 parking spaces, indicating an attempt by the developers to evade providing 179 parking spaces as required. Parking is the number one problem in multifamily housing developments, followed by trash issues.
Steve Stearns also drew numerous comparisons between the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project and the previously contested Medfield Meadows initiative. Initially denied under an adversarial Chapter 40B with plans for 200 units on both sides of North Meadow Road (Route 27), the Medfield Meadows developer later returned under Chapter 40B's Local Initiative Program (LIP). The revised project successfully developed one of the two parcels, featuring 36 units comprising a mix of apartments and townhouse condominiums. It included two access points, one to North Meadows Road and a gated emergency access to the existing neighborhood.
Medfield Meadows is positioned along a North Meadows Road, a state highway, while Rice Pond Village is situated on a minor road with pavement widths less than 22 feet. The two projects share several similarities that merit assessment, such as the disregard for neighborhood cues regarding height, mass, density, building typology, and other aspects highlighted during the presentation with well-researched factual details. The proposed development does not align with the established development patterns in the town of Millbury, as there is currently only one four-story building in the entire town, or the well-established neighborhood itself.
During the presentation, numerous attendees observed James Venincasa, one of the developers, and James Tetreault, the project engineer, shaking their heads. When asked by a board member if they would like to provide comments on the points raised by Mr. Stearns, James Tetreault expressed disagreement with aspects but chose not to elaborate further. A member of the Millbury Board of Appeals named Michael George conveyed to the developers and their project engineer that Mr. Stearns didn't hastily assemble this presentation in five minutes. It is evident that it was thoroughly researched and should not be disregarded. He recommended to them to carefully consider and respond to each point presented.
At the start of the presentation, Steve Stearns highlighted a disparity. According to the plans recorded at the Worcester County Registry of Deeds, the combined five-lot area is documented as totaling 16.0904± acres. In contrast, the developers and the project engineer consistently assert and document that the total area is 15.6± acres, a discrepancy of 21,361 square feet. When queried by the Millbury Board of Appeals about this matter, James Tetreault failed to provide a substantial answer and seemed inclined to downplay the presented facts. This appears to be a recurring approach for their company, indicating a consistent modus operandi (MO).
| Plan | Lot Identifer | Acres |
|---|---|---|
| 821/32 | Remaining Land Of Cornelius T. Maher & Ellen M. Maher | 11.9700 |
| 950/65 | Lot 1 | 0.3202 |
| 950/65 | Lot 2 | 1.4704 |
| 950/65 | Lot 3 | 2.0418 |
| 950/65 | Lot 4 | 0.2880 |
| Total | 16.0904 |
Precision is essential, and those involved aim to present information accurately to the Millbury Board of Appeals. We strongly encourage all individuals involved to prioritize honesty and transparency throughout the public hearings.
The upcoming public hearing is slated for Wednesday, January 31, 2024, starting at 7:00 PM. The venue will be confirmed and announced shortly.