On January 31, 2024, the Millbury Board of Appeals held the fourth public hearing for the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project to be located at 17 Rice Road in Millbury, Massachusetts.

Francis DeSimone, a town resident and planning board member, representing his own views, spoke last and made the most important point of the evening. He said "Maybe I am premature in this, but it doesn’t seem like we’re calling up the elephant in the room. The width of Rice Road, a project this size requires 32 feet [of pavement width]; the height of the buildings, 65.5 feet; and the zoning in that area is 30 feet [maximum building height]. Waivers of this magnitude are ridiculous. They shouldn’t be granted. This project does not belong in this area. They were before the planning board for almost a year, ten months, and we danced. And if you read the letter that the [planning board] chair and I sent, the reasons for the denial were in the letter, and [the denial decision] was written by town counsel. So, they are all legitimate reasons, the reasons for the denial. This project does not belong on Rice Road. The height is too high. The road can’t handle it. The railroad tracks are a problem, which was a sticking issue with the planning board. We had an estimate for the railroad tracks. I still have it. The developer would not fix it. If the project goes through, the town is going to be on the hook for Rice Road, that railroad tracks, Providence Street, and possibly South Main Street. The project does not belong in this area. If you require that many waivers, that means the project does not belong there. It’s a very simple computation. It’s very simple." He received a round of applause from the attendees in the meeting room.

What is the point of having local regulations if elected and appointed board members continuously disregard them, readily granting waivers or variances without proper consideration or justification? The community has wholeheartedly embraced these regulations to foster secure, consistent, responsible, and sustainable development in the town. Issuing waivers without thorough deliberation undermines the trust of those who relied on these officials to uphold the established rules and regulations.

It raises a question about the number of projects presented to the Millbury Planning Board that received no waivers in the past one to five years. Furthermore, when investigating outright denials, conversations with longstanding planning board members reveal just one occurrence—the initial iteration of the Rice Pond Village project, which commenced with 52 condominiums and concluded with 46.

Turning attention to the Millbury Board of Appeals and their history with waivers or variances, the colloquial reference to them by other town officials as the "Board of Approval" implies a presumption of an exceptionally low record, likely close to zero. According to the majority of residents, the Millbury Board of Appeals made the right call by indefinitely postponing any decision on reducing or eliminating the application fees of Millbury’s Comprehensive Permits Rules and Regulations as proposed by Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa.

We anticipate a shift in the perception of town officials and the public with this proposed project, trusting that common sense will ultimately prevail.

Waivers and variances should not be dispensed casually, likened to distributing candy. Their allocation should be reserved for situations where decisions align with the town's best interests or contribute to a greater good, rather than being treated as a routine matter solely for the developer's benefit. It is essential for this approach to change not only for the current proposed project but also for all future projects and applications. Otherwise, the purpose of having rules, regulations, a planning board, or a board of appeals becomes questionable. Furthermore, it is crucial for board members to conduct their own independent due diligence instead of solely relying on the guidance of the town planner when making voting decisions. As widely understood, the town planner's role is to uphold the town's rules and regulations, not to find ways to circumvent the local regulations established by the registered voters. The town planner should not advise board members to be complicit in approving everything a developer desires, thus neglecting their responsibility to uphold our local regulations.

The public hearing commenced with the developer's engineer providing an update, primarily comprising excuses for the absence of new information. The town planner proceeded to go over an extensive memorandum detailing outstanding items owed to the town by the developer, along with a list of waivers sought by the developer and those recommended by the town planner. Following that, residents were offered the chance to voice their opinions within a limited three-minute window. It's important to note the discrepancy: while the public had constrained time for expression during the public hearing, the developer had unrestricted opportunities to provide input, leaving the public without the chance for rebuttal. A significant portion of the public, along with numerous town officials, believes that the manner in which these public hearings are conducted lacks fairness and respect to the town’s residents. Some individuals have voiced their concerns to town officials who, while acknowledging and agreeing with the assessment, choose to stay silent on the matter. Staying silent is synonymous with being complicit. Town officials are elected or appointed to champion our concerns, to represent us, and to make reasoned and thoughtful decisions that serve our best interests.

Residents expressed concerns about the insufficient parking in the developer's plans, noting a deficit of 209 parking spaces compared to requirements. This was a correction from the previous presentation, as the developer counted 30 garage spaces in their parking plan, which, in the residents' opinion, should not be included since these will be leased garages at an additional $150 per month. Additionally, it was mentioned that the newly proposed emergency fire access would further reduce available parking spaces on the property. Steven Venincasa stated that they typically propose a parking ratio of 1.7 parking spaces per unit, but what they submitted, counting the garages, amounted to 1.66 parking spaces per unit. The potential loss of additional parking spaces due to the state fire code would likely drive that number down further, possibly to a ratio of 1.5 or less. As previously noted, parking is the primary issue faced in multi-family developments. Another resident reminded the board that people often have friends and family visiting during the holidays, highlighting the inadequacy of the proposed parking on the property and the narrowness of Rice Road, which could lead to parking conflicts in the future. A resident has already discussed with a member of the Board of Selectmen the proposal that if the project is approved, a parking ban should be enforced on Rice Road, Thomas Hill Road, Aldrich Avenue, and Captain Peter Simpson Road. Millbury already has a winter parking ban during snowstorms. Parking on the street further narrows the road and exacerbates public safety concerns, particularly when vehicles are parked directly opposite each other, currently an occasional occurrence in our neighborhood.

A resident from the neighborhood raised concerns about public safety regarding the Providence & Worcester Railroad crossing, highlighting its narrowness, which doesn't allow for the safe passage of two passenger vehicles simultaneously. The resident recounted an incident where, while approaching the railroad crossing from above, another driver had to maneuver up to the railroad crossing and then back down Rice Road into Providence Street to accommodate passage, resulting in a hazardous situation. The incident described is not an isolated event but rather a common experience for residents in the neighborhood or for those who use Rice Road as a shortcut. The intersection of Providence Street and Rice Road has experienced multiple rear-end collisions, as documented in MassDOT crash data. It is emphasized that drivers should not be required to stop or reverse to safely navigate a road or railroad crossing. This design flaw must be addressed to prevent potential injuries or more serious consequences prior to issuing any building permits. Chairperson Kenneth Perro sought additional input or feedback from the Providence & Worcester Railroad to better understand their requirements for addressing public safety concerns. However, a representative who has attended every public hearing was absent from this one.

Two immediate neighbors expressed concerns about the absence of evacuation routes for the neighborhood in the event of a catastrophic incident, such as a significant fire. Specifically, Thomas Hill Road, Aldrich Avenue, and Captain Peter Simpson Road were highlighted as lacking alternative evacuation routes if Rice Road becomes blocked at Thomas Hill Road or Aldrich Avenue due to vehicles from the volunteer fire department or mutual aid, downed tree limbs or power lines, or any other obstruction. Their proposed project features only one entry and exit point, which is prohibited under our local regulations. This condition should not be permitted as it would severely impede or render emergency evacuations impossible during critical situations. It was pointed out that in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, driving over fire hose is illegal. Residents in our neighborhood should not face delays or denials in receiving lifesaving care due to issues associated with this proposed project. Some neighbors are elderly and may require emergency lifesaving medical assistance, which could be critical if there is a delayed response. If Rice Road is obstructed between South Main Street and the proposed project site, the only alternative access is over the Providence & Worcester Railroad crossing, which may result in delays if a lengthy freight train is passing. Additionally, larger fire equipment may encounter difficulty making a right-hand turn from Providence Street southbound onto Rice Road, a turn that passenger vehicles cannot navigate without crossing into the oncoming traffic lane. Instead, they would have to travel to the highway garage to turn around, leading to a delayed response. In emergencies, every second counts. If approved, this would be the largest development in Millbury with the most inadequate access. Consider the situation as if you had a loved one residing in our neighborhood. Reflect on the accountability involved in endorsing a project clearly unsuitable for Rice Road. In such instances, the likely parties at fault would include the Town of Millbury (representing local taxpayers), the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (representing state taxpayers), and the developers, particularly in cases involving injuries or more severe consequences. Each decision necessitates thorough and comprehensive evaluation.

The concerns raised by residents seemed to strike a chord with most members of the Millbury Board of Appeals, prompting them to delve deeper into these particular issues.

In his typical manner, Steven Venincasa dismissed concerns regarding insufficient parking, asserting his belief that he should determine the necessary amount of parking for his project. He informed the board that he had driven through Cobblestone Village Apartments at 10:00 one evening and found 34 unused parking spaces. However, his assessment lacks significance. For a comprehensive approach to conducting a proper parking assessment, please consult the Rice Pond Village Parking Space Analysis. Their plans overlook the inclusion of fire lanes and access around at least two sides of each building as required by the state fire code, fail to account for deliveries or moving vehicles that may obstruct resident parking and internal traffic flow, and lack provisions for snow stacking and removal. It appears there has been no consideration given to the operational aspects of this project site or to the convenience of future residents.

The next scheduled public hearing will not be until February 28, 2024, due to Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa being unprepared to provide all of the outstanding information required with their application, which should have all been submitted with their application several months ago. This pattern is consistent with this developer and mirrors the experience with the majority of projects they present to the town, such as Cobblestone Village Apartments, 19 Canal Street Apartments, and Alstead Path. What draws this developer to work in Millbury? The answer seems clear: the consistent freedom from strict adherence to regulations, the continual acquisition of waivers and variances without valid justification, the tendency of past and present town planners to make excuses for them, and the widely recognized rubber-stamping on the planning board. What led the developers to abandon their proposed Chapter 40B projects in Sutton and Auburn? It boils down to town officials and employees holding them accountable to the established rules and regulations. Compliance was going to cut into their profits. Millbury town officials and employees needs to do the same. Development in Millbury needs to be consistent and fair to all, and most of all safe, responsible, and sustainable. Waiving our local regulations or granting variances should not be considered. The proposed project is not aligned with the town's best interests. Ultimately, this project would be more suitable for a different location, preferably on a major street without the existing and well-documented public safety concerns.

It's high time for a change in Millbury, and the Millbury Board of Appeals should spearhead the effort to steer the town in a new direction of upholding our local regulations. We have confidence in the board members. In contrast to the criticism directed at the Millbury Planning Board for making the right decision, our neighborhood strongly supports their rejection of the initial proposed project for Rice Pond Village. Richard F. Gosselin, Jr., Matthew Ashmankas, and Terry Burke Dotson showed a strong dedication to enforcing our local regulations and prioritizing public safety, whereas Paul Piktelis and Bruce DeVault opted to abstain from taking a stance. This is worth considering when you vote in the upcoming town elections in April. Bringing about change demands both conviction and action, particularly through voting, to facilitate positive transformations. It's not someone else's responsibility; it's incumbent upon each of us to take action.