Recap Of Chapter 40B Public Hearing #7
On March 27, 2024, the Millbury Board of Appeals held the seventh public hearing for the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project to be located at 17 Rice Road in Millbury, Massachusetts.
The meeting commenced with the developers offering updates on their progress since the previous public hearing. They presented a concept plan for off-site improvements, specifically focusing on the sidewalk along the north side of Rice Road, extending from the existing sidewalks on South Main Street to the proposed access driveway. This plan was submitted last-minute, leaving the Millbury Board of Appeals members insufficient time for review.
Once more, members of the Millbury Board of Appeals raised the question of reducing the project's density from 192 units to a more suitable number for its location. In response, James Venincasa asserted that the 192 apartments were non-negotiable. A board member highlighted to the developer that they currently faced two potential dissenting votes, needing only one more to potentially reject the project. Another member essentially conveyed, "You've inquired about our preferences for change, yet you consistently inform us about what alterations you cannot accommodate." The trajectory of this proposed project appears to mirror that of a prior rejected endeavor, wherein the developer professed willingness to entertain alterations but ultimately refrained from implementing any substantial changes.
Stantec's traffic peer reviewer provided a brief update, acknowledging the accuracy of additional accident data presented by Steve Stearns, the spokesperson for the neighborhood and community, based on the publicly accessible massDOT's Impact Crash Data Portal. The Stantec traffic peer reviewer requested further data and clarification from the developers' traffic consultant but expressed the need for more time to thoroughly review the response, given that it had been received shortly before the public hearing. Upon our initial examination of the developer's traffic consultant's response, it seems that there was an effort to undermine the credibility of both Stantec's traffic peer reviewer and the findings presented by Steve Stearns. Furthermore, there was an attempt to attribute responsibility to the former town planner, who had resigned long before the commencement of this proposed project, for selecting the intersections to be evaluated. However, it is essential to note that conducting a new traffic study is mandated regardless of any previous decisions made. The purpose of the inquiry regarding the additional accidents not accounted for in the updated traffic impact study was to seek clarification on the discrepancies. However, the developer's traffic consultant appeared to fail to provide a satisfactory explanation. This further exacerbates concerns about the credibility of the developer's traffic consultant and the reliability of the traffic impact study in the eyes of the residents.
This diagram presents the vehicle crash data sourced from massDOT spanning from January 1, 2016, to January 1, 2024, highlighting a total of 12 accidents. Each crash (accident) is assigned a numerical designation based on its distance (in feet) from the intersection of Rice Road and Thomas Hill Road, which serves as the singular entrance/exit point to the proposed project site.
Attorney Henry Lane, advocating for the immediate abutters of 3 Rice Road, 5 Rice Road, 10 Rice Road, and 11 Rice Road, presented concise points regarding the proximity of a building and pool to 11 Rice Road, the height of the structures, and apprehensions about the freight transported by the Providence & Worcester Railroad. He passionately implored the Millbury Board of Appeals to reject the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project. Attorney Lane emphasized that the gravest consequence would be if the developer appealed the decision to the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC). In the worst-case scenario, allowing the developer to proceed with their project would leave the community no better off. As highlighted earlier by the Chapter 40B consultant for the town, appealing to the HAC typically entails a 3-to-4-year process, during which developers must weigh the decision to invest both time and attorney fees, essentially taking a gamble on the outcome. The HAC could opt to uphold the Millbury Board of Appeals' decision, send it back to the board for reconsideration, rule in favor of the developer, or arrive at some other form of compromised decision. Following the issuance of a decision by the HAC, there are further avenues for appeal that the involved parties may pursue. The purpose of a Chapter 40B Local Initiative Program (LIP) agreement is to facilitate ongoing negotiations, a process that Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa largely appear to resist, which lead to the denial of their previous proposed project on the same site by the Millbury Planning Board.
Robert Garland of the Providence & Worcester Railroad vehemently opposed the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project. He stressed that even one more vehicle crossing the Rice Road railroad would pose an unacceptable risk of train-vehicle or train-pedestrian collisions, situations where the vehicle occupants or pedestrians were unlikely to survive. Robert Garland stated that the Providence & Worcester Railroad functions as a common carrier, a firm that carries goods, people, or services for the benefit of the general public without discrimination, in contrast to a private or “contract” carrier, which can refuse to transport goods for anyone but its clients. The contents of the rail cars and their schedules are not disclosed for security reasons. He further outlined the process to start the process of upgrading the railroad crossing that the town would need to initiate with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) under the Railway-Highway Crossings (Section 130) Program that provides funds for the elimination of hazards at railway-highway crossings. Robert Garland noted that railroad crossing gates were present until 1979, after which they were removed. However, the rationale behind their removal remains unknown, as it was 45 years ago. James Venincasa subsequently attempted to question Robert Garland, making unfounded allegations regarding the removal of the railroad crossing gates, seemingly in an effort to discredit the railroad. Kenneth Perro, the chairperson of the Millbury Board of Appeals, halted the line of questioning and proceeded with the public hearing.
The spokesperson for the neighborhood and community proposed a design adjustment to the developer and their project engineer, suggesting the relocation of the dumpster between the garages to align with the fire travel path. This adjustment would facilitate easier access for dumpster trucks during emptying. He then emphasized to the board the critical importance of upholding the town’s zoning bylaw, which prohibits multi-family developments in a Suburban II zoning district on a minor road. The spokesperson for the neighborhood and community suggested that if this bylaw is upheld, all other waivers for density, height, and other factors should be denied as well because the project cannot be situated in a Suburban II zoning district. Additionally, he requested that the developers articulate the direct benefits of the proposed development to the neighborhood it would impact, noting that "affordable housing" alone was not sufficient. However, the developers chose not to respond during the meeting.
Fact Checks
Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa have garnered a reputation for making statements or claims that do not align with the truth, a fact widely recognized by those who have engaged in public hearings with them. As we've emphasized multiple times, everything they assert must undergo independent due diligence.
James Venincasa and James Tetreault asserted to the Millbury Board of Appeals members that they had submitted a subdivision concept plan, purportedly adhering to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations applicable to Suburban II zoning districts, aiming to secure 20 single-family house lots, which they claimed to be for their previously proposed project that was denied by the Millbury Planning Board. However, this claim is unfounded. No subdivision plans were formally presented in any prior public hearings. Moreover, their reference to a Suburban II zoning district is inaccurate, as the zoning district was Residential I at the time, allowing for a higher density of development.
James Venincasa asserted that the removal of the Providence & Worcester Railroad crossing gates in 1979 was a result of poor maintenance. However, this assertion is incorrect. There was no indication during any previous public hearings that the railroad crossing gates were removed due to insufficient maintenance of the railroad infrastructure. During the public hearing for the now denied previous project, Charles Hunter, a senior level railroad official, confirmed the removal in 1979 but could not provide any details regarding the reasons behind it at that time. James Venincasa appeared to be attempting to discredit the representative from the railroad with his line of questioning.
James Venincasa claimed that all 192 apartments would be counted towards our Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI). However, this is inaccurate. While the 192 will count for one year, only the affordable housing units, totaling 48 apartments, will be counted in perpetuity.
This public hearing was filled with numerous important points and discussions, and while this blog post touches on many highlights, individuals seeking detailed information are encouraged to watch the meeting video.
The upcoming public hearing for the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project will be conducted by the Millbury Board of Appeals. It is slated for Wednesday, April 24, 2024, commencing at 7:00 PM. The location for this meeting will be determined and announced shortly before the public hearing.