An appeal challenging the Millbury Board of Appeals' decision to grant a Comprehensive Permit for the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project at 17 Rice Road in Millbury, Massachusetts, was filed in Worcester Superior Court this afternoon, Friday, August 30, 2024. The appeal will be served to all members of the Millbury Board of Appeals on Tuesday, September 3, 2024.

The developers of this proposed project, Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa, initially sought to build 52 duplex-style condominiums on the same site, located in a single-family neighborhood. However, this proposal was ultimately denied, primarily due to significant public safety concerns that the developers neither acknowledged nor addressed and noncompliance with other zoning and development regulations. Before their proposal was rejected by the Millbury Planning Board, Steven Venincasa made what many perceived as a veiled threat, suggesting he would pursue a much larger Chapter 40B project with nearly 225 apartments if residents and the Millbury Planning Board did not overlook the safety issues and allow the project to proceed. This did not sit well with anyone and the project was denied by the majority of the Millbury Planning Board.

Despite serious public safety concerns, the Millbury Board of Selectmen moved forward with a Chapter 40B Local Initiative Program (LIP) Agreement for 192 apartments, seemingly ignoring better judgment. Some believe the board may have placed too much trust in the former Town Manager's advice, which is now viewed by many as questionable. The agreement was signed without public knowledge, sparking widespread outrage and backlash. Since then, some selectmen have left the board, while others have reconsidered and now oppose the project for many of the reasons raised by our neighborhood. More recently elected board members also appear to oppose the project due to concerns over its location and public safety risks.

However, the Town is now bound by the LIP Agreement, making it responsible for mitigating the associated liabilities. The most cost-effective approach is to address the deficiencies and defects now, rather than facing costly consequences later. Payments for personal injuries, pain and suffering, or loss of life are expensive. As we have repeatedly emphasized, it's not a matter of if, but when someone will be seriously injured or worse. The railroad shares these grave concerns. If built, this project will become the largest residential development in Millbury’s history, cramming the highest concentration of dwelling units onto an inadequate road with an unprotected at-grade railroad crossing, limited visibility, and a sharp angle combined with a steep grade change. What could possibly go wrong?

The intersection of Millbury Avenue and Howe Avenue has already been a significant concern for residents across Millbury. When you factor in recent accidents and the increased traffic that 192 apartments and associated deliveries would bring, the risks are even more alarming. This area features a poorly designed intersection prone to rear-end collisions, limited visibility, and an unprotected railroad crossing at Rice Road and Providence Street (Route 122A). According to a railroad representative, in a train-motor vehicle collision, the train inevitably prevails due to the overwhelming difference in weight and force—it's a matter of simple physics. The potential consequences of accidents involving vehicles and pedestrians could be catastrophic.

Let's not ignore the risks posed by the large fuel tanks positioned just feet from the railroad tracks at the ckSmith Superior site near the Rice Road railroad crossing. This concern is intensified by the previous train derailment between Rice Road and Curve Street, along with the recent erosion of the railroad embankment caused by Simpson's Pond drainage infrastructure failure. We believe that the Millbury Board of Appeals and other local officials and employees did not place sufficient emphasis on assessing these critical hazards. While past events don’t necessarily predict the future, they should have been thoroughly considered and assessed as potential risk factors.

Do we wait for these foreseeable outcomes to occur and then wonder what we should have done differently? Arguing that we don't have the money is not a strong or defensible position in court. It's a recipe for taxpayers having to write a substantial check for a significant sum of money. We need proactive action, bold ideas, and community involvement now—not reactive measures after an accident. Addressing these known issues will require the proper and expert stakeholders, time, resources, and funding—not knee-jerk reactions.

During the public hearings before the Millbury Board of Appeals, our neighborhood and other concerned community members were only permitted to speak in very limited time slots at the end of meetings, while developers were given unlimited opportunities to chime in whenever they chose to. When the public did provide testimony, board members often engaged in side conversations with each other, disregarding what was being said. The chairperson limited public input and kept a close watch on the clock, appearing more concerned with ending the meeting quickly so he could go home, rather than ensuring the public received the same amount of time as the developers and their engineers and consultants.

The Millbury Board of Appeals ignored best practices outlined in the state’s guidance for zoning board reviews, including the refusal by the chairperson to conduct a site walk. Numerous other deficiencies and defects will be exposed during the appeals process.

Many participants observed that only one member of the Millbury Board of Appeals appeared to have done any meaningful due diligence. Many board members seemed unprepared and unfamiliar with the materials, documentation, and process.

Participants in the public hearings noticed that the Millbury Board of Appeals seemed more concerned about facing an appeal or lawsuit from the developers than anything else. One member even remarked, paraphrased, “We hope the neighborhood has deep pockets to afford appealing our decision,” before a decision was even made—an attitude that struck many as defeatist. Others echoed similar sentiments. This was interpreted by some as the Millbury Board of Appeals choosing not to fulfill its responsibilities and instead leaving our neighborhood to handle the fight for what was right and just.

The Millbury Board of Appeals is meant to base its decisions on fact-finding, not on the fear of appeals or potential lawsuits. Yet, here we are—now the Town will have to defend the Millbury Board of Appeals’ decision in court, at the taxpayers' expense.

From the outset of the public hearings, the Millbury Board of Appeals was warned by a town official in his personal capacity that our neighborhood has been here for years and aren’t going anywhere. We will continue to defend our neighborhood and community, both in public hearings and, if necessary, through an appeal. Had the Millbury Board of Appeals done its due diligence, they would have realized that our neighborhood is relentless, well-organized, represented by a spokesperson for over 100 individuals.

During the public hearings, our neighborhood put forward several compromise proposals to work with the developers, but these were ignored. Now, we're advancing to the next stage with an appeal before the Worcester Superior Court. It seems the developers believe our neighborhood's concerns are insignificant and could be disregarded, focusing only on town officials and employees. We'll soon see if a judge agrees that our concerns matter.

The initial appeal filing may be amended as the proceedings progress.