According to M.G.L. c. 41 Section 81R, a waiver is partially defined as "...in any particular case, where such action is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent and purpose…". Other state laws might have comparable meanings and requirements that are relevant to Chapter 40B development. The waivers sought by these developers are not in the "public interest" and are “not consistent with the intent and purpose”, rather align with their own self-serving interests.

Before submitting the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project, Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa attempted to minimize or eliminate the application fees outlined in Millbury's Comprehensive Permit Rules and Regulations (i.e., $33,800). The Board of Appeals postponed the request for amendment indefinitely.

The developers, Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa, initially sought just three waivers with the submission of their Chapter 40B application for Rice Pond Village located at 17 Rice Road in Millbury, Massachusetts, as outlined below.

The proposed Rice Pond Village comprehensive permit development will require three waivers from the Millbury Zoning Bylaw:

1. From section 23.2 - The Applicant is proposing density of multifamily housing greater than what is allowed with a special permit

2. From section 23.32 - The Applicant is proposing three apartment buildings which will have heights in excess of the allowed 30 foot maximum.

3. From section 33.2 - The applicant is proposing to provide parking at the ratio of 1.66 per unit rather than two per unit plus a third space per each three-bedroom unit.

More Than Three

As anticipated, the number of waivers is increasing, consistent with our expectations from these developers. Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa seem to adopt a mindset where rules are perceived as non-applicable, deeming requirements irrelevant when they clash with their development goals. This disregard extends to public safety and environmental concerns.

Notably, this mindset isn't confined to the current project site; it has been evident in the majority of projects presented to various boards in Millbury, and likely in other towns as well. Despite Steven Venincasa initially assuring abutters that he’d exploit the Millbury Planning Board members’ kind heartedness to achieve his goals. Ultimately, the Planning Board's denial was not the outcome he had desired. This time around, the enforcement of our local regulations will be determined by the Millbury Board of Appeals on behalf of the registered voters of Millbury, and these developers should be held accountable to the same development standards as enacted by the registered voters of Millbury.

James Tetreault, the project engineer and employee of the developer, has stated in responses to comments from town memorandums that the following additional waiver requests will also be sought:

Board of Sewer Commissioners

Based on Article IV, Section 3 of the Town of Millbury Board of Sewer Commissioners Sewer System Rules & Regulations (Revised August 27, 2019), for multifamily dwellings, a permanent sewer privilege fee shall be assessed at a rate of $7, 500/unit for the first unit and $3,750 for each additional unit. For uses other than residential, there shall be an assessment of a minimum of one unit ($7.500). Therefore, the total betterment fee due for the proposed development is $738,750, due once occupancy of the buildings has been established.

• The Applicant will request a waiver from paying the full amount of this fee.

Based on Article Il, Section 29 of the Town of Millbury Board of Sewer Commissioners Sewer System Rules & Regulations (Revised August 27, 2019), "any new proposed subdivision or commercial/industrial business that requires a sewer extension discharging into the sewerage system shall require the removal, on the ratio of at least 4 (four) gallons removed for each gallon proposed, of excess infiltration/inflow (I&I) within the existing sewerage system, thus decreasing the total flow to the wastewater treatment facility.

The removal of identified and quantified infiltration/inflow (I&I) shall be as approved by the Board of Sewer Commissioners. If at this time, there is no identified and quantified location where the infiltration/inflow (I&I) may be removed, the Board of Sewer Commissioners shall require that a sum of money in the amount of $1.00 per gallon of I&I proposed for removal shall be deposited… with the Town Treasurer." The total proposed sewer flow from the residential buildings within the development is 33,660 gallons per day (GPD) (based on 310 CMR 15.000: Title 5 of the State Environmental Code).

Based on a required removal rate of 4:1, the applicant is responsible for removing 134,640 gallons of I/I or paying the I/l fee of $134,640. Note that this fee is for the residential buildings only, building plans for the Clubhouse are required to properly determine the sewer flow and assess the I/l fee for the Clubhouse use. Building plans should also be provided for the Clubhouse to determine if a grease trap is required for food preparation.

• The Applicant will request a waiver from paying the full amount of this fee.

Town Planner

As per Section 3.12 of the Comprehensive Permits Rules and Regulations of the Town of Millbury, a "Master/Housing Plan Consistency Report" is mandatory. This report must fulfill the following criteria: “The APPLICATION shall include a narrative report describing how the APPLICATION is consistent, or inconsistent as the case may be, with the Millbury Master Plan and the Millbury Housing Plan adopted under Chapter 40B's "planned production" regulations. An APPLICATION shall be presumed to be not "consistent with local needs" if the SITE is not located within one of the village center districts identified in the TOWN's Master Plan and Housing Plan.”

• The Applicant will request a waiver from this requirement.

As per Section 3.13.10 of the Comprehensive Permits Rules and Regulations of the Town of Millbury, Architectural Floor and Elevations Plan Sheet, signed and stamped by an architect registered in Massachusetts, showing:

3.13.10.1 Floor plans for each floor ofeach building, proposed or to remain; if buildings will be constructed repetitively typical floor plan shall suffice. Each floor plan must illustrate how individual residential units are to be combined to form a residential building, including any accessories to the building (i.e. , solarium, patio, foyer, etc.). The Floor Plans shall be drawn at a scale of 1⁄4" = l '.

3.13.10.2 Architectural scaled drawings ofall buildings, including elevations for the front, sides, and rear of each building and structure, including the proposed architectural treatments to the building such as roofing, siding, and window materials at an appropriate scale, generally not less than 1 /8" = I ' .

• The Applicant will ask for a waiver from the plan scale requirement for elevation views and floor plans. Architectural plans of the clubhouse and garage buildings will be submitted to the Building Department.

As per Section 12.44(a) of the Zoning Bylaw of the Town of Millbury, Contents and Scope of Application requires “Existing and proposed topography contour lines at one (1) foot intervals.“

• The Applicant will request a waiver from this requirement.

As per Section 12.44(a)(c) of the Zoning Bylaw of the Town of Millbury, Contents and Scope of Application requires “An isometric line drawing (projection) at the same scale as the site plan, showing the entire project and its relation to existing areas, building and roads for a distance of one hundred feet from the project boundaries.”

• The Applicant will ask for a waiver from this requirement.

The waiver requests mentioned earlier are likely not the final ones to be requested. It seems that the developers have not conducted a thorough review of all local regulations, fees, and other aspects. As town officials elevate the requirements, the developers respond by seeking waivers for these requirements.

In the public hearing on the amendment request for Millbury's Comprehensive Permit Rules and Regulations, Steven Venincasa portrayed himself as a contributor to the town's welfare by suggesting a reduction or elimination of our local fees. Additionally, he sought to dictate terms to the town regarding the use of fees. He insinuated that if the fees were not utilized for the purposes he demanded, he would be entitled to a refund. That is not how any of this works. However, the primary beneficiaries of waivers are the developers' bottom line; not our taxpayers, and public safety is not improved. Considering the wetlands non-compliance in the town of Berlin, it is crucial to prioritize concerns about our precious wetlands resources near the proposed site and downstream. This includes Rice Pond, the immediate wetlands habitat, the Blackstone River watershed, and Simpson’s Pond.

It is crucial to uphold accountability in the assessment of this project. The Millbury Board of Appeals, along with other boards, committees, town officials, and staff, must ensure that Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa strictly comply with all local regulations without any exceptions. Failing to do so would likely violate the Millbury Board of Appeals’ oath and obligation to the residents of Millbury. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) has clearly indicated that the Millbury Board of Appeals is the designated decision-maker responsible for handling public safety, environmental impacts, and all other local concerns. If the Millbury Board of Appeals upholds our local regulations and provides defensible findings in their decision, we should succeed in any challenge. The reality is that the developers selected an inappropriate site for a project of this scale with all its known public safety issues, and the responsibility lies with the developers, not the town for their decision. Our community should not have to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions, especially when it jeopardizes our lives, impacts our future investments, and increases tax burdens for Millbury taxpayers.

For those who have been following and participating in the earlier Rice Pond Village project, Steven Venincasa, in the eyes of many, appeared to threaten our neighborhood and the Millbury Planning Board with an ultimatum of an even larger Chapter 40B project if we did not concede on overlooking public safety. This is the situation we find ourselves in now, with him attempting to carry out this threat. The Millbury Planning Board made the correct decision for the town and our neighborhood, and we fully endorse their decision. We now rely on the Millbury Board of Appeals to confront these challenges head on by upholding our local regulations in the best interests of public safety, environmental concerns, and alignment with our neighborhood and the town's building typology in accordance with the design guidelines for Chapter 40B and the definition of “consistent with local needs” as enacted by the state legislature. Any decision to advance with the proposed project must address and resolve all issues related to public safety, environmental threats, and any other discrepancies. As a fundamental element of the mitigation process, it is imperative to, at the very least, substantially decrease the number of units. This action should also address concerns related to the Providence & Worcester Railroad crossing without incurring taxpayer’s expense, the intersection of Providence Street (Route 122A) and Rice Road, as well as the deficiencies observed along the entirety of Rice Road. Furthermore, there is a need to reduce the height, mass, and density to levels comparable to Medfield Meadows, decreasing from 200 dwelling units to 36. The current proposal follows a "cram and jam" planning approach, failing to comply with local and state regulations. Consequently, the developers are pursuing a multitude of waivers to align their poorly conceived plans with parking requirements well below the mandated threshold, 2:1 (22.5°) and 1:1 (45°) slopes around the perimeter of the developed area of the site adjacent to Rice Pond, as well as subsurface infrastructure within the required setbacks.

In accordance with the state laws and regulations outlined by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC), strict adherence is mandated. This prompts the question: Why should the Town of Millbury contemplate the waiving of local regulations and contemplate reduction of fees to endorse a project inconsistent with established regulations? Swapping public safety for the goal of expanding affordable housing is not a viable solution; it would simply trade one issue for another. This project is better suited for a different site that can adequately meet its requirements, on a major street, as required in our zoning regulations.

Officials from various communities have opposed the development plans put forth by Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa, leading to an apparent abandonment of their proposals in the face of resistance. Millbury should enforce its local regulations and set explicit boundaries to ensure consistency and compliance, fostering fairness for all developers both presently and in the future. Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa appear to assume an exemption from rules, asserting no obligation to pay the established fees to the town. Their request for an amendment aimed to reduce or eliminate the $33,800 application fees, and they are unwilling to pay the full amount of the required sewer fees.

Constructing affordable housing may not be as beneficial for Millbury as it is portrayed. In reality, it could result in higher taxes for Millbury taxpayers, covering additional services and expenses—an aspect the state does not seem to consider or prioritize. While the necessity of affordable housing is undisputed, the present approach involves constructing affordable housing with a 75:25 ratio of market-rate to affordable units. The state should adopt a more comprehensive approach, but developers are resistant to such changes as they are currently exploiting the existing Chapter 40B law to make record profits. Different states employ various methods to tackle the problem of affordable housing, and it is imperative for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to contemplate revising our laws to more effectively deal with this critical issue. Negating local regulations and fees is not a sustainable answer. Honestly, those who require affordable housing the most often do not perceive it as truly affordable.

Millbury has the potential to create local regulations for the sustainable development of affordable housing. Yet, achieving this goal will necessitate strong leadership in this particular context. We can draw inspiration from innovative strategies employed by other communities and adapt them to suit our own needs, ensuring sustainable development for affordable housing and our tax base. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, but the effort has to be put forth.