Why Building Typology Matters
M.G.L. Chapter 40B defines “Consistent with Local Needs” as ensuring the well-being of proposed housing occupants and city/town residents, enhancing site and building design to align with its surroundings, and preserving open spaces. This standard heavily influences evaluations of Chapter 40B projects, particularly concerning their alignment with the environment in terms of height, size, proportion, and building typology. Yet, it necessitates the local Board of Appeals to fully meet their responsibilities within the permitting process, guaranteeing the safeguarding of public safety and the environment, and compliance with local regulations, while also ensuring the project aligns seamlessly with the existing neighborhood's building typology and relationship to adjacent streets.
What is meant by “building typololgy”? In the context of Chapter 40B, building typology refers to the characteristic physical form, style, and design features of structures within a specific area or neighborhood. It involves understanding and adhering to the prevailing architectural patterns, building sizes, densities, and overall aesthetics present in a given locality when proposing new construction or developments. Compliance with building typology under Chapter 40B aims to ensure that new projects integrate harmoniously with the existing built environment.
We conducted a comprehensive analysis using updated data from MassGIS and Millbury Property Cards, rectifying previous irregularities found in the source datasets thus enhancing accuracy. This updated dataset clarifies that the proposed Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project not only clashes with the immediate neighborhood but also diverges from Millbury's overall character.
Should the 192-apartment complex be sanctioned, it would stand as the town's most extensive development. Yet, it would exacerbate current public safety issues along Rice Road, including the vulnerable Providence & Worcester Railroad crossing, as well as the intersections at South Main Street and Providence Street (Route 122A) where there have been multiple rear-end collisions. This escalation is projected to amount to an additional 1,045 vehicle trips per day (an estimate that may be understated), solely attributed to the proposed development, according to the developer's estimations. Addressing these issues would require thorough, comprehensive solutions, not merely quick fixes. Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa explicitly expressed disinterest in financing any potential aggravation of public safety issues do to their proposed development, strongly indicating their motives.
MassHousing previously denied the contentious 200 unit Chapter 40B Medfield Meadows project primarily due to its failure to align with the provisions of "Consistent with Local Needs," specifically in regard to harmonizing with the surrounding properties. Some of our local officials seem to misunderstand this term, viewing it differently from its legal definition. Another misconception is that if our Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI) is less than 10%, we cannot reject the project, which is incorrect. This ongoing misunderstanding might be fueled by developers lobbying local boards without thorough due diligence, as supported by various sources.
A careful legal review is strongly recommended before deciding on the proposed Chapter 40B project to ensure defensibility.
In terms of residential buildings, the data provided by MassGIS and Millbury Property Cards in the table below indicates the existence of 3- and 4-story residential structures. A few of these buildings have a blend of purposes, housing commercial areas on their ground floors and residential units on the higher levels. It's crucial to note that within Millbury, there is only a single four-story building, which is dedicated to residential use. Specifically, this building, known as Centerview Apartments, was developed under Chapter 40B, owned by the Town of Millbury, and presently overseen by the Millbury Housing Authority.
| No | Properties | Stories | Buildings | Units |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95 | Centerview Apartments ¹ Elm St |
4 | 1 | 54 |
| 65 | Spark Millbury (Cordis Mills) Canal St |
3 | 1 | 112 |
| 1-7 | Cobblestone Village Apartments ³ Cobblestone Village Way |
3 | 6 | 72 |
| 19 | 19 Canal Street Apartments ³ Canal St |
3 | 1 | 59 |
| 68 | Woodside Apartments Millbury Ave |
3 | 4 | 51 |
| 22 | Rhodes St ³ | 3 | 1 | 12 |
| 9 | West St | 3 | 1 | 12 |
| 79-81 | Barrow Block Building ² Elm St |
3 | 1 | 11 |
| 126 | W Main St | 3 | 1 | 10 |
| 60 | Millbury Ave | 3 | 1 | 9 |
| 54 | Maple St | 3 | 1 | 8 |
| 36 | Ducharme Building ² Main St |
3 | 1 | 7 |
| 18 | River St | 3 | 1 | 7 |
| 7 | Masonic Building ² S Main St |
3 | 1 | 6 |
| 11 | S Main St ² | 3 | 1 | 6 |
| 20 | Waters St | 3 | 1 | 6 |
| 6 | Church St | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 7 | Grafton St | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 9 | Grafton St | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 11 | Grove St | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 13 | Grove St | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 17 | Waters St | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 30 | W Main St | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 65 | W Main St | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 15 | Howe Ave | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | Elm Ct | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 19 | Miles St | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 14 | Prospect St | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 59 | Davis Rd | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Rhodes St | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 95 | W Main St | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 115 | W Main St | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 123 | Asa Waters Mansion ¹ Elm St |
3 | 1 | 0 |
Properties owned by the Town of Millbury are denoted with a “1” following the street name and mixed-use with commercial and residential properties are denoted with a “2”. Properties owned by Steven Venincasa, individually or under one if his many limited liability corporations are denoted with an “3” after the street name. Information sourced from MassGIS and Millbury Property Cards underwent several manual verifications and edits to ensure accuracy. The table provides links to photographs from public records, allowing visual access to building typology whenever available.
Stories Per Property
This proposed Rice Pond Village project submitted by Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa is simply not compatible with the town of Millbury’s DNA in height, mass, density, and building typography. There exists only one four-story building of any use code, accounting for a mere 0.02% of residential properties. Its insignificance is such that it doesn't even register on the donut chart provided above. Additionally, there are 33 residential properties featuring three-story buildings (0.79%), 1,444 residential properties with two-story buildings (34.49%), 2,677 residential properties hosting one-story residential buildings (63.94%), and 32 undeveloped properties designated with a residential use code (0.76%).
The Millbury Board of Appeals must thoroughly review the denial decision related to Medfield Meadows by MassHousing and integrate this data into their assessment of the proposed Rice Pond Village project.
Which One Of These Things Is Not Like The Others?
When considering these elements, the trio of proposed 4+ story buildings proposed by Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa stands out distinctly. These structures significantly diverge from the surrounding architectural landscape in terms of height, mass, scale, and density. M.G.L. Chapter 40B mandates that developments align with neighboring structures, a requirement lacking in this proposed project. By exploring the provided links, you'll notice the predominantly single-story single-family houses, occasionally interspersed with two-story dwellings, which define the existing neighborhood. In Millbury, there are just 34 three and four-story residential buildings listed, among which Steven Venincasa or one of his numerous limited liability corporations owns three properties, totaling eight apartment buildings.
This is the proposed “sample” building elevation as provided in the developer’s application submission. Sample should be defined by the developer as to its meaning. Is this the actual plans or will something else be substituted later?
The Suburban II Zoning District, as outlined in Section 23.32 of the Millbury Zoning Bylaw, sets a maximum allowable height of 30 feet. However, these developers are seeking approval to construct a roof peak reaching 65 feet 6 inches, surpassing this limit by more than twice the designated height. Although these developers claim the building is four stories tall, the presence of five stories of windows within the roof dormers raises questions about its actual number of floors contained in the proposed buildings. Here's another contradiction from these developers: "Don't trust what you see, trust only what we tell you." The developers persist in their belief that they are exempt from adhering to rules and seek waivers for regulations they prefer not to follow without any justification or explanation. The Millbury Board of Appeals must reject the three waivers already requested, as well as any future requests, for numerous compelling reasons. Disregarding established rules and regulations, which were enacted by the majority of registered voters, without offering direct benefits to current residents would, in our view, violate the board's oath to the taxpayers of Millbury.
The neighboring properties adhere to the regulations of the Suburban II, Residential I, and Industrial Zoning Districts, with no building surpassing two stories in height (i.e., 30 feet). Most of the area comprises one-story, single-family homes. The table following this description lists nearby buildings, with linked photos available for review at their corresponding addresses, sourced from public records. The proposed architectural and site plans obviously lacks harmony with the surrounding building typology, contradicting the recommendations in the Chapter 40B design guidelines.
| No | Address | Stories | Buildings | Units |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aldrich Ave | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Aldrich Ave | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | Aldrich Ave | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | Aldrich Ave | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 5 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 7 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 11 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 12 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 13 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 14 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 15 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 16 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 17 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 19 | Capt Peter Simpson Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 13 | Curve St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 10 | Jackie Dr | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 13 | Jackie Dr | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 14 | Jackie Dr | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 15 | Jackie Dr | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 16 | Jackie Dr | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 18 | Jackie Dr | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 20 | Jackie Dr | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 0 | Providence & Worcester Railroad ² Providence St |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| 0 | Simpson's Pond Providence St |
0 | 0 | 0 |
| 24 | Providence St ² | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 26 | Providence St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 30 | Providence St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 32 | Providence St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 33 | National Grid ² Providence St |
1 | 1 | 0 |
| 34 | Providence St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 36 | [Assumed To Be Owned By National Grid] ² Providence St |
0 | 0 | 0 | 38 | Providence St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 40 | ckSmith Superior Oil ² Providence St |
1 | 1 | 0 |
| 44 | Providence St | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 46 | Providence St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 48 | ckSmith Superior Oil ² Providence St |
1 | 1 | 0 |
| 1 | Rice Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | Rice Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | Rice Rd | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | Rice Rd | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 5 | Rice Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 6 | Rice Rd | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 7 | Rice Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 9 | Rice Rd | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 10 | Rice Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 11 | Rice Rd | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| 12 | Rice Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 14 | Rice Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 19 | Rice Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 20 | Rice Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 0 | S Main St | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 55 | S Main St | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 66 | S Main St | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| 67 | S Main St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 68 | S Main St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 69 | S Main St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 74 | S Main St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 76 | S Main St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 77 | S Main St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 78 | S Main St | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 1 | Thomas Hill Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 | Thomas Hill Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | Thomas Hill Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 5 | Thomas Hill Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 6 | Thomas Hill Rd | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | Thomas Hill Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 11 | Thomas Hill Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 12 | Thomas Hill Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 13 | Thomas Hill Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 14 | Thomas Hill Rd ¹ | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Information sourced from MassGIS and Millbury Property Cards underwent several manual verifications and edits to ensure accuracy. The table provides links to photographs from public records, allowing visual access to building typology whenever available.
Analyzing these tables reveals a stark disparity: the proposed trio of four-story buildings housing 192 units stand out as entirely incompatible with the established design and essence of the current neighborhood and town. A direct comparison of building heights, mass, scale, and density underscores this mismatch. Additionally, the linked photographs highlight how the proposed building design starkly contrasts with any existing structure nearby, notably in terms of height, mass, scale, and architectural building typology. It's crucial to note that in Millbury, there's only one four-story building, emphasizing the distinctness of this proposal. It's akin to fitting a square peg into a round hole. The developers should reconsider their approach, aiming for plans that seamlessly blend with the neighborhood's character. A design echoing the varied heights, massing, architectural details, and a mix of colors and materials akin to top-tier Class-A developments would be more suitable. Provided below are some better multifamily development examples:
Union Studio Architects’ portfolio of “missing middle” multifamily developments:
Concord Riverwalk in Concord, MA (13 Units)
Trinity Place & Townhouses in Providence, RI
Capitol Square in Providence, RI (13 Units + 5,500 Sq. Ft. of retail)
Campanelli’s award winning multifamily project portfolio:
Redbrook Apartments in Plymouth, MA (288 Units)
East Main Street Apartments in Norton, MA (188 Units)
Cirrus Apartments in Ashland, MA (398 Units)
One Upland Apartments in Norwood, MA (262 Units)
Chapter 40B Design Guidelines
The Chapter 40B Guidelines prepared by the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities (EOHLC) suggest approaches for applying the regulations with some additional terms and phrases in section 3. Findings, Design (760 CMR 56.04(4)(c)):
"Relationship to Adjacent Building Typology - Generally, a Project is developed in the context of single family dwellings and introduces a different form of housing into the neighborhood. Assuming that this is the case, it is important to mitigate the height and scale of the buildings to adjoining sites. In this context, it is particularly important to consider the predominant building types, setbacks, and roof lines of the existing context.
The massing of the Project should be modulated and/or stepped in perceived height, bulk and scale to create an appropriate transition to adjoining sites.
Where possible, the site plan should take advantage of the natural topography and site features, or the addition of landscaping, to help buffer massing.
Design may use architectural details, color and materials taken from the existing context as a means of addressing the perception of mass and height.
Relationship to Adjacent Streets - Likewise, the manner in which the buildings relate to adjacent streets is critically important. Massing should take into account the pattern of the existing street frontage as well as maintain a human scale by reasonably relating the height of buildings to the width of the public way."
The development design by Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa dismisses EOHLC’s Chapter 40B design principles and neglects local and state regulations. They've chosen a cram-and-jam approach, prioritizing profit over crafting a thoughtfully designed environment that would benefit future residents and enrich the surrounding neighborhood and town. A deeper examination reveals a recurring pattern across most of their developments, resembling more the practices of a builder or aspiring developer rather than those of a top-tier Class-A developer. Their approach is clearly deficient in giving the required focus to design, details, and execution, repeatedly failing to meet the standards they've conveyed.