As a neighborhood and community, we've prioritized advocating for responsible development that fits seamlessly into our well-established neighborhood.

Since the start of 2021, we've collaborated with local and state officials, raising concerns about public safety while offering potential solutions. Regrettably, developers Steven F. Venincasa and James Venincasa largely disregarded our efforts. This led to the rejection of the initial development plans for 17 Rice Road in Millbury, Massachusetts, proposing 52 and then downsized to 46 condominiums on February 14, 2022. If the developers had addressed the significant public safety issues on Rice Road, such as the deficiencies at the Providence & Worcester Railroad crossing and intersections at South Main Street and Providence Street, they might have gained approval from both our neighborhood and town officials. Instead, they've now proposed an even larger and unsuitable Chapter 40B project, aiming for approval, while exacerbating public safety concerns. This method hinders progress, but our neighborhood and community will persist in advocating our stance with decision-makers.

We're dedicated to keeping our community safe in every project discussion. Honestly, the developer's plans haven't matched our neighborhood's needs; it's like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It seems that Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa tend to gravitate towards conflict rather than pursuing consensus, often failing to follow through on their commitments. Their company's modus operandi (MO) appears to favor bullying over cooperation, a strategy that doesn't bode well for long-term success in business. Throughout Central Massachusetts, Steven Venincasa and James Venincasa’s reputation (under a multitude of limited liability corporations) doesn't reflect that of Class-A developers but rather of “builders” who consider themselves “high-end developers”. This becomes evident in meetings, negotiations, documented minutes, and various interactions. If observed closely, it's evident that these developers, along with some of their engineers and consultants, tend to dismiss community concerns and disregard town officials they believe won't support their project. Valuable information is readily available through an internet search, although delving further will reveal even more beneficial details.

We strongly believe that other parts of Millbury offer better suitability for large-scale, highly dense multifamily developments, especially on major streets, without the specific constraints of Rice Road. Any proposed development must align with zoning regulations and relevant guidelines, prioritizing public safety, appropriateness, and environmental responsibility concerning neighboring land uses.

A neighborhood predominantly composed of single-story single-family homes isn't an ideal fit for accommodating three four-story buildings with 192 apartments, permitting over 1,000 daily vehicle trips through a lone access point. These legitimate worries are amplified when considering the deficiencies of the minor road, Rice Road, which have documented public safety concerns and were the main basis for denying the previous project. This raises substantial public safety concerns. This scale does not align with the site, zoning, the environment, or the established development norms. Such a project's introduction wouldn't just conflict with the neighborhood's essence; it could potentially devalue properties, reduce quality of life, and exacerbate public safety concerns, especially considering Rice Road's current inadequacies and limitations, and the nearby railroad crossing. The proposed density increase goes against the neighborhood's character and contradicts the requirements outlined in Section 22 of the Zoning Bylaws. This sets the stage for a negative impact on all existing households, violating Chapter 40B, which aims “…to protect the health or safety of the occupants of a proposed project or of the residents of the municipality, to protect the natural environment, to promote better site and building design in relation to the surroundings and municipal and regional planning, or to preserve open spaces…“ as defined in Chapter 40B § 20, specifically the definition of “consistent with local needs.” Prioritizing public safety over the need for affordable housing is crucial; otherwise, you'll simply be replacing one set of issues with another. There are more suitable locations for a project like this that won't risk compromising public safety. Millbury still possesses available land suitable for developing multifamily housing along a "major street".