Accountability Matters: A Tale Of Two Towns And The Developers Behind Perry Place And Rice Pond Village
Steven F. Venincasa and James Venincasa have proposed a Chapter 40B development at 16 Perry Place in Auburn, Massachusetts, mirroring the scale and approach of their prior Chapter 40B project, Rice Pond Village, on Rice Road in Millbury. Both proposals are similarly oversized and out of character with the surrounding residential neighborhoods, raising valid concerns about compatibility and road safety.
The Perry Place site presents several significant constraints. It consists of two parcels—one of which became landlocked and unbuildable following the construction of Route 290. The other fronts Perry Place, a private road subject to strict limitations on use and modification. Compounding the challenge, the site includes wetlands, triggering oversight from both the Auburn Conservation Commission and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Because the Town of Auburn is not a party to the private road, it has no jurisdiction over its use. Accordingly, the Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals included a condition in its approval requiring the developers to prove their claimed access rights—either through a court ruling in Land Court or Superior Court, or by obtaining agreement from all affected property owners. The developers themselves admitted that such consensus is unlikely. Nonetheless, both Steven F. Venincasa and James Venincasa pushed the Auburn Board of Appeals to drop the condition. Meanwhile, some abutters, having retained legal counsel, were advised that the developers lack the access rights they assert. This, unfortunately, is not surprising. Questionable credibility has become a consistent trait across the many limited liability corporations associated with the Steven F. Venincasa and/or James Venincasa.
After the public hearing, at least one abutter has already reported that Steven F. Venincasa made yet another attempt to purchase their property. Based on past conduct, it's expected that this will be followed by pressure tactics—possibly including intimidation—if the owner refuses to sell. But this strategy has a major flaw: unless the developers acquire every property with rights to Perry Place, they are unlikely to secure a building permit. The Auburn Zoning Board made it explicitly clear that the burden of proof lies with the developers—not the abutters. If the rights they claim truly existed, they would have provided solid evidence by now. Instead, they submitted only a letter from their attorney, while abutters presented a competing legal analysis that directly disputes their position.
This condition could well be the project’s poison pill. The developers failed to conduct proper due diligence prior to acquiring the site. Now they face what could be a drawn-out and costly legal battle in Land Court or Superior Court. That delay alone could derail the project. Rising legal fees, mounting construction costs, and uncertain financing all threaten its viability. Prolonged build times are often fatal to projects. Investors seek clear, near-term returns—not to sink capital into high-risk ventures.
As with other communities they’ve approached, Steven F. Venincasa and James Venincasa’s words often don’t align with reality. They say what they believe boards want to hear to move their plans forward. That’s why it’s more important than ever for Perry Place property owners, as well as local and state officials, to hold them accountable to every condition. The Auburn Conservation Commission, in particular, must uphold the Wetlands Protection Act without compromise.
Steven F. Venincasa has already threatened to appeal the decision if the access condition remains—a tactic he’s used before. While he frames it as a last resort, it functions more as a bargaining chip. At this point, the threat has become predictable—and frankly, a bit absurd. Anyone looking at the facts would ask: if you don’t actually have legal access to the road, how can you expect to win an appeal? And if the developers were truly confident in their position, why haven't they produced the evidence? Perhaps because they know they can’t.
Whether they pursue an appeal remains to be seen. But according to one neighbor, a public notice was posted indicating the developers are in default on their property taxes—an amount that’s relatively minor. Still, failing to meet even basic financial obligations is a poor start for anyone claiming they intend to be a good neighbor. Building community trust starts with responsibility. And with these developers, actions speak far louder than words.
The Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals deserves credit for standing with residents and taking their concerns seriously. This stands in stark contrast to Millbury’s Board of Appeals—referred to by many as the “Board of Approval”—which capitulated almost immediately, apparently out of fear of legal conflict. At least one resident reported that the Millbury Board of Appeals was eager to avoid dealing with the Chapter 40B process altogether, going so far as to stifle public input while giving the developers unrestricted time and freedom to present their case. Another key difference is that the Millbury Board of Appeals placed the burden of legal challenge on the abutters, while in Auburn, the burden was rightly placed on the developer. This speaks volumes about where each board's fact findings and impartiality truly lie.
In Millbury, several residents have taken on the financial burden of joining the appeal against the Chapter 40B Rice Pond Village project. Steven F. Venincasa and James Venincasa have repeatedly filed motions to dismiss the case at each court hearing, but the court has consistently denied those requests. The appeal remains ongoing, with a key milestone scheduled for December 2025, continuing to delay the project’s progress and risking its completion.