Good evening and welcome to the Thursday, February 12th, 2026 meeting of the Lakeville Planning Board. It is 6:30 p.m. and we are meeting this evening at the Lakeville Police Station at 323 Bedford Street. We have a lake cam recording for us. And this evening with
us we have Don Aguay, our associate member, our town planner, Stephanie Krampton, David Lodge, myself, Michelle McGran, Dian Wolga, and our clerk Kathy Murray. Um, we do have a quorum. Is anyone else recording for the record?
Hearing none, our first item on the agenda is 168 Bedford Street preliminary plan. Continue to this evening. a preliminary plan that conceptualizes the construction of a roadway and three lots for commercial storage buildings with associated util utilities and drainage.
Possible vote. Welcome back. >> Um I think Jamie Det Zenith consultant engineers for the record. I believe at the last meeting um there were two uh two items. One was the agenda didn't reference possible vote and then the
second one was uh closing out the hearing. I believe council agreed that there should be uh it should be closed out. >> Uh that way the clock starts ticking for the zoning freeze on it. >> So, um I'm happy to answer any questions. I don't I think that we kind of went through it. We are working on
the definitive. Actually Dave did the perimeter survey for us on it. So, uh we've got it together where we've started doing some of the work on that. Um and you know, we just look forward to presenting the definitive hopefully in a few months from now.
>> Okay, sounds good. didn't I I did watch um because I missed it. >> You absolutely >> but um I think my only question was about because of all the wetlands. Are you going through conservation first or >> Well, no, we'll run them simultaneous. >> You are going to Okay. >> The the lines approved from my understanding. So, I'm I'm not the first
engineer that's been onto this job. Um there was a previous engineer had the wetlands flagged. I'm told that the line was locked in by conservation already. >> So, we'll follow up with that. But, yeah, we'll have to definitely get an order conditions for the work. Uh no doubt about it. I like to run those simultaneously because if the board or
the commission has any questions Yeah. >> or changes, I can do them at the same time. Also peer review if they have any changes. Same thing. >> Right. Sounds good. All right. So, there wasn't really a hearing. So, we just need to approve the um preliminary plan,
I believe. >> Yes. >> Right. Okay. If no one has any further questions. >> No. >> No. Yeah. No. I think we covered in the last meeting. >> All right. All good. Stephanie. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All right. Uh, would someone like to make that motion?
>> I make a motion to approve the preliminary plan for 168 Bedford Street. >> I have a motion. >> Second. >> And a second. All in favor? >> I. >> I. Motion carries. >> All right. Thank you. Have a great night. >> You guys did get the continuence request
from Mr. Pucci. >> We did. It's not a hearing. It's just under admin update, but um >> I'm going to be here for when he talks about I just want to make sure that it did get through. I got it last last night as well. So, >> okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Uh, agenda item number two, ANR plan 12 Highland Road, Lori Fluite, Madigan Land Serveying LLC. Possible vote. >> Uh, good evening everybody. Um, for the record, my name is Dave Madigan from Madan Lance Van. And what we have here
is a form plan of an existing lot, single lot, 149,000 ft. And uh, currently there's an existing single family residential house on that
lot. And we are simply more or less dividing it right down the middle to create two lots. Lot one will be the existing house lot and lot two is the new lot that we're
creating. Both lots have the uh required minimum frontage, the required minimum distance at the 40 foot uh 40 foot setback. the shape um front yard circles
as you can see they're very close and the required minimum uh upland area. Um so it meets all those planning board uh regs you probably got in your packet just to
you know maybe explain a little further. There was a uh zoning board uh special permit granted on this and and the reason for that is this is kind of a unique property. >> This property is in the business zone. Every single
property around it, everywhere across the street is residential. >> I think this was something historically, you know, years ago. I even remember as a kid, I think there was a store or something there. >> Uh so it's it's stayed business. And if you're going to do a residential use in
a business zone, you have to get a special permit >> through the ZBA. >> That was done in um I believe December 28th. Attorney Maderas uh got that approved. Um, and the zoning board
basically approved that and designated that there was no uh, town boards or committees that expressed opposition or any neighbors or members of the public that voiced opposition and that the ZBA actually found that the advantages of
the residential use outweighs any detrimental effects that a business use would possibly cause. So, um, so they've done that and now we're here just to, uh, create the two lots, the one lot. All
>> right. Any questions from the board? >> So, my first question, um, regarding uh, lot one is will that eventually fall under Unicorn Lane even though it's a private way?
>> No. currently uh the the uh plan and and we have it there. There's an existing gravel driveway that comes off Highland >> and then we've shown a proposed driveway going up into the rear where most likely that house will sit. It could sit there or actually could sit out front. So, the
new lot will have its access up through Highland off of Highland. there'll be no um access, you know, for lot two is not going to put it over on Unicorn. They're going to most likely come right there off of Highland. >> So, it's going to come right off of Highland. Okay.
>> That's the plan. And these lots probably going to be held within the family. >> So, if they wanted to share that driveway, >> do whatever. Um that's what they do. >> Okay.
Oh, so you're saying lot one is going to utilize the same driveway as lot two. >> It might it could also use uh >> off of Unicorn there's an existing gravel driveway up at the top there. It could it could use that. I guess that's up to them. Currently, I think they use
both. >> Okay. I mean, I think the only concern is just to make sure that, you know, with the labeling for >> Yeah. >> emergency access, make sure that's clear. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Once they figure out their main
driveway, certainly for the new lot, cuz that'll have to go through the building department and everything. Yeah. >> Yeah. Cuz when I saw that, I was like, "Oh, how's that going to work with with the split?" So, okay. And so lot one's going to use the is it
going to use the existing well is or is it going to >> uh lot one has an existing well. Yep. And that's still on their lot. >> Okay. >> So they would continue to use that and their septic system which is out in front of the well but I don't know. >> Yep. >> Out front of the house.
>> And of course the new lot too would have to put in a new wellptic for the health. >> Yep. Okay. >> Yep. David, did you have anything? >> No, I'm I'm okay. >> I'm okay with it. >> Stephanie, did you um we touched on it a
bit. My concern was that proposed shared access drive um in the Domino's to it being facing Unicorn Lane now and why it wouldn't be proposed that it shares the existing driveway through lot two. they, you know, that that's going to be up to them, but they certainly could if
if I guess if you're saying you would prefer them to use uh the existing driveway uh off a Highland, >> I don't think they have any problem with that. >> Okay. >> Cuz I think that's kind of what they're currently using.
>> All right. >> Anything, Donna? >> Nope. Thank you. All right. Um, well, no one has any further questions. >> No. >> All right. Um,
anyone want to make a a motion to approve? >> I make a motion to approve the ANI plan for 12 Highland Road. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. All in favor? >> I. >> I. Motion carries.
>> Great. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. >> Agenda item number three, we have approved January 6, January 8th, and January 14, 2026 meeting minutes. Um, there were three edits, one on either.
>> Yeah, one on each set that I sent to Kathy already. Um, I don't know if anyone else had any. Uh, one of them I'll just in case anybody else had the same on page three on the top of the page where it said >> for which which one? I'm sorry.
>> Uh, for the first set for the January 6th >> January 6 >> it just said B4 and the four had F O R E. >> Oh, >> that one. And then January 8th, um, it was Ms. Wilga instead of MAR. So I said, "Yeah, let's
>> make sure Dan I'm sure Dan will." >> And then on the uh January 14th, it was just the the first date was January 22nd for the next meeting and then the >> Okay. >> January 20th was >> and January 8th was fine. Right.
>> So every Anybody else have any edits? >> No. >> No. >> All right. So, I make a motion uh that we uh approve the meeting minutes with changes for Wednesday, January 6, 2026.
Can we do a group? >> Yeah, just do them all because I think we're all here for all of them. So, >> approve the meeting minutes as well for Thursday, January 8th, 2026 with any extending changes and Thursday, January
14th, approval, 2026 with any extending ch changes. >> All right, we have a motion. >> Come on. Second. Where are we? Keep going. >> Oh, he made the motion. Okay. Yes.
Second. >> All right. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> I motion carries. Although I did make a mistake. You weren't on one of them, but as long as you watched. >> Yeah, I >> vote on it. Just do this.
>> All right. Uh agenda item number four, administrative update. Possible vote on any item listed below. Our first item is the Bellaway update. Um, we did get a last minute email from Mr. Palucci. Um,
he just letting us know that he was not able to attend this evening. Um, he asked for continuance. It's not a public hearing. I don't think we have to continue it. Um, >> my only thought is we were just asking for an update. So, if if we can just send an email back and asking put it in
writing. Yeah. >> What is the time frame that you expect these things to be completed? because we don't need him here to do that. I think just as easily as an email is sent >> that could have been done. >> Mhm.
>> Um so I'd like to vote to um I'm assuming it's going to be Kathy to reply back because you've been dealing with it. >> Um to reply back to Bob um just asking for a timeline for these items that
have I I believe he's been aware of them since last November. So, if if someone would like to make that motion, >> need a motion for that. >> Yeah, let's because we can so we can vote just for her to send the
>> Okay, make a motion for Kathy to send a a letter to uh Oh, I don't have his name here. >> U Mr. Puji. >> H >> Mr. Puji. >> Okay. and and uh or to uh
identify his timeline on uh billoway. >> All right, we have a motion. >> Um and also include Jamie Besonette on that too uh just for because I I don't know if he'll want to weigh in. >> He may have been copied on the memo too.
So yeah. >> Yep. >> Uh second. >> Okay. Motion and a second. All in favor? I >> I motion carries. Uh the next item is the Mystic Estates discuss modification. Stephanie, would you like to speak to
that one? >> Sure. So that one came up recently. They began tree clearing the resident reaching out and after following up the plans aren't finalized. Um but they were they under
they they knew that um because they actually need to make a change to them after issues with settling on an easement along the abing property and that no longer being a part of their plan. They need to revise the storm water component. Nothing else. Um the
engineer was confident that they had the space already there that it was adequately sized if they shift it around slightly. So, they would like I included in that secondary packet I sent out um just the drainage sheet for that subdivision so you could all have eyes
on it and understand what I'm speaking to. But the engineer is requesting or asked if this would be a minor change or a major one that would trigger another review of the entire subdivision. Um, I'd like to make a
recommendation that it's a minor change and that they proceed with revising those plans and then presenting it to the board. Okay. For your full review. >> So just so it's minor, but we could still review the have peer review that. >> Absolutely. And they know that too.
Okay. Yes. They're fully on board with understanding because it will impact their storm water report which will need peer review. >> Sure. >> And they're aware of that. >> Okay. >> That sounds good. Um, yes. didn't want to spend the money and effort doing those changes if it was going to have to
be a slate wiped clean in terms of the subdivision >> entirely. >> Yeah, I don't I don't see the need for that as long as nothing shows up in the peer review. If they come back and say yes, then it's warranted, I think. So, I
I I guess my thought is we could do it as a minor pending peerreview outcome, something like that. Unless anybody else has any other >> Yeah, because I believe the woman next door bought a lot and wasn't aware of
the easement, so that's become an issue. So, >> I'm glad that they're addressing it. Okay. >> Um All right. Would someone like to make a motion to authorize Stephanie to work with peer peer review? Um, and pending that outcome, it'll determine whether
it's a minor or major provision. >> Yeah, I'll I'll make a motion that uh for Stephanie to handle the uh uh minor change to the uh uh storm water and I guess the easement
on uh uh Mystic Estates. >> Okay, we have a motion. >> I'll second that. >> A second. All in favor? I I >> All right. Thank you, Stephanie. Um agenda, the next item under
administrative is storm water management bylaw update. So, we do have in our packet um >> yep, >> in the additional information, it was um Stephanie was able to go through
and mark it up. um thrilled that you have uh familiarity with storm water >> in your prior uh employment. That's great. Um so I did ask her to come up
with a red line because we received comments back from concom um the location of it. One was talking about definitions. Um, also the length the length of the overall
bylaw itself. Um, so she was able to get it down it looks like uh to 12 pages from 16. >> Yes. >> Uh, which is which is good. Um, we also don't want to take too much out >> to to not make it
>> effective. Right. Um and then the other part is we'll have a set of rules and regulations to go along with this once it passes um town meeting. So we can draft work on I know she can work on um getting a draft of that together
>> in the time in between while we're waiting for town meeting and getting this draft approved. So my my hope is that um if this board is in agreement um we could take the draft that
Stephanie has whittleled down, send it back to conservation cuz so they had asked for a joint meeting. So my thought is if this addresses if the revisions address their concerns then maybe we don't need to go the route
of addressing their concerns in person because they've been addressed via the edits. Um and that way we have a clean draft. We can send it around to everybody again. Um I know uh Kathy had held off on sending it to board of health pending
changes from conservation. So now at this point, send it conservation, board of health, select board, um back to uh Nate and Frank as well. Make sure that everybody's on board. Uh see if there's any further questions, comments, concerns.
Um everything that she's taking out, she's not we're not just removing it. We'd be putting it into the rules and regulations. So it will be captured just not under the bylaw itself which is part of what town council had said for the last version that we had seen. They had taken out
certain sections in that as well and said this should be done done in the rules and rights. >> So open to hearing your thoughts on this. So just in terms of procedure after the boards have reviewed it, Nate and and so
forth, does it it'll go back to council for final review? >> It would. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Yeah. They they review everything on the warrant. So it would be >> just to make sure. Okay. And they since they have already
reviewed it, I would hope that it's still pretty in line with >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um and then I don't know if you wanted to mention about the definitions portion of it that you noticed with the um one of
the con comments was to clarify on definitions. So, I found a few that could be added, few that could be um revised, but alter and land disturbance
are essentially the exact same, but it's you can't decipher those. Um, so the recommendation, and it's a little unique, is that they both have the same definition and refer to one another because in jargon throughout this document and layman's terms, those those
two are going to be utilized. So, it's best to cover your bases and have them both in there >> with the same definition because they are interchangeable. >> The way I see it, yeah, >> and I know another question was about
the placement of it. Um, so in response to that, this is intended as an overlay for the whole, you know, this is a bylaw that in is not an overlay because it's not zoning. Honestly, it's a it's a bylaw that would
be applicable all over town. Um, I don't know why we would want to determine areas of town that this doesn't apply because if you have an acre of disturbance, which is the trigger for this as well as for site plan re review, uh, that's a lot of disturbance. It's
going to be a lot of water runoff in some area, and why would we not want to make sure that it's not going into the road, it's not going into abuing properties. Um, so I guess that would be my comment back to like
this is intended for the whole town as a bylaw because you know for protection of >> water runoff all over town. >> Absolutely. So >> I think it should be across the entire town. Um, those are the comments I made
in response comments is that it shouldn't follow the MS4 permit. It should um your rules and regulations can lean into the operation and maintenance on storm water already in place on properties or new ones. Um as well as
erosion, sedimentation and erosion control measures as somebody is doing construction. You don't want to see, you know, dirt rolling down the roadway which eventually could end up in an MS4 area. You'd like to control that townwide right off the bat.
>> All right. So that would be the reasoning behind keeping it townwide. >> Yeah, absolutely. I think you'd have to justify why you wouldn't want it all over town and why someone's property should be more susceptible to runoff from another development.
>> I mean, I wonder you wonder how it would apply to a piece of a agricultural land though. >> This is it's disturbance. So it's it's not >> Yeah. I mean is is plowing a field for a
new crop disturbance? >> I think that's actually one of the exemptions there. There's there is Yeah, there's mentions in here for agricultural use. >> Okay. Okay. >> Similar to that in the non-storm water bylaw that already exists.
>> Oh, okay. Okay. Well, that would >> Oh, so that's another just to touch on is when I reviewed this, I reviewed this with fresh eyes, assuming this was a standalone bylaw. This was not to be replacing the non-storm water one that
exists currently. I did a lot of cross reviewing what it says in here. Does it complement what's already in your existing bylaw and vice versa? um to make sure once in theory both are posted that they make sense together
>> and there's no holes in terms of how you could regulate it and manage it >> and you found that compatible. >> Yes. >> Okay. So this would be article two in the um storm water. >> Okay. So it would be under the storm water bylaw. We would probably add a
numeric in front of the existing one and this would be the second. >> Yes. because I believe the way it breaks down that's it says storm water then article one is non storm water it's >> um so >> I know it it's confusing when you see it because you think it's a storm water bylaw but it's
>> but then the subsection is actually non storm water right >> so this is just filling in that missing piece I guess of storm water versus non storm water yeah um it is it overlaps a lot with everything you'll already be reviewing one of the big comments I
addressed is I don't believe multiple boards should be the storm water authority. It should be the planning board and you can do as you've always done and communicate with conservation should somebody go there first. But establishing this and a storm water
permit will have a certain workflow that only one one p one board should oversee. And then there's mentioned in here that you can assign an agent to be your representative. Yeah. And I think we had done that and
it's funny how things change over the course of a year, but with our former planner, that was the agreed upon. >> Okay. >> She she had looped conservation in on that >> and I and I thought that, you know, that was um acceptable. So now, but it's fine
having it under one authority. >> Still, when there's wetlands, it'll go to the conservation under for that portion of it. Um, which is fine. Any other items that anybody wanted to
touch on in here? >> So, just to confirm, we're not going to meet with conservation. >> Well, that will provide a draft of the >> That was my thought. Do we want to just provide them an with not just the draft but also an email that says or a memo
that says dear conservation you know we we we reviewed your qu your concerns questions these are the changes um >> if >> I think just in response back to their the one about um the map that no you
know we we want to see protection for water runoff all over town it would be um and then Stephanie has addressed the definitions and she can for that item. It's interchangeable. Uh for the authority, we've narrowed it down to the
one authority. I I can't remember if there was anything else on there. And the length the length of it, it's come down from 16 to 12 pages. >> Y >> um is it still a little bit longer than what the environmental partners draft was? Yes. But obviously that wasn't
tailored to our town. And that that draft is actually going back to 2022 now. So >> yeah, >> here we are 4 years later. >> Y >> um >> Okay. >> Yeah. So we want to make sure that it encompasses everything. I think we used to use the term belt and sus suspenders.
So why would we, you know, not want to continue making sure that it's all there that needs to be. >> Um >> okay. But yeah, I feel confident um with what Stephanie recommends for removing
but not not doing away with just moving to the rules and regulations having it under there moving forward with getting it out for more comments. Um we know that the warrant closes. Kathy, remind me. Is it April 11th? >> I don't know.
>> I think it's in April. I was expecting it to be March. >> I did not get that mail. >> Oh. Um >> yes. So, it's either the 11th or the 13th. >> Is it 13th? >> 13. >> 13. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I don't know. >> So, yeah. So, we have until April at
least to tie it all up. Seems like it should be doable as long as these other boards and committees can get it right on their agendas and send back comments. So, would someone like to make a motion in
regards to Yeah, I uh make a motion to approve the preliminary draft of the storm water management bylaw. in addition to that to circulate uh a copy to uh the conservation commission
uh for their comments and um additional memo uh answers that we're going to uh provide to them as well. >> Okay. >> Second. And and actually I'd like to just modify the >> modify it
>> the motion just to include the other boards and committees. >> Oh yeah. >> So that the select board of health >> other departments get to see it as well. >> Yep. >> So we have modified motion. >> Modified motion. >> Okay. Yes. >> Second with amendment.
>> All right. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I. And so if you can draft that, just send it around to I don't mind if you just send it to me and John first just to review and then when you draft it and send it out, you can just let the rest
of the board see what's sent. Okay. All right. Excellent. So I am still hopeful that that goes to spring. All right. Uh the next item, smart growth overlay district.
So this one, Stephanie, I assume you would like to speak to this one as well. Yes. So there have been different meetings which all circle around the discussion of the smart smart growth
overlay district. Um there are been meetings occurring with the hospital site and now there's also a meeting in discussion with the MBTA site. Again, they are eligible to put a portion of their site out to RFP for development
and they'd like to the take on what the town would hopeful to see there. Um and so discussions was one of their best fits that they found in the um document that was supplied was they did provide um residential as the option there.
>> Well, we didn't see that one coming. >> Apparently there um it it's hard to say, but the RFP would be open-ended um in a sense of what's what could possibly be built there. But re
reworking this to be eligible for 40 40R would be very beneficial to the town if you're going to have residential built there. Um >> will it though? >> Well, so I mean so the the only benefit
benefit is so we get the the money for the schools um on a yearly basis. Yes. it hasn't been exactly what it used to be. Um, and it may not be as much going forward. Uh, that's obviously to be determined.
Um, so we're we it also comes with the fact that it's adding to our SHI, which we know that we were in compliance uh for safe harbor from 40B with the hospital project, but this now being if they were
to do 40R and it looks like it's apartments, so that would also count >> towards our SHI. Um, I know that a 40B all of the units count. I'm assuming that 40R all the units count for um SHI when it's rental >> rental.
>> Okay. Um so that would be another benefit to approving this. It's in the same area where we already have uh the smart growth 40R zoning existing. We had considered um extending it over across the street to the hospital in that
discussion in regards to the large 40B proposed there. That didn't make sense. This makes more sense as long as it's contained to this area because as you see um and I don't know did you put this together or where did this come from? >> Which document are you looking
>> the um >> MBTA? >> Yeah, the test fit >> they provided the MBTA. So, it's interesting. They broke it all down um and it talks about the
um the different options test fit scenarios with parameters and um it does vary. So, I guess I'm conf I'm interested in so it goes from the
141 units to 203 units. What is what is the difference? What is why are they given those two different options? Some have um the differences are the amount the levels in each of the buildings.
Parking in the center with parking underneath each of the buildings. The configurations are different. Um in a sec in one of the configurations the buildings make an L shape and touch. Um so >> but why the difference in units? How
come in these certain scenarios it's um 141 units like testit one threetory residential surface parking only uh and then oh I guess it's just both of so
it's test fit one versus test fit two. So the the one goes from the 141 and then the test fit two is 203 units. Are they trying to squeeze more units in? What do you like? I guess my question is what's their target? What is their target number that
they're looking? It does look like they're trying to include retail in the test fit too um as an accessory. Um, MBTA has to put this out to RFP. They they
don't have a >> So, these are what they would offer, >> correct? This is just a concept layout to make it desirable for somebody to put in an RFP to build something or claim a long-term lease on this property. >> So, these are the options they want to
make available to a contractor >> and the contractor could pick one of these. Not not just this. It's a very open-ended RFA. Um >> Oh, so if it's open-ended, >> they'll this is zoned industrial,
correct? Still, even though the state owns a property, right? >> The MBTA owns a property. >> Yeah. that half of the property, you know, if it's industrial, I I
we need more businesses in the town. As rebuttal, >> I don't I don't disagree. And >> as a rebuttal, >> yeah, >> they need to put something in here with a proposal, not just residential. the so the the information sess session that we
attended the feedback that they got was that overwhelmingly it was we need business we need a rest uh we need um a supermarket >> um this the strain on the schools and the infrastructure and all these things because we're inundated with the residential um
>> they can still lease out >> whatever the property is for however many years but put in something that is more industrial I in my personal opinion I would have reject this and say come back to the table with something that
has retail space in there or um something that has some sort of business element to it because you know yes it it's prime real estate but it's also prime real estate for
commercial development in the state in the stance that, you know, we need this type of business to be in that area. It's perfect for that location
and can we reject that as a board and provide comment and tell them to come back to to the table with additional options for that? >> I don't know if we can reject it because it is a state land. I don't know. Yeah.
>> Um I think so Stephanie, you were you were in a meeting with this group. So what >> what is your take on that? >> Do it. >> No, they they were asking what the town wanted to see. So I'll bring them
feedback. >> Okay. >> No, I I agree with you, Dan. there that we cannot afford an opportunity that is industrial in this town
that we we need to develop business in that particular area. We lost the opportunity with the hospital project. >> Mhm. We cannot we've got a a second chance on this and the MVTA,
however they work out the deal, whether it is, you know, they own the property but lease it out to whatever goes in their grocery store entity, whatever it may be, >> they can work out the deal. It's still profitable for them. But this housing
portion of it, they already have so many homes going in on the Middleboro borrow side of the tracks, >> right? True. >> And they're putting in a new development right by the new uh MBTA station right now. They're under it's under
construction. >> You know, we also have the homes that are there uh on Commercial Drive. we have um but this is our opportunity not to just rubber stamp this. I I think we we push back.
>> That's just my feedback. >> Yeah, it it's kind of the easy thing. The the easy solution is presidential. >> Mhm. >> Um and perhaps it gets to be too easy, but you know, I I I agree with you, you know, that it really ought to be >> from an economic development standpoint.
The town needs this. We have an opportunity here to work with the state on this. Housing is not necessarily needed right there. I I I just we've got plenty of housing right there. I I know the whole
rig and roll here. The benefits the town gets screwed either way with 40R 40B. And >> so let me just interject because I've got a text from the select board chair here and she's saying that um the MB according to legal counsel MBTA surplus
property supersede zoning. So regardless of what it's owned they can do whatever. Um however if we put in 40R we can make it mixed use and constrain the units and dictate the use. So that so the thing is like our existing
40R we have the two subd districts would this be a third sub district would we be creating a third? Yes. So the discussion in collaboration of both of the meetings because this was a discussion also that piggybacked off of
having one for the hospital site as well is that they would each be subd districts where you could outline the constraints. H so wait what about the hospital site? The hospital site was also discussed to be turned into really 40R because of the
proposal with the new possible buyin of a developer and what they could do there, what's marketable there. Um, I had posed that you do need business there. You need commercial space. Um, so within the district, you could you could
stipulate that X amount of feet along the frontage of Main Street has to remain commercial. Then that way the residential component could be farther into the back of the property and you're not losing that component of giving up so much of that parcel. >> What about a mixed use? Cuz we had
talked about this when we were talking about mixed use and we talked about doing business space on the bottom like on the ground level and then having apartments above >> so that it becomes a mix y >> of business and and apartment. Um and
then to ensure that you're not getting more residents than b business space. So the residential area I think it said not to exceed um the re the >> x amount. >> Yeah. The commercial space below
>> which kind of ensures that. So instead of just oh you get 60 ft for business then you would ensure the whole zone you know throughout the zone if if that's something that we could work into a mixed into a um smart growth overlay for
DR um as a mixed use and ensure that yes they can get residential if we get the same amount business. I don't know that those are doing as well, especially in a location
such as this the town, >> right? No, I don't disagree with that. But we do need a supermarket, especially when you're loading res. It's getting harder and harder to get to a supermarket honestly with traffic all surrounding when that's why I wanted to
maintain that large portion in the front off of Main Street to remain >> commercial. I thought that the concern though with extending the 40R over the over like in order to extend it, you're extending
it over existing businesses that could in turn redevelop with that same density as the 40R and we could potentially lose business to residential. That was the concern the last time we had that conversation with council about
expanding the 4DR. >> Yeah. because we talked about it back when the 40B was coming in at the hospital site. So they are budding districts though. So I that that component didn't come up in the recent.
>> So for this for this one yeah for the rail it's a budding for the rail it's a budding. For the um hospital project it would have to cross the road. >> It has to come up and cross the road. So the way that it would come up it was it would be coming up over these
businesses over here. So you have to as we've seen in in the breakout where it talks about the density, one of the densities proposed is 51.6 units per acre. 51.6
units per acre. Our current zoning bylaw allows one for an acre point 6. So like that's a huge density. We're already struggling financially. The schools are we're talking about budget cuts and all this. So to to inundate the town with
more residential, yes, we've got Rocky Woods. We already have a permit at the hospital site and that permit's still good. >> Somebody could come in and still build that 40B. >> So to have all of that explode at the same time is I mean I agree with you, Dan. That's could be very detrimental.
Can we stop the state from doing it? I don't know >> because obviously the state's going to do what they're going to do. >> The only thing is is I would push back with the state and say overwhelmingly cuz we when was it over the summer there was that public hearing. >> Yeah.
>> And everybody said we need to keep that industrial we need business in there. Um and and it's favorable amongst the residents. But I I will say though, like you said, water allocation, you've got
>> So there's other options there. Yeah, there are. But you got to make the deal with uh Middleboro. >> Yep. There's still no sewer >> with sewer tie-in if that's even an option. >> I don't think Yeah, there's no sewer over there. >> I don't know how far I don't recall how
far up it goes. >> It crosses the hospital property. >> Yeah. >> Oh, so there is sewer down. There's a 6 in down Main Street. Okay. So they do have sewer. That's like the only place. >> Thank you. Okay. >> Yeah. I I thought it came up just as as far.
>> I just know that for the hospital it couldn't. >> It didn't get finalized. Yeah. >> Yeah. Cuz there was an expensive pump needed. Yep. >> That wasn't doable. >> Yep. So I mean we've got a lot of things there that >> or just there's a pumping station down there or is there just the pipe has been
put in >> that? I don't know. Just the pipe. I don't know what's on the hospital property. >> I thought they did their own septic right on on site there. >> They did have one I believe and so that
wasn't a connection to the fourth main if I'm remembering information correctly. So now, okay, so she's actually adding saying that the 40R district
can consist of multiple dis um can consist of multiple non-ontiguous areas or subset zones. So that's different than what council had said. >> She had said that it has to connect. So now we're being told it doesn't have to
connect. No, cuz you're not taking it in different sections of town. You're It's all >> Huh. So, I'm very confused about that guidance. It sounds different than what we were told when we were talking about it with the hospital. >> Huh.
>> So, we probably have to reach out. >> So, yeah, I think that would be the first question is can this be who confirmed it? >> Council was on that discussion. >> Amy. >> Yes. Council. >> So, she confirmed it does not have to be contiguous. Doesn't have to touch
Really? >> What? >> Get in. >> Um, what do you need from us? You you want a vote that you can take back to who to
uh is it a an ongoing meeting or what is what is the process? there two different discussions happening simultaneously. So it was to get discussion going with the board as to whether or not you'd
entertain adapting more subd districts within the overlay because if not it's a dead subject in terms of those properties. Well, what what's the timeline that they're giving
the state because h half that property is still uh Cape Cod flyer and I think it's what 200 spots that they're >> will remain. So the access road so the proposal is that that driveway >> the right side >> the right side of the main parking lot
as well as the access road. So from that break line of the access road towards your left. >> Yeah. Yep. Yeah. I mean, >> so first of all, I'm definitely against four stories. I think it should be kept
>> that goes against our bylaws. >> And I know that it says in one of the subd districts it's allowed up to the 55 ft, but that's it's I don't know who allowed that, you know, that's too much. And it's not nowhere else in town. Um
>> Yeah. Can the fire department go that high? >> Right. If this is >> and I agree that we don't want we so we can't have unchecked development. We so there's even there's
a there's a cap. So even if a 40b comes in there's a cap of I think it's 200 some odd units >> per phase like if they have a big development coming in they have to phase it >> because there's a limit to how many can go in. So
>> I mean personally I again push back but in the same stance I think we need a committee of people to be developed for this particular property because this is big. >> It's big and I think it should be done
publicly as opposed to meetings that >> you know staff attends without >> I don't want to rubber stamp this. I I really don't I I just I I know it involves the state, but it needs to be a greater discussion with, you know, the
other boards. It needs to be a greater discussion with the town's people. >> Mhm. >> I would not feel comfortable just telling MBTA, "Yeah, okay. Well, we'll go with option two and and move forward." I I I wouldn't because this is
again comes back down to the opportunity regardless of what gets superseded. I want to make sure as a board that we did our due diligence to make sure that you know we have this opportunity. We can't lose it again
like with what happened with the hospital. >> Just for clarification, it's I'm not asking that you choose one of the options in MBTA. They did what's called a test fit seeing if it would be marketable. Y >> for residential. >> Yep. >> This is not they wouldn't frame the RFP
specific to one of these options that I'm asking you to review. >> Okay. >> It it's a broad spectrum as to what could be built there. >> Because if they somebody does come in with residential, the benefit of having it and that 40R is that at least you get
some payback from >> the state on it. >> That's that's the concept. I'm just I'm just putting it into >> but the state has screwed so many pe so many towns with all this 40b 40r 40 y
they've screwed us badly so I >> not to mention a hospital that they left >> I I'm not Yeah and and Steph please understand I I I know exactly the place you're coming from and it's not you it's
it's just you know um how you know we have it's just an opportunity. >> So I think it has to be a certain sort of caveat. Um for one I want to have in writing
confirmed confirmation how this 40R plays out. How can we do it over the hospital without it being connected? I want I want that answer because I feel as though that's a different answer than what I was given prior. >> So, I'd like that
cuz somebody obviously has gotten that opinion from council. So, I'd like to read it and and I think it should be shared with the board. >> Um I think Oh, sorry, Donna. Go ahead. No, I was just looking at smart growth overlay district um regulations or the
bylaw that we have and really what's what we're being asked is if we want to expand the smart growth overlay district to include the hospital site. >> Is that correct? >> So then it's more so focusing on the MDTA area,
>> but Stephanie is saying that yes, that was part of a second conversation that expand both. Yep. >> Includes the hospital. That's the question before the board >> which would mean if if we air on the side of including the hospital in a smart growth overlay district then
wouldn't our bylaws really drive the the request for proposal? >> So yes, so we would I would assume we would craft a new So under the smart growth overlay as you can see there's two different subsections. Yeah. Um I
would assume we would craft whether it's I think it's two one for the MBTA and one for the hospital site and those would be two subsections similar but as you can see there are differences between the two
and I would only support it if it is a true mixed use meaning no more residential than the amount of business that's going in. Um, and I'm concerned because we already have mixed use at the hospital site. We have mix mixed use. There's business in the front. There's
residential in the back. What else do they They want this just because >> So, this is part of that conversation of redevelopment of the hospital site because the Rhino project is stalled. >> Mhm. >> But that So, if they turn around, we
don't know what's going to happen. So they turn around, sell that property, they have a comprehensive permit in hand. I I know that the statute Kathy, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the statute for 40B. So even though we have like if you don't build within 18 months or two years,
then you have to come for an extension. I believe for 40B it's four years and they can extend it even further. >> Um I'm not sure on that. I thought they had to pull some type of a permit within a year cuz I know then you lose the units,
>> right, for the for the SHI count. But I thought as far as >> I don't know about the other part of that. >> Yeah, I thought that the permit for 40B is actually more lengthy and they're more lenient with extending it too if you've already >> I would agree with that. That makes sense.
>> So that's my concern is that they can just turn around and build and sell it and somebody else can build it. build what's permitted there currently >> currently. >> So that was part of the discussion is that that might not be marketable at this point in time or once they get to
building it. What else could you do on that property? >> So if 40B is not better for the market in this area. >> But so that doesn't make sense. So if 40B is not marketable, 40R is going to be >> they're the same market, you know,
marketability wise. You're still selling affordable units. One has 20%, one has 25%. But they I don't see the difference. You still got the same building cost. I don't understand the difference.
>> No. First of all, just just a quick look up just two years >> for 40B. >> Yeah. >> I thought that it was extended. No. >> Specifically includes comprehensive permits among the approvals that may be may be extended for two years. that was
180 days. >> I don't know if that means >> extended beyond the the one year >> from 25 to 27 additional planning extension of 24 specifically includes comprehensive among the approvals that may be extended
for two years. So yeah. So I think it was originally two years and with that act of 2024 it >> makes it four. >> It yeah extended it. >> I mean >> I guess I just don't I understand that. Yes. Instead of 40b, the 40hour would have some money attached.
>> Yes, it's yearly. No, it doesn't seem to be reliable. I know there's been last minute changes. Oh, we we're not getting it. Oh, we are getting it. >> Um I mean that it's great if it's consistent and something that can help towards school costs, but >> but it's only it's shortterm. It's not
long term, I don't think, >> for for a developer on that site. the the 40 Y is only a one 40R. It does you get the 40S money >> for for a developer on that site. What's the benefit to him to take it?
>> There's an original >> 40B project >> and then an ongoing >> and not do something else. >> I guess I just don't understand why one is more marketable. I mean, yes, I guess there's that added financial benefit to
the town for the 4DR if it's so, but like I said, my my question is still I'd like to see where that guidance was from council that says that now we can do a 40R there without connecting it to what's existing. I'd want to see for the MBTA I'd like to
see a mixed use if we can do it as a overlay that has mixed use as opposed to just residential. But I feel as though there has to be a caveat. There has to be a cap. We have to cap it at a certain number per project per year, right? >> So that it's not we're not inundating
the town, the schools, etc. >> We're overloaded right now with everything. >> I We're not even overloaded yet. Like >> no, we're just finishing the Baron's final. >> We're going to be at fiscal cliff pretty soon. >> And we're are Yeah. And we're talking
about significant cuts to the budget. So that's just Learon finishing. Then we have projects the hospital. We don't know what's going to happen there. We have the Rocky Woods. We don't know when or what's going to happen there. We also have the Lake Country Club. That one's not going to be a significant strain on
schools. However, other >> other >> areas it will I know they're saying that financially it will be um a benefit, but I think it that's going to take a while to kick in. So,
>> so with all that being said, >> um, what do we want to do? >> Well, those are my main points. I want to see the guidance that it doesn't have to be connected. Um, I'd be interested in seeing a draft subdist that is
include that includes mixed use. Um, and that we need to add there needs to be some sort of a cap or or caveat added to >> any bylaw like even to
>> Yeah. to the it should >> if we can do that to add a caveat to say that this is a limit per year. >> Um, yeah. And I think additional discussions
with the MBTA, you know, open discussions, uh, community discussions are important for them to hear it. If that can be done down the road, >> I don't think they care, >> honestly. Just to look, just look at what the state's done. Look at what the
state has done recently. Even with the 3A, they're not listening. They're telling, and then they're holding towns, they're taking towns to court over non-compliance. I don't think they care. >> Well, is that the MBTA or is that
elsewhere in the state? >> It's all it's all part of the same pie. >> Yeah. >> It's all at Affordable Homes Act push and now they're looking at state land that they can push that into. >> How long the NDTA? >> Because we're already compliant. We're
compliant with 3A because of our smart growth >> district which um is disappointing that if we're compliant they're still exploring this option here. >> Yeah. >> And I think they got the feedback. They
got the feedback. They already heard it, you know, honestly. Well, >> um, >> go out and vote this November. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um, so do we have to take a vote on this? >> I'd like to take a vote just to
distinguish the direction. Um I think what you said about it it should be done as a sort of combined effort with a representative from various boards and committees.
>> I think that's good. I do think that ideally record it lake cam so that it's not something where town residents hear about it when they're breaking ground >> and they're wondering where it came from or you know >> even include our our representatives
>> but then I shouldn't say it that way because obviously if we have a if it's a zoning change it would have to go to town meeting but >> we need a little bit more pull from our representatives from the Okay.
So, there's got to be a happy medium here. Right. >> Okay. >> So, all right. consideration of a mixeduse that's
I would say no more residential than commercial for the subd district >> at least one of them and then a request for representation in
>> in we Clarification from council. >> Yeah. And a cap. Anything any language can that we uh provide for um bylaw. Can we include >> and that's a question of council. Can
there be a cap a limit to how many units >> per year? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um, anybody else have anything to add? >> Not yet. >> I mean, this will be definitely a continuing discussion. So, um,
but yeah, we don't have to vote, right? No, I guess I mean, yeah, like you said, more questions. What is the time frame? What is the >> obviously it's not going to be springtime meeting, so they're not going to be doing this? >> No. But >> bringing a zoning change at this point.
>> No, it'd be good to know, you know, what they're thinking. If anything, I'd like to stall it for a while until we can be smart about it. About this, >> get some answers. >> Yeah. get some answers and so forth. So,
>> and and maybe see some options like if there's some examples of 40 yard um >> zoning language that other communities have utilized that are mixed views that maybe we can consider. >> So, is this something we should put as a
agenda item for the next meeting? I Stephanie, I know you got a lot on your plate, so I don't know if we are able to reach out to council just to get some clarification. for for discussion for our next meeting
um on CAP and uh so forth and then we can kind of just make this a you know an ongoing item >> that works. >> I can reach out to council or request to reach out to council >> and when uh
>> discuss these items >> when was the next meeting do you know was there anything scheduled? >> No. Okay. >> So, they're not in a hurry. >> You had a question about timeline and when they want to move on this. >> They didn't have an RFP prepared. It would take them several weeks to pull an
RFP together. >> So, you're not looking at a timeline of needing an answer by next meeting here at planning for, you know, like just for getting that conversation going. >> No, but you know, just you know, are they thinking about this in the next year, two years?
>> But then again, call the full timeline. Are they working on our timeline or their timeline? Because obviously our timeline is this would have to >> go through town meeting be approved or are they going to move forward with something regardless of the zoning? >> Don't think it's that fast moving.
>> Okay. So they could work with our timeline. >> Okay. would we want to ask them for um a test fit for something of a mixeduse development project? Um they may have something that they would be willing to
share because it it looks like mixeduse development projects are do fall under the smart growth overlay district >> design. So maybe they would be willing to do a test fit including >> Well, that's why would this test fit
three? Three over one. Three building scheme. >> It's not. >> It's not a page number, but yeah. Three. >> Oh, three over one. >> Yep. Um it says retail and then restaurant.
>> Is it restaurant lobby? Rest lobby. >> Yeah. So >> rest amenity. So that's obviously some form of mixed use, but I wonder if Yeah, like may do they have any other configurations where it's
apartments above, mixed use below. >> So there's a building in Quinsey that's like that. They've got a target below and above it is residential right next to the MBTA station. >> But I mean, it's huge. And the only
reason I like that scenario is because of the way that that uh mixeduse bylaw that we reviewed said, you know, you can have the residential above as long as it's not to exceed the commercial. And that's what
and I mean yes there's definitely certain commercial um specialties closing but we also see them opening too. >> Yeah. Um, other certain types are closing, certain types are opening,
but we also have so much. It's disgusting that we have so much already uh disturbed land and then they're not like red like I guess this is a redevelopment because it's a parking lot, but I mean we have
the hospital set in there, the deries, the all these undevelop you know underutilized properties and Okay. >> Okay. So, are you confused enough to >> I think we got a list.
>> Let's try. Okay. >> Labored it enough. Okay. >> Yep. Okay. So, was that a motion? Did we make a motion for heard us to com do you want? We'll we'll motion to com for Stephanie to compile a
>> the feedback um and then submit and once again send it to me and John the draft and get feedback and then send it around to the board once it's >> great >> once it's drafted. Okay. >> No rush.
>> No rush. >> I don't know if that's to our benefit. >> I don't know. Uh next item discuss deadline for meeting submittals. So we do so Stephanie did point out that um in our deadline for submittals it's
not taking into account the site plan review in ADU applications that they need to be advertised for that two weeks. So they do need to be that 3 week ahead of time deadline which is good. I think I think when we came up with the deadlines, we were really thinking about
the last like when the board needed that info, >> but it makes sense if if you know it's being interpreted by developers that oh well this is my deadline that that be included. >> No, that's good. >> That was a lesson learned for me too as
an applicant asking that question. >> Yeah, I'm learning too and realize that would you know maybe some more clarification. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Yeah. No, this was because we were getting this was like we talked about with plans coming in the same day and we wanted to make sure like they know that
this is the deadline or we're not going to we don't have to review it >> and we'll post this to the website too. >> Yes. So, do you want to make a motion to accept and approve and >> Yeah. I make a motion to uh approve the uh planning board meeting schedule for
the year of 2026, including um um Stephanie's uh feedback uh and additional comments on here uh and also to uh place on the website as well. >> Motion.
>> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> All right. Uh committee liaison updates. Do we have any updates? >> So, uh, for the economic, uh, development committee, um, we have not
met since, uh, December. So, we are >> supposed to meet, uh, I believe it's next week, the week after. I'll check my calendar, but, um, uh, have an update hopefully by the next meeting if David, anything? Nothing on uh on on
primarily like field country club. >> Okay. Um OSRD, we did have a Zoom team meeting with Alex from Serped. He's taking over. Uh there's been some shifts
in personnel there. So now he's um going to be the lead for OSRD. >> Okay. >> He's aware of the time timelines. It's it's very hopeful that that he can pull it off, but if not, we'll
uh target fall instead of spring. Okay. >> But there is going to be a community outreach meeting on March 25th at the library from 4 to 5:45 p.m. That's a Wednesday. >> 4 to what?
>> 4 to 5:45. >> At the library. >> Yep. at the library. Um, that is the tentative date. I know it's it sounded like it was pretty good to go. It wasn't interfering with, you know, board of health conservation meetings. They
checked with the library. >> They are going to have a handout. They may uh do some sort of a feedback. Um, I I told them if they're going to do a paper one, maybe they can do a electronic one as well, so we can share and get some more feedback. Mhm.
>> But hopefully like they understand that we've done the majority of the work and there's just some finalizing. >> Yeah. Fine tuning. Exactly. That needs to be done. So >> hopefully we'll get that um moving for
spring if we're lucky. >> Um anything else? Um Lakeville Country Club, we did just re um the zoning changes. We got comments back from KP Law. I distributed those to you folks and I'll be giving them to
>> Thornike Development as well so they have it. >> Thank you. >> We can address those comments. >> Okay. Good. >> Um do you want to put that on our next meeting agenda, Kathy? Just so we can review it because it came in late. So yeah, we'll be able to discuss it. Um
anything else? Um there the MDA will be discussed by select board next week I believe. >> Okay. So that's the municipal development agreement with the Lake Country Club. >> Yes. >> Okay. So that'll be on there next
Tuesday meeting. >> Yes. >> 17th. >> I know people have been asking about that. >> Good. And there's a Sorry, I'm just trying to remember it all. I should have written it down. Um, we finalized the peer review. So, there was a request for the
fiscal impact. >> Oh, >> report to be peer reviewed and that's finalized and noticed to proceed. >> Good. >> Issued to that company. So, that's one aspect. >> Nice. >> That's also underway. >> Good. >> And we've already touched upon the discussions for the the other one was
the hospital site, but we've now touched that. So, right. >> Yeah. And so, my only concern with that um senior overlay Am I supposed to present it to town meeting? Are they going to be there? They'll have to um
>> Yeah. Like they're going to have to have representatives there to answer questions. You know what I mean? So, just some things to think of when we're preparing. >> Okay. All that. Um because they'll need to have permission to speak at meeting and all that. And >> and I do feel as though one of like it's
okay for our board members to present it. I think because we support it. >> Y >> it was and I know I know there was a past zoning uh change presented by a planning board member that I think people weren't in
favor of or were questioning why is a planning board member you know >> bringing this but um it you know the senior overlay is in line with that >> okay >> with what we've discussed and support. So, I don't see why we wouldn't
unless there's some other plan. Um, all right. So, if nothing else, our next meeting is February 26 at the Lakeville Police Station. Oh, yeah. Um, we did have that invitation to the conservation joint meeting, but my
thought as long as we're all good with sending the comments back, we'll forgo the meeting if >> Yeah. And if they come back and say, you know, we would like to request a meeting, I think, >> yeah, if they still >> we can definitely uh host something with them. >> Yes. So if if they get the revised and
still have questions or comments, then we can revisit that >> at that point. Okay. >> All right. >> I uh make a motion to adjourn at 7:47 p.m. >> Motion second and a second. All in favor? I
>> I meeting is adjourned.