Good evening and welcome to the Thursday, February 26, 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 do have Lake Cam recording. Is anyone else recording?
Hearing none. Um, just a quick attendance. The only member missing is Jack this evening. We have our clerk Kathy Murray with us and associate member >> Gay associate member if you want to go around. David,
>> uh, David Lodge is here, >> John Cabraw here, >> Michelle McKern, >> Wilg present. And we do have a hybrid meeting this evening. In accordance with the provisions allowed by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023, the February 26, 2026
public meeting of the planning board will be held as a hybrid meeting. However, to view this meeting in progress, please go to Facebook, I think that's supposed to be. Please go to facebook.comlakecam. You do not need a Facebook account to view the meeting. This meeting will be
recorded and available to be viewed at a later date at uh www.lakecam.tv. The first item on the agenda is an ANR plan 52 Clear Pond Road Derek Maxi Madigan Land
Surveying LLC. Possible vote Derek Maxi 55 Long Road Lego. Uh so the plan in front of me today is for 52 clamp on road which is a property that that absolutely country club and we had purchased uh my brother and I purchased
52 cliff on road so that he would end up owning the house and then I would get the the small piece of land in the back to complement the club. Uh my building is probably within five to six feet of that property. So it only makes sense regardless whatever else happens that I
end up owning this piece of property. Okay. Does any planning board members have any questions, comments, concerns about the ANR? >> You now you said it's within five or six feet. Do we have a is that crack problem? Are we creating a zoning issue with it? Uh,
>> no. My building that's there now was pre-existing non-conforming. Uh, and basically there's enough room for the golf cart to go around and go back inside the building. But where this gentleman was selling is that's my wife's cousin was selling. So we bought the property so I at least could go further that way. Not to use it but just
to have the buffer that we need. >> Yeah. And I think the interesting thing is that this lot as it is configured prior to the ANR >> is the residential and business zoning
boundary. So it it goes all around that um >> the lot itself that lot. >> I don't plan to use use it. It just just we didn't want want to have the house soldered then have a neighbor right there doing something >> and it's not buildable on its own and it has >> a lot of wetlands
>> the determination clause is over here. >> Um so it's just a parcel A. It could be combined with something else in the future but at this point it's just parcel A and lot one. >> Kathy said it was okay.
>> Yeah. And it shows well >> and any other and oh and I did check with uh conservation because I know there was something going on with that property but they assured us that um >> it's outside of correct that area. >> So >> yeah what a mess I bought.
>> So I've heard >> but we're going to straighten it out and that's the key. We're going to make it right. >> So >> all right. So, if there's no more questions, we don't want to >> make a motion to uh make no comment. >> Approve. >> Approve or no? Approve. Oh, there's ANR.
I'm sorry. Uh to approve the ANR for 44 clear. No, wait. >> 52 >> 52 clear pond. >> Yes. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> I motion carries. >> That was nice. How's everything else gone with Dave's? I don't know if we
talked about that today. Anyway, it's about the golf course stuff, but we don't want to talk about >> Oh, the Lakeville Country Club. We do have it on um for under administrative update. We have committee liaison updates. Um >> no, that's fine. You guys can talk about that cuz I know I'm out of it.
>> All right. >> I was just going to say if you need me for anything, please let me know. Okay. I can help you guys with that. >> Sounds good. Thank you. Have a good night. >> Sorry, I thought it was the one that was the only way to deal. >> Okay. My head and >> All right. Well, on to agenda item
number two. We have a public hearing at 6:30. Special permit for 160 Bedford Street continued to this evening. A request for a special permit under section 270-7.412 to allow a com commercial parking facility possible vote. And in our
packet, we do have a letter uh dated February 3rd of 2026 uh addressed to Miss Murray. Please consider this letter as the applicant's request to withdraw without prejudice its request for a special permit under general town bylaw section 270-7.412
for commercial parking facility at 160 Bedford Street. So they are asking to withdraw without prejudice >> for that special permit. Um I was told there might be someone hybrid. I don't
know if anyone is attending. Matt, did anyone log on? >> No. >> Okay. Was that Go ahead. >> Do Do we close the uh uh public hearing then? >> Well, I think we'd have to take a We
could do either one first. We can close the public hearing or >> No, you'd have to vote to withdraw then. Okay. >> I'll make a motion to accept the request to withdraw for 160 Bedford Street. Second. >> Motion and a second. All in favor? I
>> I motion carries. >> Make a motion to close the public hearing for 160 Bedford Street. >> Motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> I motion carries. >> So they are no longer pursuing that
special permit for 160 Bedford Street. Agenda item number three, meet with Serped regarding rules and regulations update. We did receive an email from Taylor at Serped. She asked if we could continue it to March 12th of 2026. She
will get us a preliminary draft over to review and also in our packet we have um a spreadsheet that they sent over with a comparison of the uh the fees the current fees compared to some
neighboring communities. >> Yep. >> I think this is this is actually an exercise we went through not that long ago. So, I do think although like they're kind of all over the board when you look at all the different towns, but I think ours are still all within
this the ranges. >> I um Madam Chair, I really like the grid that they put together in terms of the different forms, the different fees schedules and everything, but also a breakout by each town, which I thought
was very interesting. So, you know, just the different variations depending I I was wondering is it because of, you know, the in terms of the fees and the way that they're structured and maybe this is a question for Taylor. Is it dependent upon
how large the town is or the population? Um, >> right. I don't know. I don't know what that was. >> Some of them do vary quite a lot. Um, >> so, >> and I guess the only thing that we're missing is that special permit fee that everyone else has. Yep. Yep.
>> So, we actually did this back a few years ago. Uh Barbara Manowski was on the board >> before me. >> And so, we actually compared it by median home value. So, we looked at towns that had the similar median home value. We put it into a spreadsheet like this and compared it
>> and that's why I think we we still had to adopt them formally via public hearing. I think we just did that two years ago, Kathy. Was it? >> Yeah, it wasn't that long. >> Yeah, it wasn't that long ago. So, >> Okay. I think they're still on. I mean, uh, I
look forward to hearing what Servet has to say, too. Like, if they do have any recommendations. I don't know if anything stands out to anyone. >> Berkeley is my fees. >> Yeah, >> they're in dire straits. >> I I'll have to talk. I I know the the
cheer for that. >> Oh, yeah. >> It's my brother-in-law's the chair for the Berkeley. >> Yeah. >> Well, so and when we talked to town council about it, you can't >> you can't have a fee
>> cost that's bringing in income. It's basically you're covering your cost associated. You're not looking to >> right make a profit. Yeah. It's not it's not a for profit. It's just to cover the cost of of doing business of of us of our
>> I mean Yeah. Okay. So, we'll um we'll postpone this. >> Yeah. So, we'll we'll be meeting with them on March 12th. So, hopefully we'll see a draft before then and we can prepare some, you know,
comments, questions for that. >> Sounds good. >> But otherwise, we'll see them on March 12th. Agenda item number four, approve October 14, 2025 meeting minutes. Mhm. >> We do have a set of minutes in our packet. It was from the joint meeting
with the select board. I thought we already had reviewed these. >> Nope. I It just came up on my feed and I'm like, when was when was that meeting? >> This is the one the council on a >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> I I missed it. >> Really? I could have
>> I thought we had too. >> I thought we had reviewed it, but maybe I had seen the Maybe I've read the Slack boys. I don't know. Mhm. >> Yeah. Because I think the select board did their own notes, right? So, >> okay. >> Anybody have any edits?
>> Uh, Madam Chair, on page two, I think paragraph three in 2020, should that be 2000? >> Um, I don't >> because that was the census, right? >> Oh, right. That would have been the most
recent census. >> Yeah. 2000 2010 2020. >> 2020. >> So the first the first year is 2020. Then the second year listed is 2010. >> Then it says 2020 again. >> So I think they're showing the increase
over >> Right. Yeah. You're right because the first year should have been earlier, right? In 2020. In 20s something it was 20% of the population. In 2010 it was 20 20 >> 22. >> It was 22. And then in 2020 it Yeah. So, I bet you it's 2000, right?
But maybe he said 2020 when you were >> Yeah, I'll check it. >> But sometimes I do that all the time. I'll say 2024 when I was thinking 2004. >> Anything else that anyone came across? >> No, that was a good catch, >> but everything else looked fine.
>> All right. Would someone like to approve? Uh, I make a motion to approve the meeting minutes for Tuesday, October 14th, 2025. >> That one edit >> with uh with the edit that was called out in page two, uh, paragraph 3.
>> Okay, we second. >> Motion and a second. All in favor? >> I I >> minutes are approved. >> Agenda item number five, administrative update, possible vote on any item listed below. The first one is storm water management bylaw update. Uh so we do
have just some notes from the town planner. Um she did provide response to comments addressing conservation commission's memo dated January 20th. We have that in our packet. Um it's the response that
was sent over to conservation. Um and they she sent the revised draft as well. Um provide a revised draft to building department, DPW, conservation, board of health, the select board for review and feedback. Awaiting response
to comments from all departments. Um I know there was some feedback from the zoning enforcement officer today. M >> um I think my thought is um
whether that's something we could subcontract out. I don't know if it's something that the peer review that so it it needs there needs to be a process so if there's a complaint someone can call in and and be directed to the right
source. However, we al also we don't have a budget line item for that. So, I wonder if it's something that could be done similar to how conservation just did a revolving fund >> to be able to pay for certain things. I wonder if we could use the fees
associated with um storm water permit >> and planning board fees that could potentially fund a >> year after year >> uh enforcement of the storm water. So we would have a maybe someone contracted who can handle
those that enforcement piece of the storm water and um I guess non-storm water too. >> Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. >> So I guess we could ask Serpent if that some other
towns must have similar scenario or maybe that's something at least they could point us in the direction of that's where to go. Yeah. >> Yeah. if we can. >> And if it's contracted out, do we have to do any type of RFP as a selected vendor that does this?
>> So that's based on um I think it has to be over $10,000. >> Okay. >> So this would obviously be like a case by case basis, I would assume. Um I know there's certain other departments that have contracted like you know we have like
>> under board of health there's different contracted individuals different purposes >> and then separate from that I'm trying to think of the amount of inquiries we've gotten you know debating the storm water issues. I I don't think
that there's been a ton within a year. >> Right. But we do want to make sure >> low it could be low. could be like once here or there. We don't It's hard to say like some years maybe it'll be really bad if we have a bad >> bad storms spring or something.
>> But it's also good if we have somebody who is available to do enforcement rather than, you know, have to, you know, wait and and be in line for addressing something like that. Isn't that something that the uh uh conservation officer could handle at
least on a on a quick call basis? So the la the last thing that I know I know they had not so originally they had wanted to they agreed to be part of the um authority back when the former town
planner was with us but now they they don't want to be part of the authority. So I think it's just good to have a explore what are the options I guess >> right? Yeah, and it's good to have, you know, an outside voice outside the town
to provide feedback and whatever to assist with that effort. So, I I I support that. >> Okay. So, we could ask Kathy to reach out to Serped, see if
they can recommend a way of doing that if that if there is something maybe we don't need to do it via revolving fun. It could be something written into the rules and regulations that this is I'm not sure. I know. So, um,
yeah. So, if she could reach out to surf and then we can go from there, I guess. >> Yeah. Got some recommendations. >> Yes. >> Madam Chair, would would the engineers that work with the um conservation commission potentially be a resource for
enforcement? So we t we tend to try to share peer review when they have to review storm water and we have >> site plan. >> Yeah the site plan review the civil part of that. >> Um so that would be a consideration. Could
we use um environmental well apex now I guess or Thomas or who I don't know if that's something that they would offer potentially but yeah that could be one of the options for a subcontractor >> I would think. So if we can
>> so we'll >> continue the discussion. >> So a contractor we'd reach out to them to to do what to have like to be there. >> So they would I I guess they would have to go out and determine whether there's enforcement needed and then move forward
with that process. >> Right. So if a if a if a cl if a potential I guess applicant wanted to do they'd have to again reach out to a third party for for it. Is that what it is for them? >> So this is just an enforcement part of it cuz we're we're still going to go through the permitting process establish
the peer review at the beginning of the project. But if we have downstream, if we have at the close of a project, if there is issues with water uh draining onto a road or draining onto someone else, >> there would be I'm just trying to think would there be any conflict of interest
if they if they were already the per if they were already the peer review for it. I don't know if they would plus the enforcement. I don't know if there would be >> because they're working for the town. >> They work for the town. So it' be the same. I'm just wondering, but they're hired. We do peer review, but then I guess it's hired from the town, but it's money in
in the account. So, it's still through us, but it's money paid by the applicant, >> right? But then, as we know, when a project's completed, they get the money back. So, that's why we would need to at least have a way of funding the um enforcement, >> right? Yeah. >> No, but John, that's a good question. >> Is there a conflict of interest if it's
the same one? Does it have to be a different one? The same one if they >> Serpent might be able to answer that. >> They're enforcing stuff they already reviewed, but I don't know. like they could let stuff go but then go and be enforcement for you know what I mean? >> Well, because maybe they just haven't cleaned their basins per their operation and maintenance agreement. Maybe it's
something like that that they just have to go out and and you know send them a letter. Hey, um get this up to snuff. And >> no, it' be good to see what other if other towns are utilizing something to that to that effect that >> right >> what they do if there's any again I'm just trying to think of anything that
would come up that would be an issue later if they ever had to go to court for some reason. You know what I mean? there be some kind of conflict of interest for it. >> Yeah. And I think over this whole process, we've seen so
many different options. I think when reviewing >> I know >> from the the interim town planner that we had seen like all the different towns do it so differently, >> right? >> Um so I'm sure there's some option out there that we could potentially um piggy back off of.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. So, Kathy, will you reach out to Sered on that? >> Excellent. And we have the smart growth overlay district. Um the agenda item report from the town
planner. Um the overview is it's a continued discussion of expanding the Smart Growth Overly District to include the hospital site and portion of the MBTA train station property. Um there was a meeting held on February 3rd, 2026
with the MBTA representatives to discuss future RFP for the site and also a meeting held on February 4th with potential development team looking to re-evaluate the site meaning the hospital site uh for current market needs.
Uh town council provided feedback for various questions from the board uh which we also have in our packet. It does require verification from EOHLC regarding the border lines for the zoning two separated locations or connection made via Main Street.
So, I kind of don't like these two lump together because I think to me, you know, they're two different things. We for me we had previously explored reszoning the hospital site as a 40R and
the takeaway at that time had been it had to be connected. It would open up the door for redevelopment of areas that are already um developed as businesses and would lose that commercial development potentially if it was zoned um for 40R
housing. Um, also, so when I saw this response from town council, I did a quick search on my email and just saw the feedback from EOHLC at the time had the other feedback
had said that one if because this was sort of like kind of a rush like we knew Rhino was going forward with the 40B and they said they would consider a 40R if it could be done at the same speed so it wouldn't hold them back anymore because they didn't
want to >> uh waste any more time exploring that. So, we were told that >> you could bring zoning to town meeting prior to EOHLC reviewing it. However, it's not recommended because typically EOHLC has feedback and wants certain
edits to any zoning by it is expected that they would have edits. So, that would be obviously we I don't think we're looking at that at this point. if I think they would be looking to explore creating the zoning, >> right? >> Um not just bringing it to town meeting.
Um but the other caveat was that because it's already permitted as a 40B project. Well, at that time it wasn't permitted. They didn't have the comprehensive permit, but at that time they already had the mass housing letter of approval. And because of that, um, the advice was
that it would not likely be approved as a 40R district because it already had an approved 40B. So, they like to see >> something that that wasn't going to and which is interesting because that was
the same scenario for the existing 40R. It came in as a 40VP and they changed it over to 40. But I will say that we know that these have changed over the years and and they they've made it almost easier to build housing rather than
harder. And >> and um so I could see that being a change that's happened. >> So those that's what I um pulled up from that previous conversation about it.
>> And um Yeah. So that I don't know if it's worth expending town council services to explore something that we already explored. I don't know.
>> Yeah. Well, we we had talked about doing uh you know a uh mixed use, >> right? >> Trying to do in there too. >> Well, because it is mixed use. It we talked about revising the current mixed use. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So that and maybe and that is a
direction I'd like to explore because I I guess I'm not >> I'm not seeing the merit in looking to reszone at 40R at this point because of those items that we had previously explored and how that had turned out.
And even, you know, even if you do it mixed use, if you do, you know, mixed use project that's along Main Street, you've still got a lot of property behind it that could be 40R, 40B or whatever. I mean, that's
kind of where they were with the uh assisted living project up front. Well, and so the other the other part of this is that if you go online, you can Google that address and you can see that they are trying to sell um the pro and they're selling it as
permitted projects and it mentions the 55 plus component and it mentions the assisted living permitted and it mentions the 40V permitted and I think you looked it up last meeting. Um they have the two years plus the additional two. So they can still trans transfer
ownership and those are permits in place and I and I see the benefit to 40R over 40B because you get that >> you get the money for zoning it, you get the uh money per per student. However, we also know just looking at the budget
the money that we the town was expecting from the state for that 40s >> is we've been told that it's going to be lower. So, it's not it's not reliable >> and it's almost like a short-term gain, long-term loss because we also know that
the $3,000 per student stipen is not the 16,000 that it costs per student either. >> No, that >> so, >> and they're trying to sell it. Are they are they selling it uh inside of bankruptcy or
>> that I don't know. I mean, you know, >> it didn't it didn't say that on the listing that I saw. It wasn't like a bankrupt listing. It was just >> Okay. would would then be a re would be a receiver that was >> controlling that
>> and not and not them. So, and I and I I guess um you know really the next one is the hospital site discussion that for me I think the priority for me personally is I want to see that site
cleaned up and absolutely um >> I think regardless of whose ownership um one of the things I looked into is um trying to have it deemed as a um super fun site. and and and
see if that is something that um could help get some action. And actually, so the link that is in our packet under this agenda item report um when you click on that, it actually gives you all the information about
super fun site and the process and it it says that anybody can. So I as a resident, I could do it. Um it sounds like um >> so madam chair at what level did any of these applications go through the state
with the r with the rhino folks? Did they do any >> what do you mean >> applications for Brownsfield's remediation? >> So that was the problem. They were trying to get the select board to help >> the town to help. I think they wanted the town to take ownership of a portion
of it in order to be able to apply for those >> grants. But >> so I think this the super fun process it looks like they explore all the options and they help direct you >> and that's federal >> to what? Yes, it is through the EPA. starting.
>> So, >> but the state won't be will the state also have any funding as well >> or are they tapped out like everything else cuz it because we could also apply to
>> so the brownfields I think >> the brownfields yeah >> I think that's state Kathy >> state right >> is brownfield state >> uh I think it is >> yeah so I know that that >> I think it's under the one stop >> and it just deals with the what's in the
So, >> it was a state site. My thought is they should clean it up. But I digress, >> right? >> Something's got to be done about that. Regardless, >> I mean, yeah, I mean that that I would agree. It's got to be a priority of the board to figure this out yet again,
how we proceed. And um >> I mean, I was surprised that they didn't at some point divide the site so that the assisted living was a separate parcel. >> Well, they did the subdivision.
>> I know they did the subdivision, but the subdivision doesn't seem to conform to that sort of division. And you know if they if they had then I would have thought that you know the the
parcel in front not being uh part of the the the the uh site part of the site that's that's contaminated that that >> that that project could just go right on
forward. >> Separate ownership >> because that doesn't involve it right >> all go to the all go to the wastewater treatment plant anyways though. Yeah, they still need >> they still need waste water treatment plant. >> The she had wastewater treatment plant and >> water. >> I think they did. >> They would still need to something
because they had to lower it. They had to, you know, take down. >> Yeah. >> Cuz that was on So like when you're driving down 79 the tall I don't know if it was the nurs's building quarters which was the taller building. I think
it's seven stories, eight stories. That's where the hill is. And they were going to take down the hill and bring it down so it wasn't so high. >> Yeah, they weren't going to take it down as much as with the warehouse, but they were still going to take it down a portion.
>> Yeah. I'm just surprised that they didn't find some other ways to divy stuff up. >> Well, we'll see. We'll see what happens. Um Yes. >> Yeah. I mean I
>> but I I'd hate to see them build around it though too and not address >> the issue >> the issues there cuz that's just >> leaving it kicking it further down the road. And >> so Madame Chair
>> as we discuss this >> I'm sure we're going to have multiple discussions about this going forward. Um, what are the next steps knowing this information that the board needs to look at going forward?
>> I mean, Rhino's obviously got this up for sale now. So, >> so that that's on like I don't see the harm in exploring what a super fund site is just, you know, for understanding it. um having more
discussions about that if that's something that would help bring about cleanup in some way. Um otherwise I think we would focus on um like we had talked about looking at a
mixeduse >> y >> um revision. >> Is the cleanup all about what's in the ground or is there asbestous in the buildings? >> Yeah, it's both. Okay. Yeah, >> you know, I you know, such super fun and and lots of
those things only take care of what's in the ground and not what's >> right. So, I guess that's that's that's the question is how because I think it it looked like there's certain levels and it where would this qualify?
Would it first would it qualify? If it does qualify, where where does it qualify? And then for what uh what process I don't know >> because they have mapped out the brownsfield section which was the the I don't want to call it the dump but the
>> the area of which was buried items and they did core samples and that kind of thing in in test pits and that kind of thing just to make sure that you know they got an idea of what's down there. But it is, you know, there's a whole
portion there that yeah, that needs to be remediated, but then the buildings, which is I don't know. It might be part of the sup mass EP super fund, but I don't think it would be Brownsfields. Um, that might be something separate, >> but who knows? I mean,
>> yeah. I mean, because when you get into asbestous removal, you've got, you know, that's that's tough stuff, >> right? Okay. So, back to the smart growth overlay district. Uh, the other part is looking
at the MBTA area and I know Dan, you you know, you're very adamant that >> passionate. >> You don't want to see that developed as all housing because it's existing as industrial zone, but obviously the state owns it. They're going to do what they going to do. I do see it. I think that
they were looking is there something we can zone it that'll work with what they're looking at 40R we could get money. I I think that's probably the logic. And I know we did um oh that's one thing we did ask about um
mixed use like how much mixed use >> um did ask if there was a maximum number of um units or buildings. She had the response was to um she'll have to review the regulations and get back to us.
Usually a maximum density is regulated through dimensional requirements. So that's like if whether it's 35 units per acre or 40 units per acre. So that's not really a um maximum number.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So I guess I guess I still have that question about um percentage of mixed use that could be incorporated
into 40R. Yeah. I mean, the attractive part about that property, you already have a red light there. Um, so, you know, I mean, yeah, you have to drive a little further into the property to get to where it is, but I mean, it is a prime location
>> for commercial business. Um, if you can make it happen. I mean if there is a housing component of it design it as such where you can have possible mixed >> well and I guess part of my question is
not listed on the state site yet for um so they have a site for the the surplus MBTA land that to be developed into housing and you can actually go in and see the towns that are listed and and where RFPs are
>> and I know Lakeville's not yet on that list. What I saw >> how >> for housing >> it's not on that. So you can go in and and look at what towns they're looking at and Lakeville is not on that list >> within that one mile. >> At least when I looked. So I don't know
>> how serious they're looking at Lakeville. I don't know. Um, >> sorry, Madam Chair, not to interrupt, but is this for the MBTA >> housing within one mile of the station? Is that what it is? >> So, they're looking at stateowned
surplus land. >> Just stateowned surplus. Okay. >> That they can put housing. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Regardless how close it is to the station, >> like if it's on the other end of town, like closer to Freetown, let's say, and
it's a stateowned land, because I'm trying to think of where we have stateowned land in terms of >> Well, I do know there's there's farmland that they lease out and I know if >> Jesus >> if anybody ever tried to do something with that, you know, um >> sh quiet edit that out.
>> That would not go well. >> Well, because it it would take an act of >> Congress though, too, because it's that chapter 97. >> Chapter 90. Yeah. But um I think when I had first seen it that was my
fear was that it would be that you did look at but that wasn't um for homes act section 122 surplus land guidance All stateowned land not subject to article 97 is eligible to be declared
surplus land and sold under section 121. DAM has currently identified a subset of surplus parcels that would be appropriate for residential developments and intends to identify more parcels in the future. If DAM identifies a parcel as being surplus state land that is suitable for
residential development, then DAM will notify and engage the host comm uh the host municipality. So, how far down that list are we? Because >> we're we are um compliant with 3A right
now. So, I know this is different than 3A, but it's still coming under that affordable affordable housing act >> blanket just like um ADUs. >> So, I guess I still I guess we still have that question about the mixed use
like if we could look at a 40R incorporate a mixeduse component maybe that that would be worth um exploring. >> Yeah. and have the conversation with them and and explore the options.
>> Yeah, we had I may be going a little far a field here, but uh we we had at our last meeting, we had some sketches that the MBTA had done, some
little site plans uh showing a number of alternatives. >> Mhm. What happens if if we and I'm going to
pare that down. What happens if I did some of that did something like that for the front of the hospital site and showed you what would be possible in terms of a mixed use along there.
Just just some >> I don't to react to. I feel like there's no point in it because we don't own it. >> I know. No, I know. >> I mean, just But like when you talk about mixeduse zoning, creating zoning for not a specific place, that's
something that we could look at. Um creating a mixeduse that looks like >> a certain but not for a specific, >> you know. >> Yeah. I mean, I I Yeah, I understand. Yeah. they don't own it and and and all, but uh
sometimes you can't react to something that's in the ether. >> Mhm. >> And you know, when when you've got something that you can actually look at and react to, you've got a better
starting point. And I mean, that becomes kind of the obvious site to say, okay, we could do something like this. And yeah, maybe maybe you don't, you know, you're not looking to do spot zoning or anything like that with it,
but uh g get people to kind of understand >> Well, I think >> the idea and the same thing with any potential developer who might want to buy. >> So that's that's a a good question. Um
obviously there was a meeting with a interested party and you know we didn't have an opportunity to hear exactly you know to listen in and see what that um conversation was about or ask questions. So I I don't
have an answer for for you or or a solution. But maybe next time going forward if if if it's a consideration, maybe they'd bring it before the board and then it could be a public discussion and maybe it would
be more productive that way. I'm not I don't know. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm going on vacation and I'll be kind of twiddling my thumb. So it becomes something potentially a little easy to sit down
and do do some sketching on and kind of okay here's here's here's the sort of thing that it could be >> you know and and and I don't want it misunderstood
but it is kind of something something for people to react to. Yeah, >> if you see something in your email uh in a few weeks, you know, sounds good. No, no, know that that was what it was about. >> Okay. Um
I don't think we really need to do anything with this smart growth overlay discussion any further. I don't I think just that question remains. I guess we could go back to >> town council and ask about what percentage um as well as that the
hospital site discussion. I mean my feedback I'm feeling is that we'd be looking would be interested in looking into a mixeduse revising the mixed use because it is currently zone mixed use. Um I don't know what
else without being part of that conversation asking questions. Exactly. They were you know exploring. Um the next thing is the OSRD outreach event in our packet. Uh, we do have a flyer
that um, young man Alex from Serpent came up with. And this is going to be on March 25th at 400 p.m. through 5:45 p.m. at the Lakeville Public Library.
Uh this is a public feedback session in order to gain some public uh input on the open space residential design uh proposed bylaw. We still I haven't seen um any revised draft yet. Have you
you haven't seen anything? Okay. Um but I I would assume they're going to have that available and um they've got a survey. Oh, the draft is right there. >> Yeah, >> I didn't even notice until as I'm
looking at this. >> So, they they have a survey. You can register and you can read the draft. So hopefully people will attend that. I don't think we need to um post this because we won't if we decide to go individually we won't have public we
won't have discussion on it. >> Yeah. >> So anyone interested welcome to attend that. It is posted gosh where did I see it? Is it on the town website? >> It's on on the town Facebook um page.
share the Facebook >> and I believe it's also posted on the town website under the announcements. >> Good. >> I think they did that last week >> and I think I saw someone share it on the Rocky Woods group, too. >> Yeah. >> So, that's good. So, people are seeing
it if they're interested. >> Um, the next item is review and approve uh 2025 town report. We didn't get a draft together yet. Obviously, the storm threw a little wrench into that. So, it's not due right away. I think we just have to Kathy keeps a spreadsheet. Just
got to plug in those >> those numbers. So, we'll put that on the next one. >> Um, release peerreview funds for 13 Main Street. >> Um,
so we do have the town planner recommendation to release $1,9634 remaining back to the applicant for 13 Main Street. And the balance summary sheet is in our packet as well showing the balance
remaining. And we would need to vote for this if someone wants to. >> I'll make a motion to release the uh funds in the sum of $1,9634 back to the applicant at 13 Main Street.
>> I second that. >> Motion and a second. All in favor? >> I I >> motion carries. That'll be released. Uh, next item is committee liaison updates. I think there was a meeting on the Lakeville Country Club
working group. David, were you part of that? >> Yeah. Uh, you know, mostly it was a presentation of their proposed zoning ordinance and uh, town council is is getting it and and reviewing.
uh and and a little bit about the uh uh the management agreement with the town. >> Okay. So, they're still working towards that. >> Yeah. >> How does it seem to be? Is it moving? Well, is it cumbersome?
>> It's it's getting a little cumbersome. >> Um you know, brought in a a peer reviewer for their fiscal report. >> Yeah. Um, we haven't heard back on that at all, but uh uh it's it's getting so that there are a lot of pieces moving at
the same time now. >> Right. Okay. >> Um I'm confident it'll come together kind of finally. >> Okay, good. Um any other committee liaison updates?
No, >> our um economic development meeting was cancelled for obvious reasons on Monday. So, it will be rescheduled for the near future. >> Okay. Nothing else. And uh CPC, we held our
public hearing. It was well attended by no one. Um but we do Oh, and I sent around the plan. I know originally I did it. Um so if if um anyone has any feedback related
obviously this board related to housing more so >> um we did add one one suggestion uh from Noel that is is drafted in there um to include uh funds to help first-time home buyers
which I literally took it out of the middle borrow plan so that's something that they do already. >> Okay. Um, otherwise, thank you all for coming out after this snowstorm with the roads being still fairly d They're clear, but
they're still dangerous with these snow banks. >> Try to look around them. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Our next meeting will be uh March 12th, 2026 here at the police station. Do we have any other business? >> No.
>> Hearing none. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. in a second. All in favor? >> I >> I meeting is adjourned.