Good evening and welcome to the Thursday, April 9th, 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 Lake Cam recording this evening. Anyone else
hearing? None. Uh let's go around and do roll call attendance. >> Donna Gay, >> Dan Wilgga, >> John Cabrell, >> Michelle McKern, >> David Lodge, >> Kathy Mard. All right. Um the first order of business on our agenda is going
to be a moment of silence. Uh, first I'd like to read a letter that I composed on behalf of this board that we can all sign at the end of the meeting and then we'll go right into a moment of silence. Um, John Jack Lynch was appointed to the Lakeville Planning Board in August of
2020 to fill an unexpired position. The following year, he was elected to a 5-year term on planning board. Over the years, he participated in approvals for ANRS, subdivisions, site plan reviews, and occasional special permits for projects throughout the town of Lakeville. He brought a unique and
thoughtful perspective to meeting discussions. Personally, this planning board will remember Jack as a kind and friendly person who demonstrated perseverance, determination, and commitment to service. Jack was a wonderful friend, and gentle soul to all of us. On April 9, 2026 at 6:30 p.m.,
the Lake Planning Board honors Jack with a moment of silence. We send our sincere condolences to his partner, children, extended family, friends, and all affected by his loss. He will be missed. All right. Thank you. Um everyone, uh the
second item on our agenda is an ANR plan for 115 and 117 Kingman Street, Riverhawk Land Survey. They have asked to continue um I think they asked for our next meeting, right Kathy? >> Okay. So, um would someone like to motion to continue?
>> I'll make a motion to continue the ANR for 11517 Kingman Street till April 23rd, 2026. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> All right. Uh, next item on our agenda is meet with Serpentid regarding rules
and regulations update. So, we have Taylor from Serpent. Welcome. >> Hello. >> Back again. Going to plug in um cuz I didn't change before. >> No worries. >> Always nice to see you.
>> It's a pleasure as always. I'm sorry to hear about Jack, but very happy and honored that I got to work with him on you know a lot of the years. So yeah, really sincerely my condolences to his family and to you folks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> You both or you all I suppose should have a hand out. Um that was largely a lot of the substantive changes that we had discussed. There's still some portions of the res that I would like to go over with legal counsel which I am coordinating with uh your town
administrator. So that should be happening soon. Um >> Oh with our town administrator. Yes. Okay. >> Yes. Yeah. So the way that um we had initially structured the legal review is that we will work through your town council. >> That's right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, uh, Andrew will coordinate
with them and with me and, you know, as we receive feedback, particularly as it relates to things that I'm not necessarily an expert in like performance guarantees and all of those things where it would be just easier to get the best practices. I'll develop language, but again, would like to run stuff like that through them. So, we
have a set aside in the budget. We're well covered to um support that review and make sure that everything is in tip-top shape. >> Great. I don't have much beyond if you folks had feedback about any of the excerpts that I provided trying to address what we had talked about in our
last meeting. Um primarily the uh provision on ADUs from section D of section 2 about more than one dwelling unit uh per lot. Uh I added a you know finalized the waiver language that we discussed which is largely from Marian but I kind of shortened it and
simplified it in a couple of places. Um I have added kind of a substantial section on 53G per some conversations that I've had with um the environmental crew and with you folks. Um again this is largely from East Hampton's procedural rules and regulations. So not their subdivision but all the language
is very similar. It's just like more detailed about the way that you know you folks would work with an applicant and a consultant and whatnot. And again, I'm have not yet found anyone who is using
um any sort of third party enforcement. I know that was a conversation that we had. So, I'm still digging on that. And again, we'll probably defer to whether or not council feels it's appropriate to do something like that. I don't understand if it would or like or why it
couldn't be necessarily. The only thing that I was thinking is that it might have to be, you know, on a project by project basis um and not just like general enforcement if you you know what I mean. >> Okay. >> So that's >> so it wouldn't translate to like the storm water.
>> I'm not sure at this point. >> And now just um to touch on the town council thing. So we changed >> Yes. We talked about that. All right. Good. >> Yeah. So, I was coordinating with Andrew on when the ideal time to submit was. Um, and just based on the conversation I had with him and, you know, the
potential scheduling around when new town council starts or whatnot. We're going to work around that. >> Yeah. So, and just for this board's information cuz this happened. So, they weren't supposed to change until the end of June >> and now um as of I think Tuesday or the select board meeting uh April 7th, we
have new town council. Who is it? >> So, it's um >> and Costa >> Kettle and Costa. >> They're excellent. We >> they're great. I've worked with them. Um >> we did all of our 3A bylaw reviews through them where the town council
didn't do it themselves in the communities we worked with. They're they're excellent. I don't know if specifically or worked with Liz Leiden, but that's who we've worked with in the past. I know, you know, their town council for Rochester and Raobith, I think, as well. Um but yeah, they're they're excellent. I really like working with them. So,
>> and they're going to have um hours, in-house hours, so that'll be convenient. >> And they're local. >> Yeah. >> Not Boston, local. >> And And it was very quick to get a response, too. Like, they're they're very I mean, I they've turned around edits for us within a couple weeks, you
know what I mean? Sometimes sooner if we need it. They're >> excellent on call. Um very prompt and, you know, succinct with their invoicing. Their their feedback is always great. Um, like I said, I can always just I've called Liz in the past and just been like, "Can we just talk through this?" And, you know, she we do and it's it's
very helpful. Um, so I'm excited to work with them again here. They're again just excellent in my opinion. So, >> nice. >> Yeah, that's all good news. Um, >> so yeah, we're coordinating with Andrew on that. And what I figure the way I might handle this is ensure that all of
the feedback here tonight feels good and then finalize some of the more kind of like technical legally side of things. do an initial review with MTC, come back to you folks with a final draft, confirm everything looks good, and then move from there. Um, but I think we're on track and everything scheduling wise
looks good, at least on my end, as long as it does to you folks here. Um, yeah, all that to say, that's kind of, you know, where I'm going to defer them for like some of the 53g um, info. So, um, I think the most substantial changes
are probably in the tree section. We're kind of as I work my way down, we'll get there. Um the sidewalks, I made sure that it was clear that, you know, sidewalks shall be constructed within a subdivision. This won't be waved unless an applicant can furnish evidence of financial hardship. Um I'll confirm that that language again is appropriate. This
is why it's nice to work with someone like legal counsel cuz they like change it and write it this way or whatnot. This makes it more authoritative or this leaves room for this, don't say that, etc. Um but so I've included that. And then the way that I'm handling the
roadway acceptance is that you folks will have the authority to, you know, make your recommendation on whether or not you think a road should or should not be accepted once it is brought to the select board. You know, you're asked about it. You're given 45 days to respond. So the way I'm handling
it here is that in order to receive a favorable recommendation for a roadway to be approved, include those standards that we discussed. So the first one is the, you know, sidewalks must be included on both sides of the street. Um, you know, if you received a waiver for this, we won't recommend it for
acceptance. And then the other point I had that I will add language in. I just have to kind of coordinate how it will sit side by side with the regular inspection as I know that we had talked about more in-depth DPW inspection along the way. So that is to come, but I know
that that shall be included. And I wanted to make sure that I looked through my notes, but I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything about your kind of key concerns here when it came to a favorable recommendation for roadway acceptance.
>> Um so, so DPW, oh, they'll definitely look at it, but they'll use peer review too cuz >> right, >> for the engineering, you know, >> right, >> um review. Mhm. >> Um >> yeah, I I don't I don't have my original notes with me tonight, but I can
definitely check that. >> Yeah, if there's anything that you see, um like I said, I went back through and I know that um those were the two ones that stood out to me again was like that um it was crystal clear with DPW that they felt good about the road and that there was sidewalks on both sides, no waiverss.
>> Is there anything else that we had said? >> No. >> And so there's room too. What's nice is since it's now it's a bulleted list, you can just always go down there if you ever think of something that you want to add. It can always be added. >> And I don't know if something like >> what do you think >> the turn I'm thinking like the
turnaround because a lot of times we'll we'll wave instead of a culde-sac they'll do a hammerhead and sometimes even though it's accepted by the fire department it's not ideal. Mhm. >> Um there's that seems like pretty
straightforward language to add. Okay. >> Right. The hammerhead. >> What was the other one? >> But they would the town accept that if it was a hammerhead like the >> That's what I mean. >> Don't turn around for their >> Yes. That's right. So, you probably shouldn't accept it for turn around if
there I mean accept it for >> that would be something without a stipulation that again would result in a favorable review if you have a turnaround versus a hammerhead. >> Right. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. The sidewalks. The sidewalks. >> We did we did have one case on the sidewalks
>> which is on the agenda later, but Pine Crest like we we those ones, but that wasn't a that wasn't a hardship. That was because it didn't make sense to put >> Where was that? two two house subdivision at the end of a end of an existing private road that didn't have sidewalks. So they would able to have sidewalks for two houses
>> and that would not be accepted, >> right? And that they're never going to accept the rest of that road anyway. So >> and it was kind of like Narrow's Drive or Narrow's Lane off of my Rex, too. They only put what, three, four houses there? >> Yes. >> They put sidewalks.
>> I did. Yeah. I think that was one that I like insisted on at because of the roadway. Yeah. Yeah. And they they brought it up at at the approval for Pinerest cuz he was here to sign paperwork. I mean, why did they get away with this, >> right? Yep. >> Yeah.
>> It was it was it was a very unique situation. So, I I know that it's they should be in there unless there's a financial hardship. I don't know if we not trying to give them an out or or or board's discretion or something like that. >> Right. That's what I was wondering. And this is again where legal counsel can be really helpful because it's like how you
know um affirmative do you want to be in your language and how much room do you want to give to the discretion of you folks or to streamline because obviously if you get discretion >> that leaves more work to you folks to then make that decision versus whether or not it's just like a hard no or a hard yes. So that's a question I guess
to how much you folks are comfortable with >> leaving room or if it truly is just like no we we really want sidewalks. I think it is good to have a little bit of wiggle room because like John just pointed out, we have different situations that'll maybe make sense to
wave it in certain areas and then, you know, hard no for any any other situation that isn't >> okay. Let me I'll have to think about the best way to structure this that way because you know if we're saying here >> we're not going to give a favorable
recommendation without sidewalks on both sides. >> Um yeah, I'll just have to figure out exactly how to word smith that to um maybe allow for some wiggle room in special circumstances. But >> but so but I guess that's not a good um
because that's not going to be an accepted road because it's private. So I don't think we want to give it as an exception. >> So this is just for rows to be accepted by >> correct. >> Okay, that's fine then. Yeah, like if you're like right cuz if you're
comfortable with waving sidewalks for you know and the way it's written here um is I don't even think that I I so when I was writing this I was thinking I was having this conversation in my head where I was like >> you know we talked about even
potentially the waiver being only up to one side like you know one side of the street gets a sidewalk and that's where I was even leaning into the thought of like I don't think we should be too prescriptive in this like this particular section section 9 is on the inclusion of sidewalks or not. I think we just say
you will include them. There's room for a waiver. And you know, I what I can rephrase is this section on furnished evidence of financial hardship to instead leave more legal room to kind of what you folks were just talking about where it's like or in a case where it clearly doesn't make sense. Um, since
this section applies to both public and, you know, or potentially public and private roads, >> but I do think for the roadway acceptance, that's probably where you want to be more affirmative on whether or not it's like truly a hard >> no. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I was thinking. So, I didn't know. I thought
that I'm not the number I thought this one was just saying sidewalks in general and the next one the next section B1 was where it's >> acceptance into the road acceptance is sidewalks on both sides, right? I think we have we have roads that are accepted
that only have sidewalks on one side or no side on no side. >> I'm trying to think. So the more recent street that we accepted since I think the only street that we've accepted that I can think of is the one that was off of Jamie's Way.
Was it Was it Jamie? >> Jamie's Way. Yeah, I think it >> it was down there. But I I'm pretty sure they have side sidewalks on both sides. >> Oh, on both sides. I don't recall. I thought it was just one side, but >> I think so. >> It was so long ago.
>> The name of the camera. >> No, I guess that's the question then, too, is you know, right here we're saying available on both sides of the ride ofway for acceptance. Do you ever foresee a situation where you will be comfortable making a favorable recommendation for town acceptance for,
you know, a road that has sidewalks on one side of the street? >> Probably. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> So, you can say at least one side must be available on at least one side of the street. >> Minimum one. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Mhm. >> Uh, okay. >> Yeah, cuz I I I'm picturing like it has
two, but now that >> and you're like, wait, does it >> I don't know. Maybe it doesn't. Okay. So this >> it was probably two. >> And again, it's easier to be um it's easier to leave room. >> Mhm.
>> Um Okay. All right. Um lighting was very straightforward. I just referenced your folks lighting bylaw since it was not referenced prior. Um, I don't really think that I I think I just reordered everything, but nothing major changed there. The biggest changes
were to what was originally just the street trees section. I've kind of consolidated a good amount of that and um, also just called the trees, landscaping, and natural features since it kind of all goes into one. And so I worked with my colleague Rob Cabraw, and
that's who you folks have met, who was a landscape architect in a past life. um excellent one at that. And so he has helped me kind of work through the concept of um what native species will be appropriate especially given you know height is the big thing. Um
>> and so the way that I have kind of worked this in is that the you know initial language about general uh requirements is the same. I've done my best to reference the Latin name just to be consistent throughout. Um, and then I've added a section on planting
preferences where we say that, you know, native plantings are preferred for all tree and landscaping requirements. And I've given some examples. If there's any in here for some reason that you are either, you know, very against for any reason, please let me know. I'll remove them. Um, and then I also left some
room. if you folks had any, you know, preferences for flowers and ornamentals because there are plenty of examples of native plantings that um, you know, versus like there's only x number of trees that are under, you know, 50 ft that would be appropriate for, you know, a sidewalk planting or whatnot, but there's tons of, you know, ornamentals
and decorative shrubs and flowers that again, if you folks have preferences, feel free to send them to me. We can discuss them here or just a list over email would also be fine. But I did make it clear that the list is not exhaustive and that you can, you know, they can reference in consultation with you folks several resources including mass
autobonds resource uh the division of fisheries and wildlife lists um the Massachusetts native plant pallet which is really cool. So there's plenty of options for folks to work within that but just to make it clear that this is a preference that you folks have. >> Mhm. Okay. Um the aversion control is
the same again just um I I gave some examples for deep rooted perennial grasses again in consultation with Rob but again making it clear that it's a such as you can plant such as these you know specific species
um under maintenance and replacement I have increased what I think was originally 12 months to 24 months for a window for maintenance given that the section about maintenance you know, has the provision for up to 24 months that the applicant will be responsible for
that. So, I figured it seems appropriate here. Obviously, again, I will consult with legal counsel just to make sure. My goal is always to make sure we're not getting too too out of uh the scope of what is allowable, you know, like what is actually based on usually it's case
law that is hard for someone like me to just be up to date on every single case that's been >> litigated. Um, but you know, that's where a lawyer comes in and helps. But so I've increased that that period for replacement um and made it clear that that is you know any trees lost to pest
disease drought within this period are to be replaced because as you know Rob and I talked about I think once at a previous meeting and then when we were talking working through this list a nursery guarantees a plant for up to 12 months. So then it essentially just leaves the additional 12 months at the responsibility of the you know the
developer the applicant. >> Is there a way to go farther than 24 months? That is a question that I would probably ask legal counsel because I'm not sure. My understanding is that the whole idea of the period of 24 months is, you know, baked into the subdivision
control law. So that's where I'm like, I don't know how much longer you can necessarily go. >> I mean, my my thought is is kind of the solar farm on Crooked Lane where they have a number. Yeah. >> Yeah. number of trees that are just absolutely dead and I don't know what
that is. Yeah, I remember I think you post let me know about that in a previous meeting. >> I mean, is there is I mean, one one way is there a way to to >> break out commercial properties from residential properties or >> I'm not sure that's under solar though.
Like we have a whole solar ground mounted solar bylaw, >> right? So, >> my thought was that it might be a zoning provision rather. >> Yeah. I don't I don't think it would be included in this cuz this is subdivisions. >> Yeah. >> Um >> Oh, okay. All right. Yeah. So I um I'll
make a note to see if it could be longer with the understanding that you know 24 months might be the max. But >> yeah, I mean I can understand it for subdivisions. I would just >> And I think solar I from what I've read about it, it's actually not a common thing for it to be just hotter and cause
damage to trees. So I think that's maybe specific to solar that maybe at some point we could look at. >> Mhm. Yeah. because we've I've written um I've written a solar ordinance in the past um and you know you can leave a lot of leeway for the screening preferences
that you have and whatnot. So that might be somewhere to address that, >> right? Yeah. >> Um >> yeah, I mean I just again spitballing a little bit here. I mean we do commercial subdivisions every now and then, not not often,
>> but uh you know where they're is kind of on-site. Mhm. >> management or, you know, on-site business operating, >> you know, can that be? >> So, I know we've included it. I I'm pretty sure we've included with a recent
cyclone review >> uh for I don't remember what the time frame was two year. I mean, it sounds pretty right. >> I think so, >> but I'm not 100% sure. >> Okay. >> Check with town council and if >> Yeah. And if they for some reason are like, oh yeah, for this specific
instance you could do three years or something like that, we can always bake that in. But um my intuition right now is that just statutoily it might be it might be a 2-year b. >> Okay. >> Um but I will check. Absolutely. I made a note to do it. >> Yeah. Cuz if it if something ends up
dead and is an eyesore like it definitely I mean the good thing is you know most people are don't want to leave something dead. >> Right. >> But yeah. >> Okay. Um, and then the only other thing I did here was that the protection of natural features was kind of its own
standalone section in the prior version. It felt a little short um to be its own section, which is also again why I've kind of expanded the the um the scope of this section to include things like that because again the the most uh
not authoritative but like affirmative piece of information in this is about you know tree width, tree, you know, measurements and whatnot. So, it seems appropriate to include here and it's still broad enough that I think it's fine. Um, so I've just consolidated that
so that it's just one, you know, in-depth section. And then for the maintenance and improvements given the previous section I've just um added that in the such maintenance shall include but it's not limited to snow removal landscaping and then you know a little bracket for like is there anything else it should include
which again uh I will discuss with legal counsel to just ensure that we're not getting outside of the you know the scope of our jurisdiction for lack of better words. But that is the major changes that I wanted to discuss with you folks and just make sure that you were comfortable
with everything. Otherwise, um I'm looking through my notes right now on the actual full set. I'm still just going through and like bulleting things out and you know, obviously we talked about like tracing cloth and India ink. We glued those references. >> Tracing cloth.
>> It's tracing cloth and India ink. Um, and so the only question I think I have for you folks is I included the special permits and the fees. You don't see it in your packet. I'm sorry, but I didn't figure it was worth, you know, cuz it's just a minor question. But on the ZBA's uh form
where they include these fees, 140 per residential application, 240 for non-residential plus advertising, their advertising fee is $120.76 at least as of the date that that form was updated July 2008. Unless for some
reason this has changed. I'm not aware. >> It's really old. Yeah, there's >> I was like I don't know what, you know, cuz I know here we have advertising as 200. So, if we want to just say the same thing, I just wanted to make sure that >> I I'll get that to you. The exact amount. >> Great. >> But should we have the exact amount in
here in case it changes or should we leave that out? >> Just like plus advertising as determined by like >> current advertising or >> as long as there's a place where someone could go and reference that fee. That's like, you know what I mean? >> Cuz I thought that in our fee schedule it doesn't say specific. It just says
advertising. The only one I have here is the major the major changes. >> Maybe in the checklist >> it does have it. >> Oh, yeah. >> I think so. >> So, yeah. I mean, I think I' I'd prefer just >> but just in the application, not
actually in the the rules. >> Oh, just >> just in the application. >> So, advertising expense or whatever it is. >> It has the amount. >> Oh, it has the amount. Okay. A specific one. But those we can change just
>> Right. You can just change them. >> Yeah. >> Right. So if you prefer it to just be advertising as described and you know we'll put a reference or something like that then we can just do it so you don't have to worry about going in and changing your fee schedule for something that might be prone to changing frequently. >> Yeah. Maybe that I mean
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think so. Great. Um, I feel I had one more question for you folks. I have been going through and double checking those statutory um, references. I know for example, last
time we talked we were like, is that 20 or 21 days? I think it was um, statutory it is. Um, so I'll ensure that all of those section references are available so you folks can if you'd like to consult the specific section and see it, you can. Um, I'm working with Kathy on the forms currently. Um, so removing
language that might be outdated where there was once a form that no longer exists, >> ensuring that the appropriate language is still in there. So for example, I was working on this after I sent Kathy. um at least what I wanted to talk with you folks about today, but the what used to be I believe the form D for design
certification which is now not a thing. Um just including instead of provision that you know plans are to be you know made by a land surveyor professional engineer whatever and that you know the applicant it should be represented by such and whatnot more just kind of general language rather than >> referring to any sort of specific form
that again might might not exist. Um, yeah. So, what was there anything else that I have? I don't think there's anything major on my end. The only thing that I'm
remembering and I'm getting down to that section is on um in your design standards for your erosion section. Um the first the erosion section opens with saying, you know, these requirements could be waved. And I was just curious
on if you, you know, wanted to lead with that or um if there were specific things that you folks are concerned about primarily with erosion that would lead you to not want to just be like this whole section could be waved. Um I mean in theory anything could but it's you
know it just opens with that. So it's like do we want this or not? I think that could be that I mean to me that sounds like something we could change because they should ensure erosion controls and I know it's more of like I know the conservation
>> um commission does a lot of that with you know wetlands but I don't think we should start off to say this could be >> general requirements these requirements may be waved >> so it's like you know we certainly so but maybe we again just like I think we want >> when was that written >> I mean we maybe ended up I don't know if
you want to Right. That's why I was like, you know, we could include specifics to be like this provision could be waved. Um, and and but I just think again like this really is only referencing subdivisions with excessive slopes or that are abuing a stream. But, you know, I think a lot of this could
just be streamlined to be like, you know, the applicant should ensure proper erosion controls as necessary and in consultation with the board and um, whoever. >> So, okay. I just wanted to confirm that cuz I was like strong start. Strong opening. >> Strong opening.
>> Good good pick up on that. >> Um I don't I don't have anything else major. Um a lot of it now is really just you know the finalization of things probably minor back and forth between myself and Kathy. um just to finalize
things. Sending it along to um your town legal council, ensuring that everything is uh defensible is again what we're always trying to do and then adoption going from there. Obviously pending any last edits you folks might have. Um but
just to then adopt a brand new one and you know we we've talked about including some graphics. I think the budget could allow for that still. At the very least, I know we'll make this look very nice and streamlined and easy to read because that is something that I think is really important. Um, ease of use. So, ensuring
things like that. Um, but yeah, we're completely on track for our timeline and for our spend down and whatnot. Um, I think we're in good shape. >> Yeah. >> Um, I don't know if Kathy's told you that yet, though. >> No, I didn't. >> Do you want to tell her? >> Do you want me to tell her? You can
tell. So she she's actually uh leaving us for Wear ham. Um but >> to wear him. >> Yeah. >> Yep. So next week's her last full week. She has offered to stay on for Fridays cuz they don't you know they don't have Fridays. >> Yeah.
>> Um so she'll be in one day a week to help sort of transition. So um if you >> Congrats. Yeah. >> What are you doing in the warehouse if you don't mind me asking? uh planning coordin. >> So that's great. I'm I'm excited that you didn't go too too far. Um but yeah, so I mean then we'll I'll coordinate
with you. >> Yeah. If there's anything that comes along that, you know, >> uh we'll figure it out >> after next week, then just let me know. >> Even if I just if I need to attend more frequently after that through the end of the contract, that's totally fine. Well, I mean, I was going to say if you want to wait until like final edits and
do one more and then >> we'll have to do a public hearing. >> All right. To adopt it and then um >> Cool. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Let's let's coordinate on timing. Um make sure that it works for you folks. Again, I'm fairly flexible. Um my
Thursdays are always usually open. I leave them open for this year. Um, so again, happy to be here as frequently or as infrequently as you need me through June 30th. Um, and then obviously happy to help anytime after that. Just let me know. >> Okay. So it's before June 30th. >> Yes. Okay. >> Yep. That's when our contract
>> So we have So should we hold the meet the So that's when this will be done or this? >> Yeah. So our so we have the contracts with the rural development fund. Um, and so tech it is June 30th. Um, rural development fund tends to be more flexible with extensions in the event
you folks felt like June 30th was too soon. Usually they're comfortable with extending, but I don't feel it's necessary. Unless you folks feel >> as long as you think >> I think that's good. Okay. And then so after June 30th, I don't know if we should maybe pick a
public public hearing date now or not or wait. I guess >> it's up to you folks. >> If we know that it ends on June June 30th, that way maybe we can plan in advance, >> right? work backwards from that date. Yeah, sure. >> So, it looks like
the um our meeting before that would be June 25th. So, that's like right at the end there. >> Yeah. And if there's any um notable comments or edits that you would want, we have six days to or 5 days to
implement them. >> Oh yeah. >> Well, yeah. Between that and then um >> but so like if we do the public hearing that would be it would be adopted, >> right? Unless for some reason you folks felt like you received feedback that otherwise Yeah. like you were like
>> um and then you folks always have municipal assistance hours and other ways that we can tap in and make some final edits. So I wouldn't on your end I would not be concerned with that. Um, I'm just more letting you folks know logistically how it would work. >> Okay. >> U, but yeah, in the event that you receive feedback, there'll be room in
the event you don't, then stop and the project is done. >> Um, so just let us know. But I'll make the note in here. You said the 25th. >> Yeah, June 25th. We could tentatively schedule the public hearing for that date. Right. >> And don't forget like if you have the document, you don't they can be done and
you can have that hearing anytime after that, too. >> Right. Right. Yeah. >> So you're not like tied to that, >> right? Like you could you could do it in July. >> Yeah. But I I also feel like if we know when they're going to be done, might as well like know when we're going to be able to adopt it so that
>> you know if something unforeseen should happen. >> Gosh. Yeah. Yeah. >> Thanks. >> Well, on my end, I will plan to be flexible. Um that is no problem. Um and again if for some reason something unforeseen
does come up and you are feeling like you either you know want to extend or you know want to do your public hearing in July um it's not make or break on our end that's completely fine. >> Okay. Well, I still like having a tenative that way we kind of have an
idea of when we'll have the new >> It's a nice deadline to work backwards from and it's easier when I work with, you know, legal counsel to be like, "Here's the date that we're planning for in advance." So, we can let's plan to, you know, touch base in two weeks after you've spent some time with her or whatever. So, again, it's it's fine on our end. That works.
>> Yeah. And just cuz I know public hearings, they have to be advertised for at least two weeks prior. So, all that. >> All right. Um, any other thoughts that you'd like to send me off with before I sit and watch the OSRD portion of this agenda?
>> No, I thought this was very comprehensive when looking at it. So, >> I think you nailed it. >> Great. Thank you. It's always a pleasure. >> Kind of nitty-gritty stuff is always fun. >> Yeah. >> Um, yeah. So, if you have anything else that does come up between now and the
next time that I'm here, um I we've been kind of doing it on a monthly basis, at least on my end. I think that works, which would bring us to the first meeting in May. Correct. Um so long as again it's not looking like there's going to be a lot of things on your plate. Um
I think in theory that should work for me. It, you know, again, just to my hope is that by then I'll have some feedback from legal counsel. Um, >> so like May 14th it looks like the >> Mhm. >> Okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I mean that that day is completely open online. So I can put a hold for, you know, to be here to talk through any sort of feedback that we receive from legal counsel, particularly things that they may say that um, >> you know, notably changes some of the
language that we've had. Um most of the time it's just like a say should and not shall or you know phrase it this way again like to make it again it's all like rooted in something being legally defensible and not uh opaque or >> subjective in any way. So um
>> I don't anticipate anything crazy coming up. I anticipate honestly more clarification than anything about some of the questions that you know you folks have had and that I have had. >> So I'll put that on my calendar for Thursday, May 14th. Um, should anything I really like that should anything unforeseen come up
between now and then, I'll let you folks know or you folks can let me know. But I've got that hold on there for now and we'll plan to be here in about a month a week or so. Yeah. So, >> thank you. >> All right, that's all I got. So, great. Thank you folks. Appreciate it.
>> We'll sit back and listen. Um, and I'll see you folks in like what, five weeks, something like that. Yeah. All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. Our next item on the agenda. Oh, actually >> Oh, no. So, the only thing is we had the
storm water management bylaw update, but we kind of went over it. You're still going to look into it. So, >> yeah, that's >> Sorry. Um, so regarding that and as it integrates into the rules and regulations, I received your previous
town planner, Stephanie. I received the email about that um with some of the feedback from your previous town council and what I'm going to work with your new town council um on is how much from the you know the regulations that were meant
to accompany that bylaw. how much can be included in your subdivision, you know, section on storm water because that's where, >> you know, so much of the regulations for the storm water bylaw specifically >> until it's actually a thing in relation
to that. So, how much can we get in subdivision without an actual bylaw on the books? Um, is going to be the question that I have for them. And I'll probably work in consultation with environmental. Um, >> and just just so you're aware, so our warrant closes on the 13th. So, I don't
think we're going to I think we'll have to push it off to fall. >> Right. So, at the very least, we should try and like future proof the the regulations on that end. >> So, even it'll have pieces of that. That's my hope is that we can kind of squeeze some of the things that would have existed in the regulation should a bylaw have been brought to town meeting
and approved. Um I want to see how much of that can exist just standalone in the subdivision rules and ranks without again something authoritatively uh you know approved by the legislative body. So we'll see. >> Um y >> yeah great cool. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Now moving on to our next agenda item. meet with Alexander Bergstrand for Open Space Residential Development OSRD update. >> All right. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Alexander Bergstrand. I'm a senior environmental
planner with Serpent. I'm a new face of Serpent. I've been with them since January now. And uh this is one of the first projects I taken on. So this kind of one that's been the beginning for me. So yeah, with that um I did send over a presentation, all
you have a copy of it and really that's the it's just condenses past few months worth of work to kind of stay up to speed. I'm looking at the same thing right now. Um the same thing. I'm just going to look. >> It's at the very back of if you have
that uh packet like on the very back of everything there. >> Oh yeah. Okay. So it's Yeah. All right. Yeah, this will just help carry us through the many documents I also provided in that. I just do want to give a brief
background of this whole process with OSRD is open space res residential development bylaw. So with the whole timeline of this, the town provided surf us with a copy of a
draft well basically a draft of a bylaw. It was developed I believe in 2024 252ish. Um and it basically was prompted by just community concerns about uh issues facing the community concerns of rurality preserving that uh over
consumption of open space for subdivision use. And in January, an MLA was signed with us at SERPAD with uh funding provided by Snap Network and New England Environmental
Fund uh finance center to essentially provide a no cost regulatory update to this this OCD OSRD draft that the town provided us and to really tailor it to something that reflects the needs of the community.
So that's where it put us in January with this. I also want to outline what's been happened since then. One of the first things that was taped uh that us at circa did once the MLA was signed was we did a full assessment of
that draft that was given to us and as defined by what the SNAP network uh included in their MOA. We did a full review of it compared to several of their I guess threshold rules is the way
to put it. There's their auto on bylaw assessment tool and also there's a watershed protection standard toolkit. Basically, we took this bylaw and we just used it. We went back and forth between it and graded it based on these thresholds to essentially say, okay,
where are the gaps and also where are the, you know, things that could be enhanced, what could be missing. On top of that, also we did a full-on assessment uh between peer communities in the area, looking at specific towns nearby that are demographically and
geographically similar to Lakeville and looking at their OSRDs, their effectiveness, seeing what's worked for them and just doing a baseline assessment with our peer communities. So this technical review I'll call it and
this also this wershed standard toolkit which is also another component that the snap network developed which is essentially a calculator. It's a runoff calculator that's meant to be used by developers to essentially minimize uh
impact to groundwater sources and just impervious as well. It's a bit of a catch-all tool, but it's basically their recommendation to include it within this bylaw as a part of a, you know, a design process stage. So, there's several
components at this point. By February, the end of February, that technical review and that wershed standard toolkit brief was completed with recommendations how to implement it until like build. Uh, it's divided in several sections. I'll just go over it. includes also a
review of municipal documents uh that Lakeville currently has including that their housing production plan, master plan, a few others, including also drafts that are currently I know the storm water rags. We're also
assessed so that we're not siloing anything in this OSRD, that we're not putting in regulations that contradict anything that's already in development or exists to make sure, you know, it's working in tandem with these other documents that it either still being
designed or, you know, exists as of recently. It's 1.4. >> Also, we recommended during this time a five-step design recommendation. This is also just a standard best practice that newer ORDs that you've seen in the southeast. It essentially is a five-step
guideline for developers when approaching uh OSRD. I should also mention open open space development. That's the acronym open space residential development. Other towns may use other terms such as conservation development, but
essentially it is the same uh I guess to the same point of regulating single family residential subdivision development and considering you know the natural resources of the landscape and
considering that first and also the preservation of open space that would otherwise have just been taken up by um consumption from a development. Uh, a little bit more on
bad water protection uh, standard toolkit. Like I said, this was also a part of the SNEP networks request to add into it. And basically, this toolkit is just meant to require new developments to maintain pre-development hydrarology.
Essentially, the way that groundwater flows before is the way it should stay after or at least try to get as close as possible with it. Every single site's going to have a different threshold, but this calculator, it's an Excel calculator um
that I directly addressed within the developer uh guide book that I'll get into a little bit more. It essentially just means okay, they just plug in their site requirements and then they get a capture range of runoff that would be acceptable
based on the landscape. So those documents were delivered in Febru uh February and March we conducted the community engagement portion uh of this this whole project which included I released an online survey in
late February. I was advertised. It was advertised by Nastic Week. Uh I contacted uh I was in charge of the town website. Also went into the library calendar. Uh get put up some flyers in
the water as well and contacted uh few individuals that run newsletters just to get the word out about it. So really the purpose of this workshop is just the functions and info session and also you know show people you know Lakeville is actually one of the few
towns in the region that does not currently have an OSRD. >> Uh it's one of only about three that doesn't uh it was also explain that but also get people to understand it because OSRD can mean a lot of things to a lot of like different people depending if
you're a developer or a resident. It's a very loaded thing and so really another purpose was to just help people understand what could this could actually do for the community as well. Um cuz a lot of people immediately think of like oh it's just cluster development with that or like well no a lot of these
towns I mean a part of it is well regulating subdivisions another aspect of it is trying to preserve a bit more of that rurality and also mindful of the natural resources that exist on upland areas that have seen a
lot of consumption along with heritage farmland. essentially I just mean generational farmland that usually gets sold off for subdivisions that's been seen all throughout the southeast. Um so with this community engagement
I want to say we also released a memorandum based on the results of the survey as well. >> Almost unanimously the top priority of the respondents was groundwater resources. Mhm.
>> Specifically with the ABC pond complex, >> which is something I immediately took and tried to emphasize within my revisions to the OSRD. Just thought it was interesting that above anything else, that is something that people like value the most.
>> Of course, Lakeville is reliant on private septic and private wells. >> Many other towns also rely on the ABC system as well. And so I sort of took that as well. Another thing is with when it comes to OSRD and how it's
implemented and the governance of how exactly a land that's set aside by OSRD is governed. >> Uh there are some concerns about you know privacy if the town decides to use that land if it's used for any sort of passive recreational use. I also took
that uh took that feedback and implemented more into some some uh buffer guidelines as well to go along with it. So really I would say those are the two biggest takeaways from that sort of
engagement period. Um getting into the OSRD itself, I kind of put down some bullets to kind of condense it a bit, but just I wanted to highlight the biggest changes since the 2024 draft. I'll call it the previous
version with this. So, one of the things that stuck out immediately when and I received it was a minimum parcel size where it was already being 200 acres. Now, after convening with the working group a bit, I slowly realized what the
intent of that was. >> It was intended more to act as being this right overlay district in a way for a certain part of the town. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Typically with OSRD, this is not you don't really see that implementation
or that intent within OSD. If there's going to be overlay district, you make it overly district in that sense. Uh because effectively what you're saying is is that the minimum of any development has to be 200 acres, which is a massive part of the >> right that I think that was part of our
logic behind it is to to start with these big one, you know, see if it could pass for these specific areas that people might want to see. OSRD, but we when we first started working on OSRD, it was uh 20 acres is what we had originally. >> Yeah. Yeah. After I learned of that cuz
I thought like 200 that's rather, you know, high and no other town in Mass has 200 acres, >> but I understand it now was meant to be effectively districts. But with that, I still took that to mean and of course
more or less a conserv within our peer community analysis between I would say five and 10 acres is the average. There's some towns like Middleboro that don't have a minimum, >> but there's not too many that are like that. I settled on 15 only because dem uh based on geographically
demographically it was similar. It aligned more with towns like Dyon and Rainom to be honest >> and it seemed like sort of this medium that would work well for the town at 15 while also not being overly restrictive per se.
>> You're going to still see things get built with this minimum, but you know it's still you're considering a large a large enough parcel for it. >> Another aspect of this was this mandatory fivestep design process.
Actually, I'll go over that briefly because I I did make some updates after yesterday's working group meeting. More recent updates to OSRDs in the region, specifically Dyon and Middleboro. Uh this sort of fivestep four I believe
is a fourstep or fivestep. It essentially ensures that the OCD OSRD process when it's undertaken by developers is happening at a pace where it is accounting for very preliminary environmental and natural resource
conditions and that it's being designed around these conditions rather than just plotting a a master design community before anything else into it. Basically, it's to ultimately ensure the land is accounted for before anything else.
So with this step one and this all gets outlined also in the developer guide. Step one is would be a baseline inventory of ecological resources on the site you have and also assets such as wetlands and existing uh farmland whether it's being used or not any other
habitat information and also soil bore tests and I believe I also included observational hole tests that was requested by the Florida health. Step two would be to identify the conservation areas protected and unprotected. That is just to see what
areas constitute wetland or just general upland forest. A large part of ORD is of course wetland is unbuildable already, but a large part of OSRD is actually preserving some of that other
productive upland habitat or wilderness forest weather whatever it may be. is to outline how much of the property actually has that coverage. Step three is actually designing the parcels.
And I just said um within this little presentation I said locate houses with a 100 foot wetland buffer. That's also something I believe that's already sort of required. But there's also some feedback about um setbacks with houses
and I believe I implemented some further setbacks depending on the proximity as well for frontage. Step four, align the street planes avoiding wetlands. It's just ensuring that you know with OSRD it gives lity of offering maybe some
narrower streets which of course also reduces impervious in total but also it allows for more variability and uh giving more options when it comes to actually creating road plans and also being mindful of LI low impact
development and other aspects that may come up such as wetland crossings and then you have the formal lot lines after all of that that consider all these boundaries put all together. You're finally then designing a community after this whole process
rather than just going in with a preconceived design methodology of going into undeveloped land. Essentially, it just puts this owl out at the beginning as the process to follow and really is the kind of the core of what this new revision of the
OSRD is. uh going touching on some other aspects as well. Integration of the water protection standard toolkit as part of the process as well that was implemented
within this design process. I also wanted to integrate some language from more recent claims that have come out. A part of what I wanted to emphasize is that often with fewer bylaws, you could get into a trap of not really referencing what already exists
or contradicting what's being developed. I looked to the housing production plan which intrinsically I mean this sort of relies on most more recently. The previous version had allocations for insure uh insuring senior and affordable
housing. I also added the starter home category from the housing and production plan as well to that. >> That's good. >> Another aspect is the special permit granting authority
SBGA which they use all throughout OSR. The planning board is set as that as of right now. That is one thing I do want to hear like confirmation of. Is that something that given the capacity of the planning board is something that you all
agree with? Um many most towns that is the actual permitting authority when it comes to this and really from that the other thing the codified monitoring another bit of feedback we got is when
an OSD is established how is it actually monitor ensure there's no encroachment on the undeveloped land and really the solution to this is codified monitoring there's several methods to do And with this there's as a part of it
there's one aspect of it which includes establishing a dedicated fund to cover the perpetual cost of animal land monitoring which is whether that land is given to the town or it's held in held by a third party or the owner the
developer themselves after that point or even a homeowners association. There's a few towns that only do their own motor owners association just at least establishing it for this purpose within a subdivision. >> And I think that was something that came up previously that we didn't want like >> I think prior to some of these members
honestly but it had been discussed that no shouldn't be an HOA for ownership of it. >> Yeah that's the thing within this it's more flexible now where it's just like not solely an HOA because when it comes to some towns I know Ditton's that's the
only way to go but realist open space >> with open space HOA for SID. Yeah, >> not every town's like that. Actually, I'll say this. It is in the minority of the region to actually have codified monitoring for any of these. >> So once it gets built, so it's really only a newer consideration you're seeing
pop up. >> Um >> I like it. I think it's like definitely it's the selling point definitely >> to ensure Yeah. But like you know there's encroachment cuz a lot of the times this get you'll see this land just get eaten up over and there's no way of enforcing them. But of course there are
also logistics that come to that is how who's responsible who's actually going to do it. So really establishing a dedicated fund and having a conservation agent. I would say that would be probably ideally would do it. I've heard other accounts have done through DDW. I don't know how that would
work here, but um or just another third party. >> Mhm. >> Let's see. >> As I mentioned, also the threshold of preserved land is 50% of the total land area. >> Mhm.
uh of that 50% of preserved land, 50% of it can only be wetland according to the new revision. Essentially, of this land, only half of it could be deemed totally unbuildable. And this is a way of
actually ensuring we preserve upland and actual productive land that could actually be utilized rather than just all >> anything that could never be touched anyway. Uh I believe that was also from the feedback I heard from you initially that
was something uh that I uh implemented. So I know I think I've already mentioned this before. Applicants submit outputs from the the watershed protection standard calculator satisfy requirements for oneoff and just being able to show it on
a plan as well. Again more in detail that with developer guide I also wanted to add that any sort of low impact development infrastructure can count towards the 50% open space that could be land saved from having narrow roads or any other number of
things. I wanted to count that as just some form of incentive when it comes to this as well. >> Wait, what was that one? >> So >> is that the 40% that you mentioned? >> No, no, no. So >> well in a way yes so having low impact
uh low impact development infrastructure of any form of that space essentially it's saying that instead of doing the maximum road width we did a narrow road to align with OSRD and of the space that was saved
from that that can also be contributed to that 50% open space requirement. I know we've been through a lot already, but so the last thing I do want to touch on is with this whole process of it being a new bylaw. I know it is typically we also establish a developer
guide as well. This is mostly a bylaw that would the target would be developers or land owners that are looking to build subdivide land. It essentially it outlines this bylaw in almost a checklist sort of way
of the beats they have to make to establish a bill OSD in Lakeville based on the existing bylaw and also the capacity of the town itself and includes what contacts what meetings you have to do at certain points potentially carries
through the whole process. So it's not just something that you a developer comes here and has no clue what to do when they see this bylaw. So it's meant to be an accompaniment. So yeah, when it comes to this,
>> I know I' I've spoken a lot a lot of different moving parts with this. So I will stop my spiel with that right here at Carrie Morton if you have any questions on what you've heard so far. >> Right. Well, so thank you. This is I mean the amount of work that this gentleman has put into this is
incredible. >> Very comprehensive. >> Uh we have we have seen you know pieces of it as you go along. I know this is the first time that you're meeting with our board and I'm glad that you came tonight. I thought this was important because >> I think you're got you've gotten so far along that now that you have a draft. I think it's a good time for feedback from
the board so we can keep moving forward. I did want to mention that like I just told Taylor, I think we're waiting on storm water. So because OSRD sort of goes with that storm order, we'll probably we're going to wait till fall for that likely as well just so we can tie that one up and bring in at the same
time. And if I got to mention also the extent of our work also does it can go beyond I think September when it comes to this for that reason as well because this >> rights we do have to notify the net network but it is something that our work can go on that far and of course whenever storm water
>> gets approved it's that will >> so my thought is though like get a final draft put it out there for the public I'd like so all of these are so helpful >> I would love to have a section on the website and I know we're actually in the midst of changing over own website. So, of course, it's kind of tricky right
now, but eventually I'd like to have the developer guide and this this one that you have right here, the um >> Yeah, the annotated line like this is so helpful. I think this should be posted as well as a draft.
>> Yeah, I um I just briefly say what the annotated guide is. That is so instead of just handing you the bylaw, as I do, it's the first time that you're seeing it complete up to this point. It's just to give a rational of why did I change it? >> I mean, I could try to say it right now,
but it's better if like I just put it in writing and so people can see where I'm coming from. What document is it referencing as well since a lot of it is based on that initial technical review and the >> uh the other sort of the community feedback memo as well.
>> Yeah, I think it's very it's excellent. But can so like Taylor knows me. She knows that I'd like to go through and just my questions page by page if you don't mind. >> Um and I'm kind of going to go back and forth because some of them I I noticed on on um the annotated one and then some
on the draft um which we do have the more recent draft that you would incorporate the edits from the board of health. So um just on that page two section B um where it says open space residential
development may be authorized only by but you crossed up only by a special department. My only question is like legally I know like Taylor mentioned the may may versus must shall all those I just want
to make sure that it doesn't allow like maybe it should so should say shall. >> Yeah. No, there's a bigger conversation with this one just comes to the legal speak of it and going through a legal review process with it of course. Um, I felt like in terms of what it is, just
the content that is still. >> So, that was the only thing that came to mind on that. Just should it say shall as opposed to maybe. Um, and then I like So, I saw how you incorporated if they com commit to the
65% as opposed to 50% there are some caveats for them. >> Yeah. um on the pre- application meeting C. So it would be of these. There's no page on this
one, but it's on the second page. Um under number four, >> yeah, >> circulation of information. I just want it to be the same as our rules and regs. I know it's under in process right now. So um you have select board, board of
health, conservation, um you have historic and open space already. DPW, building department, fire and police >> are the other ones that typically get a a a normal subdivision as well.
>> Okay. >> And if you need me to say those again, I can. >> Well, is is it the same as rules and rights? You mentioned >> it is. Yep. Um and I almost I'll carry it directly from there. I had underlined and question marked historical but then when I read later on where you've uh
we've got I think we had added some parts about the Native American artifacts and that's where you would include it historical commission getting involved. So that makes sense to have historic commission >> get a get a review of it if they have a comment on it. So that makes sense.
>> Um and then the development requirements E on page three. So, I thought this was interesting because you said this is something that came from feedback. Um, so we had asked for the 10% subsidized or senior and you're
adding the starter homes, which is interesting because obviously we know that people want to have smaller starter homes for younger generation and and it's the caveat is uh not to exceed 1,800 ft of living. So, that's a smaller home. Um
my only thought and I'm just one voice but one um I thought cuz I still want to see either so when I think of it subsidized housing it doesn't add to our um push us farther away from safe harbor and then the senior housing it doesn't
put that strain on the schools where we know that that's a high expense in town should it be subsidized or senior and then also a caveat for and so many% should be starter homes or is that
making it too complicated and what he has is perfect. >> Does it say that there should be a different threshold depending on what is within that 10%? >> Well, I like the 10%. I just didn't know if it should be oh you could do this or this or this. saying that or.
>> Yeah, it's saying or. But I'm saying maybe keep it as subsidized or senior, but also have like it would say subsidized or senior and starter homes, not or or
>> I see what you mean now. Yeah, it could be or and >> it would so it would actually >> if it's senior and steroid homes, it would you would have to include both, >> right? Would it matter necessarily how both are weighed within >> the 10%. >> The 10%. Yeah. I mean, you get into
that. But I mean, I don't see why that necessarily wouldn't work. I may you might get questions though just on what is the balance there or is it just at the discretion of the developer? That that's the only thing I could see with that. Um, >> would would 10%
make sense to apply to all the types of housing as affordable? >> I think they would probably avoid doing it because I think you know deed restriction on 10% for subsidized that's going to kind of cut out of their um profit as well as senior because you're trying to market towards the senior so
that deed restricted to a certain age range. So that sometimes you know maybe they have trouble selling the just the different caveats. I think I wouldn't want it to be all of them, but to me, if they just all do starter homes because they're on smaller lots, so they're
going to be smaller homes anyways, I almost see it as a give given. You know what I mean? Like they may be smaller starter homes anyways. I don't want to lose out on the senior and subsidized and just have everyone just, oh, well, this is easy enough. We'll just do the under 1,800 grand. But
>> you know what I'm saying? >> Yeah. Yeah. No, it's interesting. I'm trying to think of seeing we could put it in what says 1 123 as another requirement but I'm trying to think then you're getting out of 10% in that sense.
Um >> but I mean how does the board feel >> what you're trying to say is that you're if they did the OSRD they could just do all starter homes and then satisfy the 10% then we don't get any of the subsidized or senior housing. Well, yeah, because if it's or this or this or
this, they could just make the 10% starter homes, which it so would would still be pushed farther from our safe harbor and >> further from our safe area. Yeah. >> And um you know, we know that starter homes obviously that's children and
>> do we have to put the starter homes in? >> So that was the feedback that he got from respondents. So I I get where he's trying to incorporate that so that people understand that they could be starter homes because that's a benefit too. >> So the specifically that feedback one of the questions I posed was typically with
those RDS it could use the opportunity just more variation of what's built in general and yeah with that was an approval like above 80 or 90% of having more offers beyond just you know the cedar subsidized. So, I went to the
housing plan that exists, the 124 one. >> Um, and that was my rationale for adding it. >> Uh, with that, you know, you do bring up a good point of seeing like, oh, 10%, it's this whole starter home when it comes to that. >> Um, trying to think just how to word it,
like if it was they did starter homes, >> they did the whole if they did the whole, you know, OSRD starter homes. Yeah. >> Like how they would be forced to do the 10% of, >> right? It wouldn't be it wouldn't be any special caveat, I guess.
But so that's why I was just saying maybe it should be subsidized or senior and starter. So like then we would get senior and starter homes. So they would have to still do senior, but they could still do >> subsidize or senior. >> Start starter homes.
>> Yeah, >> if that makes sense. Mhm. >> Anyway, yeah, it has to be it would have to be >> because we're still we still get the deed restricted senior which is what we need. We know that. And then the SHI is obviously doesn't push us farther from
state power. Um and if you're getting s senior housing then you know you're going to get some housing for some young families too. >> Right? >> If that makes sense. Does that make sense? I mean where does the starter home fall in terms of the afford
affordable >> market rate or >> so even so >> so I don't think above that so much as >> as um like so lot size lot size board of health 30,000 so that's typically three threebedroom so that's going to be your
typical >> smallest >> smallest lot smallest house in OSRD so it may it's probably going to be a lot of three bedrooms that'll probably fall into that starter home category. So, I don't think >> And what was the minimum square footage
per lot on the OSRD? >> 30,000. >> Is that 30,000 for three threebedroom? >> Mhm. Right. But I'm just I'm thinking about So, I'm just thinking doing math out loud like 15 15 acres >> 50% of that, >> right? Would be. So, you at 7 and 12 now
you have roadways and everything else, right? Like at >> 6 acres, right? What what would you get? What what can you get for six acres at what? 1.6. >> Well, so you so we have to start off with the conventional. So 15 acres. We have an acre and a half. >> Three houses.
>> Yeah. >> Four houses. >> No, because they could get more than that because So 15 acres. >> 15 acres. Yeah. 15 acres. But how many how many how many? >> So right now it's an acre and a half, right? What? >> And 3/4. I thought she's doing the math right now.
>> I thought it was like 10.89. So yeah, that's how many homes you would be able to >> Well, you're going to think for 15 acres you can't you can't get a house. There's roadways, there's there's storm% wetlands, right? So I'm just I'm just
>> thinking out loud. >> Okay, so if it was 10, so maybe bring it down to say nine, right? Minus the roadways, minus wetlands, whatever. >> Eight or nine houses on half of that. Seven acres. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's going to be some small,
>> right? So the 10% would be one house. >> Yes. >> So how do you split that between three different things? >> So he did Oh, no. I'm not saying split between three. The 10% is either that one is a subsidized >> subsidized or senior
>> or senior and so you'd have to do >> you can't do an and it's one house. So then, so that's why I'm thinking the same number of seniors, same number of um starter >> starter. Yeah. >> Right. But you only have one, right? Okay. But then you're one senior.
>> Now you're closing the 20%. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So what do you think? What's your solution? >> No, I'm just saying that's what I was saying. I was like then we like you said, we'll get questions like what do I do? Right. They're not you can't force them to do >> Well, you you take theif 15 acre and and
bump it up to at least 20%. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> things where it's going to bring their their unit number down. So maybe we won't get up like but it did say something. Anything over 4 is going up. >> So if they have a point4 of a unit, they're getting one unit.
>> Yeah, >> that's Yeah, I guess we still have to Yeah, we want to push them towards subsidized or senior housing, right? Is what we want to rather rather have that subsidized, right? Well, they could he could take out one of and just say deed
restricted as subsidized or senior and starter. >> I don't know. I don't know how to say it. Isn't >> I think the way I understand I'm just saying >> is it fine the way that is? >> I think so the way >> even though you think >> No, I know that. But they're going to go for whatever whatever makes the most
sense for them, right? >> Because cuz you're playing the 15 acre. Well, what if we have a bigger one? Oh, >> so now all of a sudden all of you know maybe there's more units, five of them that could have been. >> So >> and by subsidized housing unit, we are
referring to affordable housing. Yes. >> So it's a deviation. >> Yep. It's it's what is 80% of the area medium to be considered affordable. Um, and it would would be added on to our SHI list of units that are dee
restricted affordable so that we know for every unit that's built, it pushes us farther away. So that was just the caveat to instead of that being a deterrent for from doing OSRD to include that. So that's an argument people can't make because oh
no, we included that here. So that rather than being pushed further away, it's still maintaining, >> right? >> Yeah. I I think this actually is a really interesting way to look about it. Um with this I try to start off and see
like is it really you're balance you're looking You're not because um it says the minimum it it may be reduced to a minimum of 40. refer to G allowable reductions, but I didn't see a G. So, I
think you changed I know you changed like the order or the numbering or something. I just didn't see where >> that was now. >> Believe I might be referencing section G like the whole section above.
>> Uh it's uh so that's housing unit. >> It's a bonus. Yeah. So that's your discretionary density bonus of one additional marker unit for every two. >> Wait, where is that then? >> It's uh G, which is sub has a unit
component. >> That's what the four lined it up is. >> Oh, okay. So >> lava reduction. Oh, okay. >> Wait, where is it? I'm not I'm still not seeing it. G allowable reductions,
subsidized housing. You Oh, so like it's just titled the wrong thing. Is that Or >> It might be I think I was trying to reference something and then it really didn't translate. >> No, I know. And then you move you move things around and change. I would just highlight that cuz it's also on the page before number seven where it says refer
to G allowable reductions. >> Yeah. Yep. I showed Yeah. >> Yeah. I just check and see wherever that reference goes to because I didn't I wasn't sure where um
the next one. Oh yeah, under K I think. So it says um purposes set forth in section F, but this was J section section J instead of F. So I know that's how I knew I'm like, "Oh yeah, he definitely changed around cuz that's it right there.
Um and then this whole ownership of open space. Um and even e under K the prohibited. >> Yeah. >> You know neither further division of protected open space or use of the protected open space to any further
building or this um on this or any other lot is permitted. Activities detrimental to drainage blah blah blah. All of that. Great. I love it. I love like these are things that we talked about and I don't think we ever incorporated them. So he's literally incorporated the things that we hadn't put into writing. Um
no further subdivision of created lots or open space area once special permit has been issued. Perfect. Um even the next page where on number four where boundaries of open space are not readily observable. Placement of survey bounds. Perfect. Cuz I know that
was a question. How are we going to tell where the open space starts and where the ends the um the yards end? That's great. Um baseline documentation report for annual inspections qualified third party.
Excellent. Um even the next page two excellent five excellent burden of proof upon the applicant to prove that all the lots are suitable for building. Um, I know you kind of worked with board of health because they were very
specific as to how they wanted perk tests on all of them. But now he's given the allowance. Well, if you're going to do this calculation instead, you're going to get an incentive. So, >> yeah, there's the calculation. They they they still conversation I had it was
they they they understood the calculation at that point. They just still wanted to have the assurance of the bore hole which is understandable I think for Lakeville especially considering you know going back to that residential feedback groundwater when it comes to that. I mean it's practice like you're not going to see really many
parcels without one anyway but still it is it codifies it >> well and you you left it in too where it it may be required. So and it also talks about getting the uh board of health approval before moving on. So that's you know another important piece I think
>> I'll also mention the other part of other recommendation was ditrification for shared septic that was another thing I put in >> Mhm. >> Yep. >> And that was working with Ed from health I think. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Okay. Good. >> That's also been added as a
>> the most recent version. Um, under M9, um, if preliminary, conventional, and conceptual OSRD plans are approved, the SBGA shall, in so far as practical under the law, allow submittal of a combined special permit and definitive definitive
division subdivision plan. a combined submission will not be authorized in those cases where either the conventional preliminary or a proposed OSRD concept plan is not approved by the SPGA. So, this I just want to have some conversation because I just want to make sure I know Kathy's leaving us, but um
in the case of if she were to have to post for the for this um hearing, is she posting two separate hearing notices or is it done as one where it's like the concept plan and the OSRD or should it be like so for every post every agenda
public hearing, you know, we have to have the newspaper posting. Does it need two or can it be just the one? That's a good question. I believe it's just one because the concept plan is the prelim preliminary but once it progresses to
the OCD plan I believe that plan might not be necessary. I actually need I should check on that. That's a good question. >> Okay. So then if that's the case then in the beginning where we get that concept plan we'll have to approve it first and then move forward. >> Yes, that's the progressive. I do want
to double check if whether that legally speaking you have to have both regardless. I don't I personally don't believe so, but I do want to check. >> Yeah. So, I guess we just need to know does it have to be a public hearing, >> right? Yes. >> For both. Um,
and that's all that I have. If anybody else had any questions. >> All right, Alex, this is a lot of work. A lot of work that you put into this. >> I didn't want it to overwhelm you, but >> yeah, I have been working quite a bit
with this and uh >> really compared to I'll admit like just seeing like compared to where it was originally, it's a bit night and day and >> yeah, >> I think it puts it in a better place. >> I I love it. >> Is there anything in here? Can I can I ask a question? And I too like really
benefited from all the documentation that you put together and I know you pulled resources from everywhere and really made it like evidence-based which is great when you have to prove something to to residents that this is beneficial. Uh this is might be a a
better way of doing something. Um, but I had a question about the pre-application meeting because when I was reading steps three and four, it seemed to me that they they should be switched, but I may not have a very clear understanding of the process
>> on which one. >> So, I page two, the pre-application meeting, four is circulation of information, and three is interdep departmental. That >> does make sense. Yeah. But it could be
just the way that I'm reading it. It just seemed like the the information would would be circulated prior to the departmental review. But again, I just wanted to >> flip it. >> Yeah, that's just a simple flipping thing. Yeah, that's easy enough if
that's the language flaw with it. I don't think I really had a methodology when I organized it that way to be honest. But yeah, no, totally. That is just switching. It does make sense. Yeah. when it comes to that. >> Makes sense. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> Is that it or do you have anything else? >> No, I got something. >> Oh, you do? >> Yeah. Um, is there anything in here? Uh, cuz I've dealt with some of these before. Is there anything in here that makes the open space have to be kind of
a contiguous piece of ground as opposed to a buffer around the subdivision? >> Yeah, that there's ex. So the contiguous aspect of it I remember even from the very beginning when it was when it when it comes to best practice
the whole point is that you're not fragurizing the land that you have. >> Well, yes that is. >> So is it is it covered in here? I kind of haven't seen anything about, you know, it being contiguous and and being a a chunk rather than some alleys that
uh that run willy-nilly through the >> I think that's still the the process for the special permit. We have that, but I don't know if >> some somewhere it needs to be said. >> Well, dedicate open space may be in one
or more parcels of a size and shape appropriate for intended use. the parcels shall be laid out convenient access. >> So this >> I mean it's kind of one of those things I I almost want to see it up front. >> Yeah.
>> But I think what this is doing is this is putting aside first it's it's it's paying more attention to the land, you know. So it's saying if you have wetlands here, you're going to take all this and then you're going to work with what's left. That's what that's the way I get it. >> Yes. But I also do agree with you as
well cuz that is essentially a quarter seed. Although now I with this I don't think I don't have to use the word continuous. I just had to double check myself for it. I I know I I had a double check for that use that but that's really what you're getting getting at with this. Just ensuring that
you know you're not not going to fragment this and that is not going to go it's just going to push aside or anything like that. Yeah, cuz you know 30 40 years ago u I was involved in a couple different subdivisions where the open space and it was in a in an open
space uh uh uh zoning coordinates where it ended up being a you know 50 or 100 foot buffer around the perimeter of the subdivision. So there really wasn't >> any impact to it. >> Yeah. um it just became a a buffer
around the outside of the of the subdivision, right? >> Uh so, you know, I kind of feel like somewhere in here it needs to say, I mean, I I understand, yeah, we're working with land and and and and and that's the important part to it, but it
also, you know, needs to somehow say that, you know, we want >> Yeah. something that's >> that's actually, you know, when you look at it, I mean, you could say it's open space, not just a weird >> Yeah. >> of a subdivision. >> I'm I do like that a lot. And I feel
like I need to be more specific with that language in this. I think I'm going to I'm making myself a note to add that to section J. >> Okay. I mean, it's almost something that that I'd like to see kind of up front >> on the purpose that could Yeah. you know, it needs to be, you know, this is
this is the purpose of this thing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I could see that being one of the purpose, but I I think there was a and I'm not going I don't know this enough to to know where I can find it, but we were talked about um access for certain,
you know, so if if the if you want to use it to put a playground, so and it talks about having access to it and parking area. So like I think maybe it it should go with that like so it be contiguous so you're not like >> Yeah. Well back here and the access is
up here you know you know but but you're you're you're kind of counting on a developer to >> Well it's special permit though. >> Yeah. Well yeah I you know I understand the process but you know it's kind of you know up in up in the front here you you say an a purpose and intent.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I put that there. >> Yeah. I could see adding it to to that. >> Yeah, the because what's important with that is I should also mention it because it ties to that a lot of that also ties into just overall habitat maintenance and that you're not fragmenting >> because I I I do say a point with that
is that a purpose of SRD is that even though you're going to have this open space, the fact that you're spreading it out with whatever spraws left behind, >> it kind of defeats the initial purpose of it as well. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. So if you I think purpose and intent if you can incorporate it up
there. It says, "Yeah, but contiguous could be a moat around it, too." It's still contiguous, right? Well, then you have a nice walking path. >> I mean, I mean, that's that's part of the walking path, too. So, that could be a long stretch that goes through the middle of it. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm sitting here trying to figure out, okay, what kind of
language do you use? I know it's definitely >> I think the fragment of like kind of do do you do something where you know well we have it for uh our subdivision lots where you have to have a 150 foot circle you know
>> I I I understand that you know and I don't like those that type of codification you know where it gets too restrictive because you're working with land and land is all different >> right >> um >> well so I think some of The feedback that he got though is people want to see
the buffer. So he did include it as a 50ft buffer. So that that will that is incorporated with >> that that's a buffer from from you know the individual houses and such. But the the idea still is that you know >> yeah one piece of land that is
>> open space. >> No I I I agree with that. I feel like we even though like we're kind of we don't have that I think having the direct language for that and just having that in first with four of us as well included in the purpose is yeah that would be good
>> yeah cuz I don't trust developers >> when it comes to things like that. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Are we good? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. This is >> it is a good piece of work that you did.
Absolutely. I thank you. I really do appreciate it a lot and uh I'd be happy to return it, of course. And >> if it doesn't work out with Sharp Head, we may be hiring. No, just kidding. >> No, it's honestly this has been great to be one of the first things I've worked on with as well. I learned a lot and lot
of re I learned about every OSRD in the Southeast Mass. I'm sure you did. >> You did a lot of >> Yeah, I was just like I was I'm just going to try to the best I can with this, you know, >> forever. Thank you so much. >> So, yeah. So, I would love to get if you want to make some changes, any edits,
whatever, get it to Kathy. I'd like to have those three items, the guide book, um, whatever else you called it in the draft, and we can those. Thank you. And uh we could get those posted probably not until the new website switchover,
but I'd love to get those out there so that people can have access to them, read through the thought process of all of it. I think that's excellent. Oh, but the guide book, the page numbers, just double check those. >> Yeah, I'm sure they're all messed up.
Trust me. >> All right. Okay. >> A little late night. >> All right. But yeah, thank you very much. >> Yeah. Thanks. >> All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you both. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh, next item on the agenda, we have number five, reorganization of
the board and possible vote. So, we just had a new election cycle. We welcome our new planning board member, Donna Gay. >> Congratulations, Donna. >> Thank you very much. >> It's official. been nice as an associate member this past year and I really appreciate you guys for the support.
Thanks. >> So now, what is the process for um the opening for an associate member? >> I already emailed Andrew. That was I was just going to let you guys know. I I emailed Andrew to let him know that we
>> an associate member posted. >> Um >> the select board, I think, has to make that determination, but they'll do that and then we'll go through the same process. Y >> hopefully we'll have some good applicants. >> Yeah, it's great. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Have a good night. >> Have a good night.
>> Good night. Um so yeah. And I don't know John Beach. >> No, >> can't I I I would. I just It's too I'm flat out with everything else. I'm sorry. Okay.
>> I know he said that. Anyone else? So we have to do chair in vice, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. Um and make a um make a motion to um
name Michelle McCran chair. >> Second motion discussion. >> What's that? John. >> Yeah. >> Motion in a second. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> All in favor?
>> I >> I >> All right. Um, >> one down. >> Okay. >> How about vice chair? >> You still follow up? >> I'm I'm fine staying if if unless someone unless I mean I know you guys
are next to me and done. I think I think you you're probably fine waiting anyway. But I don't know. I again if if Dan or Dave if you guys want to do it for a year, go ahead. But I don't I don't I wouldn't be offended if either one of you want to do it. It's fine. I don't mind staying on as that. That's
>> I would prefer you stayed on. >> Okay. That's is up you. >> I'm okay with >> that's fine. It's fine by me. I'm fine. So go ahead. >> Yeah. >> I don't go ahead. >> All right. So, I would uh make a motion to um appoint or reappoint uh John
Cabraw as vice chairman. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. All in favor? >> I motion carries. >> All right. Uh the other thing we actually do need to look at is going to be um appointments to the other committees because obviously so Jack he was on
master plan. I I know you were on Serpent. I don't know if there's any changing up that we want to do as far as those go, but I guess we could put those on the next agenda. >> Yeah. >> Um, Serpent. >> Yeah, >> we've got SERPA, we got EDC, we got CPC,
we got >> like >> you got Zebra, but they haven't met yet. I don't know. Never heard anything about it. >> Yeah. I don't know if they're going to do anything with that. >> The most I've done with it was when I had to go and sign in last last year when I got appointed to it. And >> that was it. >> You didn't have to get sworn in or anything like that.
>> I did. Oh, did you? >> Okay. >> I think it get sworn in, but it was >> Yeah. >> I don't know. I think that was left. >> Okay. >> Unless they have a wrong email address, but >> I don't know. They haven't met I haven't seen like a Lake Cam video or something. Um,
>> and then the Lakeville Country Club, that's just an informal. You didn't get sworn in or anything for that. Like um >> No, that was kind of our own internal, >> right? So, yeah, we can go over that and see if anybody wants to swap swap switch around. Yeah, we need to fill in Jack. I
mean, you want to do >> Yeah. Serpent. >> Serpent. I would like I think you'd like Serp. So, like I found it like if I didn't have CPC, too. Like I'd still want to do it. So, it's only once a month. It's Zoom. So, you can even sit there and listen like they do
attendance. Um, you can sit there and listen, put your camera off, you know, fold some laundry, listen, you know, like they they >> So that's what you do in the >> They put stuff in they put stuff in the chat like links where you can take that link and then you can share it with the board. Um,
occasionally they'll have a special speaker. They'll have they they'll send out a agenda packet so you'll know what's on there and like anything of interest. So it's it's all for this area. some things like sometimes it's a grant that maybe we could look into or I mean Taylor's pretty good at like
letting us know but I always >> they're about an hour right those meetings they're not that long >> yeah I think it depended on like who they had >> like on cuz one time it was a presentation about um like the green energy things and that
was like eye opening like oh >> um yeah so >> yeah I would like to you no help in that respect. So, whatever. >> We need master plan though, too. >> It's needed. So, >> yeah, master plan. Yeah. >> But yeah, we'll talk we'll put it on the agenda. We'll talk about it next agenda.
>> That's good. >> Um All right. Next item on the agenda, data center bylaw update. >> Yep. >> So, um I think you guys all saw that draft. I asked new town council. They got right back to me with those few
questions that we had. We got the answers. I sent those out to everybody. Yeah. >> Um, so I let Andrew know that we're moving forward with this as a placeholder, but we need to take a vote. And even though it doesn't say vote, we'll put that on our next agenda to ratify the vote.
>> Um, would someone like to motion to put the data center bylaw on spring town meeting? >> I'll make a motion to put the data center bylaw on town meeting. >> Second. >> Motion and a second. All in favor? >> I I >> All right. And then the other thing is I
did ask Taylor about a map because we need to bring a map. >> Um I asked Lil of it. She wants a superimpose. So it can be done in the marijuana overlay. We can be the data center and marijuana. So we need a superimpose of those two locations.
>> So I did reach out to Taylor. She said she was going to she thought there was some time because I know Open Space was going to use some of our time for maps. Y >> obviously it starts again in July. Slackboard has some time too. So, >> yep. >> I think she could she said she could squeeze it in and get it done. So, we'll
get the the maps. >> Great. >> Send that along to town meeting. >> This is all good. >> Yeah. >> A lot. >> Well, so since those other things got carried over to fall, at least we're not getting nothing done. We can >> we'll be good for the spring. Um
Kathy, do you want to send that memo to let the select board know that we're requesting data centers be placed on the um the warrant? Um and then we have administ administrative update possible vote on any item listed
below. We have storm water management bylaw. We just asked uh Taylor about that earlier. Pinerest village. I don't have anything new on Pinerest. I know Kathy had reached out to peerreview got a quote. She had reached out to the builder. >> Yeah. >> Um he's aware. Do you want to >> Yeah. I got the quote from Be and
Thomas. I sent it over to the developer. >> Okay. >> That's about it so far. >> Okay. >> All right. >> And then at that point they'll review and will they come to the meet one a future meeting? >> So So Concom's doing like the drainage
reviews. So that would really be the road, right? Yes. Yeah, >> that is focused on and then the asce once those milestones come along. >> Yeah, I don't think they would come to a meeting. I don't think that's in the proposal, but they would provide the um
the written report back. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh CPC plan, I think the only I I don't know if I needed this on here really, but actually um we're set to approve the new Oh, yeah. We're set to
uh approve the new CPC plan or CPP next week hopefully. Um is we should be able to approve it with some edits to the appendix which don't come out until financials are in September. Um the one thing maybe this board wants to consider is there's that housing piece that we
can actually use it for a housing consultant. And with there being no money in the budget, maybe now is the year to consider that we put in first a CPA application to use some of that money. Maybe we can find out if there's something that we can um utilize.
Obviously, it's not The issue is it's not a long-term thing. Like, we can't hire somebody with it, but we could use it for, you know, a set amount of money, set amount of time. >> Yeah. >> And um and maybe see if that's a way of getting around some budget issues that
we don't have room in the budget for. Um committee liaison updates. Any updates? Uh there's been nothing on the >> nothing for the Lakeville country club. >> The country club. >> I did hear that it's moved to fall. They're expecting it to be ready for fall, not spring.
>> Yeah, I kind of thought that. >> So, yeah. >> Yeah, I think that's why they've >> been quiet, >> right? >> More time. >> Oh, and I did hear that they may be looking for a joint meeting coming up. So, we'll keep an eye out for that. I think it would be with the select board and the developer. >> Good.
>> Our next meeting. Can can can we do kind of one more item? It's it's it's not on here, but any any further notices from Rhino uh on the hospital property or >> um Andrew gave an update at the last
select board meeting and basically said the same thing that Stephanie had said that there was a developer working with them and they were um looking at the site to see what was feasible um and that they were going to report back to Rhino within a month. So that's that was
like the most recent update that I had heard. It was just from watching the meeting. Nothing that I got directly. So all right, number eight, our next meeting, April 23rd, 2026 at the Lakeville Police Station. Number nine, any other business? Kathy, I know we I
already had to sort of announce it to Taylor. Um we're sad to see you go. We appreciate your service. >> I'm sad to go. I've been here a long time. >> Yeah. if you have any I don't know if you want to say anything or >> uh I mean I came to Lakeville a long
time ago starting on the zoning board and just kind of grew and expanded. I just can't believe how much I've learned over the years and I truly appreciate you guys how much support you've given me >> over the last couple of years which have have been kind of challenging.
>> So I really appreciate Thank you. I'll miss you all. >> Oh yeah. >> Well, thank you Kathy. Yeah, absolutely. >> And I appreciated that you're willing to stay on to help with Fridays for, you know, intro. That's >> huge.
>> Um, oh, one thing that I have been asked about a couple times is about 13 Main Street. We had in the condition >> um about making sure that it's the age requirements are being met. I think
that's maybe something we should put on a future agenda because it is in the condition that we can request at any time. So, we could send that request. >> Okay. >> So, if we want to put that to another agenda. Anything else? Any other business that may properly come before the planning board? >> All right. I >> think we're good.
>> Hearing none. Anyone like to make a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? I I meeting is adjourned.