The OSRD proposal involves the construction of 204 units spread across 300 acres, with a mix of single-family lots and duplexes designed for residents aged 55 and over. This is in contrast to the 40B plan, which included 200 units on 185 acres. A notable feature of the OSRD is the inclusion of three access points, an increase from the two proposed under the 40B plan, with an additional entry on County Street. The project also proposes a wastewater treatment plant for the single-family lots, with individual septic systems for the duplexes. However, concerns were raised about the feasibility and environmental implications of the current plans.

Board members and residents expressed apprehension about the ecological impact, particularly in relation to the destruction of boulders and caves, which hold historical significance and support local wildlife. The board discussed the potential blasting required to prepare the site, which could affect nearby water supplies and disturb existing ecosystems. A resident voiced concerns, stating that the development could lead to changes in the landscape and potentially harm endangered species like the Eastern rattlesnake.

Additionally, there was debate over the density of the proposed development, with some participants questioning the rationale behind the increase in the number of units under the OSRD compared to the 40B plan. The issue of credit for undevelopable land, such as wetlands, was highlighted, with calls for careful assessment to ensure that only viable land is developed. The potential for nitrogen loading from the septic systems also raised environmental concerns, with some suggesting that the duplexes should connect to the wastewater treatment plant to mitigate these issues.

The Planning Board explored the OSRD as a possible test case for future developments, emphasizing the need to balance growth with conservation. There was skepticism about the developer’s motivations, with suggestions that the threat of a 40B project was being used as leverage to secure more favorable terms under the OSRD framework. Concerns were also raised about the potential for the development to set a precedent for increased density in future projects, which could strain local resources and infrastructure.

Lakeville’s current subsidized housing inventory stands at only 6%, below the 10% required for Safe Harbor status, complicating efforts to maintain local control over development.

Discussions also touched on the potential for a new bylaw to address these challenges while preserving significant amounts of land. This proposed bylaw would aim to align with community interests and create a framework for similar projects in the future. The board emphasized the need for transparency and community involvement, with calls for comprehensive studies to assess the environmental impact of the development.