0:32The meeting was primarily centered around the conceptual Open Space Residential Development (OSRD) plan submitted for the Rocky Woods location. This plan followed a previous joint meeting where various departments, boards, and residents provided feedback. Despite ongoing communication, no response had been received from the developer by the time of the meeting, sparking skepticism among members about the viability of the proposed development. Concerns were voiced about historical issues with the land, such as the presence of ledge that rendered much of it non-buildable, and the potential for the project to lead to an increase in housing units that the town might not support.

17:10The possibility of the project proceeding under the 40B guidelines was a concern. A speaker noted that the developer, referred to as Muhammad, had a site eligibility letter from the state and was advancing through traffic studies. If the project continued under these guidelines, it could necessitate even more housing units in the future, as the development would not count towards the town’s housing requirements. There was a strong emphasis on the need for a balanced and strategic approach to ensure that any development would align with the town’s long-term interests and sustainability.

0:32The board members expressed differing opinions on whether to investigate the OSRD option further. Some members argued for exploring OSRD as a means of providing more housing, particularly given the increasing need for affordable options. Others were wary of setting a precedent that might lead to overdevelopment and strain on local resources. The potential for a 40B project was seen as a pressure tactic by the developer to push for a more extensive development than would typically be sanctioned.

17:10A significant portion of the dialogue was dedicated to the practicality of the development, given the land’s topography and the feasibility of constructing the proposed number of units. Concerns were raised about the actual upland area available for development, with many proposed lots crossing through environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and streams. The necessity of adhering to local zoning laws and Title 5 requirements for septic systems was reiterated, with skepticism expressed about the developer’s plans.

32:46Public participants voiced their concerns about the developer’s motivations, questioning the abrupt change in strategy after years of inactivity. There was a call for collaboration among town officials, with a focus on the newly hired town planner and town administrator to navigate the complexities of the proposal. The community’s desire for responsible development that respects Lakeville’s ecological and cultural context was strongly articulated, with residents united in their demand for a sustainable approach.

The conversation also addressed the potential for eminent domain as a strategy for the town to acquire the land, though this was met with skepticism due to financial and legal challenges. The idea of collaborating with land trusts and exploring funding opportunities, such as municipal vulnerability preparedness programs, was discussed as a means to preserve open space while addressing community needs.

49:11A participant emphasized the importance of achieving “Safe Harbor” status, which would allow the town to prevent further developments from proceeding without adequate consideration of community input. This status could be critical in managing the number of units built under the 40B statute.