Town staff told the Zoning Board of Appeals that the Town of Lakeville has received a Housing Production Plan certification from the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities and that the town has attained the 10% "safe harbor" threshold for two years, based on the town's inventory as of Feb. 27 (the certification indicated the town was just over 11%).

A planning staff member said the certification means Lakeville is in a temporary safe harbor but cautioned that the status is fluid: census updates, newly permitted projects or projects that do not pull permits can change the percentage. As staff explained, developments that have already been permitted or are already in-process, such as Simmons Hill (formerly Rocky Woods), are not removed from consideration solely because the town is in safe harbor; pending or in-process comprehensive permits remain unaffected.

Board members debated how safe-harbor status affects the town's leverage over 40B comprehensive-permit projects. One member argued that meeting the 10% threshold should give the town more ability to shape or restrict future 40B developments; others noted that projects already in process remain protected and that state rules largely govern 40B review. The board discussed specific pending proposals that state reviewers list differently in the inventory: the hospital site (referred to in the meeting as Cranberry Heights) was credited for units that contributed to the safe-harbor calculation, and panelists said Rocky Woods/Simmons Hill would be added to the inventory when it is permitted. A staff member emphasized the difference between being "in the queue" and being counted in the inventory: "If it's not permitted yet, it's not included" in the certified inventory.

Members requested follow-up clarification from planning staff on how the inventory is calculated and which pending projects are included. The board indicated interest in developing clearer guidance on how safe-harbor status should affect local negotiation and condition-setting for future comprehensive-permit applicants.

No formal votes were taken on policy during this portion of the meeting; the discussion closed with the board agreeing to follow up with staff for a clearer legal and procedural briefing.