Lakeville Planning Board on Thursday approved a site plan for an 880-square-foot, one-bedroom accessory dwelling unit at 119 Precinct Street and attached conditions requiring an address assignment consistent with MassGIS standards and a planning-board endorsement of the site plan after the 20-day appeal period.

The decision matters because ADUs are a new, recurring application type in Lakeville and the board adopted routine conditions intended to make approvals consistent and recordable.

The board reviewed a draft decision prepared with town counsel and discussed three administrative points: a requirement that the ADU receive a unique street address reported to MassGIS and EOHLC; how the endorsed plan should be submitted and recorded; and making sure the site plan title identifies the unit as an ADU before endorsement. Chair and staff emphasized that the endorsement process should specify whether a mylar or a full-size copy is required and that an endorsement signature box be included on the plan.

Applicants Doreen Lopes and Lou Lopes attended and confirmed they had received the draft decision and would work with town agencies and 911 to obtain the correct address. Lou Lopes said the couple would “work with the agencies to get the number correct.” The planning board clerk, Kathy (clerk), clarified that the usual practice for site-plan review decisions is to attach a full-size copy of the plan to the filed decision and then have the applicant return with a copy, signed by the board, for recording. The applicants acknowledged the 20-day appeal period and that they would submit endorsed plans afterward.

Discussion-only items included whether the plan should explicitly label the new structure as an ADU (the board asked the applicants to change the project title on the drawings) and whether an as-built drawing would be required by the building department; staff indicated as-builts are typically handled by the building department for dwellings. The board also requested that a standard condition on address assignment be added to future ADU decisions so applicants understand expectations in advance.

Formal action: a motion to close the public hearing and a motion to accept the decision with the noted changes were made and recorded as carried. The transcript does not specify who moved or seconded the motions by name.

The board’s approval sets standard language the planning office said it will reuse for future ADU applications to ensure address assignment, endorsed plan formatting and recording procedures are clear to applicants.