Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Unit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves 225 County Street ADU; ownership restriction questioned by town counsel
Summary
The board approved a 900-square-foot accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 225 County Street with standard site-plan endorsement conditions. Town counsel and the board discussed whether the town can require the ADU to remain in single ownership after an AG opinion raised doubts about ownership restrictions.
The Lakeville Planning Board closed a public hearing and voted July 24 to approve an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) site plan for 225 County Street. The approved ADU is for a 900-square-foot unit with an attached and under-garage configuration; the board approved the draft decision and conditions as presented.
Jamie Bissonette of Zenith Consulting Engineers said the applicant had submitted required materials and that the Board of Health and conservation items had been addressed. Michael O'Shaughnessy, attorney for an interested party, raised procedural questions about board members' eligibility to vote; one member (Jack) had not filed a required form and therefore did not participate in the vote.
Board counsel and applicants discussed how ADUs are treated for lot-coverage and accessory-structure calculations. Town counsel's outside firm, KP Law, advised the board to subtract the 900-square-foot ADU when calculating the remainder of an accessory structure for the building commissioner and, if necessary, the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief.
A separate legal issue emerged over a draft condition that would require the ADU to remain in single ownership with the principal dwelling. Town counsel advised that the town may lack authority to control ownership and cited a recent Attorney General opinion in a Georgetown matter (AG opinion referenced, dated June 16, 2025) in which the AG stated zoning controls use but not ownership. The planning board elected to accept the draft decision but noted that the ownership condition would be a matter for town counsel to address before final enforcement.
The board endorsed the decision with the added plan addresses and will place the signed decision on the record. The motion to approve carried; one member did not vote because of missing paperwork.
