Lakeville board approves modified opening at 9 Cross Street, requires three‑bedroom deed restriction and settlement paperwork

The Lakeville Board of Health on Nov. 5 voted to allow a narrowed closet and the largest possible doorway opening at 9 Cross Street so long as the work does not intrude on the master bedroom, a recorded three‑bedroom deed restriction is filed, and settlement paperwork resolving a pending lawsuit is completed. The board also authorized two staff members to complete the final inspection when the work is finished.

Nicholas Combs, who said he represents property owner Ronald Oliver, outlined proposed changes to the closet and doorway and submitted photographs and measurements for the board’s review. "The 6 feet, the 72 inches is approximately an inch and a half beyond the existing casing on the adjacent wall," Combs said, describing the location of the proposed opening and the sections of closet wall they planned to remove (18:07:??). He asked the board to confirm that removing the closet sections would allow the doorway to meet the requested opening without creating a bedroom under local or state rules.

A prospective buyer described the family’s need for closet storage and said the space was intended as a playroom, not a bedroom. "I don't care if it has a door on it, but it should have a closet," the buyer said, noting prior investments in built‑in shelving and the risk that a lack of storage would leave toys visible in the open room (18:22:13). The buyer also said the septic had been designed and permitted as a three‑bedroom system and that switching to a four‑bedroom septic would require substantially more work and expense.

Ed, the town health agent, explained the regulatory constraint at issue: the septic permit on file is for a three‑bedroom system, and town staff and the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) do not automatically grant a deed restriction; DEP guidance, Ed said, notes deed restrictions are typically handled in the permitting stage and are discretionary (18:30:01). Board members confirmed they had previously offered two options to the applicants — removing the closet or installing an advanced treatment system — and reiterated that the board had attempted to provide accommodations earlier in the process.

After extended discussion about whether the proposed opening would amount to a bedroom under state definitions and whether the deed restriction would be an acceptable mitigation, a board member moved to replace the prior approval with a new plan allowing a closet to remain (moved as far into the hallway as practicable), requiring a recorded three‑bedroom deed restriction, settlement paperwork to clear the lawsuit, and staff sign‑off on the inspection. The motion specified that Derek and Ed be authorized to complete the inspection so the owners would not need to return for an additional hearing. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote (18:41:11).

The board directed staff to prepare a settlement agreement and use an agreed deed restriction template; town counsel will review the documents before the final sign‑off. Ed said the board will require the final septic and finished‑grade inspections and will not finalize approval until those inspections pass.

The board’s decision preserves the town’s regulatory limit tied to the three‑bedroom septic permit while allowing the household to retain a reduced closet for storage. It also places a lasting deed restriction on the property to ensure future buyers and town staff have a clear record of the permitted bedroom count.

Action details: the board approved the amended allowance for 9 Cross Street, conditioned on the deed restriction being recorded, settlement paperwork being completed, and satisfactory inspections by Derek and Ed. The board also authorized town counsel to review and finalize the settlement documents.

Notes: the board repeatedly clarified that if the work encroaches into the master bedroom or otherwise created the elements of a bedroom (size, intent to use as a bedroom, privacy, window/egress requirements), the town could require changes. DEP guidance on deed restrictions and local permitting was discussed but not read into the record beyond summary comments by Ed.