Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Desert Road topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer outlines 8‑lot expanded open‑space subdivision at 32 Desert Road; board requests hydrant and site walk
Summary
At a concept review for Atlantic Pacific Properties, staff and the applicant described an eight‑lot expanded open‑space subdivision on roughly 51.4 acres with about 44.5 acres proposed for conservation; the board asked the developer to add an internal fire hydrant, provide septic testing, and scheduled a future site walk and preliminary submission.
The Freeport Project Review Board considered a concept plan from Atlantic Pacific Properties for an eight‑lot major subdivision at 32 Desert Road and provided early feedback on environmental constraints, utilities and next steps.
Kyle, the town planner, said the 51‑acre parcel contains substantial unbuildable land—streams, steep slopes and floodplain—that reduce the net residential acreage to about 17 acres. Under the town's expanded open‑space provisions, applicants must conserve 65% of net residential acreage (rather than the 50% standard for a typical open‑space subdivision), which the applicant is proposing; Kyle said that allows modestly smaller lots while protecting more land in perpetuity.
Joe Martin, a civil engineer with Sitelines speaking for the applicant, said the submission conserves approximately 44.5 of the site's 51.42 acres as open space and concentrates eight lots near Desert Road where topography is more favorable. He told the board they will extend a public water stub from the Desert Road main to serve the lots and plan individual septic systems (test pits not yet completed). Because the project will disturb more than one acre, Joe said they will file the DEP construction general permit and the relevant stormwater permit by rule as the design advances.
On fire protection, the fire chief asked for an additional hydrant inside the proposed cul‑de‑sac; Joe said the applicant will include that hydrant in the preliminary plans. Staff and the applicant also noted several vernal pools on the property (two described as significant) and said the current concept avoids impacts to those pools. The board penciled in a site walk before preliminary review and discussed an anticipated August return for a more detailed submission.
The discussion was procedural and conceptual; no vote or formal decision was taken. The applicant will return with test pit results, a detailed road plan, cross‑sections, stormwater designs, and a proposed hydrant shown on preliminary plans.
