Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Jackson Hill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff asks board to continue Jackson Hill subdivision review after questions on road, stormwater and fire protection
Summary
The Project Review Board opened public comment on a proposed four‑lot Jackson Hill subdivision but tabled the hearing after staff and the applicant agreed to update plans to clarify road ownership, add stormwater controls and supply detailed fire‑protection documentation (cistern vs. sprinklers).
The Freeport Project Review Board opened a public hearing on a proposed four‑lot subdivision known as Jackson Hill but agreed to continue the review so the applicant can address outstanding technical details.
Kyle, the town planner, told the board the 10–11‑acre parcel off Beach Hill Road would be classified as a minor subdivision that must return for at least one more meeting. Staff flagged several items missing or unclear in the submission, including a clearer plan narrative and recording plan, a finding of the applicant's financial or technical capacity, and engineering responses to peer‑review comments on road work and stormwater. "Our ordinance requires that post‑development peak flow be at or less than pre‑development peak flow," Kyle said, and staff and the peer‑review engineer had discussed solutions with the applicant's engineer.
Jason Bafiatis, the project's engineer, said the team will resubmit corrected plans and has added stormwater features tied to the lots. He apologized for confusion about the road deed and said earlier deeding made him assume the road had been conveyed; he promised that the resubmission will show the road alignment and ownership consistently. On fire protection, Jason said the applicant proposes two 10,000‑gallon concrete cistern tanks (20,000 gallons total) with 6‑inch connections for fire apparatus. "That would meet the ordinance requirement of 10,000 plus 2,000 per lot," he said, and added the fire chief indicated he was comfortable with the cistern solution provided the town has access and maintenance assurances.
During the public comment period, Cynthia Seer, who identified herself as living in Pownal, said she had not received an abutter notice and asked how the town determines notices. Staff said notices are mailed to properties within 500 feet and offered to add her contact information and point her to application materials on the town website.
After discussion the board voted to table the public hearing and leave the record open so the applicant can provide the requested plan revisions and supporting documents; the hearing will be continued to a future meeting rather than re‑advertised. No final approval was granted at the June 17 meeting.
