Planning board accepts Hubbard Hill subdivision as complete and votes conditional approval pending written sign‑offs

The Woodstock Planning Board voted to accept as complete and then conditionally approve a revised four‑lot subdivision for property tied to Hubbard Hill LLC on Mirror/Merry Lake Road, but set conditions requiring written sign‑offs from the fire chief and the road agent and resolution of a 30‑foot setback question before final signatures.

The action matters to nearby residents because the plan changes driveway configurations and places houses and driveways near steep slopes and wooded buffers; the board’s conditions make final approval contingent on town safety and highway reviews.

Hancock Associates’ director Joe Pichnolic presented the revised plan, saying the applicant reduced the project from five lots to four, arranged two shared driveways (lots 2.1 & 2.2 share one; lots 2.3 & 2.4 share the other), added emergency turnarounds, clarified utility and drainage details and provided state subdivision approval materials. “We believe that everything is now in order,” Pichnolic said, and offered to answer questions about the revised sheets.

Board members and residents then spent more than an hour on design and safety questions. Residents asked how the shared 10‑foot driveways and the emergency turnarounds would work in winter and whether a fire truck could safely access lots from the driveways. A board member summarized the board’s practical requirement: written confirmation from the fire chief and the road agent is needed. The board agreed not to sign final plans until those letters were submitted.

Neighbor Joyce (resident) said the placement of the house shown as Lot 2.4 intruded into a wooded area that she had expected to remain as a buffer. “This building on this new plan is closer to the boundary than even the old one was,” she said, adding that she had been told previously the wooded area would be preserved. The applicant’s representative said the steeper slope and an existing tree line would be left intact and that second‑growth pine at the field edge would be removed; he acknowledged some trees in the area Joyce referenced would be impacted but said the plan retains the field‑edge tree line and avoids the steep slope below it.

Board discussion also covered maintenance responsibilities for the shared driveways and storm infiltration features. Pichnolic said maintenance and the right to pass would be spelled out in driveway easements and that homeowners would share responsibility: ‘‘The maintenance of the driveways and the drainage system … will be the collective responsibility of 2‑3 and 2‑4 for that driveway and 2‑1 and 2‑2 for that [other] driveway,’’ he said. Individual stone infiltration systems at each home (for roof runoff) would be maintained by each homeowner, he added.

Members debated whether the application met the board’s checklist for completeness and whether written departmental approvals were on file; the board accepted the application as complete and then made a motion to approve the subdivision conditionally. At roll call the motion carried with one no vote: Lee (yes), Catherine (yes), Igor (yes), Jerry (no), Scott (yes), Margaret (yes) and Bonnie (yes). The dissenting member cited discomfort with granting approval before all questions were resolved.

The board’s stated conditions included: receipt of written letters from the fire chief and the road/highway agent confirming driveway/turnaround adequacy; documentation of the agreed driveway easements and maintenance scheme; and confirmation of the 30‑foot setback/resolution on whether the turnaround area constitutes a right‑of‑way that triggers the setback. The board also requested that final signed plans reflect any adjustments needed to meet the town attorney’s interpretation of right‑of‑way versus private easement.

Background details noted in the meeting: the applicant provided state subdivision approval materials and multiple revised plan sets; the developer reduced lots from five to four to address board and neighborhood concerns; and the property was variously described during the hearing (transcript references included “0.78 acre” and later “71,000 square feet / 1.6 acres”)—the board requested the applicant confirm the parcel area on the final plan.

Next steps: the board will not sign final, mylar plans until the required written approvals and the corrected plan sheets are received and recorded. The applicant will supply the parking/driveway easement language for recording. Neighbors were told they will have further opportunity to comment during the building‑permit process and that the town’s building inspection and wetlands/DES rules will apply to future tree‑clearing or foundation work.

For now, the planning board’s conditional approval advances the subdivision closer to finalization but leaves several town‑level safety and setback questions unresolved pending written sign‑offs.