Woodstock planning board continues Hubbard Hills subdivision hearing, asks applicant for corrected plan

The Woodstock Planning Board continued a public hearing on a proposed major subdivision for property owned by Hubbard Hills LLC on Miller Lake Road and set a new date for June 9 at 5:00 p.m., after board members said the application was incomplete and raised questions about rights-of-way, easements, stormwater and emergency access.

Board members said the property — about 6.78 acres as presented in the application — was originally proposed as five lots but the applicant told the board it intends to reconfigure the plan to four homes. Planning Board member (name given in roll call) said the board lacked a complete application and “we need to have... all the details, all the information we need before we can declare it complete and deliberate and vote.”

The board’s concern was procedural and technical: they listed roughly two dozen items missing or unclear on the submitted plan, and emphasized that the board can condition approvals on state or federal permits but may not approve an incomplete application. Town attorney Christopher Perry advised the board that a right of way is a form of easement that, when intended for vehicle or pedestrian passage, is treated as a right of way and that approvals can be conditioned on obtaining required permits.

Most immediate issues raised by board members and neighbors included whether easements between lots were properly shown, where utility easements would be located, whether building setback lines (including the 30-foot setback measured from a right of way) were correctly depicted, and whether emergency vehicle turnaround and year-round maintenance for private driveways could be guaranteed.

The applicant’s representative told the board the team plans to “retool this and reengineer everything and propose building 4 houses,” and said the change in layout was one reason they requested continuation so they could submit a revised plan addressing the board’s list.

Neighbors and nearby residents used the public comment portion to describe safety, drainage and water-supply concerns. Michael Jacob, who identified himself and his Mirror Lake Road address for the record, asked, “I just wanna know where the 4 driveways are gonna fit in 50 feet.” Resident Melissa Rosalyn said she was worried about a “traffic increase” and children playing near the road and asked how drainage would be handled. Several neighbors also asked whether new wells had been evaluated; the applicant’s representative said a private well firm had assessed the site and found conditions suitable for wells and that the revised plan would include updated well calculations.

On stormwater, board members requested modeling to estimate post-development runoff. A resident suggested tools such as HydroCAD for stormwater modeling; the applicant’s representative acknowledged that runoff calculations were included on the most recent plan and said they would also appear on the next submission.

The board also discussed whether access to the lots should be by multiple private driveways or by a private street; members said that question would be debated once the revised plan is submitted and that they would review whether driveways meet the subdivision regulations or whether a private road would be required to satisfy emergency access and other standards.

Because the board found the filing incomplete under the town’s subdivision regulations, it did not vote to approve or deny the subdivision. Instead the board continued the public hearing to June 9 at 5 p.m., and appointed two board members, Lee and Bonnie, to meet as a smaller delegation with the applicant for informational consultation before the next formal hearing. The board encouraged the applicant to provide the revised materials at least 10 days before the continued hearing so members could review them.

The board and the public also discussed related administrative items such as the need for a private road maintenance agreement or homeowner association covenants if driveways remain private, and whether recorded easements and the location of nearby structures within 200 feet (and roads/driveways within 500 feet) should be shown on the next plan.

The continued hearing leaves the application active; the board said it would accept a revised plan addressing the enumerated deficiencies and will revisit questions of setbacks, easements, access and stormwater modeling when the submission is complete.