Woodstock planning board continues hearing on proposed five‑lot Mirror Lake subdivision

The Woodstock Planning Board on a motion to continue the public hearing agreed to postpone action on a proposed five‑lot subdivision of a 6.78‑acre property on Mirror Lake Road owned/put forward by Hubbard Hills LLC and to reconvene the hearing March 3 at 5 p.m.

The board opened the hearing to review an application for Map and Lot 22711 (Mirror Lake Road) and heard a presentation from the applicant’s representative and multiple abutters before concluding the board did not yet have sufficient information to render a decision. “We will regroup on March 3, ’5 o’clock. Yes. We’re continuing the hearing until that date,” the planning board chair said.

Why it matters: The proposal would split roughly 6.78 acres into five lots, each described by the applicant as “about an acre or more,” and raises concerns the board said must be addressed before approval — chiefly whether the development should be served by a looped road built to town road standards or by multiple private driveways, and whether state septic and shoreline approvals and detailed drainage designs will protect Mirror Lake and nearby Hubbard Brook.

Most important facts - The applicant’s representative described the plan as “a 5 lot subdivision here on Muir Lake Road. Each lot consisting of about an acre or more…” and said the state is reviewing required subsurface (septic) approvals. - The parcel is about 6.78 acres and the board was told each lot would meet a stated minimum of 30,000 square feet; the applicant noted Lot 1 is about 43,600 square feet. - Board members pressed that final approval will require: state septic/water approvals, town driveway permits, a road design (or demonstration that driveway standards suffice), a written sign‑off from the fire chief (John Kidd) and the road agent, and in‑writing approvals for any required driveway permits or selectmen endorsements. - Abutters raised repeated concerns about stormwater runoff and environmental impacts on Mirror Lake and Hubbard Brook and asked for a hydrology/drainage demonstration. One abutter, Joyce Abigail, said the site “towers above all of the surrounding area” and warned that “storm runoff is going to be a mad issue.”

Board questions and applicant responses The board debated whether the access should be treated as three separate driveways or a single looped road. Board members described typical local standards (50‑foot right‑of‑way for a road serving five or more lots; an 18‑foot minimum travel surface and two‑foot shoulders; horizontal curve radius and grade limits) and said the fire chief and road agent must sign off on whatever configuration is proposed. The applicant acknowledged the concerns and said engineers had performed soil/tests and proposed drainage features, and that the state review of subsurface approvals is underway and expected to respond in about two weeks.

Public comment Several nearby residents (identified as abutters) described the parcel as a high plateau above their properties and said increased impervious surface, driveways and traffic would increase runoff and harm water quality. Donna Marcy and Jason Cugo, among others, cited safety and traffic issues at the proposed drive locations. The board invited written material and aerial photos from neighbors and said it would arrange a site visit.

Next steps The planning board and applicant agreed the hearing will be continued to March 3 at 5 p.m.; the board proposed a site visit before the meeting (the board discussed 4 p.m. but left the exact time to organizers). The applicant said it could provide the additional documentation the board requested (road drawings, drainage details, written approvals from the fire chief/road agent, proof of state subsurface application/approval, and driveway permit status) within a week.

The board also noted it had notified neighboring jurisdictions including Thornton and the North Country Council and that it was deferring any formal determination about whether the project qualifies as a “project of regional impact” until neighboring bodies have an opportunity to comment.

Ending: The hearing remains open. The board asked the applicant to submit detailed road and drainage plans, written sign‑offs and state permit documentation and scheduled the continuation for March 3 at 5 p.m.; interested parties were told to check the town website for posted notices and submitted materials.