HomeMy WebLinkAboutT Miller in Opposition Public Comment - 6.24.26June 24, 2026
Old King's Highway Historic District Commission
RE: Certificate of Appropriateness Application – 101 Maushop Avenue
Dear Members of the Commission:
To the Old King's Highway Historic District Commission and the Applicants:
I am writing again to express concerns regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
application for the proposed new construction at 101 Maushop Avenue, scheduled for
review at the June 24, 2026 meeting. While I appreciate the owner's openness to dialogue
and willingness to consider concerns raised by both the Commission and neighboring
residents, I continue to have concerns that I hope will be addressed. For this reason, I
respectfully request that this letter be included in the official record and considered as
part of the Commission's review.
At the last meeting, the original proposal was denied because it presented as a too
dominant "wall" to anyone passing it on the adjacent Maushop Avenue. Adding to this
visual impact was the building’s height, with placement on a hill, perpendicular to
Maushop Avenue and in close proximity to the corner of Maushop and Offshoot.
The revised proposal is an improvement, the elimination of the circular driveway and the
reduction to a single-story building address some of the concerns previously raised,
including the entry/exit point near the intersection of Maushop Avenue and Offshoot. A
single-story structure is certainly preferable to the original design. However, despite these
revisions, I remain concerned about the overall scale, massing, and visual impact of the
proposed building. The structure is just shy of 20 feet at its ridgeline a reduction of less
than 8 feet to go from a two-story to a single-story structure. Even more concerning is the
length which has gone from 36 feet in the original design to over 66 feet in the revised
design. Adding an additional 30 feet in length. Not only would this be more than a quarter
of the total length of that side of the property but it is only 10 feet shorter than the
existing/main structure. Unfortunately, given the property's prominent location at the top
of the hill and its elevation above the adjacent roadways, even a single-story structure of
this length will present as a substantial “wall” when viewed from surrounding streets and
properties.
Again, the building's length, siting, and dark exterior finish all add to an imposing visual
presence at a highly visible location within the neighborhood. Its impact will be apparent
along Maushop Avenue beginning at its intersection with Kehtean Drive and extending
toward Offshoot. Due to the site's elevation and prominence, the structure will become a
defining visual feature within the surrounding area. While I am not trying to be
argumentative, this visibility is particularly important because, once approved and
constructed, the effects on the neighborhood's character will be long-lasting.
The Old King's Highway Historic District exists not only to review architectural details but
also to ensure that new construction respects the established character of the
surrounding area. The question is not simply whether the building is smaller than the
original proposal, but whether its overall scale, massing, length, siting, and visual
prominence are appropriate for this location and consistent with the objectives of the
Historic District. These considerations are especially important because approvals
granted today will shape the visual character of the community for generations to come.
As a secondary concern, I appreciate the current owner's assurances that there are no
plans to use the proposed building for commercial purposes. The reduction in the number
of garage/storage bays certainly supports that. I appreciate the owner's clarification that
activities associated with her partner's vocational landscaping program and related
professional/community activities take place o=-site, nor do these activities involve the
property in any commercial capacity.
While I have no reason to doubt those statements, it is reasonable to consider how the
property could be used in the future, particularly if ownership changes. Given the Town's
ongoing challenges with staffing, enforcement, and monitoring, future uses may not
always be easy to address once approvals have been granted. For that reason, I believe it is
appropriate for the Commission to consider not only the current proposal but also the
precedent it may establish.
Again, I acknowledge the applicant's right to improve and develop their property, and again
appreciate her willingness to work with all involved, but I believe the current proposal
raises significant questions regarding compatibility with the historic district, neighborhood
character, scale, massing, and overall visual impact. I respectfully ask the Commission to
carefully weigh these considerations, along with any public safety concerns associated
with the site configuration, before rendering its decision.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Tracy L Miller