HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiller Letter of Opposition 07 08 26July 8, 2026
Old King's Highway Historic District Commission
RE: Certfficate of Appropriateness Applicatfon – 101 Maushop Avenue
In regard to the revised plans dated July 7, 2026, I do not believe the revisions adequately address the
Board's previous findings that the proposed structure is simply too large in relatfon to the existfng
home. The proposed structure also is now farther away from the existfng home and includes a separate
front entrance, which contfnues to give the appearance of two separate homes on the lot.
The proposed structure stfll remains at approximately 80% of the size of the existfng home. Nothing in
the revised drawings scaled down and addressed the Board's concerns regarding the size of the structure
or its appearance as a secondary dwelling when viewed from the street. Along with the revised
drawings, photographs of various homes in Barnstable with detached garages have been submitted. It is
concerning that, rather than revising the plans to address the Board's concern about size, scale, and
locatfon to create greater cohesion with the existfng home, the apparent response is to provide the exact
same size structure with photograph examples of other propertfes that are not comparable to what is
being proposed here.
Most of the photograph examples shown purely have detached garages (with no primary garage
attached to residence) and none of the detached garages include an accessory dwelling unit. In additfon,
those propertfes generally have substantfally larger homes, including second stories, and are situated on
much larger lots, making larger detached garages more appropriate. The only property that could
arguably be comparable is 1643 Hyannis-Barnstable Road, which consisted of two separate pre-existfng
structures that required special zoning approval. This was not an issue due to both the square footage
and lot size being significantly larger. Additfonally, that applicatfon benefited from having a family
member as the only rear abutter, eliminatfng concerns from neighboring property owners. Simply
because another property owner was able to design, or move, an appropriately sized detached structure
that fit their property does not entftle others to construct any structure they wish under different
circumstances.
The revised site plan appears to be improved; however, it is stfll not a certffied plot plan, which is
required. The Board cannot make a fully informed decision without a certffied plot plan prepared by a
qualified surveyor, engineer or architect. The plan does not include the site's topography or show all the
required septfc setbacks. It also raises the questfon of whether the existfng septfc system must be
upgraded to accommodate the additfonal bedrooms.
Additfonally, the plan does not clearly depict the proposed structure's elevatfon relatfve to the existfng
home and surrounding grade. There are also notes indicatfng that grading will slope away from the
foundatfon for 10 feet, even though the proposed structure is now located at the minimum 15-foot rear
setback. This is especially concerning because four propertfes, including mine, have experienced
drainage issues. I have personally incurred significant expense to address drainage problems affectfng
my property. Placing a new structure in this area without a clear drainage plan may exacerbate runoff
onto my property as well as the three neighboring lots. The applicatfon contains no discussion of how
drainage will be managed in light of the proposed locatfon or the absence of topographic
informatfon. These are precisely the type of issues that a certffied plot plan is intended to address.
After reviewing Town of Barnstable records, the existfng home is a 5.5:12 pitch roof. The revised
drawings identffy a 5 5/8:12 roof pitch, but the dimensions shown do not appear to be mathematfcally
accurate. A 5 5/8:12 pitch over a 30-foot-wide garage would result in an approximate roof rise of 7 feet,
not the 8 feet shown on the drawings. In additfon, the street facing elevatfon depicts a 7:12 roof pitch
rather than a 5.5:12 pitch, which does not match the existfng home. The drawings should be reviewed
for accuracy to ensure the roof pitch is consistent with the existfng residence and that the proposed
structure is not constructed higher than represented.
There are stfll no manufacturer samples or product informatfon provided for the proposed paint, lightfng
fixtures, windows, entry doors, or garage doors. Although a black "color swatch" has been included, it
does not identffy the paint manufacturer or color name, and the renderings depict a light gray color that
is inconsistent with the submitted materials. All submitted documents should be consistent with each
other. The note statfng that the color was approved at a prior meetfng also appears to be inaccurate, as
nothing has been approved. In additfon, the entry door and garage door are identffied as "TBD," even
though these design details should reasonably be finalized at this stage of the applicatfon. The elevatfon
notes also reference stucco and veneer without identffying the proposed materials. These omissions
and generalized descriptfons leave significant design elements subject to change without further Board
review or approval.
Based on the revised plans, it appears the applicant has not adequately addressed the Board's
comments from either of the two previous meetfngs. The applicatfon, design plans, and supportfng
materials remain incomplete and contain inconsistencies. It is the applicant's responsibility to submit a
complete and accurate applicatfon, including all required documentatfon. Accordingly, I respectiully
request that the Board deny the applicatfon, rather than contfnue the hearing, so the applicant can
redesign the proposal and submit a new applicatfon at a later tfme that is accurate, complete and fully
addresses the board's concerns and satfsfies the submission requirements.
Thank you