HomeMy WebLinkAboutT. Miller Letter of OppositionJuly 8, 2026
Old King’s Highway Historic District Committee
Re: Revision 3 design for 101 Maushop Ave Project – Unresolved Historic and Site Concerns
Dear Members of the Committee,
While I appreciate the time, and thoughtful discussion the Commission devoted to the last hearing, I was
disappointed by the aggressive tone others directed toward those of us raising concerns. However, I
remain hopeful that the Commission will continue to evaluate this application based on its merits and that
deliberations remain focused on the substantive historic preservation, design, and public safety issues. In
that spirit, I am submitting the following summary of the key points raised by the Committee that, in my
view, remain unaddressed in the Revision 3 Design.
1. Massing, hierarchy, and relationship to the primary structure remain an unresolved issue
▪ Considering, the committee’s noted concern of visual hierarchy and compatibility with the
primary house. Revision 3 appears similar in perceived size to the primary dwelling, with an
existing 1895 sf primary structure and the most recent proposal for the accessory listed as 1768
sf. A difference of only 127 sf. The new proposal does not resolve the committee comments
noting designs being too similar in size to the current structure or “giving an impression of a
second Primary Structure, made larger by its placement.”
▪ The cited “Comparable Structures” largely are not comparable: they are secondary buildings
on substantially larger lots with multi-story primary homes (approx. 2,338–3,978 sf). The largest of
those cited secondary structures was 864 sf and the one with an apartment included is listed as
720 sf on the town’s website. The only truly similar case to 101 Maushop, is a single -story primary
structure (slightly larger at approx. 1,955 sf) with a secondary building of 528 sf—significantly
smaller than this proposal.
▪ The new design sets the proposed structure almost 32 feet from the existing. The new
placement on the lot increases the perceived mass and separation from the primary structure,
reinforcing the appearance of a second primary structure rather than a subordinate accessory.
▪ The site placement has a direct streetscape impact. Views from both Maushop Ave and
Dorcas Dr., furthered with recent removal of established trees/foliage, make the proposed
placement and scale very visible and appears incongruous. Positioning the ADU in this location
will require additional removal of trees and foliage further changing the look and privacy of the
neighborhood.
▪ Front door entry location to the ADU remains unclear. If entry is street -facing, the door is clearly
visible from Maushop Avenue again reinforcing the appearance of a second primary structure.
2. Safety and visibility concerns due to placement are a recurring issue
▪ If Front entry door is street-facing, it will open toward the street at the top of the hill and at the
intersections of Maushop Avenue and Offshoot. This would have the potential to lend itself to
unplanned parking on the street particularly, given the building’s placement on the top of the
hill, regardless of the elevation. This relationship not only creates an additional eyesore with
parking but also adds to previously raised safety and visibility concerns at the intersection.
Consideration of building location, entry orientation, parking arrangements, and measures to
maintain safety and sight lines at Maushop/Offshoot are imperative for the safety of passing
vehicles, pedestrians and even the applicant’s dogs.
3. Multiple proposed exterior finishes
▪ Stucco, Gray shingles, Muted Navy Black/ Muted Navy Charcoal (?) finishes are all reflected
in the application. These conflicts prevent clear
evaluation and could allow unapproved field substitutions
▪ Elevation drawings on Sheets A1.5 and A1.6 depict exterior finish as shingles.
▪ “General Elevation Notes” on Sheets A1.5 and A1.6, list “Stucco to be one-coat system over
metal lath.”
▪ “Proposed Design” rendered elevations show gray shingles with black doors and windows
similar to the existing home
▪ “Finishes” show the only the existing structure as either Muted Navy Black or Muted Navy
Charcoal, this color name has not been clarified and no
specifications are listed.
While other concerns remain, I respectfully urge consideration of these committee related, unresolved
issues in accordance with the District's standards. Everyone has the right to express their views, and I hope
we can move forward to finalize a design that complies with both the building code and historic
preservation requirements. I also hope we can find a balanced solution that respects a property owner's
right to improve their property while preserving the character of our village and protecting the privacy of
the surrounding neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Tracy L Miller