HomeMy WebLinkAboutT. Miller Letter of OppositionSeptember 9th, 2026
Re: Resubmission of COA - 101 Maushop Ave.
Dear Members of the Old Kings Highway Commission,
I am again writing in opposition to the current proposal for the Large Storage/Garage and ADU, now three
substantial structures, at 101 Maushop Avenue. After three meetings and several iterations of this proposal, the
same concerns still remain. All members on the Committee previously denied versions of this proposal due to the size
and location of the structure in relation to the existing primary residence a well as it’s visibility within the
neighborhood. Specifically noting that the proposed designs were highly visible from the roads (Maushop & Dorcas)
and similar in size to the primary residence giving an appearance less like an accessory building and more like a
second home on the property. Those fundamental issues have not changed. These are not new objections. They are
continuations of the concerns that have been raised throughout this process by both the neighborhood and the OKH
commission separately.
The current proposal does not meaningfully resolve these prior concerns. Instead, the previous proposals have
essentially been divided into two separate buildings, with a 10-foot separation between them, and placed in the same
disputed location. Regardless of how you look at it, the proposed design will either read as a single, even longer
building, given the same square footage and its back-to-back placement OR now THREE substantial structures on a
residential lot. The fact remains that such large and now multiple separate structures on a .85-acre, corner lot near
the top of the hill isn’t conducive with the character of the neighborhood or town’s regulations. Simply relabeling or
separating one large building into two buildings does not change the overall scale, mass, or visual impact of what is
being proposed. The combined size and placement, in this iteration, continues to create the visual impression of
multiple primary structure(s) rather than a customary accessory building.
If placed as proposed, above/adjacent to the road and considering the extensive removal of vegetation, the buildings
will now be even more visible. From as far down Maushop Avenue at the Kehtean Drive intersection, they will
undeniably affect the visual character of the broader neighborhood . Further concerning is the amount of vegetation
that would still need to be removed to construct these buildings as they are being proposed. Any additional removal
would give an even more direct view of what many in the neighborhood do not support. The remaining vegetation is
not simply decorative; it provides screening, privacy, and helps soften the visual impact of the property from
surrounding roads and neighboring homes.
Additional clarification is necessary regarding the use of Storage/Garage building and parking plans. The structure is
called out as a “2 Car Garage” in the documents but conversations in pa st meetings mention the purpose as “a place
to store equipment.” If the use is intended for storage, parking for owners ’ two vehicles and the tenants in the
driveway would be tight. This is not a minor issue given the property's location. Overflow vehicles parked near the
roadway could create a safety issues, as previously discussed, for vehicles traveling to and from Offshoot and
Maushop Avenue. A parking plan should be provided before the proposal is considered further.
Lastly, project scope and orientation clarification are necessary to fully understand the submittal. The application
describes the work as “Construction of an accessory garage serving the existing residence and a detached ADU with
associated site improvements”. The large storage garage building is a separate structure connected to the existing
residence only by a covered walk. The rendering shows the front of the garage set back but parallel to the front of the
primary residence and does not correspond to the location on the Plot plan so a definitive location is not clear. The
attached image is deceiving. It also does not show a garage door where the existing single garage is presently located.
Instead, it looks like windows have been added. Changes to this area as well as change in paint color on the existing
structure are not listed in the Description of Work on the application. Lack of clarity like this or the use of general
terms such as “associated site improvements” also in the documents, make it difficult to evaluate the full scope of the
proposal and leave open the possibility for changes or additions after approval that were not specifically reviewed by
the Commission.
My concern has consistently been the scale, location, visibility, and cumulative impact of what is being
proposed and how those changes affect the surrounding neighborhood and directly abutting properties. The proposal
is not simply two separate buildings but in the context of the property as a whol e - a .85-acre, corner lot near the top
of a hill that would now contain THREE substantial structures, none of which are within the constraints of accessory
structures, in the same highly visible location that has already raised concerns. I respectfully request that the
Commission give these continuing concerns and unknown design details, meaningful consideration and require the
proposal to be substantially and completely reconsidered rather than simply reconfigured.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tracy Miller
127 Maushop Avenue