Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutT. Miller Letter of Opposition 9.23September 23, 2026 RE: COA Proposal – 101 Maushop Avenue Dear Members of the Old King’s Highway Historic District Commission: I am writing again to express opposition to the COA application as proposed for 101 Maushop Avenue. While elevations on a topographic image would have been helpful, it does not change the fact that despite several revisions and three prior denials, the fundamental concerns in the design still remain. The current design, now divides the previously denied “too large” structure into multiple buildings; however, this does not resolve the underlying concerns. The Commission’s July 9, 2026 Decision of Denial found the prior proposals inappropriate “due to its length of façade facing Maushop Avenue, imposing appearance, location, setting, and overall mass.” Members expressed particular concern that the structures appeared less like an accessory building and more like a second primary residence. The current proposal still does not sufficiently address those concerns. The combined square footage is only 250 square feet less than the existing home, and the back-to-back placement of the structure(s) will either read visually as one large building or as a second and third substantial structure on the .85-acre, corner lot. Regardless, this is contrary to the character that originally shaped the neighborhood. The Declaration of Restrictions, dated October 1, 1975, limiting building on lots 1–17, says “Only one (1) building shall be erected, placed or allowed to stand upon any lot, which said building shall be designed as a single-family building.” Although those restrictions have expired, they clearly influenced the established character and development pattern of the neighborhood. The introduction of multiple substantial structures, or a large single structure as previously proposed is too significant a departure from that character. Impact on Abutting Property and Yard: The location on Maushop Avenue and so close to our property line, also has not been meaningfully addressed. At the last meeting, Wendy Shuck suggested moving the ADU farther onto the lot and away from the road. The property owner indicated she did not want to do so because it would “encroach too much on the [her] yard.” If moving the structures farther onto the property would consume too much of the owner’s yard, it answers the question of whether the proposed design is simply too large for the property. The burden of accommodating that scale should not be shifted to neighboring properties. The impact on abutters’ yards, privacy, views, and sense of space has already been compromised with so much of the natural screening already having been removed. We remain concerned about what screening will actually remain after construction. The Plot Plan identifies two trees near the driveway as “To Remain,” but does not appear to similarly identify the trees along Maushop Avenue or the stone wall that the owner previously mentioned would remain. So, Which trees and vegetation are actually intended to remain? Not a minor landscaping issue, mature vegetation provides screening, privacy, visual separation, and contributes significantly to the character of the neighborhood. It cannot simply be replaced with a row of newly planted, small or immature vegetation and provide the same immediate screening or visual effect. For this reason, the Pink Muhly Grass that is proposed along our property line is not an adequate replacement for the amount and size of the substantial mature screening that has and will need to be removed. Large substantial trees that provide immediate screening and privacy are the only acceptable plantings along the property line. It is critical that the look of the neighborhood and abutters’ privacy not be compromised any further. Parking and Site Use: The application identifies the Storage/Garage as a “2 Car Garage,” while previous discussions have described its intended purpose as “equipment storage.” If use is intended as storage, and vehicles will not be parked within, parking for the owners’ two vehicles and the tenants in the driveway would be very tight. This does not take into consideration whether or not the (3) trailers and boat will be stored in that space or if they will impact space in the driveway. Regardless it is an important issue given the property’s location. If the intent is to park overflow vehicles and trailers near or adjacent to the roadway, that again creates safety and visibility issues for vehicles traveling to and from Offshoot and Maushop Avenue. To date no parking plan has been submitted and needs to be considered before someone or even the owners’ dogs are hurt in the street. Full Scope of the Project: The application and drawings do not clearly identify the full scope of construction, site work, landscaping, vegetation removal and parking. Contradictory, incorrect information or general terms such as “Associated site improvements” do not provide enough detail to fully evaluate what is being proposed and leaves open the possibility for changes or additions after approval that were not specifically reviewed by the Commission. We will be forced to live with whatever is constructed approved or not. We respectfully ask the Commission to consider not only the individual structures, but the cumulative scale . The amount and size/scale of the building(s) proposed is simply too substantial for the property and setting. Fundamental issues remain: the current proposal has not actually addressed the concerns that resulted in the three prior denials. Lastly, the introduction of multiple substantial structures, or a large single structure as previously proposed is too significant a departure from that character that the Deed Restrictions in 1975 created. For all of these reasons, ask the Commission to deny the COA application as currently proposed. Respectfully, Tracy L Miller 27 Maushop Avenue (abutter)