HomeMy WebLinkAboutT. Miller Response to 9.23 Rendering submittal- OppositionSeptember 23, 2026
Concerns Re: 101 Maushop Avenue rendering 9.23
Dear Members of the Old King’s Highway Historic District Commission:
Although, likely not intentional, what has been submitted is not an accurate representation of what is actually on site or what
the proposed will look like on it. The commission asked for a “Topographical Map” and to scale renderings, from Maushop
Avenue and the front of the house that show a perspective of the house, the proposed buildings and “what would be seen
down the side”. Unfortunately, the images received use the existing home, elevations of the buildings that are six feet shorter
than proposed and what appears to be AI generated foliage that does not exist on the site, filling in the background. For this
reason, I do not believe the drawings should be considered as submitted because of the significant inconsistencies between
the elevations, the stated dimensions, and the previously submitted Plot and Landscape Plans.
1. Scale of the Buildings Appears Inconsistent: Using the applicant’s dimensions and topography information shown on the
September 23 Ridge Elevation Comparison, the proposed buildings appear to be drawn either not to scale, or 6’-0” shorter
than the dimensions indicate and, are shown on the elevations, submitted with the September 9 COA application. These
discrepancies make it impossible to determine the actual scale, mass and visual impact of the proposed structures.
2. Placement Does Not Appear Consistent with the Plot Plans: The placement and orientation of the buildings shown in
the rendering also do not appear to match placement on the Plot and Landscape Plot Plans. The structures appear to be
oriented at a different angle and positioned considerably farther into the property. This inconsistent placement is evident as
the applicant previously indicated that moving the structures farther onto the property was not desirable because of
encroachment into her yard.
Most notably, the Native Existing Tree is shown on the Landscape Plot Plans directly at the northeast corner of the proposed
Storage/Garage while the rendering places the tree significantly farther away from the building. The conflicting drawings
leave too much room for interpretation regarding the actual location of the proposed structures. The plans should clearly and
consistently depict the same placement before the application can be meaningfully evaluated.
3. Existing Vegetation Is Not Accurately Represented: With the exception of the tree closest to the road, the foliage shown
in the rendering does not accurately reflect the existing vegetation on the property. As previously noted, much of the natural
screening that once existed has already been removed, and there is concern because additional vegetation will need to be
removed to construct the buildings in the locations proposed. An accurate depiction of existing vegetation is therefore
important in evaluating the actual visibility and visual impact of the proposal from neighboring properties and the
surrounding roads.
For these reasons, I believe that the renderings submitted today, do not provide a sufficiently consistent or accurate
representation of the proposal to be considered for approval. The elevations, dimensions, building locations, and existing
vegetation should be reconciled and accurately depicted so that the Commission , can properly evaluate the actual scale,
placement, and visual impact of the proposed structures. As with any project, conflicting information and drawings leave too
much room for interpretation and opens the possibility for changes or additions after approval that were not specifically
reviewed by the commission.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tracy L Miller
127 Maushop Ave