HomeMy WebLinkAboutRees Comment 8.14.24Honorable Old King’s Highway Historic District Committee
I’ve finally got round to watching the video of the last OKH meeting. It was cut before the end
however so I didn’t see the final views of the committee. I see the application is on the agenda
for this Wednesday, but there no updated materials.
Here are some comments from the last meeting.
I heard the word indigenous several times. I think the word disingenuous would be more
appropriate.
The Lemays’ Presentation – As Chairwoman McCarthy said an applicant’s back story is irrelevant
to an application. The only thing the Committee has to decide upon is whether the application is
appropriate for the Old King’s Highway. The expiration of the contingency agreement is also
irrelevant.
As mentioned by Ms. Marsh at the meeting, Mr. Lemay presented the average of main structures
found on Redwing as 3,520 square feet (two of which were rounded up). There are however five
houses on Redwing not three. The average square footage is 2,770 square footage – 750 square
feet less than Mr. Lemay’s figure. That’s not being disingenuous – it’s being dishonest. As Ms.
McCarthy pointed out the square footage of houses on Redwing is irrelevant.
One of the so-called largest homes on 6A is in fact nine condominiums and not a family home.
Presumably the photo of the sign outside the Barnstable House has some relevance to Carrie
Woods – more of that later.
Much was made of Aberle Way. Redwing Lane is probably no more than 100 yards from the
perimeter of the Barnstable Historic District. Aberle Way is more than a mile outside it. The two
are not comparable.
Wherever the newest home off 6A close to the village is – it’s not on the Old King’s Highway.
Mentioned was made of the increasing the value of the area by repairing the historic wall. As was
written in a previous comment – increasing the value of the area is not a good thing for those
who have lived here for decades and intend to do so going forward. It means our real estate taxes
will rise.
There was no satisfactory answer given as to how the wetland buffer line can suddenly change
to accommodate the carriage house.
The question was asked as to which side of the carriage house faced south. The one shown was
not the one with the garage door and yet when you look at the plan (image 1), the paved drive is
clearly south of the carriage house. Ms. Marsh asked this question and no one provided an
answer.
In terms of square footage, the original figures were given as 3,280 for the main house and 1,230
for the carriage house. Now we are told it’s 3,000 and 900 respectively. That’s 610 square feet
knocked off and yet we were told it was 474 square feet. No description has been given as to
from where the square footage has disappeared.
When discussion of the main door came up, Mr. Blakely said that it was the same or similar to
one of the new builds on 6A that have already been mentioned. He mentioned the Reed house,
presumably 4308 Main Street. There is a driveway to that house and it cannot be seen from the
road. The house that was referred to is 4224 Main Street, and the front door isn’t remotely like
the one proposed for Redwing. Mr. Blakely was asked the circumference of the pillars. He said
10” - 11 ¼” - 12”. Which is it?
What was the purpose of the appearances of Carrie Woods and Matt Chase? The Barnstable
House is not residential. There are multiple law offices in that building. The property bears no
resemblance to the plan for Redwing and the photo in the Lemays’ presentation was of the sign
outside. It seems Mr. Lemay had a conversation about his desire to retire to Barnstable Village
with Ms. Woods but has made no attempt to reach out to his proposed abutters to discuss any
concerns they may have. Ms. Woods and Mr. Chase did say the same thing though – the
contingency agreement was set to expire on 7/31. It appeared that their presence was to sway
the Committee into approving the application. The Committee’s responsibility is to uphold the
standards of the Old King’s Highway and not to be influenced by factors not relevant to the
application before them.
In 2008, we presented the OKH committee at the time with an application to repaint the exterior
and replace the shutters and fence of our home. We provided the committee with a photo of a
house in the village with the exact historic paint color by name and another of the shutters as
well as a fence that was similar in style. We provided a drawing that gave precise details of the
height and length of the fence. Those were the standards we abided by.
This application is sadly lacking much of those standards. The driveway leading to the main house
and the carriage house is to the south of the latter and yet we are told the garage doors’ side of
the carriage house will not be south facing. If that’s the case how are cars going to get into the
garage?
At the last meeting changes were made without proper details being written or explained, for
example, there is now a large window on the east side of the main house that does not address
the square footage nor the view from the Old King’s Highway. On the initial plan submitted, it
was stated that vegetation at the front of the lot was to remain untouched, now there is talk of
vegetation clearing and a walkway to 6A. (Reference page 2 of the 7/24/24 Meetings material.)
In addition we have lost a septic tank and an ancient stone wall and gained a proposed lanai.
We are told that the square footage of the two properties has been reduced to 3,000 square feet
and 900 square feet. Attached are images from the application of the carriage house from the
6/26/24 Meeting materials when it was still 1,230 sq ft to the 7/24/24 Meeting materials when
we were told it had been reduced to 900 square feet. Is there a difference? Similarly where is the
reduction of square footage shown on the main house?
It has been said by the committee from the first meeting that the overall design is inappropriate
for the Old King’s Highway and yet the design has barely changed. Chairwoman McCarthy
commented that the changes have been incremental. A truer word has not been spoken.
We submitted a comment after the 6/26/24 meeting that made mention of the lack of square
footage details. Almost seven weeks later, there has still been no submission of said square
footage.
On the application presented at the 6/26/24 meeting at the bottom of page 4 under the headings
New Building or addition, footprint and New Building or addition, gross floor area, including area
of finished basement no square footage has been written down. On those grounds alone we
respectfully request that the OKH committee reject this application as submitted.
Respectfully yours
Dafydd Rees