HomeMy WebLinkAboutRees Comment 8.14.24 #2Application differences between 5/12/2024 and 8/14/2024
Page 1
Mailing address mentions the road name in 8/14, but not the town.
Description of proposed work has changed from being a carriage house (5/12) to an in -law
detached carriage house (8/14)
Page 2
Chimney
Red brick, Color red (5/12)
Stone, Color Grey (8/14)
Roof
Divinci composite (5/12)
Divinci shake (8/14)
Color
“Mountain” natural aged cedar (5/12)
Mountain (8/14)
Roof pitch
8:12 (main), 10:12 (garage), 5:12 (porch) (5/12)
7/12 (8/14)
Gutter
Type/Material
Aluminium/K-Style (5/12)
Fibre (8/14)
Window/Door trim material
Rakes 1st member 1x10, 2nd member 1x4, depth of overhang 8” (5/12)
Rakes 1st member 1x8, 2nd member 1x3, depth of overhang 10” (8/14)
Window grills
Exterior glued grills and grills between glass checked on 5/12 but not on 8/14
Doors
Style & Make – Thrematru, Material – Fiberglass/Wood, Color – Classic (5/12)
Style & Make - Wood 6 panel colonial, Material – Fir, Color – White (8/14)
Siding
Paint color – White (5/12)
Paint color – Coventry grey (8/14)
Fence
Split rail chain link (crossed out) (5/12)
Split rail chain link (8/14)
Lighting
Type and location – Structure lighting to code, exterior post lantern, onion light, copper (5/12)
Nothing (8/14)
Page 4
New Building – no square footage listed (5/12)
New Building – 2,771 ssq, 890 sq (8/14)
Looking at the screen shot below, you’ll note that not one of the four presentations is identical
to another.
15 pages from 6/26 do not appear again
Nothing on 7/8 appeared on the 6/26 plan except Front from SW
The historic site plan reappears on 7/24 and landscaping, thermal sash door and front door make
their one and only appearance. The carriage house elevations are in a different order from the
7/8 presentations.
The four pages of the application reappear on 8/14. The historic site plan is no different from the
7/24 one – still no sign of a septic system. The images of the front of the house and the carriage
house are now from the SE not the SW. The carriage house images are in a different order again.
At the last meeting the question was asked which elevation of the carriage house was going to
be facing 6A. I believe the answer given was what it now the East elevation, but it’s quite clear
from the latest presentation that the garage doors would be facing 6A.
After seeing the initial new image of the latest house plan I was going to confirm my approval of
the application, providing the carriage house was removed from the plan and the main house
was moved to a more central position on the lot. I know that’s a bi g ask, but I think that would
be more appropriate for the Old King’s Highway. I drove along 6A to Yarmouthport this morning
and it occurred to me that although there are houses with 2-car garages attached to houses and
2-car garages as part of barns/carriages houses, there are no properties which have both. I think
it would set a bad precedent for this to happen.
However, after reviewing all four presentations, I feel that the Lemays have been underhand in
the way they have gone about this and I have little faith that they would not continue that way
once building work started. If the latest application is signed a s is (incidentally the Plan preparer
has not signed it at the bottom) what is to stop them from building the house as originally
intended? After all, the Foundation plan, Foundation perspective, Roof framing, Floor plans etc.
are all different now, but there is no acknowledgement of that.
Yours sincerely
Dafydd Rees