Architects behind controversial condominiums proposed for a Paget hillside based their zoning lines on a vegetable plot, it was claimed yesterday.

The news came on the eve of an appeal against in principle planning permission for five three-bedroom condominium units on Bostock Hill.

Some 31 objectors are protesting Bostock Mews Development's plans for the site because of concerns about the risk of increased traffic, noise, general overcrowding and the introduction of a type of development which is not in keeping with the largely residential neighbourhood.

But it has also emerged that project architect Entasis Architecture's zoning lines for the two lots -- which are split between Residential One and Agriculture Conservation zoning -- do not match up with zoning lines established by surveyors Bermuda Caribbean Engineering Consultants.

At some points the lines are 30-feet apart from each other, objectors claim.

And in its response to the appeal against the in principle planning permission, which will be heard by an independent planning inspector on Monday morning, Entasis revealed architects visited the site and measured the extent of the cultivated area of the lot zoned Agriculture Conservation to determine the land covered by the protective zoning.

"The cultivated area is determined by the type of vegetation in the cultivated area from the vegetation on the remainder of the property,'' said the architectural firm in its response.

The news provoked the fury of objector Mark Eldridge.

He exclaimed: "Entasis decided their zoning line by visiting the site and seeing where the vegetables were last planted!'' "If this had come up in the DAB hearing,'' he continued, "I don't believe they would have approved it.'' Entasis defended its measurement of the land by reporting that measurements taken from 1992 Bermuda Plan zoning maps were not accurate due to the maps' small scale.

"The Bermuda Plan 1992 Tribunal determined that due to the difficulty of interpreting accurate boundary lines from the small scale maps, that on-site conditions would take precedence over the zoning maps in case of discrepancies,'' was the architectural firm's response.

Mr. Eldridge has noted previously that planning documents for the development seem to indicate that, using BCEC's survey, Entasis' plans for the five three-bedroom units put them on top of protected agricultural land.

And he claimed this meant the appeal process might be over a moot point.

"Unfortunately we are in a public hearing now,'' he said. "It should have been stopped. This should have been questioned.'' Objectors have since hired a separate surveying firm to do an independent survey of the property in a bid to back up their claims.

Entasis has declined to comment on the matter.