Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 91 Owner Street topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission delays decision on Winona/Owner Street pool and front-yard wall after commissioners object to wall near brook
Summary
A proposal to add a front-yard retaining wall and a backyard pool at 91 Owner (Winona) Street drew objections from commissioners and staff due to its proximity to a brook and errors on submitted plans; the item was continued so applicants can submit corrected plans and resolve a pending lot-line swap.
The commission continued a notice-of-intent for property at 91 Owner (Winona) Street after staff and commissioners said a proposed retaining wall would be too close to the brook and that plan materials and property lines need correction.
Rob Marini (Native Tech) described two elements: a proposed front-yard retaining wall intended to flatten a steep slope adjacent to the brook and a backyard swimming-pool/patio with infiltration chambers to capture runoff. Marini said the filing has a D-file number and that siltation-control measures and infiltrators are proposed for the pool deck.
Staff and commissioners who visited the site described a steep slope and expressed strong reservations about placing a vertical wall within a few feet of the brook; several members said they were unlikely to approve a wall so close to the resource area. Instead, staff suggested soft alternatives such as planting between existing riprap stones, reducing the wall footprint, or leaving the slope and adding a visually compatible fence. The commission also flagged missing or inconsistent electronic plan submissions, incorrect flag labels (riverfront/BVW), and an outstanding land-swap/lot-line change that will alter the plan’s lot lines.
The commission continued the item to May 6 and directed the applicant to submit corrected, dated electronic plans that show proposed lot-line changes, clarify the intermittent drain/infiltrator details, and provide any requested department comments. The commission said the backyard pool work appeared acceptable in concept but that front-yard hardening within two feet of the brook was not supported without additional justification and revised plans.
