46 Marine Way Additions and Relocation
Summary not yet generated for this topic.
Community sentiment
At a glance
- Public comments
- 6
- Last 30 days
- 0
Last discussed Jun 3, 2026.
Public comments (6)
Argued against the project, stating the demolition of the pool house and the massive rear addition violate historic preservation standards and self-create the need for variances.
Historic Preservation Board — June 3, 2026 · 1:20:06 →A neighbor from next door spoke in support of the project, praising the carport design and noting the pool house isn't visible from the street.
Historic Preservation Board — June 3, 2026 · 1:24:10 →Supported the project, praising the garage design underneath the raised house as a practical defense against flooding compared to unsightly dirt mounds.
Historic Preservation Board — June 3, 2026 · 1:29:43 →Opposed the project due to the massive scale and massing of the addition, arguing it overwhelms the historic house and fails to meet city standards.
Historic Preservation Board — June 3, 2026 · 1:32:26 →A former historic preservation board member spoke in favor, noting that the original house is tiny and needs a substantial addition to be livable today.
Historic Preservation Board — June 3, 2026 · 1:32:36 →Urged the board to follow the thorough staff report and deny the project, arguing the massive structure violates historic preservation rules.
Historic Preservation Board — June 3, 2026 · 1:36:12 →