Received via email 12.13.23:
RE: Proposed redevelopment of 300 Colonial Lane
Dear ARCOM members,
I am writing in support of the proposed project at 300 Colonial Lane. I have reviewed the architectural and landscaping plans and feel this home would be a wonderful compliment to the neighborhood. I grew up two streets from this home and have watched oversized homes dominate the once graceful landscape. This home is not only well designed but is to scale with the surrounding homes and street. The design is a similar footprint to the existing home with the addition of a modest partial second story and a slat house. Because the home is sited on a corner lot the set backs are extremely limiting. The addition of a slat house will not only be tasteful but will not impact any neighbors.
Lastly, the proposed landscaping is not only considerate of using native plants not requiring pesticides, it provides privacy and beautiful street appeal. It appears that every effort has been made to consider the surrounding properties and the overall environs.
Sincerely yours,
Jane and Joel Scott
210 Manana Lane
Palm Beach, FL 33480

Received via email 12.13.23:
Good morning,
I have lived on Colonial Lane since 2014-first as a renter at 230 Colonial Lane and since 2020 as a Homeowner at 270 Queens Lane where our property extends through to Colonial Lane.
I have reviewed the plans for the new Bermuda style residence proposed for 300 Colonial Lane and believe it will be excellent update to the neighborhood. The scale of the home and the landscaping plans seem appropriate for a corner lot on North Lake way.
I understand there are variance requests for a slat house and for minor setbacks on the east side of the property. These requests seem reasonable.
Thank you for your consideration.
Audrey McNiff
270 Queens Lane

Received via email 12.12.23:
Hello,
My name is Liza Pulitzer and I live at 263 El Pueblo Way with my husband Bob Calhoun. We have reviewed the plans for 300 Colonial Lane and absolutely love it !!! It is a wonderful gem of a house with whimsy and character. The layout is creative and we especially love the primary bedroom on the ground floor that faces west and does not crowd the street but gives you a lovely view. This is an enormous improvement over what is currently there and we give big kudos to Lizzie Connaughton for her wonderful design. We would love to see more of these houses in the north end !! And lastly, the landscaping plan looks beautiful.
best,
Liza Pulitzer and Bob Calhoun

Received via email 12.12.23:
Dear Members of ARCOM ,
Firstly , thank you for your service to the community we love so well.
I live in the North End neighborhood near 300 Colonial Lane in a 1935 Monterey colonial. I am a long time resident and have watched as big houses pop up and loom over the homes that are already here.
I have reviewed the plans and for the new Bermuda style residence as well as the landscaping plans and I give my full support to the project.
The scale of the home is fitting for a corner lot on NLW.The landscaping is also pleasing and I support its employment of native plants.The home design is wonderful and not overwhelming. It will be an excellent addition to the neighborhood with its old Florida charm apparent in the design.
I understand there are variance requests for a slat house and for minor setbacks on the east side of the property These variance requests seem to be very reasonable in my opinion.
Most sincerely
Kathleen Mara
Ps Pardon typos. On iPhone which has a mind of its own!

Received via email 11.29.23:
To Members of the Architectural Commission of Palm Beach
Re: ARC-23-052 [ZON-23-092] 300 Colonial Lane December 15th meeting
We reside at 1105 N Lake Way, Palm Beach, directly behind 300 Colonial Lane, with our front door opening to Monterey Road.
The proposed new two story house is too large and massive for this neighborhood on its small lot of just over 10,000 square feet. Colonial Lane is a charming street characterized by one story homes appropriately sized for their property, an increasing rarity on the North End. We urge you to drive down the street if you do not know it.
This proposed house does not fit into the character of Colonial Lane. It is too big for its lot size and will appear to have too much mass in its location. It calls for seven variances which attest to its oversized footprint. It crowds the house to its east, the accessory structure is too close to North Lake Way, and the scale of the roof line is too dominant. Allowing variances for corner lots would mean four houses on every east-west street in Palm Beach would be eligible to receive variances, increasing their scale.
Air conditioner placement seems designed to maximally discomfit neighbors. Less noise pollution will occur if placed on the western side of any house which might be built on this lot in the future and not the east side as proposed, which would adversely impact neighbors on the east and south. In addition, the proposal includes three air conditioners, which requires a variance as this is above the allowed two.
We believe the drawings and photographs forwarded by Architect Patrick Ryan O’Connell are misleading. Many of these submissions are on large lots on North Lake Way fronting the Intercoastal Waterway. They fail to illustrate the context of Colonial Lane. Interestingly, the house directly north across the street from 300 Colonial Lane, 1123 North Lake Way, a lovely one story home appropriately sized for its property, appears to have been omitted. To my count there are 15 appropriately sized one story houses on small lots on Colonial Lane, with 300 Colonial Lane being one of those small lots. Two of the three larger two story homes fronting Colonial Lane west of North Ocean Way are on larger lots. East of North Ocean Way there are three homes, two of which are large two story homes on large lots with addresses on North Ocean Boulevard.
The overriding character of the homes along Colonial Way feature smaller one story homes appropriately sized for their small lots, which the proposed house is clearly not. We have included photographs which demonstrate the predominant look as one walks or drives along Colonial Road. One photo is of 1105 N Lake Way, our home fronting Monterey Road directly behind [south] of 300 Colonial.
As to design, in our personal opinions it is excessively dissimilar to the other homes on Colonial Lane.
We are hopeful that the members of the Architecture Commission will vote to deny this proposal. This would serve to preserve the character of Colonial Lane and the North End, where much has already been lost.
Dr. Ken Franklin
Carol L. Franklin

Received via email 12.13.23:
Members of the Architectural Commission
Regarding ARC-23-052 [ZON-23-092] 300 Colonial Lane
We have been very involved in the design of our new home at 300 Colonial Lane. We wanted to
respond to the letter sent to you on December 1, 2023, by Susan Leas, who’s property abuts our
property to the east. Please see our clarifying response to the points they make regarding the
new house. Thank you in advance for your consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Dragana and Richard Connaughton
Response to Susan Leas letter of December 1, 2023
Susan Leas
292 Colonial Lane
Palm Beach, FL.33480
December 1, 2023
Architectural Commission
Town of Palm Beach
Re: ARC 23-052 (ZON 23-092) 300 Colonial Ln
Dear Board Members,
My name is Susan Leas, and I live at 292 Colonial Lane, which is the property neighboring to the
east of the proposed new build at 300 Colonial Lane. I have resided full-time at 222 Colonial
Lane for 26 years, previously living one block over at 234 Queens Lane for 10
years prior. I have been fortunate to call the North End of Palm Beach my home for nearly four
decades. Hopefully, this informaRon helps add breadth to my concerns of the 300 Colonial Lane
build proposal, for which I have both visited Town Hall and reviewed the plans for. (Richard and
Dragana Connaughton have owned 300 Colonial Lane for over 30 years and Dragana has been
resident of Palm Beach for over 50 years)
The 300 Colonial Lane proposal includes requests for 7 variances (four variances are for an
accessory structure that has no effect on 292 Colonial as it is on the west side of the 300
Colonial property. One variance is for equipment locaRon on the east side and two are for minor
side-yard setback relief on the east side) from the current building and zoning code, all of which
I would like to firmly contest. There is no determined undue hardship (The hardship is related to
the onerous 25-foot setback on both the front yard and the side yards of the 300 Colonial
corner lot) for the request for any of the variances, and in addiRon the proposal is not in line
meeRng Sec. 18-205. "Criteria for Building Permit” ordinances. This hardship simply a result of
trying to overbuild the lot (The proposed residence meets the criteria for square foot, height
and cubic content by code including all external spaces and the slat house)- something sadly
becoming all too common on streets throughout the town of Palm Beach. To be clear, I am not
opposed to modernizing, and believe each owner should have the right to build freely, but this
request of 7 variances should not be warranted with relief from the zoning or architectural
code.
All requested variances are the result of a mismatch between the scale of the project and the
given lot size (The proposed plan meets the code criteria for square foot, height and cubic
content by code). The volume, height, and design of the proposed house are not suitable and
do not fit the block, or greater North End neighborhood. SecRon 18-205 (a) (4) and (a) (6)
require that the proposed building structure be "in harmony with" and not "dissimilar in
relaRon to the height of the roof" relaRve to "any other structure exisRng" within 200 feet. The
proposed build within 200 feet of my single-story home does not keep these height and
harmony characterisRcs intact (There are 2 two story homes, 285 and 279 colonial Lane, across
the street and a liLle to the east of 292 Colonial. There also three large two story homes to
immediately to the west of 300 Colonial on NLW. In addiRon, many of the Colonial Lane single
story homes are on lots of less than 7500 sf, some as small as 6200 sf. There are 23 lots on
Colonial Lane. Six lots are 6,200 sf, four are 7400 sf, three are 8600 and two are on lots of 9,200
and 9,900 respecRvely. Eight of the 23 homes are on lots greater than 10,000 sf, one of which is
300 Colonial Lane. All the smaller lots are on the interior of the block and the homes on these
lots are smaller in size due to the smaller size of those lots.)
Not only would this proposed build alter the character of the neighborhood if approved, but it
would also directly impact our privacy. (A 7-foot concrete wall will be installed between the
properRes along with landscape screening. In addiRon, the west side of 292 Colonial Lane
houses a garage and not a living area. There are no windows on that side of the 292 house and
the area is used for parking, equipment and trash. The proposed new home will have no effect
on the privacy or the comfort of the residents.) Variance 4, for greater lot coverage of a
proposed 32% instead of the 30% maximum permiLed, further details how the home would be
overbuilt, and not fijng amongst neighboring properRes (The addiRonal 2% has to do with the
proposed slat house accessory structure. If 300 Colonial was an interior lot, we could build the
slat house by right and given relief of 3% for the lot coverage which would allow 33% coverage).
Variance 5, for an east side yard setback from 12.5 k to 10k., directly infringing upon my
property line to the west, is not logical las there is addiRonal room on the west side of the lot to
build if necessary. Scaling an addiRonal2.5 feet closer to my property line to build larger at the
expense of our privacy and proximity, does not meet the definiRon of hardship, and is not in
accordance with Sec. 18-205(a)(1) in its contribuRng to the town as a place of “spaciousness
and balance”. (The exisRng 60-foot one story facade structure is at a 10 k setback. We could
have applied for a variance to preserve the exisRng east wall structure. However, we are
proposing moving the new structure further away from Mrs. Leas property. We are requesRng
two minor variances for a porRon of the one-story east side setback to stay at 10 feet and a 1.5-
foot variance for a porRon of the second story in order to accommodate a side loading two car
garage on the west side of the property. We are looking to eliminate unsightly garage doors
from the front of the proposed new residence. In addiRon, if we faced the property to the west
and had a NLW address, we could have a 10-foot one story east and south setback by right)
A new build to the east and south of my property, 281 Monterey, is currently
undergoing construcRon and has wreaked havoc on my solitude (see photos). 281 Monterey is
in the process of erecRng a two-story residence with mulRple second-floor windows directly
overlooking my backyard and pool area from the east. (The second story of the proposed new
structure does not overlap Mrs. Leas backyard. A context plan has been provided to
demonstrate this. Landscape screening has been specified and will be planted to provide privacy
between 281 Monterey and 292 Colonial.) What was once the sound of ocean waves has now
become the sound of bulldozers and machines, that which in the case of 281 Monterey, have
also demolished landscaping and foliage that has been growing since I first purchased the 292
Colonial Lane property. Having another large scale build next to” us would directly affect out
quality of life during construcRon, negates Sec. 18-205(a) (6) (h) protecRon of privacy of
neighboring property” and moreover will affect the property value for both myself and the
home at 1105 N. Lake, which is directly behind 300 Colonial Lane. (The new residence as
proposed for 300 Colonial will likely increase the values of the surrounding properRes as it is a
much nicer and more valuable home than the exisRng 1950’s structure.)
The variance for three air condiRoning units instead of two, placed on the east side, in
tandem with the scaled property variance to 12.5 feet to 10 feet (2.5 feet closer to my
292Colonial Lane property), (it should be noted that Mrs. Leas AC unit is directly on our east
property line which is not consistent with code. AddiRonally, the west side of Mrs. Leas
residence houses a garage, no windows and there are no living quarters on that side on her
home. It is primarily her uRlity area for parking, equipment and trash. There is also a carport
awning that is 5 feet off of my property line that is not consistent with code. Her pool
equipment is just off our property line to the east. We have taken pains to provide screening
and noise abatement in our proposal. We are also proposing building a 7-foot concrete wall
between the properRes to provide privacy and noise abatement. It should also be noted that
new more efficient AC units are very quiet and are in the 60 to 65 decibel range which are very
quiet.)
unmistakably an issue of noise polluRon and does not abide by Sec.18-205(a)(2) in having the structure protect “against external noise, vibraRons, and other factors that may tend to make the environment less desirable. (Two equipment variances are allowed by code. The third request is for a whisper quiet mini-split system for the garage. We would be willing to move this variance request to the northwest corner of the proposed new structure fronRng on Colonial Lane. The unit is “whisper quiet” and could be screened by addiRonal landscaping and there is precedent for this placement in Palm Beach.) The current AC units at 300 Colonial Lane are placed along the west side of the property along North Lake Way, a sensible locaRon for mechanical equipment so that the adjoining neighbor would not have to hear the monotonous buzzing and humming machinery. The three AC units doubtlessly should not be moved to the proposed east side locaRon, adjoining our property line 2.5 feet closer (Variance 5 and Variance
7) ( We have designed the west side or our property to be used as outdoor living area and locaRng AC units there is not consistent with our use as an outdoor living area ) 281 Monterrey has already begun installaRon of AC units to the east side of my property. If 300Colonial Lane’s variance request is approved, a total of five AC units would surround my property on either side. Moreover, the proposed structure plans addiRonally show that the pool filter and pump are placed at 8’6” from the property line, another move from their current placement on the west of North Lake Way side. The current placement of these filters and pumps should remain on the West as to Sec.18-205(a)(3) not cause “the nature of local environment to materially depreciate in appearance” being in “inferior quality” and placement.
(This makes no sense. Pool pumps are very quiet by design. They typically run for three or four hours a day and are usually programed to run in the very early morning hours and have no effect. We have the right to place the pool equipment on the east side of the property by code.)
Having being a resident of the North End for so long, it saddens me to see that the character of Palm Beach has been tainted by new unsuitable building projects. I respecoully request this commission uRlize its authority and discreRon in concert with the criteria set forth in the Code secRons as to preserve the architectural and physical beauty of Colonial Lane, and the greater North End. (The new home is tastefully designed in the Bermuda style and the one and a half story design provides a smooth transiRon from the larger homes to the west on North Lake Way to the smaller homes on Colonial Lane. Many of the exisRng corner homes on the east side of NLW in that porRon of the north end are two story homes. Between NighRngale and Eden Rd., on the east side of NLW, there are 13 two story homes on corner lots. From an architectural and urban standpoint, we are trying to be contextual as 300 Colonial is as much a part of NLW as it is Colonial Lane. The two-story design for the new home fits nicely into this context.
Sincerely, Susan Leas

Received via email 12.12.23:
Dear Architectural Commission Members:
This letter is being sent to oppose the above-referenced project and its request for seven (7) variances. This project is just another example of property owners/developers trying to maximize square footage to maximize their profit when selling the finished project.
There is nothing wrong with capitalism, but it has to be tempered by the zoning code presently in place and the need to stop the construction assault on the North end of Palm Beach; and especially in the Monterey Road/Colonial Lane neighborhood. Presently there are four (4) active projects on Monterey, with an additional one in the pipeline. And there are three (3) active projects on Colonial Lane and this one in the pipeline. The roads are very narrow and with all the construction, the residents have had multiple flat tires from nails in the streets, and two (2) cars have been stolen off Monterey in the last few months, and there is a complete breakdown of the quiet enjoyment of our homes.
This project is way too big for this lot and no effort has been taken to cause as little disruption to the neighbors as possible. For instance, all A/C and pool equipment are on the East side of the property next to their neighbor when it should be on the West side of the property abutting North Lake Way.
I realize you do not make a determination whether variances should be granted, only if the proposed variances will or will not cause negative architectural impacts on the subject property. However, I want to point out Florida case law regarding variances that should be followed.
1. Every applicant's variance request must be reviewed on it's own merits, rather than on previously approved variances. In other words, there is NO precedent established by other similar variances. City of Jacksonville v. Taylor, 721 So.2d 1212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
2. A mere economic disadvantage due to the owner's preference as to what she would like to do with the property is NOT sufficient to constitute a hardship. Burger King v. Metropolitan Dade County. 130 So.2d 306 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
3. The hardship for a variance cannot be self-created. In Re Kellogg. 197 F.3d 1116, 1121 (11th Cir. 1999)
4. When buyers purchase property they are deemed to have constructive knowledge of the applicable land use regulations. Graham v. Estuary Properties, Inc., 399 So.2d 1374, 1382, 1383 (Fla. 1981), cett. denied. sub nom
5. So if the owner participated in an affirmative act which created the hardship (such as purchasing a substandard size lot), then the hardship is ruled self-created. Coral Gables v. Geary. 383 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
I am sorry I have to cite Florida law to you, but with so many "illegal" variances being granted, you should know there can be consequences to granting such variances.
Sincerely,
Peter S. Breberg