Received via email 10.16.23:
To: Landmark Preservation Commission
Please imagine our surprise and anger upon our return to Palm Beach last year to discover that the landmarked home next door to us at 284 Monterey Rd. was being demolished and that the east side of the new wall of the home would be located within the side set back, which would appear to be less than 5 ft. from our property line.
Before we left, someone told me that the property had been sold and asked whether we were worried. I answered that we weren't because the property was landmarked and probably had no FEMA issues. In fact, I was hopeful that the existing minor side setback violation consisting of an unsightly, small DIY looking addition would be eliminated by the new owner.
We weren't previously made aware of the plans for this project, which would obviously affect the privacy and peaceful enjoyment of our home.
Around forty years ago, we added a breakfast room addition to our "train" kitchen and being mindful of our privacy and the neighbors at 284, it wasn't built within the setback and two large, fixed stained glass windows were installed in the side wall facing 284. Since that wall has no opening, we frequently use the kitchen door for ventilation and to access the garage, where the washer/dryer are located since the garage isn't accessible from the house. Therefore having what I understood would be a guest house practically on our property line was not acceptable.
Of course, we didn't know who would be occupying the premises; but, it was obvious that the owner, who lives in a very large home across the street from 284 on N. Lake Way, had gone to great lengths to locate them as close to our home and as far away from his as possible.
Since the plans for 284 had been approved and the variance granted to build within the side set back during our absence and without our knowledge, we negotiated for a wall, an inadequate consolation prize. Although this wall will address some issues of privacy and noise, it will also diminish light and air flow.
But the owner still wasn't satisfied, as we discovered recently, because in October, 2022, he had asked and was approved to place two additional windows (and actually even the new proposed door looks larger) in the wall that is being built within the set back less than 5 feet from our property.
Staff approved this change probably due to the fact stated that it didn't affect the facade of the premises. We had no notice of these changes either; but, saw them recently when researching one of your previous agenda items.
So why am I even mentioning this? Because it has to do with the extreme importance of notice to affected residents. It was obvious that our home next to 284 was being maintained but was not occupied when these plans and variance(s) were approved. However, we do receive mail from the town at our North Carolina address, as evidenced by the recent bill I received for alarm system monitoring.
Therefore, more scrutiny and verification of notice should be provided and is a necessity for residents who are away for the summer. This is of the utmost importance if variances and proposed projects will adversely affect neighboring properties. The fact that no one has responded or objected to proposed plans which obviously affect the use, value and enjoyment of their neighboring homes should cause further investigation by town staff and officials, unless staff has verification that notice was actually received. No, it isn't a good idea to summarily approve additional windows, and possibly a larger door, in the wall of a home already seriously in violation of a reasonable set back requirement.
On a related matter, we have been advised that 284 was never a total demolition project. If this is correct, what portions of the original home remain because photos I have taken from one of our second story guest rooms earlier this year indicated that the original structure was pretty much dead and gone.
Although we were not here when this major demolition was approved, we understand that our previous neighbors, who resided at 284, had objected as we also would have done, if notified.
Thank you for becoming more aware and involved with changes in plans related to demolition and construction projects for landmarked properties, especially when those suffering real hardship are the neighbors and most important, when there is no proof that the neighbors actually received any notice.
Your attention and consideration is appreciated.
Pamela Dunston
282 Monterey Road