5. COA-24-002 284 MONTEREY RD. The applicant, Muara Ziska in conjunction with SKA, has filed an application requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness review and approval for minor window and door modifications. Primarily the relocation of a side (east) entry door to the front next to the garage door, elimination of one window on west elevation, addition of a window on east elevation and conversion of a window to a pair of French doors on the south elevation.
Public Comment, Town of Palm Beach Admin
admin
over 1 year ago
Received via email 1.13.24:
Dear Mayor, Town Council and Landmarks Preservation Commission,
Also being sent is a previous letter dated October 18, 2023, so that you will understand that 282 Monterey is now the poster home for an illegal variance in addition to being the winner of the winner of the demolition derby. At a recent council meeting, a member stated that the council must grant these variances because of how the code is written.
We're still searching for that part of the code that says that a very wealthy owner of a huge home on the lake with 4 garages has the right to move a side wall ( not a generator, pool equipment, etc.) of a land marked home well into the side setback ( less than 5 feet from the property line) for his guest/family/client/party/VRBO?) project. We really have no idea who will occupy the premises; but, it's obvious that the owner wants any noise or disturbance to be our problem.
We were in North Carolina and received no notice until after the wall relocation was a done deal. It would appear that the privacy, peaceful enjoyment and possibly the desirability of the 40 year residents next door were completely ignored. I can imagine someone even saying that we had been away for the summer and might not even notice this major set back encroachment of the house next door.
Of course, we had the opportunity to live in a condo or zero lot line residence, but chose not to.
We agreed to a wall and hedge to help protect our property. However, when the windows were installed in the wall, I noticed that a little over half of that window over looking my kitchen door was located above the wall. Friday, one of the workers nodded to me when I was looking out the door. His head was right in front of the window that I objected to in the relocated east wall of 284 and above the wall. We already have a calusa hedge on our property at this location that extends above the wall; but, it doesn't prevent anyone next door from seeing into our kitchen. Our privacy problems are also exacerbated because I frequently use the kitchen door and side yard to access the side garage door where the washer and dryer are located since the garage isn't accessible from the house.
Also of interest is a beautiful inter coastal development we recently visited in Vero where the homes are close to each other; but , the windows have been artfully designed and placed so that the adjoining property owners maintained their privacy.
We were shown plans about a year ago which we understood were the approved plans for the project. Therefore, when we recently received a notice to approve changes, we assumed that these were new changes, not the ones that we were shown about a year ago. Then it appeared that the changes being requested had already been completed prior to this 1/17 Landmarks Preservation meeting.
Recently, my husband talked about the placement of the windows, relating to our privacy matters and was told they would address our concerns. However, we received a letter directing us to a photo of the house as it existed having an additional fourth window located on the east side wall. This photo depicted the side wall as it had existed for over 30 years before this wall was demolished and rebuilt well within the side set back close to our property. In addition, our next door neighbors had always been quiet and we knew who they were. Now that is probably not the case.
Now I understand that staff had already approved the changes that you are considering now, probably understanding that development interests usually trump neighbors issues in our town.
Now here's the good news; we're not asking for anything, although the wall should be higher because hedges aren't reliable buffers and sometimes don't ensure privacy, as I verified Friday.
I guess that relocating the side wall inside a side set back close to an absent neighbors is a fairly common practice here; so, perhaps it's probably just our objections that are unusual.
Although I was told that 284 Monterey was a major renovation and not a total demo, no one has answered my question regarding what portions of the original home were preserved.
282 Monterey has lost its privacy, peaceful enjoyment and desirability as a private residence.
The restoration of a beautiful Fatio designed home at 249 Monterey was the agreed consideration for creating 2 separate homes on the site. The Fatio home has been demolished; and a subsequent developer/purchaser was allowed to buy the property and then destroy the Fatio residence.
Some Monterey residents are primarily responsible for saving the town's protected trees at 274 Monterey Road.
A single family home project is headed into its fifth year of construction.
A Monterey resident had to educate a neighbor that all utility easements weren't abandoned on a location where she insisted on planting a hedge.
Monterey has experienced two car thefts in past months.
Our AT&T cable providing all our internet, television and land line has been severed at least twice at a location not on our property and blamed on rampant construction by AT&T.
A new Big Box house, that appears to be straining to exit its undersized lot, is being completed.
It would appear that Monterey suffers from a cancer that should not be allowed to metastasize.
Call me crazy but i think that residents are just collateral damage in the development wars and since the town has already contributed to the real estate and development interests on Monterey, I would respectfully request that you cease and desist. This request is being made because a council member told us that valid construction permit applications will be processed regardless of how many ongoing projects are active on a particular street.
Not being present at meetings where the fate of our own home was decided, I'm curious if anyone voiced any support or concern for absent residents when approval for placing the 284 side wall on the setback was discussed. Did anyone visit the site and observe how moving the side wall to less than five feet from our property line would adversely affect us.
And I also have serious concerns regarding the entire town. Looking and reading about the changing skyline of West Palm Beach, hearing about numerous major project proposals at last Wednesday's council meeting,etc., it appears that we will be experiencing major gridlock on many streets before these projects are even completed. For example at least two of them plan new underground parking facilities which will require hundreds, and perhaps, many more dump truck loads to excavate the sites.
Many streets are narrow and can't be effectively widened to accommodate traffic from massive development from over the bridge.
We continue to welcome visitors to Monterey to demonstrate what should not be an excellent model for Palm Beach growth in the future.
We still hope that advocates for residents will be more plentiful because the present Monterey Road score is around Developers 7, Residents 0.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Pamela Dunston
282 Monterey Road
Received via email 1.15.24:
Dear Mayor, Town Council and Landmarks Preservation Commission,
I'd like to clear up any confusion regarding the 7 foot wall and promised hedge that was offered to help protect us from placing the side wall of the nearly completed residence at 284 Monterey less than 5 feet from our property line.
No, this was not an act of kindness or consideration. My husband did research, found a case which indicated that the attempted and failed notice to us was likely legally insufficient and related this information to the town attorney.
This is the reason we were able to negotiate the consolation wall and promised hedge.
So, please be warned never to oppose the real estate development machine without the assistance of a competent attorney because they will just run over you headed to the next profitable venture without even glancing in the rear view mirror to see the havoc they created.
Over the weekend I had the opportunity to observe the 284 project as it nears completion from our property. It now appears obvious that they greatly expanded the minor encroachment of a small, unenclosed, DIY looking stoop to become the West side wall of the new residence. You can observe that it even looks like an unsightly addition because it has a flat roof that isn't consistent with the typical Bermuda style roof on the rest of the house.
You can walk on the side of our property where the black wrought iron mailbox is located and see for yourselves what development run amuck looks like. Just remember to hold your nose because the construction bath room facility now may be placed closer to our property than the new side wall.
Respectfully,
Pamela Dunston
282 Monterey Road
Received via email 10.14.23:
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
Received via email 1.13.24:
Dear Mayor, Town Council and Landmarks Preservation Commission,
Also being sent is a previous letter dated October 18, 2023, so that you will understand that 282 Monterey is now the poster home for an illegal variance in addition to being the winner of the winner of the demolition derby. At a recent council meeting, a member stated that the council must grant these variances because of how the code is written.
We're still searching for that part of the code that says that a very wealthy owner of a huge home on the lake with 4 garages has the right to move a side wall ( not a generator, pool equipment, etc.) of a land marked home well into the side setback ( less than 5 feet from the property line) for his guest/family/client/party/VRBO?) project. We really have no idea who will occupy the premises; but, it's obvious that the owner wants any noise or disturbance to be our problem.
We were in North Carolina and received no notice until after the wall relocation was a done deal. It would appear that the privacy, peaceful enjoyment and possibly the desirability of the 40 year residents next door were completely ignored. I can imagine someone even saying that we had been away for the summer and might not even notice this major set back encroachment of the house next door.
Of course, we had the opportunity to live in a condo or zero lot line residence, but chose not to.
We agreed to a wall and hedge to help protect our property. However, when the windows were installed in the wall, I noticed that a little over half of that window over looking my kitchen door was located above the wall. Friday, one of the workers nodded to me when I was looking out the door. His head was right in front of the window that I objected to in the relocated east wall of 284 and above the wall. We already have a calusa hedge on our property at this location that extends above the wall; but, it doesn't prevent anyone next door from seeing into our kitchen. Our privacy problems are also exacerbated because I frequently use the kitchen door and side yard to access the side garage door where the washer and dryer are located since the garage isn't accessible from the house.
Also of interest is a beautiful inter coastal development we recently visited in Vero where the homes are close to each other; but , the windows have been artfully designed and placed so that the adjoining property owners maintained their privacy.
We were shown plans about a year ago which we understood were the approved plans for the project. Therefore, when we recently received a notice to approve changes, we assumed that these were new changes, not the ones that we were shown about a year ago. Then it appeared that the changes being requested had already been completed prior to this 1/17 Landmarks Preservation meeting.
Recently, my husband talked about the placement of the windows, relating to our privacy matters and was told they would address our concerns. However, we received a letter directing us to a photo of the house as it existed having an additional fourth window located on the east side wall. This photo depicted the side wall as it had existed for over 30 years before this wall was demolished and rebuilt well within the side set back close to our property. In addition, our next door neighbors had always been quiet and we knew who they were. Now that is probably not the case.
Now I understand that staff had already approved the changes that you are considering now, probably understanding that development interests usually trump neighbors issues in our town.
Now here's the good news; we're not asking for anything, although the wall should be higher because hedges aren't reliable buffers and sometimes don't ensure privacy, as I verified Friday.
I guess that relocating the side wall inside a side set back close to an absent neighbors is a fairly common practice here; so, perhaps it's probably just our objections that are unusual.
Although I was told that 284 Monterey was a major renovation and not a total demo, no one has answered my question regarding what portions of the original home were preserved.
282 Monterey has lost its privacy, peaceful enjoyment and desirability as a private residence.
The restoration of a beautiful Fatio designed home at 249 Monterey was the agreed consideration for creating 2 separate homes on the site. The Fatio home has been demolished; and a subsequent developer/purchaser was allowed to buy the property and then destroy the Fatio residence.
Some Monterey residents are primarily responsible for saving the town's protected trees at 274 Monterey Road.
A single family home project is headed into its fifth year of construction.
A Monterey resident had to educate a neighbor that all utility easements weren't abandoned on a location where she insisted on planting a hedge.
Monterey has experienced two car thefts in past months.
Our AT&T cable providing all our internet, television and land line has been severed at least twice at a location not on our property and blamed on rampant construction by AT&T.
A new Big Box house, that appears to be straining to exit its undersized lot, is being completed.
It would appear that Monterey suffers from a cancer that should not be allowed to metastasize.
Call me crazy but i think that residents are just collateral damage in the development wars and since the town has already contributed to the real estate and development interests on Monterey, I would respectfully request that you cease and desist. This request is being made because a council member told us that valid construction permit applications will be processed regardless of how many ongoing projects are active on a particular street.
Not being present at meetings where the fate of our own home was decided, I'm curious if anyone voiced any support or concern for absent residents when approval for placing the 284 side wall on the setback was discussed. Did anyone visit the site and observe how moving the side wall to less than five feet from our property line would adversely affect us.
And I also have serious concerns regarding the entire town. Looking and reading about the changing skyline of West Palm Beach, hearing about numerous major project proposals at last Wednesday's council meeting,etc., it appears that we will be experiencing major gridlock on many streets before these projects are even completed. For example at least two of them plan new underground parking facilities which will require hundreds, and perhaps, many more dump truck loads to excavate the sites.
Many streets are narrow and can't be effectively widened to accommodate traffic from massive development from over the bridge.
We continue to welcome visitors to Monterey to demonstrate what should not be an excellent model for Palm Beach growth in the future.
We still hope that advocates for residents will be more plentiful because the present Monterey Road score is around Developers 7, Residents 0.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Pamela Dunston
282 Monterey Road
Received via email 1.15.24:
Dear Mayor, Town Council and Landmarks Preservation Commission,
I'd like to clear up any confusion regarding the 7 foot wall and promised hedge that was offered to help protect us from placing the side wall of the nearly completed residence at 284 Monterey less than 5 feet from our property line.
No, this was not an act of kindness or consideration. My husband did research, found a case which indicated that the attempted and failed notice to us was likely legally insufficient and related this information to the town attorney.
This is the reason we were able to negotiate the consolation wall and promised hedge.
So, please be warned never to oppose the real estate development machine without the assistance of a competent attorney because they will just run over you headed to the next profitable venture without even glancing in the rear view mirror to see the havoc they created.
Over the weekend I had the opportunity to observe the 284 project as it nears completion from our property. It now appears obvious that they greatly expanded the minor encroachment of a small, unenclosed, DIY looking stoop to become the West side wall of the new residence. You can observe that it even looks like an unsightly addition because it has a flat roof that isn't consistent with the typical Bermuda style roof on the rest of the house.
You can walk on the side of our property where the black wrought iron mailbox is located and see for yourselves what development run amuck looks like. Just remember to hold your nose because the construction bath room facility now may be placed closer to our property than the new side wall.
Respectfully,
Pamela Dunston
282 Monterey Road
Received via email 10.14.23:
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