1. ARC-24-006 249 SEABREEZE AVE. The applicant, Joseph & Elizabeth Berger, has filed an application requesting Architectural Commission review and approval for new vehicular and pedestrian gates and modifications to previously approved landscape and hardscape, including driveway reductions and change in perimeter site walls as well as modifications to the previously approved design of the front door and balcony railings. 
Public Comment, Town of Palm Beach Admin
admin
11 months ago
Received via email 5.27.24:
Dear Members of ARCOM,
As a contractor with extensive experience working on the island, I would like to offer insights regarding the proposed construction of a 7-foot site wall with an L-shaped footer at 249 Seabreeze Ave. While I am not directly involved in this specific project, I have handled numerous projects in the past that required similar specifications.
Upon reviewing the propetiy and considering the original permit from 2021, which approved the construction of a 7-foot site wall with an L-shaped footer, I can confirm that there is likely sufficient room to accommodate its installation. Additionally, based on my experience, the installation of a barrier between the homes at 249 Seabreeze Ave and 30 l Seabreeze Ave is a feasible solution to the problem of drainage, and the disparity between the grades of the homes. [t is worth noting that the owners of 301 Seabreeze Ave have previously consented to the accommodations required to construct the wall in both March 2023 and August 2023.
If you require any further insights or assistance regarding this matter, please feel free to reach out to me. I am committed to supporting the successful execution of projects on the island and ensuring compliance with relevant regulations and standards.
Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Andrew G. Sciame
Received via email 5.28.24:
Dear Members of The Palm Beach Architectural Review Committee,
Thank you to each of you for your continued efforts to uphold the unique character of Palm Beach.
Please uphold the integrity of your hard work and again deny the modifications at 249 Seabreeze. Uphold the original approved 7 foot site perimeter walls— for the fourth time.
In accordance to Section 18205, the proposed 6 inch curb with fence on top violates each of the below as noted.
Architectural Commission review in accordance with Section 18-205.
(a) The architectural commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the
issuance of a building permit in any matter subject to its jurisdiction only after consideration
of whether the following criteria are complied with:
(1) The plan for the proposed building or structure is in conformity with good taste and
design and in general contributes to the image of the town as a place of beauty,
spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, charm, and high quality.
DENY. Not in keeping with character of neighboring homes. Each direct neighboring property has a 7 foot perimeter walls. Each home along the Clarke Alley built in the last 50 years has a full 7 foot site wall. To approve anything less would be to allow a new lower standard.
(2) The plan for the proposed building or structure indicates the manner in which the
structures are reasonably protected against external and internal noise, vibrations, and
other factors that may tend to make the environment less desirable.
DENY. The rear of the home was modified during the recent extensive renovations to open entirely to the backyard, creating additional nuisance and noise for the neighboring property. A ferocious and untrained Germany shepherd with excessive reactive barking is not adequately or safely contained with proposed fence. Full 7 foot wall is better protection for passerbys and neighboring property as well as noise retention.
While standing in our backyard, we can speak at a normal level and have a complete conversation with someone sitting on the back porch of the Berger’s home— it is mere feet away.
Seven foot site walls make good neighbors.
A wall will also allow more adequate screening than vegetation. Their master bedroom window is 4 feet from my children’s playroom— we can see directly in, through the vegetation. Please help us protect our children’s innocence.
(3) The proposed building or structure is not, in its exterior design and appearance, of
inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially
depreciate in appearance and value.
DENY. The proposed fence is inferior quality to a 7 foot masonry wall.
(4) The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on
land in the general area, with the comprehensive plan for the town, and with any precise
plans adopted pursuant to the comprehensive plan.
DENY. The historic Sea Streets are characterized by tight lot lines. See above; seven foot walls are in keeping with the neighborhood.
(5) The proposed building or structure is not excessively similar to any other structure
existing or for which a permit has been issued or to any other structure included in the
same permit application within 200 feet of the proposed site in respect to one or more
of the following features of exterior design and appearance:
a. Apparently visibly identical front or side elevations;
b. Substantially identical size and arrangement of either doors, windows, porticos or
other openings or breaks in the elevation facing the street, including reverse
arrangement; or
c. Other significant identical features of design such as, but not limited to, material,
roof line and height of other design elements.
(6) The proposed building or structure is not excessively dissimilar in relation to any other
structure existing or for which a permit has been issued or to any other structure
included in the same permit application within 200 feet of the proposed site in respect
to one or more of the following features:
a. Height of building or height of roof.
b. Other significant design features including, but not limited to, materials or quality
of architectural design.
DENY. A 6 inch curb is not used anywhere else in the alley. This is excessively dissimilar. If approved, this would be the ONLY 6 inch curb with fence on top. Please do not lower construction standards.
c. Architectural compatibility.
d. Arrangement of the components of the structure.
e. Appearance of mass from the street or from any perspective visible to the public
or adjoining property owners.
f. Diversity of design that is complimentary with size and massing of adjacent
properties.
g. Design features that will avoid the appearance of mass through improper
proportions.
h. Design elements that protect the privacy of neighboring property
DENY. The 6 inch curb cut will not sufficiently protect the privacy of the neighboring properties— both in noise and privacy.
We urge you to please put some punch into your previous three decisions to recommend the 7 foot wall and deny any modifications to an inferior 6 to 18 inch curb.
The application is further flawed for the following reasons:
1. No renderings were submitted to better understand the proposal.
2. As the west adjacent neighbor, we were never presented with anything to approve or deny the movement of this project forward with the 7 foot wall. We asked repeatedly to have their plans in early May so that today we could provide support. These were never provided to us. See attached email evidence.
3. Jamie Crowley sent email stating the Bergers planned to build the 7 foot wall and are seeking builders risk policy. See attached evidence. This is unethical and conflicting communication.
4. Attached is correspondence stating that this policy could be easily obtained and therefore this should not be acknowledged as an excuse for delay from Mr Crowley.
For reference, please see letters previously submitted by the following neighbors in support of the full 7 foot wall— and asking to deny anything less.
1. Kathy Georgas
2. Jay Serzan
3. Dorothy Martin
4. Ann Heathwood
5. Gary and Pam Patsley
6. Ashlee Clarke
7. Jay Horgen
8. Emily & Jay Clifford
9. Lauren Fisher
Please note, this is the majority of surrounding neighbors.
We know raising children here is a privilege— and a challenge. Thank you for dedicating your time to help this town be the best that it can and most importantly, I ask for your help in showing our children that there is no place for bullying in Palm Beach.
Thank you for ensuring the highest standards — both of aesthetics and neighborly conduct are upheld.
Lack of financial resources are no excuse for disturbing the peace and harmony of a neighborhood with flooding, noise, poor taste and aggressive lawyering.
Best,
Emily & Jay Clifford
301 Seabreeze Ave
Having just driven the Length of Jupiter Island where the properties are much larger, have long and winding driveways, there were very few vehicular gates. It appears to me that the Sea Streets are not suitable for these gates. Our streets are simpler, friendly and open. I am quite certain there wasn't a single vehicular gate when the area was developed in the 1920's. These are not grand streets and vehicular gates are inappropriate and out of character to this historic neighborhood. Anne Pepper
Received via email 5.27.24:
Dear Members of ARCOM,
As a contractor with extensive experience working on the island, I would like to offer insights regarding the proposed construction of a 7-foot site wall with an L-shaped footer at 249 Seabreeze Ave. While I am not directly involved in this specific project, I have handled numerous projects in the past that required similar specifications.
Upon reviewing the propetiy and considering the original permit from 2021, which approved the construction of a 7-foot site wall with an L-shaped footer, I can confirm that there is likely sufficient room to accommodate its installation. Additionally, based on my experience, the installation of a barrier between the homes at 249 Seabreeze Ave and 30 l Seabreeze Ave is a feasible solution to the problem of drainage, and the disparity between the grades of the homes. [t is worth noting that the owners of 301 Seabreeze Ave have previously consented to the accommodations required to construct the wall in both March 2023 and August 2023.
If you require any further insights or assistance regarding this matter, please feel free to reach out to me. I am committed to supporting the successful execution of projects on the island and ensuring compliance with relevant regulations and standards.
Thank you for considering my input.
Sincerely,
Andrew G. Sciame
Received via email 5.28.24:
Dear Members of The Palm Beach Architectural Review Committee,
Thank you to each of you for your continued efforts to uphold the unique character of Palm Beach.
Please uphold the integrity of your hard work and again deny the modifications at 249 Seabreeze. Uphold the original approved 7 foot site perimeter walls— for the fourth time.
In accordance to Section 18205, the proposed 6 inch curb with fence on top violates each of the below as noted.
Architectural Commission review in accordance with Section 18-205.
(a) The architectural commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the
issuance of a building permit in any matter subject to its jurisdiction only after consideration
of whether the following criteria are complied with:
(1) The plan for the proposed building or structure is in conformity with good taste and
design and in general contributes to the image of the town as a place of beauty,
spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, charm, and high quality.
DENY. Not in keeping with character of neighboring homes. Each direct neighboring property has a 7 foot perimeter walls. Each home along the Clarke Alley built in the last 50 years has a full 7 foot site wall. To approve anything less would be to allow a new lower standard.
(2) The plan for the proposed building or structure indicates the manner in which the
structures are reasonably protected against external and internal noise, vibrations, and
other factors that may tend to make the environment less desirable.
DENY. The rear of the home was modified during the recent extensive renovations to open entirely to the backyard, creating additional nuisance and noise for the neighboring property. A ferocious and untrained Germany shepherd with excessive reactive barking is not adequately or safely contained with proposed fence. Full 7 foot wall is better protection for passerbys and neighboring property as well as noise retention.
While standing in our backyard, we can speak at a normal level and have a complete conversation with someone sitting on the back porch of the Berger’s home— it is mere feet away.
Seven foot site walls make good neighbors.
A wall will also allow more adequate screening than vegetation. Their master bedroom window is 4 feet from my children’s playroom— we can see directly in, through the vegetation. Please help us protect our children’s innocence.
(3) The proposed building or structure is not, in its exterior design and appearance, of
inferior quality such as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially
depreciate in appearance and value.
DENY. The proposed fence is inferior quality to a 7 foot masonry wall.
(4) The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on
land in the general area, with the comprehensive plan for the town, and with any precise
plans adopted pursuant to the comprehensive plan.
DENY. The historic Sea Streets are characterized by tight lot lines. See above; seven foot walls are in keeping with the neighborhood.
(5) The proposed building or structure is not excessively similar to any other structure
existing or for which a permit has been issued or to any other structure included in the
same permit application within 200 feet of the proposed site in respect to one or more
of the following features of exterior design and appearance:
a. Apparently visibly identical front or side elevations;
b. Substantially identical size and arrangement of either doors, windows, porticos or
other openings or breaks in the elevation facing the street, including reverse
arrangement; or
c. Other significant identical features of design such as, but not limited to, material,
roof line and height of other design elements.
(6) The proposed building or structure is not excessively dissimilar in relation to any other
structure existing or for which a permit has been issued or to any other structure
included in the same permit application within 200 feet of the proposed site in respect
to one or more of the following features:
a. Height of building or height of roof.
b. Other significant design features including, but not limited to, materials or quality
of architectural design.
DENY. A 6 inch curb is not used anywhere else in the alley. This is excessively dissimilar. If approved, this would be the ONLY 6 inch curb with fence on top. Please do not lower construction standards.
c. Architectural compatibility.
d. Arrangement of the components of the structure.
e. Appearance of mass from the street or from any perspective visible to the public
or adjoining property owners.
f. Diversity of design that is complimentary with size and massing of adjacent
properties.
g. Design features that will avoid the appearance of mass through improper
proportions.
h. Design elements that protect the privacy of neighboring property
DENY. The 6 inch curb cut will not sufficiently protect the privacy of the neighboring properties— both in noise and privacy.
We urge you to please put some punch into your previous three decisions to recommend the 7 foot wall and deny any modifications to an inferior 6 to 18 inch curb.
The application is further flawed for the following reasons:
1. No renderings were submitted to better understand the proposal.
2. As the west adjacent neighbor, we were never presented with anything to approve or deny the movement of this project forward with the 7 foot wall. We asked repeatedly to have their plans in early May so that today we could provide support. These were never provided to us. See attached email evidence.
3. Jamie Crowley sent email stating the Bergers planned to build the 7 foot wall and are seeking builders risk policy. See attached evidence. This is unethical and conflicting communication.
4. Attached is correspondence stating that this policy could be easily obtained and therefore this should not be acknowledged as an excuse for delay from Mr Crowley.
For reference, please see letters previously submitted by the following neighbors in support of the full 7 foot wall— and asking to deny anything less.
1. Kathy Georgas
2. Jay Serzan
3. Dorothy Martin
4. Ann Heathwood
5. Gary and Pam Patsley
6. Ashlee Clarke
7. Jay Horgen
8. Emily & Jay Clifford
9. Lauren Fisher
Please note, this is the majority of surrounding neighbors.
We know raising children here is a privilege— and a challenge. Thank you for dedicating your time to help this town be the best that it can and most importantly, I ask for your help in showing our children that there is no place for bullying in Palm Beach.
Thank you for ensuring the highest standards — both of aesthetics and neighborly conduct are upheld.
Lack of financial resources are no excuse for disturbing the peace and harmony of a neighborhood with flooding, noise, poor taste and aggressive lawyering.
Best,
Emily & Jay Clifford
301 Seabreeze Ave
Having just driven the Length of Jupiter Island where the properties are much larger, have long and winding driveways, there were very few vehicular gates. It appears to me that the Sea Streets are not suitable for these gates. Our streets are simpler, friendly and open. I am quite certain there wasn't a single vehicular gate when the area was developed in the 1920's. These are not grand streets and vehicular gates are inappropriate and out of character to this historic neighborhood. Anne Pepper