Received via email 8.10.24:
Dear Architectural Review Commission members,
My husband and I are residents of Palm Beach, and live at 409 Seabreeze Avenue . When we learned of the massive redevelopment plans submitted by Jerry and Darlene Jordan for their property at 203 S. Lake Trail, we were concerned about the traffic and disruption that would result.
Our 400 block of Seabreeze Ave. is lined by charming cottages and original structures from the 1920’s. It is a block that retains the neighborhood character of the Sea Streets. It is also a narrow street , which is heavily used by pedestrians, dog walkers, and cyclists. As such, it is already overused and overparked- and not by the residents of the street.
When we saw the Jordans’ plans called for a variance for a new service entrance on Seabreeze Ave. , we were more than concerned. This new entrance would open into the Seabreeze pedestrian Lake Trail access. We believe this unnecessary entrance would mean not only more traffic and disruption on our street, but also a danger to the safety of pedestrians using the Lake Trail access. We also find that there is absolutely no evidence of hardship to support granting this variance. Therefore, we are asking that you deny the Jordans’ request for a new service entrance on Seabreeze Avenue at the Lake Trail pedestrian access.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, Nicole and Earle Betts
409 Seabreeze Avenue

Received via email 7.30.24:
Dear Emily & Bradley:
I am the 100% owner of Landover Developments One, LLC, the title holder of 439 Sea Spray Avenue. I purchased the Sea Spray property in November 2021 and this year I completed extensive renovations. It is a family use house and is never rented. My wife and I love the downtown area where it is located.
I recently learned of Gerald and Darlene Jordan’s proposed demolition and new house and ground improvements for their property immediately adjacent to mine, 203 S. Lake Trail. It appears that the proposal is for an unnamed buyer. After reviewing the plans, I hereby object to the requested “Sport Court” (likely a Pickle Ball Court). Such a Court, next to my property, would require a special exception under Ordinance Sec. 134-1759(e)&(d). I request that the special exception be denied, under Sec. 134-1759(g), on the grounds that the location of the Sport Court immediately adjacent (10 feet from the property line) to my Sea Spray house will create undesirable noise interfering with the enjoyment of my property.
In particular, the placement of a Sport Court so close to my property should not be approved for a special exception because it violates the “Requirements for Granting” special exceptions, Sec. 134-229, as follows:
Ø Sec. 134-229(3) – the use will cause “substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood where it is to be located.” It cannot be doubted that a “Sport Court” located so close to my residence will discourage buyers and, therefore, the price/value of my property on the market.
Ø Sec. 134-229(3) – “The use [will] result in substantial economic, noise, glare, or odor impacts on adjoining properties and properties generally in the district.” The distance from the Sport Court to my residence is only 30 feet. According to research:
The distance from which you can hear pickleball being played varies considerably based on several factors, including the environment and specific sound characteristics of the game.
Sound Levels and Distance
1. **Decibel Levels**: The sound generated during pickleball play can reach approximately 70 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the court. This level is comparable to the noise of a washing machine or dishwasher running[2][5].
2. **Perceived Distance**: According to experts, most people do not complain about pickleball noise if they are at least 500 feet away from the courts. This distance is considered a threshold where the noise becomes less intrusive[3][4]. Some studies suggest that the sound can still be tolerable at distances up to 977 feet, depending on environmental factors like background noise and sound absorption[2].
3. **Environmental Impact**: The ability to hear pickleball also depends on the surrounding environment. In quieter suburban areas, the sound may carry further, while in noisier urban settings, the impact may be less noticeable. Additionally, factors such as wind direction and the presence of natural barriers can affect sound transmission[4][5].
Summary
In summary, while the sound of pickleball can be heard from as far as 977 feet under ideal conditions, it is generally less bothersome to residents situated more than 500 feet away from the courts. The noise level can be significant enough to cause complaints from neighbors living within 300 to 600 feet, highlighting the importance of court placement in community planning[1][2][3].
Citations:
[1] https://www.change.org/p/stop-pickleball-noise-support-600-feet-minimum-distance-from-homes
[2] https://www.planetizen.com/news/2023/06/123762-addressing-noise-impacts-pickleball
[3] https://thepickler.com/pickleball-blog/pickleball-noise-issue/
[4] https://www.paddletek.com/blogs/news/noise-issue-pickleball
[5] https://productiveparks.com/solutions-noisy-pickleball-courts
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1uF7fujcU
[7] https://www.reddit.com/r/Pickleball/comments/17sctrw/drives_me_insane/
[8] https://ddsacoustical.com/pickleball-noise-and-sounds/
While Tennis is slightly better than Pickle Ball, still 30 feet is way to close:
Tennis matches typically produce sound levels around 40 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the court. tennis can be heard from a distance of several hundred feet, but the sound levels are generally lower than those of pickleball. Residents living within 200 to 300 feet may hear it, but it is less likely to cause complaints due to its relatively low volume.
I would not object to the Sport Court if it is moved to the rear of the property, rather than so close to my property (see enclosed diagram). In conclusion, I am a commercial real estate owner with many properties. Most issues I have had with zoning and setback disputes have been easily solved with cooperation from all involved parties. I feel this “Special Exception” request can have a great outcome for all with a minor site plan revision moving the Sport Court as suggested.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. My staff and I will attend the Architectural Commission meeting on August 28 and request an opportunity to speak to the Commission. I am copying the additional agencies indicated below. Thank you,
George N. Snelling
Snelling Properties LLP

Received via email 7.30.24:
Thank you for your reply.
With regard to “Padel” Tennis, the noise level is quite similar to Pickle Ball:
The distance from which you can hear padel being played can vary based on several factors, including the noise levels generated during play and the surrounding environment.
### Sound Levels
1. **Decibel Levels**: Padel courts can produce noise levels ranging from 68 to 70 dBA during peak play, particularly in facilities with multiple courts and minimal sound barriers. This level is comparable to the noise generated by pickleball and is significantly louder than tennis, primarily due to the enclosed glass walls and the nature of the game, which involves more frequent and intense rallies[1][4][5].
2. **Perceived Distance**: Residents living within 160 to 200 meters (approximately 525 to 660 feet) of padel courts may begin to notice the noise. Recommendations suggest that padel courts should be located at least 160 meters from the nearest residences to minimize disturbances. For larger facilities with multiple courts, this distance may need to extend beyond 200 meters[3][4].
3. **Environmental Impact**: The ability to hear padel also depends on environmental factors such as background noise levels, wind direction, and the presence of barriers. In quieter residential areas, the sound may carry further, while in noisier environments, it may blend into the ambient sound.
### Summary
In summary, padel can typically be heard from distances of 160 to 200 meters, with sound levels around 68 to 70 dBA at peak times. To mitigate noise complaints, it is advisable to locate courts away from residential areas and consider sound barriers or other mitigation measures.
Citations:
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/differences-sound-characteristics-padel-tennis
[2] https://crazypickleballlady.com/2021/07/13/the-sound-of-pickleball-a-detailed-explanation-and-what-you-need-to-consider-before-building-courts/
[3] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/establishing-global-noise-regulations-emerging-padel-verbraeken
[4] https://www.padelcreations.com/noise-emission-values-in-padel-sport/
[5] https://greenwall.nl/en/blog/faq-geluidoverlast-van-padelbanen/
[6] https://sonomuro.com/en/blog/noise-pollution-from-padel-courts-a-growing-problem/
[7] https://masspickleballguide.com/sport/strategies-pickleball-noise/
[8] https://thepickler.com/pickleball-blog/pickleball-noise-issue/
I would note, also, that traditional “Paddle Ball” also produces noise similar to Pickle Ball and Padel Tennis:
“In summary, paddle ball can typically be heard from distances similar to pickleball, with sound levels around 70 dBA at 100 feet and generally tolerable for residents beyond 500 feet.”
It seems that any type of “Sport Court” sports, including regular tennis (“Tennis typically produces lower noise levels, around 40 dBA at a distance of 100 feet”), will result in substantial noise issues when the court is only 30 feet from 439 Seaspray.
Please add this supplemental material to our letter to the ARC and TC.
Thank you,
Robert J. Lowe, Jr. Esq.
Snelling Properties LLP
COO / Legal Officer

Received via email 8.9.24:
Dear Ms. Churney,
We are writing in regards to 203 S. Lake Trail project. We are the current owners of 432 Seabreeze Ave having purchased the property in December, 2021 and recently completed our renovation. We thoroughly enjoy the “Sea” street neighborhood and its charming neighborhood environment and have become fast friends with many of our neighbors.
We received notice from the Architectural Commission of the proposed ARC-24-0027
(ZON-24-0034) 203 S LAKE TRL project. It appears to be a massive project that will take years to complete and based on the property designs shows a new driveway entrance on Seabreeze Ave. We oppose this new entrance and the chaos that will certainly ensue during and after construction. The western section of Seabreeze Ave is already a busy street with no permit parking requirements to non-residents. Additionally, there is a new build in the works at 428 Seabreeze. There are numerous dog walkers, bicycle riders and young families accessing the lake trail via the Seabreeze access point every day. The proposed new driveway will add substantial vehicular traffic to the busy pedestrian area.
The 203 S Lake Trail property has an existing main driveway on Seaspray Ave. It is a large property with ample options to create a desirable driveway and parking area design through the existing driveway and service gates. There is simply no need to negatively affect Seabreeze Ave with the addition of a new entrance, which from the plans may become the main entrance to the property given the proximity to the house front door.
We oppose this new entrance and request for it to not be approved. We thank you for your attention to the matter and all of your dedicated work to keeping the island so beautiful. We are not be able to attend the meeting but will be on the call.
Sincerely,
Kim and Greg Richter

Received via email 8.15.24:
Dear ARCOM members,
As 37-year residents of Seaspray Avenue and advocates for preserving the charm and scale of the Sea Streets, we object to the massing, scale and height of the proposed architectural design for 203 S. Lake Trail for the following reasons:
A. The NAVD of 10’ is far too high. The Town requires 7’ at present. The finished floor height of the existing house is 5’ and the proposed is 9’-fully 4’ higher. The proposed house with a floor level of 9’ will be 3’ higher overall than the present house and will loom over the Lake Trail and the neighborhood. Elevating the lot with three and one half feet of fill will cause flooding to the neighbors to the east on both Seaspray and Seabreeze Avenues. The two Seabreeze properties directly behind ours(333 Seaspray) were raised by 3.5’ of fill consequently flooding our lower property in frequent hard rains.
B. The mass of the house is out of scale in comparison to what previously existed on the site and in comparison to the neighbors both to the north -11 S. Lake Trail and south-14 S Lake Trail. Page 4 of the application shows clearly how these properties have greater green space and a much more pleasant relationship between structure and landscape and their relation to the streets and neighbors. These properties do not negatively impact the neighborhood as this proposed project will. This project would greatly benefit from a separate guest house which would break up the enormous single structure monolith housing 9 bedrooms and multiple living rooms. The existing property layout which has 3 separate structures is much more in the context of the neighborhood.
C. Gone is the mysterious sunken garden on Seaspray. In its place a padel court and more parking. The padel court and generator- both big, unpleasant noise polluters, are jammed up against the east side neighbors’ properties. The location of the generator and appear to be in non-conforming set backs.The location is not in the least considerate of the neighbors and should not be allowed as the non-conformity belonged to the house being razed. Reductions in the mass of the house, the hardscape and parking lots would allow the noise generators to be moved farther away from the neighbors’ properties and provide more space for denser sound and sight buffers. Although this is a large lot, it is in a neighborhood of much smaller lots, not an estate section. Generally tennis
and other sport courts are found on properties where lots of similar size naturally provide more noise buffering and are at greater distance from residences. The noise pollution generated by the sports court will disturb all of us in the neighborhood who use the Lake Trail on a regular basis and I believe it is inappropriate for this location.
D. There is no evidence of hardship that would justify a variance for an additional driveway from the Seabreeze pedestrian easement into this property. The lake block of Seabreeze contains many original and charming small scale houses and landmarked bungalows as well as a variety of architectural styles typical of the 1920’s Poinciana Park development. It is one of the most beautiful and authentic blocks in all of Palm Beach.
The street is narrow and well used by residents and non-residents (unregulated parking) alike to exercise, walk dogs and bike. The cul-de-sac is too narrow to support a service entrance. Increased motorized traffic at this pedestrian access is unsafe, unnecessary and dangerous to the health, welfare and safety of the citizenry. A pedestrian gate in scale with the neighboring small houses is more appropriate to the area.
E. What is the purpose of and is an ‘observation Tower at 42’7” and almost 50’ NAVD even permitted? Wouldn’t it allow for invasion of privacy of neighbors and trail walkers?
It is unfair to allow a house on this large lot to be razed and yet allow the developer to retain structures that are non-conformining in the set backs. When razing a house, current set backs ought to be met with a new application.
We have every confidence that ARCOM will make adjustments to this application that will be more compatible in scale and design with our historic neighborhood. Although our codes may allow for greater massing and scale, ARCOM has the legal right and obligation to approve only what is appropriate and in harmony with the neighborhood context. Overdevelopment is ruining Palm Beach’s unique character and small town scale, quiet, and charm.
Sincerely,
Anne and Charlie Pepper 333 Seaspray Ave

Received via email 8.19.24:
Dear Members of the Architectural Review Commission,
My wife and I are residents of Palm Beach, residing at 416 Seabreeze Avenue. We were recently made aware of the extensive redevelopment proposal submitted by Jerry and Darlene Jordan for their property at 203 S. Lake Trail, and it has raised significant concerns for us, particularly regarding the potential traffic increase and disruption this project may cause as well as the noise from a sport court.
The 400 block of Seabreeze Avenue, where we live, is distinguished by its quaint cottages and original 1920s architecture, preserving the unique charm of the Sea Streets neighborhood. However, our street is narrow and already heavily trafficked by pedestrians, dog walkers, and cyclists. As it stands, the area is frequently congested with vehicles, many of which do not belong to residents.
Upon learning that the Jordans' plans include a request for a variance to add a new service entrance on Seabreeze Avenue, we became particularly ALARMED. This entrance would directly impact the Lake Trail pedestrian access on Seabreeze. We believe this addition would grossly exacerbate traffic issues on our street, increase disruptions, and, most importantly, pose a significant safety risk to those using the Lake Trail access and out street. Furthermore, we see no justification or hardship that would warrant the approval of this variance. The sport court will increase the likelihood of unwanted noise from racket sorts like pickle ball. Not what anyone who isn’t playing wants to hear.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to reject the Jordans’ request for the new service entrance on Seabreeze Avenue and sport court. .
Thank you for your consideration.
Frank Speno
Sent from my iPhone

Received via email 8.20.24 from Dennis Glass:
Dear members of the Architectural Review Commission
My wife and I are residing at 410 Seabreeze Ave, Palm Beach, FL 33480
We were recently made aware of the development plan for 203 lake Trail
Seabreeze is a very quiet street with lovely smaller homes . The street already has traffic problems given the number of homes. Note! there are no parking restrictions and it is often difficult to find resident parking !
In short we would not be in favor of the proposed service entry and pickleball court These two changes will add to the traffic problem and Pickleball courts are noisy and will disturb the serenity of the neighbor
Thank you

Received via email
Dear ARCOM Members:
My family is the ultimate owner of the property at 11 S. Lake Trail, which is immediately adjacent to the north of the subject property. We oppose the portion of the pending application that contemplates installation of a pad el court, and in addition, have concerns about the overall height of the project relative to neighboring homes as a result of raising the first-floor level elevation by 3.5 feet over the existing home's level. We would like confirmation that the truck logistics route shown to be utilizing Seaspray in the plans is in fact required.
We reviewed the objection letters from both 333 Seaspray and 439 Seaspray, and agree with the noise pollution issues presented by the padel court as described in these letters. As an immediately adjacent neighbor, the noise issues are of particular concern to us. These concerns are not alleviated by moving the court to the rear of the house given our adjacent property. While we do not repeat the sound volume details of the other letters, we believe the particularly high noise level of a padel court would be an on­going cause of concern to the neighborhood as a whole and particularly to adjacent properties in all directions. In the event the padel court is approved by ARCOM, we strongly feel it is in the best interest of the neighborhood to ensure there will be no exterior lighting on the court for nighttime play. A lit padel court would disturb the neighborhood and change the calm nature of the neighborhood in the evenings.
As a result of raising the first-floor elevation, the overall height seems out of proportion to the neighborhood as a whole, and we would hate to see something of this scale become the accepted norm.
We appreciate that you consider many factors with any new development to ensure that the overall nature and feel of the neighborhood is not eroded. We ask that you consider the concerns we have, along with your care in preserving the neighborhood as a whole, in making a good judgment on the pending application.
Sincerely,
sf Michael Michael Merriman