302 N. Lakeside Drive
Neighbors and concerned citizens appealed it--there were three appeals regarding the HRPB's recommendation to approve the building plans for the vacant property located at 302 N. Lakeside. Residents around did not want this huge house built next to their smaller homes. The Huletts wanted to buy the property and erect a tower as well. The Commission denied the appeals on a 4/1 vote with McVoy dissenting. He said that all those who buy in a neighborhood have certain expectations of protection. Sounds fair to me and to everyone alive unless, of course, you are people in high places.
There was no surprise with this vote as all on the Historic Resource Preservation Board approved the plans that fell within the guidelines, not to mention some are friends with the Huletts. People on staff were brain dead and could not adequately define what type of structure is "compatible" or what "adjacent" means according to HRP 23.27.05.09, A(1) which is the minimum standard. Fifty-three people in the area signed a protest sheet against the structure.
Tim Hulett made his case in front of the commission and it was his plea that was the most convincing with his implication that it was the City's insistence that caused him to re-design, etc...he mentioned the many hoops and hurdles that he was confronted with that forced him to come up with a final plan...all he wanted to do was build a nice house for his son. The Hulett's son appeared before the board and said that he wanted to make Lake Worth his home and he wanted to raise his family here. He, of course, "loved Lake Worth," etc., you know, all the stuff people say when they want their way in building an incompatible structure in a neighborhood, historic to boot.
Well now we find out the truth--he didn't love Lake Worth all that much. He will be building in West Palm Beach instead. The plans exist for some other "lucky" sucker to build tall right next door to an itsy bitsy single family cottage.
And as said before, we need some definite safeguards from planning board members who have friends or interests in projects that allow development to be intrusive. Recusing oneself because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality is not enough. Publicly admitting that the property owners took you out to dinner, one on one, is just not enough. Enough is enough.
22 comments:
Kick all of these people off planning boards. Kick the commission out while you're at it. Does the people's voice count?
Hulett wanted to build a two story home on this lot. There are two story homes located across the street and there are many on the same side of the street as this property. The house would have a taxable value of over $500,000 and we all know the city needs the money to fight the crime and blight you always talk about on this blog. Can someone tell me how a two story home on this lot is wrong? You guys make no sense.
Our Plan says, The height of proposed buildings shall be visually compatible in comparison to or in relationship with the height of adjacent buildings. The relationship of the width of the building to the height of the front elevation shall be visually compatible with and in direct relationship to the width and height of the front elevation of adjacent or adjoining buildings within the district.
This plan clearly did not fall within those parameters. A one story house of 1,700 sq. ft. next to a house of over 4,000 sq. ft. is definitely NOT compatible.
I'm all for building expensive houses in LW--just stop giving waivers, etc. for developers to get their way...work within the Plan.
We have two story houses next to small cottages all over North Lakeside which means that another two story is compatible to the adjacent lot. This was not a developer but a single owner looking to build a beautiful new home in our city. Your argument makes no sense. The MacNamara house is two story large home and it sits right next to a small cottage home. It looks great and belongs in that neighborhood. How could you say that the Hulett house is not compatible? The house one lot south of the Hulett property that sits right next to the little cottage you mentioned is also a two story home. You have misrepresented the statute in my opinion.
adjacent buildings-
230 N Lakeside, 1,040sf
232 N lakeside, 1,280
303 N Lakeside, 2,296
305 N Lakeside, 1,210
306 N lakeside, 1,741
Hulett wanted to build a 4,000 s.f. house. McNamara's house is in the next block and is not adjacent.
Perhaps it is a flawed argument as you say but there were a lot of people against it.
I noticed this in other areas that 2 stories seems like more because the houses are built so much higher. Has anyone considered if theoretically new property is built up on all sides - ones 'old' property could become the bath tub in between, no?
The HRPB looked at "adjacent" as meaning near, or across the street in order to "legally" approve the plans for a 2 story building, since the 2 structures adjacent to the proposed building are 1 story and therefore incompatible in height in addition to size.
Our home and the 2,1 story houses next door on each side were built long before this was an historic neighborhood, subjecting builders to more stringent regulations; and we are certainly far from adjacent, therefore really irrelevant to the justification of this approval.
I am hopeful that the buyers build a 1 story house that truly is compatible with the Just's beautiful historic home to the north and the quaint saltbox to the south.
That will make the neighbors happy and preserve the character of the neighborhood.
How can the Just's give a campaign contribution to Amoroso who voted WITH the Huletts? Is it once burned or is it twice?
The problem with this proposed home is not that it is two story, but that it is a massive two story home that will be out of character with the homes on either side and even the two story home across the street. The lack of set backs and the massiveness of the home is the problem not the fact that it is two story. Historic Board and Planning/Zoning are an absolute joke, they all bent over backwards for this project and could care less what our zoning laws provide.
Then this problem perpetuates itself. Each new developer can point to other approved non-conforming homes to say, look you approved that massive house, so you can't deny me and pretty soon a lovely historic neighborhood is ruined.
This was not a "massive" two story home that was not out of character with anything in this neighborhood. There is no developer here buying up property and changing the character of this neighborhood. This lot deserves a beautiful home the only real opposition came from the neighbors who did not want to lose their view or have a home built on this lot. The was no opposition from the little cottage that was just to the south of it. Reason: this new home would increase the value of the surrounding lots. The Just's should have purchased this lot if they wanted to control what was built next to them.
Oh, that's your solution? The Just's should have purchased the vacant lot? No, they should have been protected under our laws in effect, not the BS spewed by you and the powers that be. Yes, a beautiful home will be nice there and hopefully it will be built by someone who gives a rat's azz for the neighbors and not one out of character. I don't suppose it would matter to you if you lived next door in the Just's house...right? Peachy keen. You either have guidelines or you don't. When you do, there should not be so much discussion and waivers going on that always seem to be handed out to friends.
One minute you complain about the city looking like crap and the next minute you are imposing your own ridiculous interpretation of what the word compatible means. If more people would invest in this city we might just have a chance. Preventing a single family home from being built on a golf course lot that will be worth over 4700,000 is just plain stupid. You should be kissing the ground these folks walk on and hoping we get more homes like this in our city. Instead we are getting poor slobs with no place to go and drug rehab homes. If you want to fight the cause spend your energy on blight and slums that are taking over the western parts of our city.
Look, have an opinion but STOP the name calling, ok? What is "ridiculous' to you may not be to the 53 people who lived in that neighborhood who were against it. It also may not be ridiculous to thousands more of us who want to preserve the neighborhood. All for expensive houses where appropriate.
As far as slum and blight, it exists all over Lake Worth, not just the western communities. Take all of your developer money and YOU do something about it. Get your buddy to clean up his properties and stop the boarding up after a period of time. Take the property if the owner doesn't do something about it.
Do you think it is possible that someone will spend their money, buy that lot, and then build a 1200 sq foot house there? While I truly love the small cottages in that area, isn't it inevitable that the homes closest to the water will be the pricier real estate?
What about when the cottage owners want to sell? The price of the land alone won't justify the sq footage of the house - sad, but I think true...
The present commission kicked out honest people on these planning boards and put in Loretta and reinstated Wes who has never seen a project he didn't like. They have a Brit on the P&Z who refuses to say the pledge even though he is now an American. In fact, didn't the entire P&Z want to eliminate the Pledge of Allegiance? No allegiance to city and none to country. Fine bunch.
I live two roads over and I objected to this proposed home, b/c these very large homes do in fact change the nature of our historic neighborhood and not for the better. It is distressing to see that the Historic Board, whose job it is to look out for historic structures and neighborhoods, doesn't seem to understand that these approvals are cumulative and eventually the historic neighborhood is gone.
I live just north of this property and my home is historic. I have a small home and there are large homes all around our neighborhood. I had no objection to the project and sent a letter to the HPB supporting it. The neighborhood's character would be far better off with a home as nice as this one and many of my neighbors agreed. The HPB applied the law fairly.
Well, that's nice. Do you have a name?
Lynn -- Can you post the architect's drawing of the home? I know I saw it somewhere. It is really not an attractive home, from what I remember.
And really, the solution to mcmansions -- and please, let's do it now -- is to enact Floor Area Ratios, which would prevent someone from building an enormous home on a small lot.
If I have time as I would have to research it. It was HUGE, however and incompatible with the surrounding houses. The same side of politics were all FOR it. We keep fighting developers and the same crowd has been around for years. It is always money over principle with some of them who convince them all that anyone opposing them are anarchists and the dregs who just want to hold back the city from growth. Same ole BS. I thought some of them would or should be smarter people...
The home not only complied with all setbacks, codes and height restrictions...but also had to deal with over a 20 ft. Easement granted to the city on one side. I assume you knew that and wasn't speaking out of ignorance?
I don't speak out of ignorance, anonymous. Thanks for asking.
The property was not compatible to the surrounding properties. Neighbors and concerned citizens appealed it--there were three appeals regarding the HRPB's recommendation to approve the building plans for the vacant property located at 302 N. Lakeside. Residents around did not want this huge house built next to their smaller homes. they all had expectations of compatibility--these plans were anything but.
I stand by my blog for the facts of the matter as well as what happened.
Post a Comment