HPB denies garage-apartment and cabana at 734 Ardmore Road after neighbors cite scale and privacy concerns

City of West Palm Beach Historic Preservation Board · December 10, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After lengthy public comment alleging site fill, missing privacy protections and plant damage, the Historic Preservation Board voted to deny the proposed garage-apartment and 300 sq ft cabana at 734 Ardmore Road, finding the application did not meet the city’s compatibility standards.

The West Palm Beach Historic Preservation Board on Dec. 9 denied application 25-80 for a second‑story garage apartment (268 sq ft) above an existing garage and a 300‑sq‑ft pool cabana at 734 Ardmore Road.

Architect David Lawrence presented the revised proposal; staff recommended approval with conditions tied to cabana height and building separation if the variance elements were met. Multiple neighbors — including Stephanie Smith (746 Ardmore) and Nancy Vergadamo (730 Ardmore) — testified in opposition during the public comment period. Smith said prior construction had filled her side yard “4 feet,” raised sightlines and that adding a second story would be out of scale with the street. Vergadamo alleged that a landscaper hired by the owner had removed plantings and that proposed 36‑inch hedges would not restore privacy.

The architect disputed the claim that removals were arbitrary and said Florida Power & Light required some tree work; he offered to increase screening height. Nevertheless, board members concluded the application failed to meet the standards cited in the staff report — particularly compatibility and the Secretary of the Interior standards — and voted to deny.

The board’s motion to deny cited the testimony presented and the staff analysis, noting that competent substantial evidence in the record did not support a finding that the project satisfied the applicable code sections and Secretary of the Interior standards. The denial is a final board action from this meeting; the applicant may seek to revise and reapply or pursue other administrative remedies under city procedures.