• During a Jan. 14 Code Enforcement Board meeting, members voted to delay imposing fines on The Claridges Condominium.

• Two code-enforcement cases involved the installation of cooling towers without the property permits or design review.

• During the meeting, Claridge resident Mary Balcos criticized the condo's board and management for not informing residents about the code violations.

The South End's Claridges Condominium won't be slapped with a daily running fine related to two code-violation cases involving a pair of updated cooling towers installed without the town’s permission. The Palm Beach Code Enforcement Board recently voted 5-1 to delay its decision to impose the fines in a case involving the condo’s western building at 3460 S. Ocean Blvd. Board members also unanimously ordered a $150 administrative fee in the case involving the cooling tower installed at 3456 S. Ocean Blvd. Both cases are expected to be reviewed again during the board’s April 16 meeting. The vote to defer the fine did not come without criticism — on the dais from member John McGowan, who cast the lone dissenting vote, and from Claridges tenant Mary Balcos. She criticized the condo’s board and management for mismanaging the situation and for keeping residents in the dark. “We can’t sell our condos because we have two mechanical things on our buildings' without permits,” she told the board. The controversy stems from cooling towers installed in 2024 without the town’s approval. The condo’s building manager, Juan Cabrera, said he believed at the time the project’s contractors had applied for the proper permits.

On Palm Beach's South End, Claridges Condominium has been caught up in two code-violation cases, after the cooling towers were installed at the property's two buildings without the town's approval.

The issue first came before the code board last April for the unpermitted cooling tower installed at 3460 S. Ocean Blvd. At that meeting, the board chose to levy a $150 administrative fee and give the condominium until Aug. 21 to come into compliance.

During the Aug. 21 code board meeting, Claridges' attorney James Gavigan said the condominium association had hired an architect and was drafting documents required for a design review and the permit-application process. That led the code board to defer the fine-consideration case to its Dec. 18 meeting.

 

The case involving the other building, at 3456 S. Ocean Blvd., first surfaced at the board’s Oct. 16 meeting, during which code board members voted to defer the hearing to its Dec. 18 meeting.

Throughout the process, Gavigan assured the board the condo was applying for the proper permitting as quickly as possible, but that it would take time to resolve.

That’s because the cooling towers must be reviewed by two separate town bodies before the condo gets the greenlight. The Architectural Commission’s would need to review the designs of the cooling towers’ required screening, while the town council would need to approve a variance to the town’s zoning code, since the towers exceed Palm Beach’s height threshold for rooftop mechanical equipment.

Adding to the delay are the elevation studies required for the town’s application. Those were originally expected to be completed before the board’s Dec. 18 meeting.

But when both cases returned before the board in December, Gavigan said the condo was still working on completing its application. Surveyors, he said at the time, had only measured the elevation of the cooling towers, so the required paperwork was still in the works.

Those surveys are now complete, and the project is coasting through the application process, Gavigan said during the Jan. 15 meeting. He told the board that the condo was on track for the screening to be reviewed during the Architectural Commission’s March meeting.

If the screening is approved by the design board, the project's variance would head to the town council for review in April.

Gavigan asked the board to delay the fine hearing for the 3460 S. Ocean Blvd building, because he said the condo was working diligently to get the town’s approval.

“We can come back on a monthly basis, or bimonthly basis to give you an update,” he said.

But he said any updates would only be about the application process.

Although most board members appeared willing to extend the deferment of fines, McGowan, who was absent from the December hearing, questioned why the penalties should be delayed. The condo, McGowan said, underwent nonemergency work without doing the due diligence of checking what requirements were needed to accommodate the installation of the cooling towers.

“I'm confused as to why you didn’t go to the town with a proposal to replace the aging equipment,” McGowan said.

Cabrera told the board he believed the contractor had filed for the correct permits. Cabrera was notified of the violations months later, he said.

But McGowan said he woud be more sympathetic if it were an emergency project, such as if the previous cooling tower had broken down.

“I’m not too excited about giving them a lot of consideration on the fine program, but that’s just me,” he said.

The situation has also drawn the ire of Balcos, who criticized Cabrera for allowing the project to be completed without the town’s approval.

According to Balcos, the code-violation cases have impeded condo owners from selling their homes.

Residents, she said, had only learned about the violation when they reached out to the town. Balcos even said she wasn’t against the board imposing a daily running fine against the condo.

“Maybe they’ll do something about who's running the building, and make some changes,” she said.

But Board Member Chris Larmoyeux said it wasn’t in the code board’s best interests to fine the condo. He noted that representatives for Claridges had appeared at every code board meeting and provided the board with updates each time.

He also emphasized that the condo is at the mercy of the town’s schedule and has no means of seeking earlier meeting dates for reviews by the Architectural Commission and the town council.

"I think the idea of fining the condominium for something that someone lied to them about (regarding the permit) just doesn’t seem very fair and just,” he said

Vice Chair Scotch Peloso said that if the violations were still evident in April, the board could impose daily running fine with a retroactive starting date in January.