What might a seemingly minor helipad represent?
This question occurred of me and my fellow Landmarks Preservation Commission members after they expressed concern over approving, and I voted against, one for Mar-a-Lago. It passed in the end, but it does represent a development drift occurring across town.
Obviously President Trump floats over this proposal as it is only for use of Marine One during his term of office. But it is not taxpayer funded. The applicant is Mar-a-Lago Club, Inc. who also will pay for it. For Trump’s first term there had been one too. This one will be approximately 20% bigger.
We have increasingly seen these requests for seemingly temporary or ancillary structures which in reality are nearly permanent and have significant effects on architectural, historic, and landscape integrity. And like Mar-a-Lago’s they grow bigger. High-end tents which are up nearly year-round, outdoor fabric constructions that end up serving as party places, hardscape expansions which create centers of activity and sport, and most of all carports pushing at the edges of properties displaying vehicles to the community. And though it be a helicopter at Mar-a-lago, it is still a vehicle.
In my 11 years on ARCOM and over 2 on Landmarks Preservation Commission I have seen these applications increase. I am sorry to say I have erred and been one approving them too often. I have seen the effect they have had on some of our greatest historic areas like Phipps Plaza and the Sea streets.
Our ARCOM code Sec. 18-205 seeks projects “in conformity with good taste and design” and “in harmony.” The historic preservation ordinance Sec. 54-122 requires projects “be visually compatible”, respect “proportion” and the “rhythm of solids to voids”; further that the “existing rhythm created by existing building masses and space between them should be preserved” and “the landscape should be sensitive . . . and compatible.”
Evolution must be allowed and even encouraged, but are we meeting our conditions with endless requests for additions and further development?
Look to the example of Mar-a-Lago again. Its recent stewardship has been both good and bad. Since 1985, there have been over 50 requested alterations, changes, special exceptions, and variances for it. There have been proposals to subdivide and cut up the property into individual homes and change original ornamentations to Trump logo family crests. There have been a slew of excessive noise and over-capacity notices, actions which risk damaging the property. Add to this the infamous battles over the out-of-scale flag, let alone the out-of-scale ballroom additions nearly dwarfing the original property. Even the previous helipad was misused allowing non-presidential commercial helicopters to land, just to name a few things.
As the Florida Master Site file states of Mar-a- Lago, “[t]his is probably the most extraordinary house ever built in Palm Beach”. It deserves particular care, all of Palm Beach does. Mar-a-Lago has been denied before, as have prominent — even presidential — persons and families. We have the right to stand up for the dignity and integrity of our town as others have before. If not with this “most extraordinary house ever built in Palm Beach” then where? Are we just disposed to suffer what is becoming a long train of abuses? Just because we have voted for it before does not mean we must continue the errors of our ways. With next year bringing elections, in response, we might look to Herman Melville’s Bartleby, the Scrivener and answer, “I would prefer not to.”
Alexander Ives is a member of the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Daily News: LETTER | Mar-a-Lago helipad OK reflects bigger abuses in town
Reporting by Palm Beach Daily News / Palm Beach Daily News
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
