Jul 20, 2023 Town Council Special Meeting

[Call to Order]

[00:00:04]

GOOD EVENING.

THE TIME IS NOW. 6 P.M., AND I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF TUESDAY, JUNE 27TH.

WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN WITH AN INVOCATION FOLLOWED BY A MOMENT OF SILENCE AND THEN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

YOU PLEASE STAND.

DEAR GOD, WE ASK YOU TO GIVE US COURAGE AND FORESIGHT TO PROVIDE FOR THE NEEDS OF ALL OUR CITIZENS.

AMEN. AMEN.

LET'S HAVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE.

PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE.

ALLEGIANCE].

MAY WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

. JUST A LITTLE BIT IN THE WAY OF INFORMATION.

THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING UNLIKE ANYTHING PERHAPS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE OBSERVED OR PARTICIPATED IN.

IT'S TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HRB PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE TO DIG.

[1. An appeal of the Final Order of the Historic Resources Board’s Denial of a Certificate to Dig for the properties owned by 961 A1A, LLC and 997 A1A, LLC. [TAB 1]]

THE REASON THERE WILL BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT IS THAT ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS TAKEN AT THE HRB PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL.

THE PRESENTATIONS BY BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE STAFF ARE LISTED OR LIMITED TO THE REPORTS, RECORD AND TESTIMONY FROM THOSE WHO ADDRESSED THE HRB, INCLUDING THE PUBLIC, DURING THE HRB PROCEEDINGS.

THE COUNCIL MAY ONLY CONSIDER THE RECORD BEFORE MAKING ITS DECISION ON THE APPEAL.

IN ORDER TO PRESERVE DUE PROCESS.

THERE CANNOT BE ANY NEW ARGUMENTS OR TESTIMONIES BY THE PARTIES OF THE PUBLIC OR THE PUBLIC REGARDING THE APPLICATION GIVEN AT THIS APPEAL PROCEEDING.

THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS HAS A MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF 153.

WE HAVE SET UP AN OVERFLOW ROOM WITH SEATING.

WE'RE A LIVE BROADCAST.

THE MEETING CAN BE WATCHED AND IF YOU PREFER, IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUR MOBILE DEVICE.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS A DIFFERENT KIND OF MEETING THAN YOU'VE OBSERVED.

TRUST ME WHEN I SAY THERE'S A LOT OF FACTS THAT WE'RE WE'LL HAVE ARE CONSIDERING IT WAS ABOUT 1500 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT WAS ALL ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE HRB MEETINGS.

SO THAT'S THE, THIS APPEAL IS LIMITED.

AND I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO OUR TOWN ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE SOME FURTHER INSIGHT ABOUT THAT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PROCESS IS CLEAR.

I'VE DISTRIBUTED TO YOU THE LETTER THAT I DISTRIBUTED TO MR. JACK AND MS. THOBURN REGARDING THEIR PRESENTATIONS.

AND UNLIKE YOUR QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, WHERE YOU ARE THE FACT FINDERS IN AN APPEAL PROCEEDING, THE FACTS ARE ALL OUT THERE FOR YOU AND IT'S UP TO YOU TO DETERMINE THE THE FACTS ON APPEAL AS YOU INTERPRET THEM FROM THE THE MEETING, THE HEARINGS BELOW.

SO THERE IS NO NEW EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY.

YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE 1300 PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT EACH PARTY HAS 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT WHATEVER CASE THEY HAVE.

THE RECORD INCLUDES THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING, THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE INTRODUCED, THE REPORTS THAT WERE INTRODUCED, AND ALL OF THE TESTIMONY FROM FROM THE TRANSCRIPT. THE PETITIONERS HERE ARE 961 A1A LLC AND 997 A1A LLC.

AND THEY WILL PRESENT FIRST.

THEY ARE ENTITLED TO 30 MINUTES.

THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RESERVE ANY TIME FROM THAT 30 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL THAT THEY CHOOSE TO.

THE TOWN'S PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT WILL THEN PRESENT THEIR POSITION, ACTUALLY THE HRB'S POSITION, AND THEY WILL HAVE UP TO 30 MINUTES AS WELL.

THE TOWN, BECAUSE IT'S AN APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE TOWN DOES NOT HAVE REBUTTAL.

[00:05:01]

ESSENTIALLY THE ARGUMENTS ARE BASED ON THE RECORD BELOW.

SO WHAT I ANTICIPATE YOU WILL BE HEARING IS ARGUMENTS ABOUT HOW YOU SHOULD INTERPRET THE EVIDENCE OR THE FACTS THAT WERE PRESENTED BELOW.

AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATIONS, COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE PRESENTERS.

THAT IS THE SAME PROCESS THAT AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD FOLLOW, ALTHOUGH AN APPELLATE COURT WOULD ACTUALLY ASK YOU QUESTIONS DURING YOUR ARGUMENT.

ONCE YOU HAVE CONCLUDED ANY QUESTIONS, YOU'LL THEN TURN TO YOUR DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK A FINAL ORDER OUGHT TO BE.

YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY IN DOING SO, TO AFFIRM THE HRB'S ORDER.

YOU CAN MODIFY IT OR YOU CAN REJECT IT.

ALL OF THOSE ITEMS MUST BE BASED ON THE RECORD EVIDENCE ONCE YOU'VE CONCLUDED YOUR DELIBERATION HAD A MOTION SECOND AND A AND A VOTE.

WHAT IT IS. WHATEVER YOUR DECISION.

YOU HAVE REACHED IS UNDER THE CODE.

THEN I WOULD PREPARE A FINAL ORDER FOR COUNCIL.

I THINK PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE THAT IS TWO NIGHTS HAVE BEEN RESERVED FOR THIS.

HOPEFULLY YOU WILL GET THROUGH THINGS TONIGHT AND THEN THE FINAL WRITTEN ORDER CAN BE BROUGHT TO YOU.

I BELIEVE IT'S TUESDAY IS THE IS THE NEXT AND YOU CAN ESSENTIALLY RATIFY IT, MODIFY IT AS AS YOU DETERMINE IS APPROPRIATE.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AGAIN, JUST TO BE OVERLY CAUTIOUS IN MAKING SURE, WE'RE FOLLOWING PROCESS, AS WAS SAID, WE'RE BOUND BY WHAT'S IN THE RECORD.

WE EACH NEED TO LIMIT OUR QUESTIONS TO NOT ASKING FOR ANY NEW FACTS.

IT IS MY ROLE AS CHAIR TO KIND OF MONITOR THAT.

BUT IN THIS CASE, I'M ASKING FOR EACH ONE OF YOU TO BE EXTRA MINDFUL OF THAT.

AND THEN I'M ALSO GOING TO ASK OUR TOWN ATTORNEY TO POINT OUT IF HE THINKS THAT WE'RE GOING OFF, YOU KNOW, OFF ASKING QUESTIONS OR GETTING RESPONSES THAT SOMEONE MIGHT INTERPRET AS NEW FACTS.

THERE ARE NO NEW FACTS.

THE FACTS ARE IN THE 1500 PAGES.

SO IF YOU'LL DO THAT.

MR. BAIRD, I'D APPRECIATE IT.

AND CERTAINLY WITH THAT, I THINK WE BEGIN WITH THE PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT.

GOOD EVENING.

MAYOR KURETSKI, VICE MAYOR SCHNEIDER, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR GIVING UP ONE OF YOUR NIGHTS FOR A SPECIAL MEETING TO HEAR THIS APPEAL. I AM PHILLIPE JACK WITH JACK, HARRIS, RAYNER AND JONES REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT AND THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE. THE TWO COMPANIES MENTIONED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY 961 A-1-A, LLC AND 997 A-1-A LLC. BOTH HAVE THE SAME PRINCIPAL, CHARLES MODICA.

I AM GOING TO REQUEST THAT MY TIME THAT I DO NOT USE IN THE PRESENTATION THAT'S LEFT OVER OUT OF THE 30 MINUTES BE USED FOR REBUTTAL.

I ANTICIPATE IT TO BE AROUND 20 MINUTES OF DIRECT PRESENTATION WITH AROUND TEN MINUTES OF REBUTTAL.

AND I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT, AS ALREADY NOTED, THAT THE CODE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC PROCEDURE FOR THIS EVENT.

AND WE'RE ALL GOING OFF OF THE LETTER THAT THE TOWN ATTORNEY PASSED AROUND AND DISCUSSED.

SO THE TEAM MEMBERS ARE PREEMINENT ARCHEOLOGISTS HIRED BY THE APPLICANT'S BOB CARR, WHO'S HERE PRESENT TODAY WITH ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CONSERVANCY, INC.

THE APPLICANT ALSO HIRED A SECOND EXPERT, DR.

TIMOTHY PARSONS OF SEARCH.

HE'S THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND ALSO THE FLORIDA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER FROM

[00:10:02]

HE WAS HIRED TO KIND OF SECOND GUESS BOB CARR, WHO IS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS THE BEST IF ARCHEOLOGISTS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

ALSO ON THE TEAM WERE GEORGE ANTHEIL AND EMILY O'MAHONY OF TO GO AS OUR LAND PLANNERS SHOWING YOU THAT THE TEAM THAT WE ASSEMBLED THAT'S IN THE RECORD IS THE BEST WE COULD FIND.

THE OWNER IS APPEALING THE ORDER OF THE HRB THAT WAS RENDERED ON MARCH 13TH, 2023.

THAT ORDER DENIED THE OWNER'S APPLICATION OF A CERTIFICATE TO DIG PERMIT.

THE ORDER CONCLUDED THAT, QUOTE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ADEQUATELY PRESERVE THE HISTORICAL AND SIGNIFICANT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE 10.4 ACRES MUST BE PROTECTED FROM DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVED CLOSE QUOTE.

AND HE WENT ON TO SAY, QUOTE, THE PROTECTION OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE BEST SERVED BY THE OWNER'S PRESERVATION OF THE PROPERTY.

CLOSE QUOTE. SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.

THAT'S ALL IN THE RECORD.

MR. MODICA IS A RESIDENT OF OVER 30 YEARS OF THIS AREA, RAISED HIS FAMILY HERE.

HIS FAMILY ALL CAME BACK HERE.

THEY ALL HAVE COMPANIES HERE.

THEY ALL HAVE EMPLOYEES HERE.

MR. MODICA IS DEEPLY CONNECTED WITH THE COMMUNITY IN INNUMERABLE WAYS.

HE SUPPORTS A LOT OF THE CIVIC AND CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE AREA AND JUST TO NAME A FEW. THAT INCLUDES THE LOGGERHEAD MUSEUM, THE LIGHTHOUSE MUSEUM, THE LOXAHATCHEE GUILD, THE JUPITER INLET FOUNDATION, THE MALTZ THEATER, JUST TO NAME A FEW.

BY PROFESSION, MR. MODICA IS NOT A DEVELOPER.

HE'S AN EDUCATOR.

HE'S THE CHANCELLOR OF SAINT GEORGE UNIVERSITY.

AND HE'S ALSO BEEN CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD AND TRUSTEE OF A NUMBER OF OTHER SOUTH FLORIDA EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. BUT HIS PASSIONS, HIS PASSIONS LIE WITH HONORING THE HERITAGE OF THE LAND THAT HE OWNS AND WHERE HE DOES BUSINESS.

LOVE STREET IS A PRIME EXAMPLE.

ALL OF YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH LOVE STREET.

YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH HOW INFUSED THAT WHOLE PROJECT IS WITH THE HISTORY OF THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW, HE'S ALSO GOT A PASSION FOR RESTORING OLD HISTORIC VESSELS, WHICH YOU'LL SEE PLYING THE WATERS AROUND HERE IN THE INLET AND AND THE INTERCOASTAL. SO IT'S WITH THIS BACKGROUND, THE REASON WHY I BRING THIS UP, IT'S WITH THIS BACKGROUND THAT HE BROUGHT TO THIS PROPERTY FOR THE SPERRY PROJECT TO DEVELOP A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT ON THE PROPERTY WHERE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A CENTURY IT WOULD PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS AND ENJOYMENT.

BUT WITH PRESERVATION MUST COME ECONOMIC VITALITY TO SUPPORT PRESERVATION.

A BALANCE OF PRESERVING THE PAST AND SUCCEEDING IN THE PRESENT IS WHAT MR. MODICA WAS AFTER IN WHAT HE HAS PROPOSED FOR THE PROJECT.

SO LET'S TAKE YOU BACK FOR TO 2013 WHEN HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.

PRE-CLOSING DUE DILIGENCE WAS EXTENSIVE.

THERE WAS A REVIEW OF THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, THE CRA PLAN, THE TOWN'S MAP OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES AND ZONES THAT MAP THE ARCHEOLOGICAL MAP IDENTIFIED THIS PROPERTY AS A PROPERTY THAT'S IN A MODERATE POTENTIAL ARCHEOLOGICAL ZONE, NOT A HIGH POTENTIAL ARCHEOLOGICAL ZONE.

IT ALSO IDENTIFIED THE SUNNY SANDS SHELL MIDDEN AS A KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE ON THE PROPERTY.

AND I'LL JUST REMIND US THAT THOSE DESIGNATIONS DO NOT PROHIBIT DEVELOPMENT BUT REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT TO BE SUBJECT TO ARCHEOLOGICAL REVIEW. THE OTHER THING IN PRE-CLOSING THAT WAS REVIEWED WAS THE STATE MASTER FILE ON THIS SHELL MIDDEN EIGHT PB 7718 IS THE NUMBER OF THAT MASTER FILE.

THE 2004 FILING IN THE STATE MASTER FILE WAS THE

[00:15:07]

THAT MASTER FILE IS PART OF THE RECORD AND WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IN THE POSTER ON THE GROUND AND I PRESUME YOU CAN SEE IT ON YOUR SCREEN, IS A PAGE OUT OF THAT FILING.

THANK YOU, JOHN. THAT FILING INDICATES.

50 EXCAVATION SITES WERE UNDERTAKEN BY PAN AMERICAN CONSULTANTS WHO MADE THE FINDING AN ARCHEOLOGICAL GROUP.

YOU CAN SEE OUTLINED IN DOTTED WHITE.

THANK YOU. THE PRINCIPAL MOUND IDENTIFIED BY THAT CONSULTANT.

YOU WILL ALSO SEE THAT THAT CONSULTANT.

MADE A RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT TO BE.

WHAT WAS TO BE PRESERVED BASED ON THE 50 DIFFERENT EXCAVATIONS UNDERTAKEN.

AND WHAT HE SAID WAS THAT THE MOUNDED AREA OF THE MIDDEN WHERE HE DID NOT UNDERTAKE ANY EXCAVATION IS WHAT SHOULD BE PRESERVED.

THAT MOUNDED AREA IS WHAT I'M POINTING TO NOW WITH MY FINGER IS BASICALLY THE ESCARPMENT AREA WITHIN THE PRINCIPAL MOUND.

THAT IS WHAT IS REFERRED TO IN THE REPORT AS THE MOUNDED AREA.

SO THIS IS THE INFORMATION THAT MR. MOTIKA HAD IN MAKING THE DECISION TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, PRIOR TO CLOSING, THE DUE DILIGENCE TEAM MET TWICE WITH STAFF.

DAVID KEMP BRENDA ARNOLD, WHO AT THE TIME WAS THE STAFF PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRA, AND OUR OWN STEPHANIE THOBURN WERE AT THOSE MEETINGS.

AT THOSE MEETINGS, THE TOWN STAFF APPEARED TO BE RECEPTIVE TO THE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE, WITH DUE PRECAUTION, SUCH AS CONTINUOUS ON SITE ARCHEOLOGICAL OVERSIGHT.

SO TAKING ALL THAT INFORMATION TOGETHER, MR. MODICA ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT SOMEDAY ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE COULD BE ACHIEVED, THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE AS IDENTIFIED IN THE PLANS OF THE TOWN.

SO THE MAIN ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE ON THIS PROPERTY IS IS THAT MIDDEN? I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT IS MEANT WHEN THE TERM MIDDEN IS USED.

I'M GOING TO PARAPHRASE OUT OF THE ARCHEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA'S DEFINITION.

THIS IS IN THE RECORD THAT IT'S A DEPOSIT OF OCCUPATION, BYPRODUCTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY, SUCH AS SHELL, BONE OR DEBITAGE FOUND CLOSE TO A LIVING AREA.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.

IT IS EVIDENCE OF A LONG TERM HUMAN OCCUPATION BY OUR NATIVE AMERICANS, AND WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE PARTICIPATION OF THE NATIVE AMERICANS IN THE PROCESS.

BEFORE THE HISTORIC RESOURCE BOARD.

AND WE HOPE ALSO THAT THEY APPRECIATE THAT THE OWNER HAS SHOWN HIS BEST EFFORT TO BALANCE HIS DESIRE TO USE HIS PROPERTY WITH THE INTEREST OF THE SITE'S CULTURAL HISTORY.

SO THE MIDDEN OVER TIME, ESPECIALLY OVER THE PAST 100 YEARS, SINCE THE LATE 1880S, HAS BEEN DISTURBED MANY TIMES BY THE SOLICITOR RAILWAY, BY OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED ON THE SITE.

THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE EXCAVATIONS AND THEN, OF COURSE, FROM 1930 ALL THE WAY TO THE 60S AS THE SUNNY SANDS MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPED, THERE WERE MANY, MANY DISTURBANCES IN THE SITE.

SO KNOWING THAT THERE'S A MIDDEN THERE, BOB CARR WAS HIRED RIGHT FROM THE GET GO 2013.

NINE YEARS HE'S BEEN ON THE SITE GUIDING US THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF MULTIPLE PHASE ONE ANALYSIS.

WE'RE ALL PART OF THE RECORD, PHASE TWO ANALYSIS AND ALL THOSE ANALYSIS THAT HE UNDERTOOK, ALL THE EXCAVATIONS HE UNDERTOOK, ALL 286 OF THEM WERE DONE WITH COOPERATION AND WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH THE TOWN'S ARCHEOLOGIST.

[00:20:07]

AND WHAT DID THAT PROCESS TELL US? WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM THAT PROCESS? SO AFTER 336 SITES, THE FIRST 50 OF WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT, WHAT WE DIDN'T FIND IS PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT WE FOUND.

WE DIDN'T FIND A BURIAL SITE.

NOT ONE.

WE DIDN'T FIND A GRAVEYARD.

DID NOT FIND A CEMETERY.

DID NOT FIND A DOUBLE PLATFORM MOUND.

A RARE MOUND DESIGN.

WE DID NOT FIND ANY MONUMENTAL STRUCTURE.

NO CEREMONIAL STRUCTURE.

NO HIGH STATUS AREA OR HOLY SITE.

WHAT WE FOUND WAS A TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF A MIDDEN.

THAT IS NOT TO SAY IT'S NOT AN IMPORTANT THING.

SO IT IS A TEXTBOOK MIDDEN EVIDENCE OF AN AREA OF LONG TERM HUMAN OCCUPATION.

THE ONLY HUMAN REMAINS FOUND ON THE SITE WERE SEVEN TEETH AND A PATELLA OUT OF 336 EXCAVATIONS.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW.

NO ONE CAN TELL WHY THE 17TH AND ONE PATELLA WERE THERE.

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BURIAL SITE FOUND.

SO ARMED WITH THIS INFORMATION AS MR. MURDOCH WAS GOING ALONG, HE TERMINATED THE MOBILE HOME SITE THINKING, OKAY, WE DON'T NEED TO CONTINUE THIS FOREVER BECAUSE I CAN DEVELOP IT TO ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE.

I CAN OPEN IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC TO ENJOY.

THE APPLICANT HAD HIS DESIGN TEAM WORK WITH PUBLIC INPUT OVER MANY YEARS WITH MANY DESIGNS.

THERE WERE CHARRETTES, THERE WAS INTERVIEWS WITH NEIGHBORS, THERE WAS INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS AND COMMUNITY GROUPS.

THERE WERE VARIOUS INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH PAST AND PRESENT ELECTED OFFICIALS.

ALL OF THAT RESULTED IN A PLAN THAT.

WAS PRESENTED TO STAFF.

STAFF THEN TOOK THEIR SWIPES AT THAT PLAN.

THEY WHITTLED IT DOWN.

THEY WHITTLED IT DOWN. THEY WHITTLED IT DOWN.

WE ENDED UP WITH A SITE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCE BOARD.

ALL IN YOUR FILE, WHICH WAS MR. MODICA'S LAST ATTEMPT AT DESIGNING SOMETHING THAT WAS ECONOMICALLY VIABLE WITH THE PRESERVATION OF MUCH PROPERTY AS HE THOUGHT HE COULD.

THAT PLAN, ALONG WITH THE CERTIFICATE OF DIG PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT WITH CONDITIONS, WAS HIS BEST EFFORT.

THAT PLAN WAS NOT ENOUGH FOR TOWN STAFF.

TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDED BEYOND THAT ADDITIONAL PRESERVATION AREA AND AN ADDITIONAL TEN FOOT BUFFER AROUND THAT.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS BASICALLY RESULTED IN SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE FOR MY CLIENT TO PROCEED WITH. THAT SET OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WAS BEYOND ANYTHING THAT HAD EVER BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF OR EVER APPROVED BY THE HRB BOARD FOR ANY SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES.

AND THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT WERE DEVELOPED IN THE INLET VILLAGE THAT HAD INTACT MIDDEN ON THEM AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT TREATMENT.

IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THAT WAS DISCRIMINATORY, IT WAS INCONSISTENT, IT WAS UNEQUAL, IT WAS UNFAIR, IT WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS TREATMENT.

IT WAS DISPROPORTIONATE.

IT WAS NOT IN BALANCE WITH THE DUTIES TO BALANCE PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES WITH PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.

SO WE'RE HERE TODAY ASKING YOU TO OVERTURN THE HRB DECISION APPROVING THE CTD'S PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT THE OWNER RECOMMENDED.

THERE'S TWO GROUNDS THAT WE BELIEVE YOU HAVE TO OVERTURN THAT DECISION AND APPROVE THE OWNER'S APPLICATION FOR A CTD PERMIT.

ONE THAT THERE'S NO SUBSTANTIAL, COMPETENT EVIDENCE FOR THE HRB DECISION TO DENY THE CTD PERMIT.

[00:25:06]

THERE'S NO STAFF OR TOWN ARCHEOLOGIST RECOMMENDATION TO FULLY PRESERVE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY BURIAL SITE AND THE NATIVE AMERICANS CONCERNS ABOUT THERE BEING BURIAL SITES.

THERE'S NO FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT THAT.

THE SITE'S HISTORY OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE RECORD EVIDENCE OF OTHER MEANS TO PROTECT THE CULTURAL RESOURCES SUCH AS THE OWNER PROPOSED, INCLUDING SOME PRESERVATION, SOME CAPPING WITH SOIL, SOME EXCAVATION AND EXHIBITION OF ARTIFACTS UNCOVERED.

THE SECOND GROUND.

WE ASK THAT EXISTS FOR OVERTURNING THE DECISION.

DENYING THE CTD PERMIT IS THAT THE DECISION WAS NOT BASED ON LAW IN MULTIPLE RESPECTS.

FIRST OFF, THERE IS NOWHERE IN YOUR CODE DOES IT SAY THE HRB HAS THE DECISION TO DENY A CTD.

IT SAYS ONLY THAT THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE A CTD WITH CONDITIONS.

SECOND, THE HRB DECISION DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COMP PLAN.

THE FLU DESIGNATION.

THE ZONING DESIGNATION.

THE CRA PLAN.

THIRD POINT IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PRECEDENT OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WITH UNDISTURBED BIDS IN THIS AREA.

FOURTH, IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE VALUE OF PARTIAL PRESERVATION WITH PARTIAL PHASE THREE EXCAVATION AND RELOCATION OF ARTIFACTS. IT DIDN'T PROPERLY BALANCE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.

IT DIDN'T, QUOTE, COOPERATE AND COORDINATE CLOSE QUOTE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AS YOUR CODE PROVIDES.

AND IT DIDN'T, QUOTE, DO SO WITHOUT OR DIDN'T DO SO WITHOUT, QUOTE, WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY DELAYING DEVELOPMENT, CLOSE QUOTE.

IT'S BEEN NINE YEARS OF STUDY ON THIS.

SO WE'RE REQUESTING THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL OVERRULE THE HRB DECISION, DENYING THE CTD PERMIT AND ACCEPT THE OWNER'S PROPOSED CTD PERMIT WITH CONDITIONS.

AND I'LL REITERATE, THE STAFF'S PROPOSAL IS NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE.

THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OF MY DIRECT PRESENTATION.

BUT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT WHAT I BELIEVE ARE ERRORS OR LACK OF CLARITY IN THE RESPONSE FORMALLY FILED TO OUR APPELLATE BRIEF BY THE TOWN. SO THE TOWN'S RESPONSE, IF YOU REVIEW IT, IT IMPLIES THAT THIS STUDY, THE ONE THAT WAS FILED, DESIGNATED FOR 0.07 ACRES OF OF ARCHEOLOGICAL MOUND OR MIDDEN IN THE MASTER FILE, THIS REPORT DID NOT HAVE ANY ACREAGE REPRESENTATION OTHER THAN THE DOTTED AREA OF THE PRINCIPAL MOUND AS SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT, WHICH IS ABOUT AN ACRE AND A HALF.

AND OF THAT IT RECOMMENDED ONLY THE MOUNDED PORTION OF THE MIDDEN TO BE PRESERVED, WHICH AGAIN IS BASICALLY AROUND THE ESCARPMENT AREA.

THERE ARE 50 SHOVEL TESTS.

THERE WERE NO HUMAN REMAINS FOUND IN ANY OF THOSE 50 SHOVEL TESTS.

SECOND, THE RESPONSE INDICATED THAT SOME OF THE REMAINS FOUND WERE FOSSILIZED AND ALL THE REMAINS FOUND WERE FOUND BY BOB CARR. AND HE HAS SAID AND YOU CAN LOOK IN HIS REPORTS, NONE OF THEM WERE FOSSILIZED.

THIRD, THE RESPONSE REFERS TO SKELETAL REMAINS, WHICH ACTUALLY CREATES AN INACCURATE PERCEPTION.

A MORE ACCURATE PERCEPTION WOULD MORE ACCURATE TERM TO USE WOULD BE HUMAN REMAINS BECAUSE IT WAS SEVEN TEETH AND ONE TELEPHONE.

THIRD OR FOURTH.

THE RESPONSE REFERS TO CEREMONIAL SITES OR RITUAL SITES, AND THERE WERE NONE FOUND IN ANY OF THE EXCAVATIONS OTHER THAN THE NORMAL RITUALS THAT MIGHT EXIST FOR HUMAN OCCUPATION, WHICH WOULD BE THE EQUIVALENT AND I'LL USE BOB CARR'S TERMS OF SITTING AROUND A TABLE AND PRAYING BEFORE A MEAL.

SO NEXT, I WOULD SAY THAT THE THERE'S A STATEMENT IN THERE THAT THE MIDDEN AND THE LEICESTER RAILWAY ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER, WHICH IS NOT QUITE ACCURATE WAY TO SAY IT.

[00:30:06]

THE LAST CORRECTION I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS CHRIS DAVENPORT, THE COUNTY'S ARCHEOLOGIST, WAS QUOTED AS SAYING THAT THERE WERE ONLY THREE MIDDEN SITES IN THIS AREA. HE LEFT OUT AND I'M SURE IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL, BUT HE DID LEAVE OUT AND DID NOT MENTION A WELL KNOWN MIDDEN CALLED THE [INAUDIBLE] MIDDEN, WHICH WAS LOCATED ON THE JUPITER OXBOW SITE, WHICH HAS BEEN RECENTLY APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT.

IT HAD INTACT MIDDEN ON IT AND NO PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS WERE REQUESTED.

WITH THAT, I CONCLUDE MY COMMENTS AND RESERVE THE REST OF MY TIME FOR REBUTTAL.

THANK YOU. JUST BECAUSE YOUR PRAYERS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU DOESN'T MEAN I'M SORRY.

I NEED TO ASK EVERYBODY TO.

SO THERE'S SEVEN MINUTES AND SEVEN MINUTES 20S LEFT ON REBUTTAL AND TURN IT OVER TO STAFF.

GOOD EVENING. I'M STEPHANIE THOBURN.

I'M THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING.

I'M ALSO THE STAFF LIAISON TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD.

AND TONIGHT I'LL BE REPRESENTING THEM AS PART OF THEIR FINAL ORDER THAT IS BEING APPEALED TONIGHT FOR THE SUNNY SANDS MIDDEN, AS WELL AS THE JUPITER AND LAKE WORTH RAILWAY.

THOSE ARE THE TWO ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES THAT EXIST ON THIS TEN ACRE PROPERTY.

SO WHAT I'LL BE GOING THROUGH TODAY IS THE RECORD OF WHAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD.

SOME OF YOU, I THINK ONE OF YOU WERE THERE.

YOU MAY HAVE WATCHED IT.

OH, THAT'S RIGHT. IT WASN'T ON ON THE VIDEO, BUT I'LL BE GOING THROUGH THAT AND GOING THROUGH THE TOWN'S EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT THIS IS THE SAME PRESENTATION THAT WENT THAT WE WENT THROUGH.

BUT IT'LL GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND LEAD YOU TO WHY THE HRB MADE THE RECOMMENDATION, MADE THE FINAL ORDER AS THEY HAD PROPOSED.

MR. JACK CHARACTERIZED THIS THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE ON HERE IN PARTICULAR AS A TEXTBOOK MIDDEN.

BUT THROUGH THE POWERPOINT THAT I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE DEPOSITS OF LONG TERM, AS HE PUTS IT, LONG TERM OCCUPATION ARE MORE SPECIAL THAN A TEXTBOOK MIDDEN.

AND WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THAT.

AND I WANTED TO JUST SHOW YOU WHAT WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD.

SO THIS IS THE PROCESS FOR THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD THAT THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW IN THE CODE.

AND OF IT, THE MAIN ITEM IS, IS THIS SITE ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANT? THAT IS THE OVERARCHING THEME OF WHAT THE HRB WAS TO DETERMINE IS THIS SITE, IS THIS PROPERTY OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE? DO ARE THE TWO FEATURES ON THIS SITE, THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES, THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY AND THE SUNNY SANDS MOUND MIDDEN SIGNIFICANT? AND IF THEY'RE INSIGNIFICANT, THEN ISSUE A CERTIFICATE TO DIG.

IF THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT, THEN THERE ARE CONDITIONS RELATED TO ISSUING A CERTIFICATE TO DIG, SUCH AS PRESERVING THE THE SITE, REDESIGNING THE PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT.

THE CERTIFICATE TO DIG RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME FROM THE THE TOWN'S ARCHEOLOGIST WAS THAT THE SITE IS ARCHEOLOGICALLY SIGNIFICANT.

SO THAT IS WHAT WE PRESENTED TO THE TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD.

IN ADDITION, THIS SITE WAS ALSO KNOWN TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND SPECIAL BECAUSE UNLIKE OTHER SITES IN THE TOWN, THE SPERRY PROPERTY WAS SHOWN ON OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

THERE WERE ONLY TWO OF THEM SHOWN ON OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

SO THE OTHER ONE WAS THE LIGHTHOUSE.

AND SO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE ON THIS SLIDE, HAS A DIAMOND THAT SHOWS THAT IT'S HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT SITE MERITING PROTECTION.

SO THIS WAS NOTED ON OUR MAP.

AND THEN IN ADDITION THE SITE THE PROPERTY, THE SPERRY OR THE SUNNY SANDS PROPERTY WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN POLICY

[00:35:04]

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE LISTENING IN OR IN THE AUDIENCE, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS THE BASIS FOR OUR DEVELOPMENT AND LAW AND HOW WE SEE VISION, VISION OF THE VISION OF THE TOWN.

SO IT WAS SPECIFICALLY LOCATED, UNLIKE THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT MR. JACK POINTS OUT, THOSE PROPERTIES WERE NOT ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THEY WERE NOT LISTED SPECIFICALLY IN OUR COMP PLAN.

FURTHERMORE, IN OUR COMP PLAN, IT TALKS ABOUT IN POLICY 1.9.7, HOW WE'RE TO SAFEGUARD THE TOWN'S UNIQUE HISTORY AND HERITAGE AND FOSTER CIVIC PRIDE.

AND AND THEN ALSO, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THIS AND THIS WENT IN FRONT OF THE THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD IS THAT WHILE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SHOWING HOW THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO, THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT HAVE THE ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THEY HAVE CONCURRENT PLANS IN TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND THE ZONING ALLOWED TO BUILD THAT.

THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE, THE CURRENT LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY IS 8.6 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL HIGH AND 1.8 ACRES OF RIVERWALK FLEX AND THE ZONING IS 9.7 ACRES OF R-3 MULTIFAMILY AND 0.7 ACRES OF C-2 COMMERCIAL ZONING.

AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE AREA WHERE THE BLUE LINE BUILDING IS CURRENTLY TODAY.

SO WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE THE DISCUSSION AND THE PRESENTATION, THERE WAS A TWO DAY EVIDENTIARY HEARING WITH THE THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD. THE FIRST PERSON WE BROUGHT UP WAS OUR THEN CONSULTING ARCHEOLOGIST AND AND OUR NEW ONE, OUR NEW AND OLD ONE.

HE'S BACK. HE RESIGNED, BUT HE'S BACK.

JOE MANKOWSKI IS BACK WITH US AGAIN.

AND I'M AND HE ALSO HE REVIEWED THIS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WITH SIERRA DEVANEY WHO WAS WITH COMMONWEALTH.

AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS WAS TO GO OVER AND AND OUTLINE WHAT WAS IN THE THE WITH ARX AND BOB CARR'S REPORTS AND SURVEYS AND THEY REVIEWED THE FLORIDA MASTER SITE FILE, THE HISTORIC LAND SURVEYS AND OTHER HISTORIC DOCUMENTS. AND BOTH OF THE ARCHEOLOGISTS FROM BOTH SIDES, THE THE PROPERTY OWNER SIDE AND THE TOWN SIDE BOTH AGREED THAT THEY WERE WAS MR. JACK POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES? SO WE ALL AGREED TO THAT.

SO SUNNY SANDS WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER CRITERIA D AND CELESTIAL RAILWAY SITE WAS ELIGIBLE UNDER CRITERIA A AND SO THERE'S DIFFERENT CRITERIA AND IT GOES TO THIS THE NATIONAL GROUP FOR THAT.

BUT ALSO IT WAS IT WAS LOOKED AT IN THIS SLIDE.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE WHERE MISTER CARR LISTED THAT IN THE TWO CHECK BOXES.

IS IT POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALLY FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER? AND BOTH OF THOSE THINGS WERE WERE CHECKED.

SO WE ALL AGREED TO THAT.

IT WAS THAT SPECIAL IT SHOULD BE ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER.

SO THESE NEXT SLIDES ARE ALSO FROM THE THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARCHEOLOGIST BOB CARR.

AND THIS IS THE PHASE ONE CULTURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT.

SO THIS IS WHERE THEY DID SHOVEL TESTS AND AND THEY DID A PHASE ONE AND THEN THEY DID AN ADDENDUM.

SO THEY DID A FOLLOW UP TO THAT.

AND THE SHOVEL TESTS ARE SMALLER TESTS.

THEY'RE NOT QUITE AS BIG.

THEY'RE NOT QUITE AS DEEP.

BUT IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THE PURPOSE OF THIS WAS WE WANTED TO OUTLINE WHERE THE HUMAN REMAINS WERE FOUND.

AND WHY IS THAT SO IMPORTANT? BECAUSE ACCORDING TO OUR ARCHEOLOGIST WHO MADE TESTIMONY TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD, IF YOU FIND HUMAN REMAINS, THE LIKELIHOOD OF FINDING MORE HUMAN REMAINS IS HIGH.

SO THIS IS IN THE PHASE ONE AND THE PHASE ONE ADDENDUM.

YOU CAN SEE THEM WITH THE BLUE STARS AND THE TRIANGLES, THE ADDENDUM FOUND ONE AS WELL AS THERE WAS THE TRIANGLE IS THE REPORTED ONE THAT THAT WAS NOTED IN THE 90S DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE OF THE SWIMMING POOL.

SHE ALSO WENT ON OUR ARCHEOLOGISTS ALSO WENT ON TO TALK ABOUT THE PHASE TWO

[00:40:06]

AND THIS WAS MORE IN DEPTH.

SO THE PHASE ONE IS IS A GENERAL OVERVIEW.

AND THEN THEN YOU GO INTO THE PHASE TWO, WHICH IS DEEPER AND BIGGER AND AND THEY GO INTO MORE DETAIL.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, YOU ALSO SEE THE BLUE STARS WHICH SHOW THE HUMAN REMAINS.

AND WE HIGHLIGHTED THOSE FOR YOU ON THIS ON THIS PLAN.

BUT THE ADDENDUM WHICH YOU NOTE IS ON THE ON THE FAR RIGHT SIDE IS AN ADDITIONAL FOUR UNIT TESTS THAT WERE DONE AFTER THE ORIGINAL PHASE TWO.

AND WHAT'S WHAT'S INTERESTING ABOUT THIS SLIDE IS THAT THE PHASE TWO WAS DONE BECAUSE WE WERE DISCUSSING WHAT SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING NOW IS WHERE'S THE LINE WHERE, WHAT'S WHERE IS THE SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACTS AND WHERE ARE THEY INTACT? SO THE APPLICANT WANTED WE WANTED TO KNOW.

SO WE THEY SAID, WELL, THERE'S ALL THESE STRUCTURES IN PLACE.

SO LET'S SEE IF IT'S BEEN DISTURBED WHERE ALL THESE STRUCTURES ARE.

THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THE ADDENDUM, THE FOUR UNIT TESTS.

BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THEY FOUND, AND THIS IS WHAT THE ARCHEOLOGISTS SAID.

SO IN THE PHASE TWO, WHICH IS THE PICTURE ON THE MAP, ON THE LEFT, THEY DID 23 TEST UNITS WITH ROUGHLY 3500 PIECES OF CERAMICS.

OF THE 23 UNITS IN THE FOUR TEST UNITS, THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, THEY FOUND 1300.

SO THE ASSEMBLAGE AND THE DENSITY OF THE CERAMICS FOUND IN THAT AREA, THAT IS WITHIN.

AND I DIDN'T DESCRIBE THIS I'M SORRY, THE THE DOTTED BLUE LINE, THE DOTTED BLUE LINE THAT LOOKS LIKE A MITT.

THAT'S THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE THAT'S DEFINED BY MR. CARR. IN HIS LATEST PHASE TWO, HE DEFINES THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE AS THAT BEING THE 4.07 ACRES.

SO MORE THAN DOUBLE THE AMOUNT WAS FOUND IN THOSE FOUR UNITS UNDERNEATH THOSE STRUCTURES THAN WAS FOUND IN THE PREVIOUS 23.

AND I JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT.

OF PARTICULAR NOTE, JUST BECAUSE I LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS IS UNIT 27 AND 28, WHICH IS THE FURTHEST ONES TO THE RIGHT, HAD THE GREATEST NUMBER OF CERAMICS. AND THEN UNIT 26, WHICH IS THE ONE TO THE TOP LEFT, THAT'S WHERE THEY FOUND THE BASALT HAMMER AND AX HEAD. AND I WAS THERE.

WE WERE THERE WHEN THEY FOUND IT.

IT WAS REALLY EXCITING.

SO THE REASON WHY THAT'S SO IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE IT SHOWS TRADE AND IT AND BASALT ISN'T AROUND HERE. IT'S FROM GEORGIA TO NEW YORK.

SO IT WASN'T IT'S NOT NATIVE STONE.

SO WE TOOK THOSE THE REVIEW OF THOSE THOSE MAPS.

AND WE AND WE CREATED THIS MAP HERE WHICH SHOWS THE ASSEMBLAGE OF INTACT DEPOSITS. WE PREPARED THIS AND THEN OUR ARCHEOLOGISTS REVIEWED IT FOR CONSISTENCY AND ACCURACY.

SO WHAT THIS SHOWS IS THE BLUE MITT, THE 4.07 ACRES, WHICH IS THE DOTTED LINE ON THE OUTSIDE.

AND THEN I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE ORANGE AREA, THAT TOP MIDDLE PART, THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE.

AND THAT'S ON PURPOSE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DIGGING, NO UNIT TESTS THAT OCCURRED THERE BECAUSE IT WAS A GIVEN.

AND THAT WAS AGREED TO BY OUR ARCHEOLOGIST JOE MANKOWSKI AND BOB CARR WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY LAID OUT THE THE PLAN IN ORDER TO DO THE UNIT TEST, THEY LAID IT OUT AND SAID THAT IS A KNOWN AREA.

WE DON'T NEED TO DISTURB THAT.

SO LET'S SO THE OTHER PIECES AROUND IT AND THAT'S ALSO YOU KNOW PROBABLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE HAVEN'T DISCOVERED EVERYTHING IS BECAUSE WE'VE LEFT THE PRIMARY PART UP TOP WITHOUT ANY MAJOR EXCAVATIONS.

SO THE COMPILATION OF THE PHASE TWO AND THE ADDENDUM EXCLUDES THE PHASE ONE SHOVEL TEST AND THE TOWN CREATED THE MAP, WHICH WAS REVIEWED THE YELLOW AND WITH RED DASHES SHOWS THE INTACT MIDDENS AND THE STAR SHOW SOIL BORINGS THAT ALSO FOUND INTACT DEPOSITS. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU CAN SEE WHERE WHERE THE DENSITY OF INTACT DEPOSITS IS

[00:45:05]

SO THIS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WENT TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD AND AND WAS FROM OUR CONSULTING ARCHEOLOGY LIST.

YOU KNOW, THERE WAS THERE WAS AND THIS IS WHAT LED THE PREVIOUS DRAWINGS IS WHAT LED TO THIS RECOMMENDATION.

THIS ULTIMATELY WAS NOT WHAT THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD WAS, THEIR FINAL ACTION, BUT I WANTED TO SHOW IT TO YOU SO YOU UNDERSTOOD THE RECORD.

ONE OF THE PARTICULAR THINGS TO NOTE WAS THAT WE WERE WE WERE LOOKING THE TOWN WAS LOOKING TO PROTECT ANY PRESERVE AREAS WITH A TEN FOOT BUFFER.

AND THE TOWN ENGINEER TESTIFIED THAT WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING OF 2.5FT TO ONE FEET WAS NOT ADEQUATE GIVING, GIVEN THAT THERE WERE ISSUES WITH SOIL CAVING IN AND ANGLE OF REPOSE.

HE ALSO HAD CONCERNS WITH HEAVY EQUIPMENT BEING USED AND VIBRATORY COMPACTION BEING USED THAT COULD ALSO DAMAGE ANY ABUTTING ABUTTING ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES, AS WELL AS THE PROPOSAL IN THIS IN THIS PICTURE, YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVE SOME RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ON TOP OF THE MOUND YOU WOULD NEED TO PUT IN FILL AND YOU WOULD NEED TO VIBRATE THAT.

AND THEN HE ALSO SAID THAT ANY LIGHTING WHICH THEY WERE PROPOSING AS PART OF THIS WOULD REQUIRE TWO FEET OF FILL IN ORDER TO PUT THE ELECTRICAL IN IN IN LINE, WHICH WOULD ALSO REQUIRE VIBRATION AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND WHICH IS WHY THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT BUILDING ON TOP OF THE MOUND.

SO MOVING ON FROM TO THE JUPITER AND LAKE WORTH RAILWAY, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY, I'VE GOT TWO DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SHOWN TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD, BOTH PREPARED BY HC BOB CARR'S GROUP AND THE ONE ON THE LEFT SHOWS THE ESTIMATED ROUTE AND ESTIMATED ALIGNMENT OF THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY, WHEREAS THE ONE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE THE ALIGNMENT BASED ON THE 1891 PLAT THAT WAS DONE DURING THE TIME OF THAT THE RAILWAY WAS IN EXISTENCE.

SO IF YOU IF YOU'RE GOING BACK REMEMBERING YOUR HISTORY, THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY WAS IN WAS IN BUSINESS FROM 1895 TO 1891. I MEAN, I'M SORRY, 1889.

I READ THAT WRONG, 1889 AND OPERATED TO 1895.

SO WHEN THIS WAS WHEN THE PLAT WAS DONE IN 1891, THE RAILWAY EXISTED.

SO THE TOWN WAS LOOKING AT NOT JUST THE HISTORIC LOCATION.

OR AN ESTIMATED LOCATION.

WE WANTED A MORE EXACT LOCATION.

AND SO AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, EVEN IN THE IN THE PHASE TWO CRASH REPORT, THE TERMINUS HAD A WHARF, A FREIGHT AND STATION HOUSE, A RUNAROUND TRACK AND A STORAGE TRACK.

AND THEN IF YOU READ THE THE THE 5000 YEARS OF THE LOXAHATCHEE THAT JOSH LAWLER HELPED WRITE, IT SAYS IN HERE, ONCE THE NEW CELESTIAL RAILROAD WHARF WAS IN BUSINESS, IT BECAME A GATHERING PLACE FOR EVERYONE IN TOWN.

PEOPLE TIED UP ROWBOATS, KIDS SWAM, MEN FISHED, AND JUST ABOUT EVERY VISITOR, INCLUDING SEMINOLES, HAD TO HAVE HIS PHOTO TAKEN IN THE LIGHTHOUSE LOOMING IN THE BACKGROUND BECAUSE OF THE TERMINUS OF CELESTIAL RAILROAD, A SERIES OF STRUCTURES, HOTELS, SALOONS, STEAMERS LOADED AND LOADED PASSENGERS AND FREIGHT WITH PINEAPPLES, COCONUTS, TURTLES, FISH.

AND IT WAS THAT. IT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE TOWN AS WE KNOW IT TODAY.

SO. AFTER THAT, WE WENT INTO A SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS OF HOW OUR SURVEY OR HOW OUR CONSULTING SURVEYOR GOT TO THE ESTIMATE.

INSTEAD OF THE ESTIMATED LOCATION, THE LOCATION BASED ON A DOCUMENT, THE 1891 PLAT.

AND THAT'S WHAT THESE THESE DRAWINGS SHOW HERE IN THESE SLIDES.

BUT ULTIMATELY WHAT CAME ABOUT WAS THAT THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD IN THEIR DISCUSSIONS SAID, YOU KNOW, WE COULD USE THESE PICTURES TO DETERMINE AND TRIANGULATE THE ACTUAL LOCATION WITH THE 1891 PLAT AND THEN USE THEM AS A MEANS BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE LIGHTHOUSE, WHICH STILL

[00:50:05]

SO THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR COMMENTS.

THEN WE HAD THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER AND URBAN DESIGNER WHO OVERSEES WHO OVERSEES HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WITH THE COUNTY.

COME AND SPEAK TO US.

BRIAN DAVIS. HE SPOKE TO US ABOUT WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT AND WHAT IS THE CONTEXT? WHY IS THIS AREA SIGNIFICANT ARCHEOLOGICALLY AND WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT FROM PREHISTORY AND HISTORY? AND IT WASN'T JUST RELATED TO THE TOWN OF JUPITER.

IT WAS RELATED TO THE CRITICAL LANDFORM THAT IS THERE THAT STILL EXISTS TODAY.

THIS LANDFORM WAS CREATED, AND THIS IS HIS WORDS AT THE CONFLUENCE OF THE JUPITER INLET, THE LOXAHATCHEE RIVER AND THE INDIAN RIVER.

AND FOR THE PAST 500 YEARS OF RECORDED HISTORY, EVERY PERSON WHO EVER SAW JUPITER SAW THIS MOUND IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM. AND SO TO PRESERVE IT IS CRITICAL.

HE TALKED ABOUT HOW PALM BEACH COUNTY WAS SETTLED.

AND IT WASN'T JUST PALM JUPITER, IT WAS PALM BEACH COUNTY.

AND HE TALKED ABOUT IT WAS BECAUSE OF OUR NAVIGABLE WATERS.

YOU COME FROM INDIAN RIVER, YOU COULDN'T ALWAYS GO OUT THE INLET BECAUSE IT WOULD OPEN AND SHUT, BUT YOU COULD COME AROUND AND TAKE THE LOXAHATCHEE AND THEN TAKE THE JUPITER RIVER BECAUSE THERE WERE NAVIGABLE WATERS.

BUT THEN WHEN THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD CAME, IT OPENED THE AREA SOUTH UP AND YOU WERE ABLE TO TRAVEL SOUTH BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD TAKE YOUR BOAT AND YOU WOULD HOP ON YOUR TRANSFER AT THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY, WHICH IS ON THIS SITE.

AND IT WAS THE TRANSPORTATION HUB OF THE TIME AND THE DAY.

SO WE WERE LOOKING AT BEING ACCURATE AND HE SUPPORTED THAT.

HE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE ACCURATE LOCATION AND NOT JUST ESTIMATED.

AND THEN WE KNOW WE WERE LOOKING AT PICTURES OF THROUGH TIME AND HOW THE CONTEXT OF THIS.

FURTHERMORE, WE WERE LOOKING AT THE CONTEXT OF THIS SITE WITH WITH THE THE CONTEXT OF THE AREA.

AND SO WHEN WHEN CHRIS DAVENPORT, THE PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHEOLOGIST, CAME TO SPEAK TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD, HE SPOKE ABOUT THIS SITE, THE SUNNY SANDS SITE AND THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY, BUT IN PARTICULAR THE SUNNY SANDS SITES BEING PART OF THE JUPITER INLET COMPLEX.

AND THIS IS THIS IS COMES FROM THE ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORT THAT SAYS THAT THERE WAS 13 SITES IN THIS AREA KNOWN AS THE JUPITER INLET COMPLEX.

AND IT WAS A IT WAS A SMALL LITTLE TOWN JUST LIKE WE ARE.

WELL, WE WERE SMALL, BUT IT WAS A SERIES OF NEIGHBORHOODS, A SERIES OF VILLAGES.

AND THERE WERE 13 OF THEM.

MOST OF THEM ARE GONE.

WHAT HE SAID AND I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS FOR MR. JACK, IS THAT MOST OF THEM WERE DESTROYED, BUT THREE REMAINED RELATIVELY INTACT.

HE DID MENTION THE CHURCH MOUND AND HE DID MENTION THE THE HARBOR VIEW MOUND, WHICH IS THE THE THE ORANGE, WHICH IS ON SAWFISH BAY PARK AND THE CHURCH MOUND.

THE THING THAT HE MENTIONED ABOUT THOSE IS THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER IN THE SAME STATE AND ARE NOT AS INTACT AS WHAT WE HAVE IN THESE THREE OTHER LOCATIONS, WHICH IS JUPITER INLET ONE, WHICH IS THE DUBOIS SITE, JUPITER INLET TWO, WHICH IS THE LIGHTHOUSE SITE, AND THEN THE SUNNY SAND SITE, THOSE ARE THE THREE RELATIVELY INTACT SITES THAT ARE PART OF THE JUPITER INLET COMPLEX.

AND WHY WERE THEY SO IMPORTANT TO THE PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHEOLOGISTS? BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT THE OKEECHOBEE THE THE EAST OKEECHOBEE AREA.

AND IT'S AN AREA THAT MR. CARR DEFINED.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE IS, BUT HE DEFINED IT IN 1984, AND THERE STILL ISN'T A LOT ABOUT IT.

BUT IT'S CHARACTERIZED BY UNDECORATED, PREHISTORIC CERAMICS, DIFFERENT KINDS OF MOUNDS AND BURIAL PRACTICES WHICH ARE NOT UNDERSTOOD.

AND THERE ISN'T A LOT OF INFORMATION.

SO HE HE TALKED ABOUT THIS AS BEING IMPORTANT.

AND AND YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT WHAT WAS UNIQUE AND WHAT THEY FOUND ON THE SITE.

SOME OF THOSE THINGS INCLUDED CARBONIZED BOTANICALS.

[00:55:03]

AND THAT HE FOUND AND THE FACT THAT THEY FOUND BASALT GREENSTONE TOOLS.

WHICH SHOWS TRADE AGAIN AND THEN FIBER TEMPERED POTTERY SHARDS WHICH DATE BACK 3000 BC.

SO 5000 YEARS, THE TIME OF THE PYRAMIDS PEOPLE WERE LIVING HERE, INDIGENOUS PEOPLE WERE LIVING ON THIS SITE.

AND HE ALSO FINALIZED THE DISCUSSION BY SAYING THAT JUST BECAUSE THERE WERE STRUCTURES ON TOP OF THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE DOES NOT DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE OR SIGNIFICANCE OF IT.

SO THIS WAS THE FINAL SLIDE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD, AND IT BASICALLY WENT OVER THE WHAT WAS IN OUR COMP PLAN, WHAT WAS ON OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT HAVE THE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THAT THIS AREA WAS THE BEGINNING OF OF THE TOWN AND PART OF AND IT WAS DESIGNATED THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD WAS DESIGNATED ON A PLAT. I WANT TO GET INTO A LITTLE BIT WITH MY REMAINING TIME ON WHY THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD CAME TO THE DECISION. THEY FOUND IT.

THEY FOUND THEIR DECISION WAS DETERMINED BY A NUMBER OF THINGS.

ONE, THEY HEARD PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THEIR DELIBERATION, AND THEY HEARD FROM LONGTIME MAYOR KAREN GOLONKA ON WHY THE SITE SHOULD BE SAVED. THEY ALSO HEARD FROM THE SEMINOLE TRIBE, MARTHA, TOMMY AND CHARLIE OSCEOLA, THE SOVEREIGN NATION OF THE MICCOSUKEE, BETTY OSCEOLA AND THE AND THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT.

ROBERT ROSA AND SHERIDAN MURPHY.

THEY WERE NOT IN FAVOR OF DISTURBING THEIR ANCESTORS.

AND THEY WANTED TO THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS RESPECT FOR THE CULTURE OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.

THEY ALSO NOTED THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT SHOWED AND MADE COMMENT WERE AGAINST IMPACTING THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES.

THOSE WERE ON THE TWO EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS THAT OCCURRED IN NOVEMBER.

AND THEN IN DECEMBER, THEY DECIDED WE'RE GOING TO POSTPONE AND WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AFTER EIGHT WEEKS.

AND THEN WHEN THEY DID IN FEBRUARY, THEY CAME BACK IN FEBRUARY.

THEY LOOKED AT WHAT THEIR DECISION WAS AND THEY DETERMINED THAT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO BE ARCHEOLOGICALLY ARCHEOLOGICALLY AND HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT. AND IT WAS BASED ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THE MAJORITY OF SPEAKERS, THE UNIQUE ARTIFACTS THAT VERIFIED HABITATION, SUBSISTENCE AND MORTUARY, BUT WAS NOT ABOUT PRESERVING WHAT IS IN THE GROUND BUT THE CONTEXT OF THE PLACE.

THEY WANTED THE TO MAINTAIN THE INTERPRETIVE VALUE OF THE AREA.

THEY WANTED TO PRESERVE THE VIEWSCAPE OF THE MOUND, THE FOUR ACRE MOUND FROM THE MOUND TO THE WATER SO THAT YOU DID NOT DIMINISH AND CONFLICT WITH THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT SITE.

SO IF YOU RECALL, THE APPLICANT HAD STRUCTURES AND RECREATIONAL STRUCTURES ALONG THE WATERFRONT AND THEY WANTED TO PRESERVE THAT VIEW SCAPE FROM THE MOUND UP TO THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON.

SO THAT WAS THAT'S THE TERMINAL VISTA.

THIS SITE IS THE TERMINAL VISTA OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON.

THEY ALSO WANTED TO PROTECT THE STEEP SLOPE OR ESCARPMENT THAT RISES 6 TO 8FT UPWARDS FROM THE WATER SIDE.

THEY TALKED ABOUT LIVING SHORELINES AND THEY ALSO AND TALKED THROUGHOUT ABOUT PROVIDING REAL PUBLIC ACCESS, NOT ACCESS THROUGH BUYING, GOING TO THE RESTAURANT OR STAYING AT THE HOTEL, BUT PROVIDING PUBLIC ACCESS THROUGH A VISITOR CENTER OR HISTORICAL PRESERVE.

I HAVE NO REBUTTAL.

GOOD LUCK TO THE APPLICANT.

YOU HAD SEVEN MINUTES.

SEVEN MINUTES.

20S REMAINING FOR REBUTTAL.

THERE'S THERE'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, CONSISTENT AGREEMENT THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SITE.

[01:00:08]

IT'S NOT THE ONLY CONSIDERATION UNDER LAW.

IT'S NOT THE ONLY CONSIDERATION UNDER A SENSE OF FAIRNESS, A BALANCING OF THE INTERESTS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO MADE THIS HEARING POSSIBLE BY ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY AND TERMINATING THE USE.

BALANCING THAT INTEREST AGAINST THE VERY SIGNIFICANT CULTURAL RESOURCES THAT EXIST HERE.

SO I JUST THINK WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THAT VERY REAL INTEREST AS WELL.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. COMING TO COUNCIL.

I'LL FIRST GO ALONG THE LINE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS.

NO QUESTIONS. COUNCILOR DELANEY.

THIS IS THE ONLY TIME.

OH, I GUESS.

QUESTION FOR STAFF.

WHAT'S COMING UP, STEPHANIE? JUST THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHOVEL, SHOVEL EXCAVATION AND BORING SITES. WHAT'S THE DEPTH DIFFERENCE IN.

I DON'T I DON'T KNOW.

THE BORINGS ARE ARE JUST THEY WERE DOING SURVEYS SO THE BORINGS ARE MORE OF A CORE THAT GOES DOWN INTO I DON'T KNOW THE DEPTH I CAN'T BUT I KNOW THAT THE SOIL BORINGS ARE SMALLER IN IN AREA BUT NOT NECESSARILY MASS SHOVEL TESTS ARE BIGGER AND THEN UNIT TESTS ARE THE BIGGEST.

SO A UNIT TEST IS YOU COULD LAY DOWN IN A UNIT TEST.

AND I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW, HOW HOW FAR BELOW THE GRADE DO THEY GO DOWN? I'M NOT I'M NOT POSITIVE.

I CAN'T I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THAT WAS IT FOR NOW. COUNCILOR SUNDSTROM.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

SO ONE IS AND THIS MAY BE FOR STAFF OR ATTORNEY, BUT CAN YOU DEFINE PROPERTY AND SITE AS USED IN THE JUPITER TOWN CODE SPECIFICALLY SECTION 27 2443E3.

THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROPERTY AND SITE AND IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? TWO, FOUR, FOUR, THREE.

E THREE.

IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? CORRECT.

OKAY. SO OR FOR EXAMPLE, E ONE WHERE IT SAYS FOR APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE TO DIG OWNERS OF PARCELS OR OF PROPERTIES WHICH INCLUDE A KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE OR OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES AND THEN CONTINUES ON E, B OR E, THREE B TO REDESIGN THE DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMMODATE PRESERVATION OF ALL OR A PORTION OF A SITE CONTAINING THE SIGNIFICANT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

WHEN IT SAYS SITE THERE, DOES IT MEAN THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES DESCRIBED WHEN YOU WERE GIVING YOUR PRESENTATION OR DOES IT MEAN PROPERTY? IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? SO SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE THAT YOU REFERENCED IN E! ONE. OKAY.

SO THAT'S THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE.

AND THEN IN THE ITEM ON REDESIGN, REDESIGN THE DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMMODATE PRESERVATION OF ALL OR A PORTION OF A SITE THAT CONTAINING SITE CONTAINING THE SIGNIFICANT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

SO THAT WOULD MEAN A PORTION DESIGN THE SITE, REDESIGN THE SITE PLAN, THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, REDESIGN THE DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PRESERVATION OF ALL OR A PORTION O OF THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE, I'M SORRY, CONTAINING SIGNIFICANT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

SO IT IS THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE, A PORTION OF A ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN WHAT?

[01:05:01]

I HAVE IT WRITTEN HERE.

I JUST WANT TO BE CORRECT.

IT'S 8.6 ACRES.

I'M SORRY. THE LAND USE IS 8.6 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL HIGH AND THEN 1.8 ACRES OF RIVERWALK FLEX.

AND THEN THE ZONING IS 9.7 ACRES OF R THREE MULTIFAMILY AND 0.7 ACRES OF C TWO COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

AND THAT'S ALONG THE FRONT WHERE BLUE LINE IS THE C TWO COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

OKAY. IF YOU CAN PULL UP ONE OF THE MAPS FROM YOUR PRESENTATION AND I FORGET WHICH ONE IT IS, BUT THERE'S A MAP WITH SHOVEL TESTS IN THE 1997 PROPERTY.

SO I KNOW THE TWO ARE COMBINED.

IT MIGHT BE THAT ONE.

YES, I BELIEVE IT'S THAT ONE.

OKAY, SO ACCORDING TO PAPA MAPS, THE SITE BOUNDARY WOULD END.

THERE'S NO THERE'S NO SETBACK ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE 9.97 PARCEL.

SO T FIVE, SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT WOULD NOT BELONG TO THE 9.97 PARCEL STREET.

ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR I BELIEVE ARE IN THE 9.97 PARCEL.

CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT FOR ME OR IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING? IT IT'S HARD TO TELL.

AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT SITE HAS A LOT OF NON-CONFORMITIES.

IT'S IT'S AN OLDER SITE.

IT WAS USED TO BE A RESTAURANT, BUT IT'S HARD TO TELL WITH WITH THAT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THAT'S A GOOD HELP.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HOW CLOSE THE BOUNDARY IS.

THE BOUNDARY IS NOW IT'S NOT EXACT, BUT IT'S REALLY CLOSE.

UNDERSTOOD. SO JUST TO KEEP IT GOING.

SO THOSE FOUR SHOVEL TESTS WERE ON THAT PROPERTY, THE DEFINITION IT SAYS, I'M SORRY, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE OTHER MAP? THAT ONE? YES. I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE VISUALS.

SO IT SAYS SHOVEL TEST AND IT HAS A YELLOW CIRCLE ON THOSE SHOVEL TESTS WITH INTACT ARCHEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS WITH YELLOW.

SO ST1, TWO, THREE AND FOUR DO NOT HAVE YELLOW.

BUT PER THE DEFINITIONS, I MEAN, WOULD IT COULD THERE BE REDEPOSITED OR DISTURBED, YOU KNOW, DISTURBED FINDINGS? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, IF ANYTHING, WAS FOUND ON THAT PARCEL.

SO SO THIS THIS MAP IS SHOWING FROM THE PHASE TWO AND PHASE TWO ADDENDUM WHERE THE PHASE ONE DOESN'T SHOW ANY SHOVEL TESTS.

CORRECT. AND THEN THIS ONE DOESN'T SHOW ANY YELLOW OR INTACT DEPOSITS ON THE 9.97 PARCEL.

BUT IT WOULDN'T TALK ABOUT DISTURBED DEPOSIT.

THE DEFINITION ONLY ALLOWS FOR INTACT.

IS THAT RIGHT? THAT AND I LEARNED THIS FROM THE LAST HEARING WE HAD BUT TYPICALLY RED MEANS THEY ARE THEY'RE POSITIVE FOR FOR FOR DEPOSITS NOT NECESSARILY INTACT OR REDEPOSITED BUT THEY FOUND THEY WERE POSITIVE FOR FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL REMAINS.

SO RED MEANS SO YELLOW WITH THE CIRCLE MEANS INTACT IN THIS IN THIS.

SO IT MEANS INTACT.

AND THEY FOUND THAT IT WAS POSITIVE.

SO THE RED IS IT'S PROBABLY REDEPOSITED, BUT THEY FOUND ARCHEOLOGICAL DEPOSITS.

DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE? BUT THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF THE KEY.

IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T CLARIFY SAYS SHOVEL OR CONFIRM.

I'VE ONLY BEEN LOOKING AT THESE A LITTLE BIT LONGER.

THAT'S AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM THE ARCHEOLOGISTS IS THEY USE STANDARD CODING FOR FOR THESE.

SO LIKE THIS ONE BECAUSE IT SAYS RED IS POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS ONE AND IT'S HARD TO READ BECAUSE I CAN'T POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST WITH WITH ONLY WITH ONLY

[01:10:06]

SO THAT'S WHAT THE RED MEANS ON ON THIS ONE.

BUT IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE 997.

SO IT'S ON THIS ONE.

IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT THERE'S INTACT OR REDEPOSITED ARCHEOLOGICAL MATERIALS.

OKAY. OKAY.

AND SORRY, JUST TO CONFIRM THE.

YOU HAD SPOKEN ABOUT THE SHURIK SHURIK MOUND.

YEAH. OKAY. AND YOU WERE SAYING THAT WAS NOT INTACT OR IT IT HAD BEEN DISTURBED OR REDEPOSITED? YES. OKAY.

SO SO, YES.

I MEAN, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S IT'S THE WHOLE SITE IS 0.7 ACRES.

THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS 0.7 ACRES.

AND IT'S AND IT'S AND THE ABOVE GROUND MOUNDS WERE ALL FOUND TO BE REDEPOSITED.

OKAY. SO IT'S NOT THE SAME.

OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT THAT MIDDEN WAS THAT ON THAT A PROJECT WE LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO? WAS IT THE KEMP PROPERTY? YES. SO IT'S THE BLUE ONE IN THE PICTURE.

I JUST BROUGHT UP IS THE CHAIRMAN.

I THINK YOU NEED TO CONTAIN YOUR COMMENTS AND YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HERE.

THE OTHER PROPERTY IS NOT BEFORE YOU.

THANK YOU. COUNCILOR MAY.

I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY.

I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

SO WITH THAT, UNLESS THERE'S ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL CLOSE THE QUESTION PERIOD.

AND MOVING THEN TO DELIBERATIONS, IF I MAY, JUST TO GIVE A PERSPECTIVE, AND THEN I'LL GO DOWN THE LINE.

I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE EFFORTS MADE TO ENABLE ALL OF US TO UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT IS ON THE SITE.

I'M APPRECIATIVE OF THE STAFF, APPRECIATIVE OF EVERYBODY.

I THINK WHAT STRIKES ME IS THAT IN LOOKING AT THE RECORD, I DIDN'T ATTEND THE HRB MEETINGS, BUT I DID REVIEW THE RECORD AS BEST AS I CAN IN ITS ENTIRETY.

I THINK THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED.

ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THERE WAS SO MUCH CONSENSUS AGREEMENT AMONG THE EXPERTS PROVIDING TESTIMONY REALLY WAS QUITE COMPELLING TO ME.

I LIKEN WHAT WAS UNABLE TO HAPPEN BY THIS PROCESS IS NEVER BEFORE HAS PIECEMEAL INFORMATION BEEN BROUGHT TOGETHER AT 1 IN 1 PLACE AT ONE TIME.

SO WE TALK ABOUT WHAT WAS KNOWN BEFORE, BUT THIS PROCESS THAT THE BOARD WENT THROUGH ENABLED CREDIBLE PERSPECTIVE TO COME TO OUR AWARENESS.

ALL OF US AND PROBABLY EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM AND WAY BEYOND.

IT'S MY OPINION, SUBJECT TO OUR DELIBERATIONS.

BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE'S A BASIS THAT THE SUNNI SANDS SHELL MIDDEN SITE, ALL 4.07 ACRES SHOULD BE PROTECTED AS A PRESERVATION AREA, ALONG WITH THE TEN FOOT WIDE BUFFER TO ENSURE NO DISTURBANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND FUTURE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.

I ALSO BELIEVE THAT TO ME, THE FACTS SUPPORT THE PRESERVATION OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY CORRIDOR SITE.

SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THOSE TWO SITES IN THEIR ENTIRETY SHOULD BE PRESERVED.

I'LL LISTEN TO MY COLLEAGUES BEFORE MAKING THE FINAL DETERMINATION, BUT IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME THAT THERE'S A BASIS TO PRECLUDE ALLOWING A CERTIFICATE TO DIG ON THE OTHER PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILOR SCHNEIDER.

SO TO ME, WE'RE HERE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF WHETHER THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL, COMPETENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IN THE RECORD, TO SUPPORT THE HBS DECISION,

[01:15:05]

AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SUCH EVIDENCE.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS DECISION WAS MADE BY A HIGHLY SPECIALIZED BOARD AND AS SET FORTH IN THE TOWN CODE, SO SPECIALIZED, IN FACT, THAT MOST OF US WOULD NOT EVEN BE QUALIFIED TO SIT ON THE HRB.

AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE REVIEW THEIR DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

THE HRB IS CHARGED WITH A PRESERVATION AND CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE TOWN.

CONTRARY TO WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS SAID, THE HRB HAS NO AUTHORITY TO BALANCE ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION WITH DEVELOPMENT.

THAT IS NOT IN THEIR REMIT.

IT IS NOT PART OF CODE.

IT IS NOT WHAT THEIR EXPERTISE IS THERE FOR.

UM, EVEN THOUGH HRB HAS A LOT OF EXPERTISE ON ITS BOARD, EVERYTHING IT DOES HAS TO BE RUN BY A QUALIFIED ARCHEOLOGIST, SO ALL OF THEIR DECISIONS ARE BACKSTOPPED BY EVEN MORE EXPERTISE.

SO HRB WAS FACED WITH A FUNDAMENTAL DECISION OF WHETHER TO PRESERVE AN AREA OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE THAT HAS STOOD FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS OR TO ALLOW THE FIRST MODERN, INTENSE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA.

AND AS I SAID BEFORE, I BELIEVE THERE WAS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THAT DECISION.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SUNNY SANDS PROPERTY HAS BEEN WELL KNOWN FOR YEARS, ANECDOTALLY AND IS DOCUMENTED BY THE STATE IN 1992.

UM, AND IN THE RECORD.

AND I ATTENDED ALL OF THE HEARINGS, THERE WAS TESTIMONY BY SEVERAL OF THE ARCHEOLOGISTS THAT REALLY PUT INTO PERSPECTIVE WHY THE WHOLE TEN ACRES IS IMPORTANT.

SO CHRISTIAN DAVENPORT WAS THE PALM BEACH COUNTY ARCHEOLOGICAL ARCHEOLOGIST STATED THAT IT'S ONE OF THE THE LEAST UNDERSTOOD AREAS IN ALL OF SOUTH FLORIDA.

IT NEEDS TO BE CONTINUED TO BE EXPLORED.

IT IS ONE OF THREE REMAINING SITES TO HAVE EXISTED AROUND AROUND JUPITER.

AND IT'S REALLY AN AREA THAT IS UNLIKE ANY OTHER.

AND BECAUSE IT'S SO LITTLE UNDERSTOOD, WE CANNOT KNOW FOR FOR CERTAIN WHETHER ANY ONE PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T CONTAIN ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT IS SO DIFFERENT.

AND IN THAT CASE, TO ME, IT BOLSTERS THE HBS DECISION NOT TO SEPARATE AND SEGREGATE OUT ANY ONE ONE PARCEL.

UM, BRIAN DAVIS, THE PALM BEACH COUNTY PRINCIPAL PLANNER, HE STATED THAT IT'S CRITICAL TO PRESERVE THIS SITE, THAT IT'S THE ESSENCE OF JUPITER ALL IN ONE PLACE, AND IT IS THE MOST ICONIC SITE IN TERMS OF IMPORTANCE AS THE LIGHTHOUSE.

UM, AND THAT WHAT WE ALSO SEE FROM THE EVIDENCE IS THAT THERE ARE ARCHEOLOGICAL FINDS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE, THE ENTIRE SITE.

UM, I ALSO THINK WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE, AS STAFF POINTED OUT, ABOUT THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF THIS, THIS AREA AND WHY THE WHOLE THING SHOULD BE PRESERVED. THERE IS TESTIMONY BY REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SEMINOLES, MICCOSUKEE AND THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT ON THE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS SITE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING THIS PROPERTY OUT OF RESPECT FOR AND IN HONOR OF THEIR ANCESTORS.

AND THAT IS NOT A SMALL THING.

SO BASED ON THIS, THE HRB WAS WAS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A MECHANISM TO PROTECT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. AND AGAIN, THAT IS SRB'S MISSION IS TO PROTECT, NOT TO BALANCE.

SO IN LOOKING AT THAT AND HAVING BEEN SUPPORTED BY ARCHEOLOGISTS TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD, THEY HAD TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHAT'S THE BEST, BEST WAY TO PROCEED.

AND BECAUSE THIS SITE CANNOT REALLY BE SEGREGATED, THEY DETERMINED THAT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO ANYTHING TO ADEQUATELY PRESERVE THE SITE WITHOUT SAVING THE WHOLE THE WHOLE PARCEL.

AND THAT TOWN CODE TALKS ABOUT IF IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ADEQUATELY PRESERVE SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT ANY ANY SIGNIFICANT ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE FOUND AT THE SITE THAT HRB THEN HAS IN ITS IN ITS DISPOSAL, IN ITS PART OF ITS PURVIEW TO DECIDE THAT, AS HRB DID, THAT PERHAPS THE BEST THING WOULD BE FOR.

FOR A BUYER TO BE FOUND TO PRESERVE THE SITE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS AS A WHOLE AND NOT JUST AS INDIVIDUAL PIECE PARTS, WE SEE THAT THERE'S SIGNIFICANT HISTORY THAT'S

[01:20:08]

IT HOLDS SIGNIFICANT IMPORTANCE TO THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE.

AND OUT OF RESPECT, I THINK WE OWE WE OWE THEM THAT AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY, THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED.

AND TO ME, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SAY WHY ONE PORTION OF THIS SHOULD BE HIVED OFF WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S THERE.

AND IT ALSO THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF THE AREA IS THAT IT WAS AN AREA OF IMPORTANCE WITH A LOT OF ACTIVITY.

AND SO THE WHOLE THING SHOULD BE PRESERVED, PRESERVED.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE VISTAS AND BEING IT FOR INTERPRETIVE SITES.

AND SO I AGREE WITH HRB AND THEIR ANALYSIS AND I THINK THERE'S PLENTY OF EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THEIR DECISION.

ALL GOOD COMMENTS ON EITHER SIDE OF ME HERE.

I FROM THE GET GO, I'VE ALWAYS AGREED WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF THE FOUR PLUS ACRES TO PRESERVE THE MIDDENS AND THE BUFFER AROUND THAT AROUND THEM.

ALSO THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD.

I ADDITIONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE AREA BETWEEN THE THE MIDDENS OR THE OR THE STAFF'S BORDER TO THE LOOKING TO THE NORTH, DOWN TO THE WATER TO BE PRESERVED. ALSO, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY BOARDS THEY DID DOWN THERE, BUT I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE THE VIEW FROM THE WATERFRONT.

AS YOU KNOW, SO MANY OF THE ANCESTORS SAW THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST LIVING HERE, BOATING, TRADING, ALL THAT.

I THINK THAT'S A HUGE ASPECT OF THIS PRESERVATION.

UM, I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE APPLICANT'S ASK FOR THE IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE EXHIBIT B CHART OR MAP TO THE TO THE WEST OR THE LEFT OF THAT SORT OF THAT BULGE.

UM, I'M NOT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S REALLY SURE WHAT'S THERE, BUT I HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT THAT ALSO BEING EXCAVATED.

SO THAT'S SORT OF WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW.

BUT I'LL LISTEN TO MY COLLEAGUES AND SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO ADD TO THAT.

SO FIRST I WANT TO SAY I AM SO GRATEFUL FOR ALL OF THE ENGAGEMENT, FOR ALL THE COMMENTS, FOR ALL THE EMAILS.

I THINK WE ARE FOSTERING CIVIC PRIDE.

I ALSO WANT TO SAY HOW GRATEFUL I AM FOR THE HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD FOR CHOOSING AN ALTERNATIVE PATH.

I DO SUSPECT COUNCIL THIS COUNCIL MAY CHOOSE AN ALTERNATIVE PATH AS WELL.

THEY WERE GIVEN TWO CHOICES TWO VERSIONS OF APPLICATIONS OF CERTIFICATES TO DIG, AND GIVEN THEIR MISSION, THEY CHOSE, YOU KNOW, AND THEIR FOCUS HAD TO BE ON THOSE ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND PRESERVING THEM.

AND THEY DID NOT FEEL THAT EITHER VERSION DID ENOUGH.

AND SO I'M GRATEFUL FOR THAT BECAUSE WE YOU KNOW, WE WE CAN SPEAK TO THAT TONIGHT AS WELL.

UM, I DO I DO SUPPORT THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE OF THE 4.07.

I DO SUPPORT THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY.

I DO.

I'M ENCOURAGED BY THE AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT.

THERE'S NOT ALWAYS THIS LEVEL OF AGREEMENT ON THE BOUNDARIES AND RESOURCES THERE.

I DID HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE VIEWPOINT AND THE VIEW CORRIDOR ONLY BECAUSE OF MR. DAVENPORT'S TALKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERPRETING A SITE AND HOW THAT IS A VALID ARCHEOLOGICAL TECHNIQUE.

AND SO THAT VIEW CORRIDOR IS A BIG PART OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE SITE AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SITE.

SO THAT IS AN OPEN QUESTION FOR ME.

HOWEVER, I DO THINK THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THOSE TWO ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES.

UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS IN CONTEXT, THE HRB HAS ONLY BEEN AROUND SINCE THE YEAR 2000.

THE HISTORIC THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT WAS 1966.

SUNNY SANDS EXISTED BEFORE THAT.

SO THE MOBILE HOME PARK EXISTED BEFORE THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT, AND HRB CAME MUCH LATER.

I LOOKED AT MR. DAVENPORT'S TESTIMONY ABOUT THE EAST OKEECHOBEE AREA AND HOW LITTLE IS KNOWN ABOUT IT, AND I THINK THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE TO THIS, AND IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT REASON TO PRESERVE IN PLACE NOT TO EXCAVATE THAT SITE.

THAT WAS ALSO THE TESTIMONY GIVEN BY THE NATIVE AMERICANS THAT SPOKE.

THEY WANTED THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES PRESERVED.

[01:25:01]

MR. DAVENPORT ALSO SAID IT WAS DISCOVERED BY MR. CARR IN 1985 AND WASN'T ACCEPTED BY ACADEMIA UNTIL 18 YEARS AFTER THAT.

IF THAT'S ACCURATE, THAT MEANS THAT THIS AREA, EAST OKEECHOBEE AREA, WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED IN ACADEMIA UNTIL AFTER THE HRB WAS ESTABLISHED.

THAT IS INCREDIBLE TO ME.

SO WE ARE EVOLVING IN OUR KNOWLEDGE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND HOW TO DEAL WITH IT.

THIS SITE HAS BEEN PRESERVED IN A WAY BY SUNNY SANDS.

I WONDER WHAT WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IF SOMETHING HAD, YOU KNOW, IF WE WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE IN THE YEAR 1999 BEFORE A LOCAL ORDINANCE TO HELP PROTECT THE SITE.

SO A LOT OF THIS IS TIMING.

I'M GRATEFUL FOR THIS TIMING AND FOR WHAT WE CAN DO.

I DO THINK WE HAVE TO WORK WITH THE EVIDENCE AND WE HAVE TO WORK WITH THE FACTS AND WHAT'S GIVEN IN THE MAPS AND THE SHOVEL TESTS.

AND BASED ON THAT BODY OF EVIDENCE, I.

THINK THE STRONGEST SUPPORT IS FOR THE 4.07 AND THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD.

I THINK THE RIGHT OF WAY I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE THOSE IN PLACE.

AND IT IS AN OPEN QUESTION ANY MORE THAN THAT.

BUT THAT'S MY POSITION RIGHT NOW.

ELSE FOR ME. YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH ALL THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SO FAR AND, YOU KNOW, THE PRESERVATION OF, YOU KNOW, THE THE THE SHELL MIDDEN SITE, THE CELESTIAL RAILROAD SITE.

BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A BIG DISSERVICE TO BUILD ANYWHERE ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT JUST IT WOULD TAKE AWAY THE HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE OF THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS, IN MY OPINION.

SO I'VE BEEN SUPPORTIVE ALL ALONG OF PRESERVING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AS HISTORIC AND NOT NOT APPROVING ANY DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR THE WHOLE AREA, YOU KNOW, JUST WITH ALL THE TESTIMONY THAT'S BEEN MADE AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN FOUND, I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO ANYONE BEING HERE, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY EVEN STRETCHING ACROSS THE ROAD, IS IS VERY SIGNIFICANT.

AND THERE'S PROBABLY STUFF IN THE AREA AS WELL.

SO I CAN'T SPEAK FOR, YOU KNOW, PRIOR COUNCILS AND THINGS THAT WERE APPROVED FOR THAT ENTIRE AREA TO BE DEVELOPED, YOU KNOW, AROUND IT.

BUT I JUST IT WOULDN'T I WOULDN'T BE COMFORTABLE ALLOWING FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD FROM THE RESIDENTS, THE PEOPLE WHO PUT US IN OUR SEATS, THEY WANT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY SAVED.

SO IT CAN BE SUMMED UP WITH THE SIGN THAT'S IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM THAT SAYS SAVE ALL SUBMISSIONS.

IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT, YOU HAVE A FOLLOW ON COMMENT.

IS THAT MAY I HAVE A FOLLOW ON COMMENT? SURE. ALL RIGHT. THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OR NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PRESERVING CERTAIN PARTS OF PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY.

BUT REALLY, THE ANALYSIS IS THAT HRB DEEMED THE ENTIRE PARCEL TO BE SIGNIFICANT, AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT ANY PART OF IT IS INSIGNIFICANT.

SO IN ORDER TO CARVE OFF SOMETHING, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY HRB AND THE ARCHEOLOGISTS AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO TESTIMONY TESTIFIED WERE INCORRECT IN SAYING THAT A PORTION WAS SIGNIFICANT.

AND TO ME, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT ANY PORTION OF THIS ENTIRE PARCEL IS INSIGNIFICANT.

CAN YOU HEAR? YOU KNOW, WE OBVIOUSLY NEED TO DELIBERATE UNTIL WE REACH A CERTAINTY THAT WE HAVE AT LEAST AN ALIGNMENT, AT LEAST OF THREE, IF NOT FIVE, WHICH IS ALWAYS IDEAL.

BUT THERE COULD BE SOME MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT AT LEAST MY POSITION AND POSSIBLY OTHERS.

TO ME, AND I DON'T I'M NOT FAULTFINDING WITH WHAT THE HRB DECIDED.

BUT THIS IS HERE ON AN APPEAL AND I'M BOUND TO LOOK AND MAKE A DETERMINATION OF WHAT FACTS WOULD DRIVE DEFINING WHAT NEEDED TO BE PRESERVED.

AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER FOLLOW UP IS WHERE WOULD YOU NEED A CERTIFICATE TO DIG IF YOU'RE NOT PRESERVING IT? SO SO I AGREE THAT I STRUGGLE WITH SAYING THAT THERE MAY NOT BE FINDINGS ON OTHER PIECES OF PROPERTY,

[01:30:06]

I DO ADD TO THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF HAVING A TEN FOOT BUFFER, THAT BEING THAT IMPORTANT TO PRESERVE IT.

YOU CAN'T PRESERVE IT IF YOU ALLOW, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION OR MAINTENANCE UP TO IT.

AND THEN SECONDLY, SO THAT'S WHY I DEFINE THE TWO SITES.

BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT, OKAY, YOU JUST GO AND DO WHAT YOU WANT AND THE REST OF THE SITE THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE THE CRITERIA OF A CERTIFICATE TO DIG.

SO YOU'RE YOU'RE USING CAUTION IN DOING THAT.

I ALSO IN MY MIND, IF WE WERE TO DETERMINE IN MY MIND THAT WE'RE TO PRESERVE THE WHOLE SITE, WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ON IT. AND SO I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO CERTAINLY ASSURE THE PRESERVATION OF THOSE TWO VERY IMPORTANT ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES.

I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE THE VIEW SHED AND ALL THAT.

I STRUGGLE WITH THAT.

WHETHER THAT REALLY FALLS INTO SAYING THE SITE, IT'S PART OF THE PRESERVATION SITE BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE HANDCUFFING OUR RIGHT TO ENABLE THAT TO BE DEVELOPED FOR A PUBLIC AREA. SO THAT'S WHY I'M REALLY DEFINING I AM DISTINGUISHING PRESERVATION FROM THE BALANCE OF THE SITE. AND THAT'S SO AGAIN, NOT GETTING INTO DEBATE.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M EXPLAINING THAT, THAT I'M NOT DISCOUNTING THAT THERE'S OTHER VALUE IN THE REST OF THE SITE AND THAT THAT CAN POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, WE COULD DO SOMETHING ON THAT.

BUT THIS IS A DECISION.

WHAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE IS ON THE ECB'S FINAL ORDER, DO WE AFFIRM IT? DO WE MODIFY IT OR DO WE DO WE REJECT IT? AND SO I'M SUGGESTING I'M STILL IN THE MINDSET OF I CAN'T AFFIRM IT.

I DON'T WANT TO REJECT IT, MODIFY IT.

I DON'T SUPPORT MODIFICATION OF THE ECB'S DECISION.

I THINK THE HRB WAS VERY DILIGENT IN GOING THROUGH AND THERE WAS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE TO UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ENTIRE SITE, NOT JUST ARCHEOLOGICALLY, BUT CULTURALLY AND HISTORICALLY.

TO ALLOW ANYTHING ELSE I THINK IS DISRESPECTFUL TO THE NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES WHO CAME AND SPOKE TO US.

YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO SAY, AS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN, I TOTALLY SYMPATHIZE.

THAT CERTAINLY WOULD NOT WANT SOMEONE TO BE BUILDING A A DEVELOPMENT ON TOP OF A BLACK GRAVEYARD OR SOMETHING THAT WAS IMPORTANT. AND THIS IS NO DIFFERENT.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE SENSITIVE TO THAT.

THIS IS BEYOND GOES BEYOND JUST THE THE PIECES THAT ARE FOUND IN THE GROUND.

THIS IS ABOUT A PLACE AND WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS PLACE AND A PLACE THAT IS IMPORTANT TO A LARGE SEGMENT OF THIS COMMUNITY.

AND I THINK IT HAS TO BE TREATED THAT WAY.

AND I THINK TO DO ANYTHING ELSE TO TRY TO SECOND GUESS THE HRB AND THEIR EXPERTISE IS NOT APPROPRIATE HERE.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO GO DOWN THE LINE TO ASK.

TWO OF US HAVE MADE OUR COMMENTS TO HOPEFULLY GEL WHERE WE STAND AS THE MAJORITY.

WHO WANTS TO GO NEXT? I'LL YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH HRB.

I THINK WE SHOULD WE SHOULD AFFIRM THEIR DECISION TO PRESERVE THE ENTIRE THE ENTIRE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

YOU. I SUPPORT MODIFYING TO PRESERVE THE 4.07 AND THE CELESTIAL RAILWAY AND THE BUFFER BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE IN HAND.

YEAH. AND I MEAN, I AGREE WITH THAT.

I HAVE RESERVATIONS FOR OTHER SECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY, BUT I GUESS FOR NOW, I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO STICK WITH THAT REPRESENTATION OF THE MODIFICATION.

I'M HEARING A CONSENSUS OF THREE, BUT DOES THAT ALSO INCLUDE THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE IT IN THE MODIFICATION WOULD BE THAT THERE'D BE CERTIFICATE TO DIG REQUIREMENTS FOR THE REST OF THE PROPERTY? ABSOLUTELY. BUT THAT WAS THAT WAS ALREADY DONE.

[01:35:04]

ALL OF THE THE ENTIRE PROCESS WAS ALREADY COMPLETED.

OKAY. WHAT WHAT DO YOU WHAT DO YOU HOPE TO UNCOVER BY DOING IT AGAIN? THERE'S ONE APPROACH WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE AND WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE IRB HAD THEY DECIDED THAT THE WHOLE SITE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PRESERVED.

THEY WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT.

AND IN THAT CASE THEY WOULD HAVE PROVIDED GUIDANCE ON HOW YOU WOULD GO ABOUT IF YOU WERE TO DO WORK ON THE SITE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE THE SCOPE OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF.

RIGHT. BUT THEY SAID YOU COULDN'T THAT YOU COULD NOT SEPARATE THIS OUT.

AND THIS IS WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

WELL, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE YOU FINDING EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT SEGREGATING OUT A PORTION? BECAUSE TO DO THAT, YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT THAT ALL THE ARCHEOLOGISTS WHO TESTIFIED WERE INCORRECT, THAT THE SHOVEL TEST THAT SHOWED SOME HUMAN MARINE REMAINS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE AREA WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT.

THE STATEMENTS THAT SAID THAT WE DON'T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT THIS AREA, WE CANNOT BE SURE WHAT IS IN CERTAIN AREAS.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO SAY THAT, OKAY, WELL, WE'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE A TAKE A GUESS AND SAY THAT THERE'S NOTHING THERE.

WHEN THE HRB HAS ALREADY DETERMINED THAT YOU CAN'T SEPARATE A CERTAIN PORTION, I DON'T SEE THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SAY THAT ANY PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY IS INSIGNIFICANT. OKAY.

WE HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION.

YES, WE DO. YES, WE DO.

I'VE STATED I DON'T SEE FACTS THAT I CAN SUPPORT THE THAT TO PRESERVE THE WHOLE SITE IN ITS ENTIRETY FROM ANY DEVELOPMENT ON IT.

AND I'VE INDICATED MY POSITION.

I SORRY I JUST WANTED.

WE CANNOT ASK QUESTIONS.

WE'RE ONLY DELIBERATING.

IS THAT RIGHT? OKAY.

BASED ON. YEAH, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.

I CAN'T. YOUR CONSTITUENTS ARE STOKING SOME REAL.

OKAY. DO YOU.

DO WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? HAVE COMPASSION. GUYS, PLEASE.

CAN'T PROTECT THE FARMS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT WITH DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S THE WHOLE. MAYOR DISHONOR.

YOU'RE GOING TO JUST COMPLETELY DISHONOR YOU DO YOUR GRADES.

YOU DO HAVE A SECOND DAY, UM, SCHEDULED.

I CAN BRING BACK FOR YOU A SUGGESTED ORDER THAT YOU CAN DISCUSS.

AND IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY, THEN A MOTION COULD BE MADE ON THAT ORDER.

UM, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DIRECT ME TO DO, I THINK IN THIS CASE THAT'S A LOGICAL ACTION TONIGHT AND PROTECT WHAT THEY FOUND FOR AROUND 4.7 AND ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WHEN MR. MODICA. THAT SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS UNACCEPTABLE.

PLEASE KNOW YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER.

I DON'T CARE. OKAY.

PLEASE. YOU HAVE SPOKEN.

OUR ATTORNEY MADE A SUGGESTION THAT I WOULD SUPPORT 71 AND MAKE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.

BUT BASICALLY, HE SAID WE HAD A SECOND HEARING SCHEDULED.

HE COULD COME BACK WITH A THE MODIFIED FINAL ORDER THAT WE WOULD ISSUE AND LOOK AT IT AND MAKE A AND MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION OF WHAT WE SEE WRITTEN UP.

SO I JUST WANT TO SAY, DATE IS NOT ENOUGH.

ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY.

I NEED TO SPEAK.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ON THIS POINT, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON MY POSITION.

THE STAFF VERSION FOR HRB WAS 2.78 ACRES OF THE 4.072 PRESERVE.

THE APPLICANT WAS I BELIEVE, 2.09.

THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

SO I AM SO GRATEFUL THAT THE HRB DID NOT ACCEPT THOSE TWO VERSIONS.

THEY DID NOT FEEL THAT THAT WAS ENOUGH TO PRESERVE THE ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE.

THE 4.07 IS A 46% INCREASE OVER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I WOULD SUPPORT IS TO PRESERVE THAT IN PLACE, BUILD SO IT'S NOT VIABLE FOR HIM.

I THINK WE YEAH, THAT'S WHY THEY CAME TO SAVING THE WHOLE TEN.

I JUST I THINK THAT YOU'RE JUST WE'RE JUST I'M JUST REALLY.

I CANNOT BELIEVE MY COLLEAGUES ARE COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT HERE.

I'M JUST. I'M ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED.

ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED.

IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SUCH A LONG TIME THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS OF THIS PROPERTY.

AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO FINALLY BEING ABLE TO PRESERVE IT, EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO TO NOT DO THAT.

[01:40:01]

I MEAN, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR THE PEOPLE? YEAH. LISTEN TO US, GUYS.

MORE OF US THAN YOU.

WE'RE OVER HERE.

CAN'T SEEM TO BOTHER.

I'M SORRY. I DON'T.

WE CAN'T TALK ON MICROPHONE.

YOU JUST SHUT UP. YOU GOT ARREST ALL OF US, MAN.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED TO FIGURE OUT? JUST SHOVEL TEST YOUR ANCESTORS.

YOU CAN'T LET US GO DIG THEM UP.

CAN I PUT THEM IN THE MUSEUM? CAN I PUT UP A BUILDING ON TOP OF A CEMETERY OR A MAUSOLEUM? GO DIG UP THE JUPITER.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU CAN.

OH, MAN.

UNFORTUNATELY, YOU'RE NOT OF MY CULTURE.

APPARENTLY, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF OUR AREAS.

BUT YOU HAVE A NON-INDIAN WHO APPARENTLY KNOWS MORE ABOUT MY CULTURE THAN I DO.

AND OUR CEREMONIES ENCOMPASS THE ENTIRE AREAS, NOT JUST THAT MOUND.

YOU'RE GOING TO FIND OTHER THINGS.

THAT'S RIGHT. HE KNOWS IT. HE WANTS IT FOR HIS MUSEUM.

ALL RIGHT. SO REAL, REAL QUICK.

REAL QUICK. I JUST WANT TO ASK IF WE CAN EXERCISE DECORUM, THE MEETING WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS DELIBERATED OUT AND DO IT PROPERLY.

I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS MAKING YOUR COMMENTS, BUT THIS IS RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO DELIBERATE.

OKAY? I TRUST ME, I HAVE NATIVE AMERICAN HISTORY, TOO.

I'M FULLY SUPPORTIVE OF PRESERVING THE SITE.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET THERE.

JUST LET US TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

OKAY? THANK YOU.

WE ALL ARE. SO MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING TO COME BACK WITH TO THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING AND HAVE THE TOWN ATTORNEY WRITE UP A PROPOSAL THAT WE WILL THE MODIFIED ORDER AND MODIFIED THE ORDER ORDER THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER.

I DON'T I DON'T I DON'T SUPPORT A MODIFIED ORDER.

IS THAT A MOTION? I DON'T SUPPORT ONE EITHER.

THAT'S A MOTION. SECOND, THERE'S A MOTION IN A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR. SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? NO, NO.

THE MOTION PASSES 3 TO 2.

THE NEXT MEETING WHEN WE RETURN IS, WHAT? JULY 27TH.

WHAT DATE IS THE SECOND ONE? JULY 25TH.

WHAT IS IT? ON TUESDAY THE 25TH.

THE 25TH? WHAT DAY IS IT? JULY 25TH.

JULY 25TH.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.