Make No Bones About It: Archeology is a Good Thing

(This is a re-post of an item related to archeology. Commissioner Mulvehill, who acts like the tenants at the beach are her clients, has pulled another "bone" from the pile that points to not disturbing the existing building - this time due to possible pre-historic remains on the beach property. This issue last raised its head in August and September 2006. The existence of any sorts of archeological resources at the beach does not mean we can't go forward with any plan - remodeling or demolition/new structure - we just need to adjust the procedure to ensure protection of those resources. Commissioner Mulvehill simply found another way to say "no." The post begins by addressing the possibility of remains on the Sunset property and later addresses the beach.

This was written while I was serving as Chairman of the PZHRPB)

Re-posted on 9/01/09 - Since so much mention was made of the dune being an archeological resource, I thought it would be good to re-post this.

This is in answer to the following post in another thread on LakeWorthTalk.com:

"What about the historic building on the sunset property Wes ? What about the archaeological consideration there and at the beach both of which were described in letters to you from the county's archaeologist... When will you speak to these issues here in writing? You have answered none of these issues here."

In Christian Davenport's (PBC Archeologist) letter of June 5, 2006 to Mark Drautz regarding the Sunset Drive Property, he states the following:

"Since the property is located in the City of Lake Worth, I have no official jurisdiction in this matter." Further, "Since the City of Lake Worth is a Certified Local Government it must have means to account for cultural resources whether they are historic or pre-historic in nature." And, "Review of the map (of Known Archeological Sites and Conservation Areas)indicates no previously identified archeological or historic resources are known to exist on the property."

However, he goes on to say, "...the property should be considered an area of high potential for containing Native American cultural remains (artifacts and a remote (underlined) possibility of human skeleton remains)." And then he lists five factors that lead him to this determination.

He also indicates that the City may designate the farmstead as historic if it chooses.

He recommended that the City require the developer to hire a Cultural Resource Management firm to perform a phase one resource assessment prior to the beginning of construction. (A recommendation similar to that was made in Robert Carr's letter dated October 3, 2005).

One of the more important final points he makes is the following:"...even if cultural resources are found on the property it does not mean the project could not proceed. The property should meet one of more of the criteria set forth by the National Register of Historic Places to determine the significance of a historic resource. If none of these criteria are met, than (then) the property should be allowed to be developed without further delay. Even if one or more of the criteria are met the property can still be developed. All that will be required is the adverse effects to the historic resources be properly mitigated prior to development."

Note the date of the above letter. On November 15, 2005, the City and the petitioner/owner of the property entered into an annexation agreement. Item #9 specifically addresses what happens if archeological artifacts are discovered, the stopping of construction and notification of applicable agencies.

Remember - this is only the annexation agreement. They still have to apply for a special use permit for town homes (if that is what the choose to build) and receive site plan and community appearance approval. With that review will come conditions, if the project is approved. I can assure you that I will urge the Board to track the language in Mr. Davenport's letter (stronger than the annexation agreement) as a condition of approval.

We can also take action to designate the site as a landmark and if that is done - any change to the landmark - including demolition or relocation - would have to be approved as a Certificate of Appropriateness. I would encourage you to read the designation procedure in the code, one of the more important portions appears below:

23.27.04.02.Parties eligible to apply for designation. Applications for designation shall be initiated by the city commission, by any city commissioner, by the owner(s) of a potential site or (in the case of a potential historic district) by petition of not less than fifteen (15) percent of the affected land owners.

So, further review is required for this project to go forward and it is highly likely that the historic character of this property will be a key consideration during the review process.

You can refer to municode.com, under City of Lake Worth, and see where our historic preservation ordinance deals with archeological resources.

Regarding the beach, I refer you to Nicole Janok's article in the Palm Beach Post of August 15th which reads, in part:

"...county archaeologist Chris Davenport recommended last week that an archaeologist or cultural resource management firm oversee the recently approved project.

In a memo sent to city and county commissioners as well as state preservationists, Davenport wrote that there are "substantial and significant archaeological resources identified in the area of the proposed project."

Davenport listed two known archaeological sites near Lake Worth beach where human remains have been found. He also noted a third known archaeological site in the area listed with the Florida Master File — the archive and computer data base that lists all known historical structures and archaeological sites in Florida.

"The city should consider the properties around these sites to have a higher probability of containing unknown cultural deposits based on the proximity to known resources," Davenport wrote.

Davenport's recommendations came after Lake Worth City Manager Paul Boyer and beach developer Peter Willard learned of the possibility of artifacts from Lake Worth resident and archaeologist Dorothy Block. Because Lake Worth does not have its own archaeologist, they asked Davenport for advice.

"We knew that there were concerns and we wanted to be proactive," Willard said.
Willard said he will meet with Boyer later this week to hammer out a plan that suits Davenport's recommendations.

"As of right now, we're working with the city to go forward to see what the needs are for this project," he said."

The fact is, we rely on the County for information regarding archeological sites and this is how the process is supposed to work. Is it practical for the City to have it's own staff archeologist? Not given our current budget situation. And, no archeological resources have been disturbed. Both projects still will be subjects of further Planning and Zoning Board and/or City Commission review.

I hope this helps in the understanding of our process regarding the protection of archeological and historic sites.