The Historic Preservation Board on an unspecified date voted to defer consideration of architectural-site designation UDP HPD 25002 after staff and the applicant said more archaeological testing and legal documentation are needed.

Broward Trust representative Michaela told the board she was requesting a deferral to allow the organization to submit "more documentation, based on historical fact" and said she had received a letter from developer James Tate that she described as having "a biased interest" and relying on "secondhand information, not any firm historical facts." Tricia, a city staff member, told the board the city has been negotiating an agreement with the applicant and an archaeologist to conduct targeted testing and that the testing would likely take "somewhere between 3 to 6 weeks." She said staff needs any updated materials at least two weeks before the next agenda.

Staff said the supplemental work is intended to test locations and intervals on the beach to identify artifacts and better define boundaries that the 2011 survey and earlier master site files suggested. Tricia said the applicant has engaged archaeologist Bob Carr to perform the testing and that the applicant will fund the work. Board members repeatedly emphasized that the board wanted corroborating evidence to justify the extent of the proposed boundaries and avoid repeating a meeting without new information.

A motion to defer the case to the January meeting was made from the floor and seconded; the motion carried with one recorded opposed. The transcript records the motion and the outcome but does not identify the maker by name in the public record. The board instructed staff and the applicant to provide the archaeological report and any updated documentation ahead of the rescheduled hearing.

Board members discussed the practical effect of a designation: staff clarified that designation provides an additional review layer but does not prohibit public recreational uses such as play equipment or permit-level activities; some permits may still proceed through other review processes. Staff also noted that some development review processes already include archaeological review but permitting alone may not trigger an archaeological review unless specific review thresholds are met.

The item will return to the board at the January meeting with the applicant-provided archaeological testing results and any supplemental documentation. The board asked staff to share the applicant's proposed testing strategy and any supporting maps in the staff report before the continued hearing.

Provenance: See transcript segments for the first mention (tc 00:03:25) and final vote (tc 00:24:33).