The City of Margate Planning and Zoning Board voted Tuesday to recommend that the City Commission approve a land‑use plan amendment and rezoning allowing redevelopment of the closed Carolina Club golf course, a 148‑acre site at 3011 Rock Island Road. The board’s recommendation passed both items by 2–1 after a three‑hour public hearing spilling into a lengthy public‑comment period.

The recommendation matters because it allows the application to move to the city commission for first reading and then to Broward County and state review; it does not authorize construction. Attorney Matthew Scott, representing the applicant, told the board, “the recommendation we’re seeking from the planning and zoning board tonight does not authorize construction.”

Board members and staff said the vote was an early step in a long, multiyear process that still requires county and state reviews, environmental remediation permits, detailed site‑plan approval and legally binding development agreements. The developer, identified in the hearing as Rosemorgy Properties, presented a revised plan that removed proposed apartments and cut commercial space while committing about 67 acres to lakes, trails and parks in perpetuity.

Developer presentation and commitments
Matthew Scott, attorney at Greenstone Martyr, said his client is under contract to buy the property and described a conceptual plan of three “pods”: a commercial node on the east corner, townhomes in two pods to the north and west, and roughly 67 acres of permanently restricted lakes, trails and pocket parks. Scott said the applicant had revised the project after community meetings:
• Commercial: reduced from 57,000 to 30,000 square feet; zoned B‑2 community business.
• Residential: Pod B reduced from 377 townhomes to 290 townhomes (R3A zoning).
• Pod C amended from ~507 apartments to up to 250 townhomes (R3A); the applicant described the overall proposed maximum as roughly 540 townhomes across pods B and C.
• Open space: about 67 acres (of roughly 148 total gross acres) that the developer said would be recorded as permanent open space and maintained by an association.

Scott said the developer would be bound by a development agreement (to be considered separately by the commission) that caps uses, limits heights and requires completion of all required engineering, road work and environmental remediation before “any shovel in the ground.” The team also pledged $100,000 for local drainage or traffic calming work and $150,000 for shade and parking at nearby Firefighters Park if the project is approved.

Traffic and engineering
Chris Hagen, a registered professional engineer with Kimley‑Horn who prepared the traffic analysis, told the board the land‑use stage requires a broad, long‑term traffic review and that a more detailed, intersection‑level study would occur at site‑plan review. He said traffic counts were taken in February 2024 and that the applicant’s reductions (smaller commercial pod, removal of apartments) reduced the PM peak‑hour traffic by about 38% from the original concept. He added that the site‑plan stage will identify specific off‑site improvements and driveway locations.

City staff and review issues
Andrew Penney, the city’s senior planner, told the board staff had reviewed the land‑use and rezoning requests and that the applicant had provided required Phase I and Phase II environmental assessments and a school‑capacity review. Penney said the staff’s Development Review Committee (DRC) had asked for additional details on distribution/collection water service easements, drainage exhibits, and more complete traffic/intersection exhibits; staff declined at that stage to recommend final approval but presented the application for the board’s recommendation. Penney emphasized that staff and the developer have characterized the current action as a recommendation only; the development agreement and site plans will come later.

Community concerns
More than 30 members of the public spoke. Opposition themes included traffic congestion (particularly at Rock Island Road and nearby signalized intersections), the loss of a large contiguous open space, potential health risks from on‑site contamination, and doubts that a future golf operator would restore the course.

Residents raised contamination concerns repeatedly. Christopher Snyder, who identified himself as living outside Margate but representing concerned residents, referenced Broward County records and said arsenic had been documented at the site and urged the board not to move forward until remediation plans were shown. Several speakers asked the board to deny the amendment and for the city to consider buying or otherwise preserving the land as public parkland. Tommy Rosano, a longtime Margate elected official, told the board: “The property out there, it’s open for a reason. The Margate land‑use plan amendment states that because of the density out there and the houses that are built so close, we need that green space.”

Supporters—among them residents and others who said Margate needs more housing options and economic activity—said the current course has been blighted for years and that redevelopment could increase tax revenue and provide maintained parks and trails. “This company has imposed a plan to create the parks you asked for,” said Ilona Gismondo, a resident who said she favored the developer’s revisions. Several speakers noted that redevelopment would trigger required environmental permitting and remediation by Broward County and the state.

Public‑policy context
Ron Book, a governmental affairs consultant the applicant called to testify on state trends, told the board state law and recent legislative measures have pushed more redevelopment of underused lands, including closed golf courses. He argued that moving proposals like this forward under local control gives the city more leverage over design and conditions than would later mandatory state processes.

The board’s action and next steps
After public comment the board took two separate recommendations: a recommendation of approval for the land‑use plan amendment (Item 2A) and a recommendation of approval for the rezoning (Item 2B). The roll calls were recorded as 2 in favor (Joseph Eppi and Elsa Sanchez) and 1 opposed (Sloan Robbins) on each item. The board’s recommendation sends the items to the City Commission for first reading and transmittal to Broward County, the Broward County Planning Council and state reviewers; if those bodies approve, the commission would consider second reading/adoption and then the applicant would pursue site‑plan review, permitting and remediation before any construction.

What the vote does and does not do
The board’s vote is a recommendation to the City Commission and does not authorize construction, rezoning enforcement, or site work. Multiple speakers and staff noted that the developer still must secure county/state environmental approvals, complete detailed utility and traffic engineering, and record any development‑agreement restrictions. The developer repeatedly said those steps must be completed before building.

The board’s recommendation effectively advances a contentious, multiyear land‑use effort that the commission and county and state agencies will continue to scrutinize. If the commission approves the amendment and rezoning in subsequent hearings, the site will move to more detailed engineering and environmental stages that will determine final layout, mitigation measures and whether the proposals meet the city’s capital‑capacity requirements.

Ending
At the hearing’s close, the board’s chair declared the meeting adjourned. The City Commission is expected to schedule a first‑reading public hearing; the commission’s agenda materials and the county/state review record will supply the technical details that remain unresolved at the planning‑board stage.