Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Canopy Permit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board approves canopy at Midas Muffler 4–1 after members cite site‑maintenance and compliance concerns

5968690 · September 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Pembroke Pines Planning and Zoning Board approved a permanent canopy at the Midas property on Sept. 11, 2025, while several members asked staff to follow up on unrelated site‑maintenance and storage trailer issues through code enforcement.

The Pembroke Pines Planning and Zoning Board voted 4 to 1 on Sept. 11 to approve a permanent canopy at the Midas Muffler location after a public exchange in which board members and a neighbor described the site as “unsightly” and urged broader property improvements.

Midas’s representative, Manny Stilofsky, told the board the canopy formalizes an existing covered area intended to shelter patrons during rain or heat and that the property is undergoing expansion on its north end to improve the site. Stilofsky gave his address on the record and said the canopy is intended to provide covered parking for customers as part of the operation.

Several members and one public commenter raised concerns about additional items on the site: mismatched canopies, a utility trailer present on site that staff said should be removed nightly per materials in the packet, loose boards and other deferred maintenance. Board members and staff repeatedly noted that many of those issues are code‑enforcement matters outside the scope of the canopy permit; staff said code compliance had inspected the site and the only citation currently related to this application was the canopy’s structural and permitting status.

Staff explained that a structural canopy requires a building permit and that an architectural review by the board is necessary because the canopy is a ground‑anchored structural element. The board was told that once the canopy is set into the ground, a building permit is required and the applicant must receive architectural review because the canopy is structural.

After discussion, Member Goldich moved to approve the canopy; the motion carried 4–1. The board instructed staff to investigate other code issues that were raised and to issue citations if code compliance determined a violation existed.