Margate CRA approves spring fair with revised site plan, conditions payment and animal-display approval

The Margate Community Redevelopment Agency on Feb. 24 approved a temporary-use agreement with Hildebrand Amusement Rights Inc. for the Margate Spring Fling, including a revised site plan that would add a circus component, by a 3-2 vote. Approval was conditioned on the applicant paying outstanding balances to the city no later than March 4 and on the City Commission granting any required approval for live-animal displays.

The resolution before the CRA covered the temporary-use agreement and a late-submitted, alternate site plan. Joshua Wright, attorney for Hildebrand Amusement, said the applicant, Harlan Bass, “has always, always, always, always paid his bill with the city of Margate” and that Bass was prepared to pay a large portion of the outstanding invoiced amount “this week.” Wright told the board the invoiced total was about $157,000 and that Bass planned to pay roughly $120,000 while staff reconciled remaining charges.

Several board members and residents pressed staff and counsel on timing, policy compliance and money owed. Board member Simone said, “I think it’s ridiculous that we’re even entertaining this today…It’s ridiculous that time and time again, we sit here and we approve or temporarily approve, which we know is going to pass when it goes to the commission,” and voiced strong opposition to considering the revised site plan at the special meeting. Resident commenters echoed concerns about unpaid charges, the meeting’s timing, and potential departures from the CRA’s event policy.

CRA legal counsel David Tulsa advised the board that under city code the City Commission makes the final decision on any display of live animals on city or CRA property and that the CRA could include a condition requiring City Commission approval for such a display prior to final authorization. Tulsa told the board, “...the City Commission has the responsibility, fiduciary responsibility, to make sure that whatever services are being provided are paid for by the entity that's using the property.”

The board debated several related items in public testimony and among members: whether the CRA should require an advance bond or payment in full for future events; whether the proposed alternate site plan reduced the event footprint; and why a previously posted rental amount of $50,000 in earlier materials appeared as $25,000 in the current proposed agreement. CRA executive staff said rent for the property is proposed and negotiated by the board; one board member attempted an amendment to restore the $50,000 rental figure but that amendment failed.

After discussion, the board approved a motion to accept the revised site plan and the temporary-use agreement with three explicit conditions: that the outstanding balance owed to the city be paid no later than March 4, that the City Commission approve any display of live animals on the CRA property under city code, and that the revised site plan as submitted be adopted. The final roll-call vote on the motion was: Board member Osterio — yes; Vice Chair Rosano — yes; Chair Casciano — yes; Board member Schwartz — no; Board member Simone — no. The chair announced, “Motion passes. 3 to 2.”

Public commenters urged the CRA to require full payment before approval, cited the agency’s 90-day advance application rule and other provisions of the CRA event policy, and raised concerns about noise, hours and impacts on nearby businesses and residents. Several residents insisted the item should be tabled until invoices were reconciled and paid in full.

The agreement will proceed to the City Commission for final action; CRA counsel and multiple board members said the commission could add further conditions at that hearing, including a bond requirement. The commission meeting where the temporary-use permit is anticipated to appear was identified as March 5, 2025; the CRA conditioned its approval on payment no later than March 4 so the city could consider the permit in its March 5 agenda.