The City of Margate advanced on first reading Nov. 5 a package of ordinances that would allow the long‑closed Carolina Golf Course to be remade as a mixed‑use project with roughly 540 townhouses, about 30,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial and about 65 acres of permanent lakes and open space.

The commission voted 3–2 to approve both the comprehensive‑plan map amendment and the rezoning ordinance after a multi‑hour quasi‑judicial hearing that drew dozens of public speakers. The land‑use ordinance passed with three yes votes and two no votes; the rezoning passed by the same margin. The public hearing on the related development agreement remains open; the commission set a second hearing and final vote for June 17, 2026.

Why it matters: The Carolina property has been closed as a golf course for seven years. The redevelopment plan proposed by Rosemerge Acquisitions LLC (the applicant) would convert most of the site to new lakes, walking trails and active parkland and concentrate new housing and a small retail node on the parcel’s edges. Supporters say the plan replaces a deteriorating site, creates new public open space and will add recurring tax revenue; opponents say the property carries environmental contamination that must be tested and remediated before any ground disturbances, and they pressed for stronger enforceable safeguards and clearer remediation timelines.

What was proposed and what changed: Applicant counsel Matthew Scott said his firm and the developer — who have the property under contract but are not yet the owner — revised the initial plan after repeated neighborhood meetings. The revisions included cutting the commercial square footage, reducing townhouse counts in one pod from roughly 377 to 290 and removing the apartment‑style multi‑family buildings planned in the original concept; the most recent concept caps Pod C at 250 townhomes. Scott told the commission his client’s intent is to preserve roughly half the site as lakes and open space and to record a development agreement committing to minimum standards for construction and long‑term maintenance.

“People asked us to redesign the project,” Scott said during the presentation. “We reduced the intensity, we increased buffering and open space, and we delivered signed term sheets with local homeowner associations.” (Presentation start: 02:00:18)

Environmental evidence and county covenant: Environmental counsel Howard Nelson outlined a recorded restrictive covenant executed in 2008 that limited non‑golf uses until Broward County’s environmental division approved a remedial plan. Nelson said the county’s earlier testing identified arsenic “slightly in excess” of cleanup targets in limited topsoil near the maintenance area and that the covenant allows modification after a site‑specific remediation plan is submitted and approved.

“Until you move to a post‑golf‑course use, the contamination remains in the surface,” Nelson said, adding that remediation requires a phased program — advanced site assessment, a remedial action plan and a soil‑management plan — reviewed by county regulators. (Environmental testimony: 02:34:11)

Public testimony: Dozens of residents addressed the hearing. Opponents raised health and dust complaints, referencing current construction at an unrelated nearby site (the Executive Golf Course), and asked the commission to delay action until detailed remediation plans and independent testing were available. Supporters — including the Carolina Maintenance Association and several homeowners‑association representatives — said the applicant had negotiated meaningful reductions in intensity and would deliver permanent, maintained open space and park amenities.

Commission action and what’s next: After commissioners debated a motion to table the items (which failed on a 3–2 vote), the commission approved both the land‑use plan amendment and the rezoning on first reading by the same 3–2 margin. The roll call for the land‑use vote recorded Commissioner Rosano voting no, Commissioner Caggiano voting yes, Commissioner Simone yes, Vice Mayor Serio yes, and Mayor Schwartz no. The rezoning roll call recorded the same tally.

Votes at a glance

- Land‑use plan amendment (Ordinance 6C): approved on first reading, vote 3–2. Yes: Caggiano, Simone, Serio. No: Rosano, Schwartz.
- Rezoning ordinance (6D): approved on first reading, vote 3–2. Yes: Caggiano, Simone, Serio. No: Rosano, Schwartz.
- Development agreement (7A): public hearing opened; second public hearing and final vote set for June 17, 2026.

Details and clarifications presented to the commission

- Site area and conversion request: Applicant sought to change roughly 148.7729 acres of commercial‑recreation land to 74.1259 acres of R‑10 residential, 7.618 acres of commercial, and 67.029 acres of park/open space; the property lies within a county “dash‑line” area that carries pooled density rights (dash‑line area A = 636.18 acres, average 7 units/acre).
- Program changes after outreach: retail reduced from ~57,000 sq ft to ~30,000 sq ft; Pod B townhomes reduced from ~377 to 290 units; Pod C apartments removed and replaced with a 250‑unit townhouse cap.
- Environmental record: a 2008 restrictive covenant and subsequent testing identify arsenic impacts in shallow soils near the maintenance facility; county review and an approved remedial action/soil management plan are required before soil removal or change of use in the contaminated area.
- Timeline: If ordinances are approved on second reading locally and by the county’s recertification process, the project would proceed to site‑plan and permitting; applicant estimates multi‑year milestones before construction begins. Second hearings and the development‑agreement adoption are anticipated in June 2026.

What the vote does and does not do: The first‑reading votes transmitted the land‑use and zoning changes so they can travel to Broward County and state review and begin the detailed development and environmental permitting process; neither vote authorizes construction. The development agreement remains an open item that must return to the commission for final action and recordation if approved.

Discussion/decisions recorded by the commission

Discussion items raised and left for the record included: the county restrictive covenant and the process for a remedial action plan; the depth and extent of arsenic‑impacted soil (applicant and county records cite impacts concentrated near an equipment wash area and primarily in the top two feet); traffic analysis assumptions and FDOT/BCT coordination; and a proposed contribution toward improvements at a nearby firefighters’ park and other community benefits listed in the applicant’s development agreement.

Ending note: Commissioners split along a familiar pattern: supporters framed the vote as a way to regain local control, secure permanent open space, and require remediation paid by a developer; opponents said remediation information was incomplete and urged delaying final action until site‑specific remedial plans were approved by regulators. The matter returns to the commission June 17, 2026, for further hearings on the development agreement and final ordinances.

Sources: City staff reports and presentations; applicant oral presentations (Matthew Scott); environmental testimony (Howard Nelson); public testimony during the Nov. 5 hearing.