(Hyperlinks highlighted in red in the following article lead readers to additional sources)

_____________

Potential development of the 142-acre Carolina Golf Course went before the city’s Development Review Committee [DRC] last month. The meeting was the first public showing of potential plans to rezone the golf course from commercial recreation status to planned residential community status.

At the September DRC meeting, developers were told their Traffic Impact Study fell short of the Level of Service (LOS) expected by Margate, wrote the City’s Director of Environmental Services. Now with a “B” LOS, service at impacted intersections might drop to “E” Level in the absence of appropriate signal optimization and the best and highest use of turn lanes, the city official noted.

From the Margate Development Review Department, plans introduced to the city were not adequate in remediating problems with existing flood problems in areas, or how developers plan to connect with city infrastructure and accurately calculate fresh water and waste water demands. Moreover, the department director found numerous unanswered questions in documents, along with various inconsistencies. DRC officials took except to inadequate plans for property irrigation and water reclamation.

The proposed development is based on the dashed-line land use method. The method considers an area larger than the proposed development as a means to justify higher residential density, aka more housing units per acre. To do this, developers would need the city to first amend its Comprehensive Plan, which is in presently in the discussion phase.

“The use designations within the dashed lines are binding. However, the City may approve a rearrangement of uses or densities, which does not increase the total number of dwelling units or decrease the amount of recreational land or increase the amount of commercial land.” [Click to View Carolina Club Land Use Petition Act (LUPA)]

Notably, Margate is one of the densest cities in Broward County, with 6,500 residents living per square mile, as previously announced by Margate Planning & Zoning Chair, Richard Zucchini.

The Thursday meeting is not designed to hear residents, but rather “to present four alternative development scenarios including the applicant’s [Carolina Golf Course developers] for consideration by the public. Copies of the alternatives will be available at the meeting,” reports the City. To this end, alternatives are not yet available on the city’s website.

Already bombarded by residents opposed to homes on the golf course via city meetings, petitions, workshops, charettes and emails to elected officials; supplanting the golf course with housing is something outspoken residents don’t want. Notably, developers have obstacles to face in Florida Statute 163 (ss.163.2511-163.3253) that constrains urban sprawl.

“The future land use element or plan amendment shall be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four or more of the following:

(I) Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not

have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems.

(II) Promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services.

(III) Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available.

(IV) Promotes conservation of water and energy.

(V) Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils.

(VI) Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs.

(VII) Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area.

(VIII) Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented developments or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164.”

Pursuant to Thursday’s meeting, the public will be heard on the matter at a P&Z meeting at a date to be determined.

“At that hearing, the public may present additional alternatives or combinations of alternatives for consideration.”

From there, P&Z will make a recommendation to elected officials who can either accept or deny the recommendation.

“[City Commissioners] will hold a formal public hearing at a future time and date. At the Commission’s public hearing, comments on the alternatives or alternative proposals from the public will again be considered. Following that public hearing, it is expected that the City Commission will take action on the application.”