[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":44,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6523532,"mediaKeyId","5029490-28b524902e039e39d53a908728d3ef0b","parentId",5029490,"title","Commission asks staff to review nonconforming uses after pawnshop owner seeks expansion","audioSeconds",0,"startMs",3995000,"endMs","viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5029490-28b524902e039e39d53a908728d3ef0b&start=3995&end=3995","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5029490-28b524902e039e39d53a908728d3ef0b/thumbnail_3995000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6523532/Margate/Broward-County/Florida/Commission-asks-staff-to-review-nonconforming-uses-after-pawnshop-owner-seeks-expansion","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6523532-ca6164bc168f88be7e09bfa21cd40d9c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440231&Signature=Qs2NxnAmxsssskLHicF~ciufGVZ~68YJib9PTV4D0fiehV-o0ShG1JvwBWLnTMjwWWBWEGB7lE6rWAIrN-0VxFUJiVrfqakZEq~G3aSbY5CzFm5OA0cwOdcDhRD-vhX94d5yu6adQn5HpHDyeMLVYagRoyAjbr3SnQBG31sUjBszAS8xIDoQYB3ayHtz8wVOQYOONdzyDp4hjA7X57OHGbDw8SuoEk92ow9eLhCx2XPmF5kkx7b6gDWhH7e29wdDY1ClFzSprMf1kI7hM91QNUALBWE2Am4H4nQg8LPrZc~LluT7B2k76an0hRquAxB2P0FOm-VZO2cme8H2zHt9jA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Margate","date","2025-06-19T00:00:00Z","article","Margate commissioners on June 18 asked city staff to review the city’s list of nonconforming commercial uses and return with recommendations after a Margate property owner requested permission to expand a pawnshop into an adjacent bay.

Commissioner Rosano said the owner, who was not present at the meeting, purchased the entire plaza and wants to expand his business into another unit. Under the existing land‑development code, certain uses that were permitted in the past are now nonconforming and may not expand their footprint. Commissioners said the current code provides no pathway for an owner in that position to request a tailored review.

Commissioner Casiano and other commissioners urged staff to prepare options that could include a case‑by‑case special‑exception process, targeted code amendments for specified uses, or zoning‑district changes tied to location and other criteria. Commissioner Simone said any change should preserve the commission’s ability to review and deny expansions that do not meet city standards.

City Attorney David Tulsa and development staff advised the commission that nonconforming uses stem from historical differences between existing businesses and current zoning; staff recommended a policy-level review rather than addressing a single property in isolation. Planning staff said pawnshops had been allowed historically in some business districts and became nonconforming after the 2012 code changes; staff offered to compile a list of existing nonconforming uses and the locations where they occur.

The commission’s direction: staff should review the city’s nonconforming uses (with an initial focus on the pawnshop request if the commission prefers) and return with options for ordinance changes or administrative pathways that preserve the commission’s oversight. Commissioners emphasized that any policy change should include safeguards so that allowing one expansion would not automatically require identical approvals across the city.

Commissioners did not take a formal vote on an ordinance at the meeting; rather, they asked staff to prepare a report and recommendations for future action.

Clarifying detail from the discussion: staff noted nonconforming uses exist across multiple districts and include categories such as pawnshops, some auto-related uses and previously permitted adult/entertainment businesses; staff recommended a targeted policy approach. The pawnshop owner was reported to own multiple bays in a plaza near the 441 corridor but was not in attendance.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Margate - 6/18/25 Regular City Commission Meeting - Jun 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners asked staff to review nonconforming land‑use rules after a Margate pawnshop owner requested permission to expand into an adjacent bay. Staff was directed to return with options, including whether a special-exception or targeted change for pawnshops is appropriate.","taxTitle","Margate, Broward County, Florida","taxId",5088,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_46":80,"_48":81,"_50":82,"_52":83,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":84,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":85,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6523537,"Margate roundup: consent agenda, strategic plan and police promotion ordinance approved; staff to draft parking rule",284,2804000,3088000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5029490-28b524902e039e39d53a908728d3ef0b&start=2804&end=3088","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5029490-28b524902e039e39d53a908728d3ef0b/thumbnail_2804000.jpg","/articles/6523537/Margate/Broward-County/Florida/Margate-roundup-consent-agenda-strategic-plan-and-police-promotion-ordinance-approved-staff-to-draft-parking-rule","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6523537-0228b3f9d717f48eac5128bd91f6d050/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440231&Signature=Y31xNTNxHu9GgUMGXns3dSNGPX8jDMP3ecpd-blnqI2cFYR1uCgyLqqYB60Si2T0b~teFDR7z~AVqJisPpc3~kHzRPG-j6dHGoB6Y1-nINIrDjYET6SXq6VjwN-CZSHgzpQld-McE6IizssH025LPOpWnDxqk4RGCQHjBso4DqlfhjNaOlm71ssx737SAO2T0fMHvvFzuN-PvVbRThKhbvtgrGj4DSKH2f~WBriD4GJgqKm4qfdDNbguA3~YzY1aGLdl3BAggFL1DEwmKHWBiH1KaV-WV6~Tdy9BeD0QGqP4ApWAY8WMwQWp~sjCvFlkX44Z7HnaKeUBUtAYVPL58w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Margate City Commission on June 18 approved several routine and policy items in a single meeting, including a consent agenda of municipal resolutions, adoption of a five-year strategic plan and passage of a second-reading ordinance revising police promotion procedures.

On a roll-call vote the commission unanimously approved the consent agenda (items 5a–5f). Those items included resolution approvals for: an assignment of developer rights transfer (including 65 water ERCs and about 15.028 sewer ERCs); waiver of bidding for PrimeX products (sole-source determination); purchase of twelve covered soccer team benches for Southeast Park (not to exceed $35,000); a letter of support for allocation of $369,662 in federal FY2024 Edward Byrne Memorial JAG funds; awards of continuing services agreements for design-build continuing services (initial two-year term with renewals); and a local coordination agreement with Coconut Creek for South Creek neighborhood water-main and improvements. The consent agenda passed by unanimous roll call.

The commission also unanimously approved a resolution adopting the city’s 2025 strategic plan, a five‑year implementation-oriented document developed with consultant Barry Dunn. Dunn told the commission the plan includes a mission, vision, values, and specific implementation actions staff can execute over the next five years.

Separately the commission approved a resolution to adopt the 2025 amended and restated CertEX interlocal agreement with Broward County and participating municipalities. The amendment reprioritizes funding to community shuttle capital and rehabilitation projects, establishes a formula-based funding model for maintenance and on-demand transportation projects, and provides a local match option for state and federal grants. The resolution passed unanimously on voice/roll-call vote.

On second reading the commission approved an ordinance amending Chapter 30 (personnel) to revise police promotion procedures, including examination procedures, oral board rating and additional requirements. The ordinance passed on second reading after commissioners expressed support for the police department and the chief’s work.

The city manager reported that an ordinance to prohibit parking on lawns in single-family neighborhoods has been drafted and will go to the Planning and Zoning Board next month before returning to the commission for consideration. The manager said the proposed code change would prohibit parking on lawns and grass in single-family neighborhoods; staff and legal clarified it would not override stricter homeowners’ association parking covenants.

Commissioners also announced that the State of Florida’s budget includes $1.2 million in matching funds for Margate — $500,000 for stormwater improvements and $700,000 for water treatment plant improvements — pending the governor’s signature. The commission and staff thanked lobbyists and state representatives who supported the funding.

Roll-call and consent results at the meeting were recorded by the city clerk. Where required, items passed unanimously by the five commissioners in attendance.","At its June 18 meeting the Margate City Commission approved the consent agenda, adopted a five-year strategic plan, approved an amended interlocal transit agreement, and passed a second-reading ordinance updating police promotion procedures. Staff will bring a lawn-parking ordinance to the Planning & Zoning Board next month.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_46":92,"_48":93,"_50":94,"_52":95,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":96,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":97,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6523543,"Margate commission rejects $111,250 settlement over Fire Station 58 construction dispute",893,3174000,4067000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5029490-28b524902e039e39d53a908728d3ef0b&start=3174&end=4067","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5029490-28b524902e039e39d53a908728d3ef0b/thumbnail_3174000.jpg","/articles/6523543/Margate/Broward-County/Florida/Margate-commission-rejects-111250-settlement-over-Fire-Station-58-construction-dispute","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6523543-9308e8899244cfc9c23bf0f7a827da98/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440231&Signature=SQ6W7mQrWyvjHFcycxGwUC~e1KoPXEkhQQq-lBQiBX1ZmRPFYnjN6Y~waqx71aiKse1AnGFxTCFPakwaE~9N-N1e1QYUQvIF451quWkysNxni~uBeIWKiZyvWfkSSEA3w8do7IICOknnrC~P2kleIcdCYMztxWU54PgFgPciVbC4mkeG0iISS4ULRoiduYDli7~-0vMFR0sx8mTjbJfzvjyWMuog2xDPyc0SLOmwRgKRA6wjKT48ajUlMVuEr-DMjvtQkCfKXiBiXbVU28OWguRCn3MnBc-VEH-BFJuJ5ikCwCX1~hgDX7vW5laker-4MJ6aeXJqy8x88M8T7nJS5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Margate City Commission on June 18 rejected a proposed settlement with the contractor for Fire Station 58, declining to approve an amendment that would have provided full and final compensation in the amount the city staff described as $111,250.

The vote followed more than an hour of discussion in which commissioners criticized the contractor’s request for additional funds and debated the costs and uncertainties of litigation. Commissioner Rosano framed the decision as a matter of principle, saying, “Do not vote for this. It's a bad precedence.”

The settlement on the table was described in staff remarks as the product of splitting an earlier claim of about $370,000 and deducting liquidated damages to reach roughly $111,250. City staff said the figure reflected a negotiated compromise after months of review and that pursuing litigation could be costly and uncertain. City Attorney David Tulsa told the commission legal costs and uncertain outcomes made the negotiated figure the “safest, cheapest way out” though he acknowledged it left neither party fully satisfied.

Opponents of the settlement said the contractor had passed the contract completion date and owed liquidated damages, and that accepting the payment would reward poor contractor performance and set a negative precedent. Commissioner Casiano argued that a signed contract is binding and that the contractor was attempting to shift pandemic-era cost increases onto the city. Commissioner Casiano said the city should resist paying increases driven by the contractor’s procurement and storage choices.

Commissioners also discussed project management details: officials said contingency funds had been used during the project and that some of the contractor’s claims were tied to items he had not stored or purchased on schedule, including bathroom fixtures. Commissioners asked whether staff had the evidence needed to justify either resisting the claim or pursuing litigation and whether pursuing court action would require large staff and consultant commitments.

After public comment urging the commission to reject the settlement, the commission called the roll. The motion to approve the contract amendment failed on a unanimous vote: Rosano — no; Casiano — no; Simone — no; Vice Mayor Serio — no; Mayor Arlene Schwartz — no. The commission therefore did not adopt the proposed amendment to the construction contract for Margate Fire Station 58.

The item before the commission was presented as an amendment to Bid No. 20 (Margate Fire Station 58) with Resusco Construction Services LLC named in staff reports as the contractor. Staff said the settlement deducted liquidated damages from the contractor’s original claim and that moving forward with the settlement would avoid further litigation costs and uncertain results. Commissioners who opposed the settlement said they preferred to litigate or otherwise pursue full contractual remedies to hold the contractor fully accountable.

The commission gave no further direction to staff on a new settlement amount at the meeting; commissioners said they wanted more clarity about the contractor’s discovery and the city’s contractual exposure before considering any new proposal. The item was therefore not approved and remains unresolved pending further staff action or potential litigation.

Additional clarifying details from the meeting record: staff described the contractor’s initial claim as approximately $370,000; the negotiated settlement figure discussed at the meeting was about $111,250 after deducting liquidated damages; staff said contingency funds had been used on the project; city officials said pursuing litigation would likely use significant staff and consultant resources and could take years to resolve.

The discussion and vote occurred during the regular Margate City Commission meeting on June 18, 2025.","Margate commissioners refused to approve a negotiated settlement with the contractor for the construction of Fire Station 58, citing principles about contract terms and concerns about precedent. The motion to amend the contract and provide full and final compensation failed on a unanimous vote.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission asks staff to review nonconforming uses after pawnshop owner seeks expansion

Margate roundup: consent agenda, strategic plan and police promotion ordinance approved; staff to draft parking rule

Margate commission rejects $111,250 settlement over Fire Station 58 construction dispute