The City of Margate Planning & Zoning Board on Oct. 14 denied a variance request to reduce required parking, waive perimeter and interior landscape-island requirements, and allow changes to an existing nonconforming parking lot at 5600 Lakeside Drive.

Staff told the board the application did not meet the statutory variance criteria and recommended denial. “So with that, staff is recommending denial,” Andrew Penny, senior planner for the City of Margate, said during the hearing.

The application, filed as item ID 2025-284 (variance application 25-400057), sought permission to reduce required parking by 131 spaces — a 34% reduction from the number the city code would require for the proposed apartment mix — and to alter landscape-buffer and interior-island dimensions that would otherwise limit the number of parking stalls.

The applicant’s attorney, Matthew H. Scott, said the owner had invested in the site and that converting the long-term care facility to multifamily housing would support the city’s downtown redevelopment goals. “It is a practical difficulty to convert this site to a productive use,” Scott said, arguing the site’s existing building, prior investments and location behind the proposed city center justified relief from the parking and landscape rules. He said the applicant’s minimum proposed layout would provide 250 spaces and that traffic-engineering guidance suggested lower demand than Margate’s current code requires.

Douglas Braun, identified at the hearing as the property owner and operator, described prior investments and the facility’s economic troubles. “We did about a $7,000,000 renovation of this building,” Braun said, and later added the property had closed on March 30; he said the owners had been unable to sustain assisted-living operations and were seeking the conversion to a multifamily use.

Penny reviewed the land-use history and the variance criteria, noting the site was approved in the 1980s as an adult congregate living facility and later converted in part to assisted living. Penny also told the board staff did not find the special conditions or circumstances required to support the variances and said the requested changes could produce spillover parking impacts for the neighboring apartment complex that provides the site’s access. “Approving an underparked property has the potential to negatively impact that adjacent property to the north,” Penny said.

Public commenters raised concerns about aesthetics, wildlife and neighborhood impacts. Resident Shelley Stein, who lives adjacent to the site, said she worried about loss of vegetation and the effect on property values if buffers were reduced. Mark Boyer, a local property manager, expressed general support for reinvestment but asked the applicant to detail its development experience.

After public comment, a motion to deny the variance was made, seconded and approved on a voice vote. Board members Olivia Bradley, Kenny Harris and Barbara Arias were recorded as voting “aye.” The denial means the applicant will not receive the requested parking reductions or waivers through this variance application; any change of use or redevelopment would require compliance with existing code or a different, successful application path.

The board did not issue direction for staff to prepare alternative conditions or a revised application at the meeting. The record includes staff’s position that other avenues — such as reducing unit counts, redesigning units, or pursuing the full redevelopment and entitlement process — could address parking without the variances requested.

Votes at a glance: Denial of variance application ID 2025-284 (variance application 25-400057) — motion to deny approved; recorded votes: Olivia Bradley, aye; Kenny Harris, aye; Barbara Arias, aye.

Next steps noted on the record: the applicant may pursue detailed site-plan and special-exception approvals (which would require additional city review) or revise the proposal to better meet variance criteria.