Planning board recommends denial of Paddock RV resort land‑use and site‑plan package

The Town of Loxahatchee Groves Planning & Zoning Board, sitting also as the Local Planning Agency, on a 4–1 vote recommended denial of a five‑part application from the applicant for a project called "The Paddock," a proposed motor‑coach resort on about 47 acres north of Southern Boulevard and east of Sea Road.

The package before the board included a comprehensive plan text amendment to create a new future‑land‑use category called "rural recreation," a comprehensive plan map amendment to apply that new designation to the subject parcel, a text amendment to the Unified Land Development Code to create implementing zoning and use rules, a rezoning of the parcel to the new district, and a site plan for a resort with up to 272 RV sites and 16 park‑owned units. Board members voted to recommend denial of the legislative items and the implementing quasi‑judicial items; each motion carried 4–1.

The applicant, represented primarily by Gabe (developer) and a consultant team from J. Morton Planning and Landscape Architecture, Simmons & White and others, described the project as an "exclusive motor coach resort" with high‑end amenities. Lauren McClellan, director of planning at J. Morton, told the board the new future‑land‑use would allow a maximum of eight RVs per acre and a maximum FAR of 0.08; the site plan presented proposed 272 spaces, two clubhouses (approximately 22,000 square feet of clubhouse space total), two swimming pools, about five acres of lake area and roughly 60% green/open area. The applicant said it has performed tree, wetland, drainage and traffic studies and has submitted engineering to the water management district.

Environmental and engineering consultants for the applicant said the team completed a tree inventory of roughly 2,500 trees and found about half in poor health and that wetland impacts would be mitigated on‑site rather than through off‑site mitigation banks. Traffic consultant Brian Kelly said, and submitted a study reviewed by Palm Beach County and the town consultant, that trip generation for the proposed resort is comparatively low and would equate to roughly 1% of traffic on Southern Boulevard at peak comparison points; he said Palm Beach County considers that level de minimis.

The applicant also proffered several conditions intended to address town concerns: dedication of about 8.75 acres for a public trail/nature area, a $500,000 impact fee payable before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, an annual payment of $25,000, an estimated annual ad valorem tax contribution the applicant estimated at about $84,000, a $250,000 bond for liquidated damages tied to operation standards, a limit of six months for any single stay, prohibition on issuing individual postal addresses for sites, a cap of two unrelated persons per RV, and public access/membership arrangements to the resort amenities in the off season.

Several nearby residents and property owners spoke in opposition during public comment. Christy Coleman (14620 Sixth Court North) said the parcel is zoned agricultural‑residential and questioned the need to create a new land‑use category and the project’s scale; she estimated the development could add more than 1,300 people to the town if sites were fully occupied and said traffic and neighborhood character would be harmed. Lawrence (Lawson) Gaines, an owner on 322 C Road abutting the project, cited concerns about road width, turning radii for large vehicles, backups on Sea Road and Southern Boulevard, and emergency evacuation access.

Board members raised questions about utilities, emergency access, the physical width and design of Sea Road and C Road, enforceability and legal defensibility of the applicant’s proffered conditions (in particular the $500,000 payment and the $250,000 bond), and whether the town’s existing regulations were adequate or should be amended town‑wide. The town attorney advised that legislative items (the comprehensive plan text and map and the ULDC text) are policy decisions for council and that if the board recommended approval of a new land‑use, the burden would shift to the town to demonstrate a rezoning to implement it was inappropriate; conversely, recommending denial was consistent with maintaining the existing regulatory framework.

After discussion the board moved, sequentially, on each of the five applications for the Paddock project. Each motion to deny carried by a 4–1 vote. The board recorded the denials and forwarded its recommendations to the town council for final action.

The applicant said it intends to continue to work with town staff and legal counsel on the draft conditions and that it had funded the cost‑recovery reviews to date. The town attorney and staff noted that any future applicant seeking the same newly‑created land use would have to meet specific criteria the applicant proposed (minimum acreage, minimum location criteria such as frontage on or proximity to Sea Road, and a distance buffer from other similar developments), but confirmed that the legislative text as proposed would, if adopted, apply town‑wide unless amended by council.

The board’s recommendation is advisory; the Town Council will take final votes on the ordinances and the site plan at a later meeting. The applicant and town staff were advised that, should council proceed with legislative changes, detailed, enforceable conditions will need legal review to reduce the risk of a successful challenge.