Developers present 47‑acre Paddock RV Resort proposal; neighbors raise traffic, density and enforcement concerns

Developers seeking to build the Paddock RV Resort on about 47 acres north of Southern Boulevard and off Sea Road told the Town of Loxahatchee Groves Planning & Zoning Board on Feb. 12 that the project would require amendments to the town comprehensive plan and the unified land development code, plus a site plan; applicants offered trail dedications, drainage improvements and road work as proffers.

The proposal, presented by Gabriel Bove of the Bove Company and engineer Joe Bove, would create a new rural‑recreation land‑use category and a matching RV zoning district to implement a site plan the team said would be limited to recreational lodging rather than permanent housing. "We are stepping down to a rural recreation zoning," Gabriel Bove said, and Joe Bove added the site "cannot be a trailer park. It cannot be apartments. It can't be commercial, and there's no way around that." The applicants described a perimeter buffer, public trail dedication and on‑site amenities including two clubhouses, pickleball courts, a pool and a camp store.

Why it matters: The development would change both the town land‑use map and zoning ordinance and require the board and council to create a new land‑use/zoning framework for RV resorts. Neighbors said the project could alter the town's rural character, add traffic to Southern Boulevard, and create long‑term residency and enforcement questions the town would need to address.

Key facts and proffers

- Scope and approvals sought: The applicants said their submission package will include five items — two comprehensive‑plan pieces (text amendment and map amendment), two zoning pieces (text amendment and rezoning map amendment) and a site plan. The project area is about 47 acres north of Southern Boulevard, with direct vehicular access from Sea Road/C Road.

- Site design and environment: Applicants said about 60% of the site would remain green and that they will plant more than 2,000 trees, including more than 500 live oaks and more than 1,100 sabal palms. They proposed large perimeter buffers (in places up to 80 feet, in others as little as 25 feet) and said 8 acres of buffer/greenway would be dedicated to the town. The team described on‑site stormwater treatment with about 6 acres of retention ponds and said the development would connect to county potable water and sanitary sewer (no wells or septic).

- Amenities and operating controls: The resort plan includes two clubhouses (roughly 15,000 square feet combined), a fitness center, pool, pickleball courts, and a small camp store and food‑truck court. Applicants said the park would be gated, have rental and owner sites, and adopt written rules and a property management contract. They said stays would be limited (applicants proposed a six‑month maximum stay but indicated that details remain under review), that guests staying more than 30 days would undergo background/credit checks, and that RVs would generally be required to be in good condition (applicants cited an approximate seven‑year maximum age standard).

- Scale and economics: The applicants described a large private investment, saying the project would exceed $40 million for land and infrastructure. They estimated roughly $200,000 per year in a developer‑provided annual payment to the town (described by staff as a donation equivalent to a bed tax rather than a statutory bed tax) and staff referenced an expected net taxable value benefit on the order of about $80,000 annually.

Public concerns and board questions

Residents at the workshop voiced objections on several grounds. Christy Coleman said she does not support the proposal and urged the board to preserve the town's stated purpose of protecting rural character. "I don't want them here," Coleman said. Neighbors and other commenters raised recurring concerns about traffic on Southern Boulevard and Sea Road, enforcement of noise and trail use off‑site, the potential for long‑term residency and voter registration, and the risk that a large private project could be left unfinished if finances change.

Sue Cacioppo and Karen Plant asked whether the town could require and enforce the operational promises made at the workshop; applicants said they would accept conditions of approval and that the developer would be motivated to keep the project controlled because of the large private investment. On residency and voting, the applicant said the resort would target short‑term guests, not long‑term workers, but acknowledged state law on residency and voter registration is outside the town's control.

Traffic, utilities and infrastructure proffers

Staff and the applicants described off‑site improvements the developer has proposed or discussed with town staff: Sea Road improvements to the Tangerine intersection (to be completed in part by this applicant and in part by an adjacent property owner as projects progress), a drainage impoundment to assist the town's south‑end flood management, parking at the end of Sea Road to support the town Greenway Trail, and participation in traffic mitigation measures such as a future signal at Sea Road and Southern Boulevard if FDOT warrants are met. The applicants said they will connect to county potable water and sewer and that their sanitary design includes a lift station.

Next steps and timing

Staff told the board that the applicant requested referral to the Planning & Zoning Board but that town staff had not completed their formal review of the site plan and applications; the site plan and tree survey will be distributed to board members for review. The applicants said they will hold an additional neighborhood outreach meeting on Saturday, March 1, at the property.

Process note: This workshop was an informational presentation and public‑comment session; no zoning or land‑use approvals were taken at the meeting. The Planning & Zoning Board did not vote on the project during this session. The only formal action recorded at the end of the workshop was a procedural motion to adjourn, which passed by voice vote.

Ending: The applicants and staff agreed to distribute detailed materials (survey, site plan and traffic studies) to board members; staff will continue its review and the project will return for formal hearings after required application reviews and public notice.