Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After lengthy public hearing, commissioners move to deny Paradise Meadows RV rezoning near Withlacoochee River
Summary
Following a multi‑hour quasi‑judicial hearing with technical presentations and more than 40 public speakers, the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners voted to deny the applicant’s request to rezone about 49.9 acres for a 149‑site RV resort; planning staff and the Planning & Development Commission had recommended denial.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Citrus County Board of County Commissioners moved Nov. 4 to deny the land‑use and rezoning application for Paradise Meadows Riverside Resort, a proposed 149‑site RV resort along the Withlacoochee River. The quasi‑judicial hearing drew technical presentations from the applicant and consultants, extended questioning from commissioners, and lengthy public comment expressing environmental and traffic concerns.
Applicant Mike Smith, represented by attorney Patrick Kennedy, presented a revised plan that reduced density from earlier proposals to 149 sites (about 3 sites per acre), added expanded buffers, deleted a lakeside ‘‘tiki’’ grilling amenity and the Tall Pines trail exit, and proposed a private central water system (two wells) and a distributed wastewater treatment system with 24/7 remote operator monitoring. "We have revised and reduced down to 149 sites… we are doing an overabundance of caution and have resolved and eliminated our fears," Smith told the board as he described site changes and environmental safeguards.
Environmental consultant Michael Cywinski reported no interior wetlands and said his on‑site inspection found the primary wetlands were limited to river fringe; he testified that properly engineered on‑site treatment systems set back 300 feet from the river could achieve substantial nitrogen reductions compared to unmonitored septic systems now in the area. Engineer Brett Tobias summarized required state permitting and said stormwater and water‑use permits would be required and must meet Southwest Florida Water Management District and FDEP standards.
Planning staff senior planner Jen Perkins told the board the revised master plan (submitted shortly before the hearing) appears to meet several dimensional standards but noted the Planning & Development Commission had unanimously recommended denial. Staff emphasized the site remains in the Coastal Lakes and Rivers (CLR) region where the Comprehensive Plan anticipates low‑intensity uses and added that a land‑use change is still required for the proposed RV park.
More than four dozen members of the public spoke, most urging denial. Residents cited threats to river water quality, a fragile floodplain, impacts to the aquifer and private wells, noise and lighting, traffic and safety concerns on County Road 39, and precedent risk for further rezonings. The Citrus County Audubon Society, Sierra Club and other conservation groups submitted statements and urged the board to deny the rezoning request, citing outstanding Florida waterway protections and concerns about nutrient loading to the river.
Applicant counsel and technical witnesses responded to concerns in rebuttal, noting the distributed wastewater design, monitoring and the applicant’s voluntary conditions (adult‑only resort, prohibition on most motorized boats, no fertilizer use, and required evacuation protocols for storms). Patrick Kennedy told the board the project "meets or exceeds" many Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code criteria for an RV park in a CLR setting and argued it would be preferable to other permitted uses and existing septic systems.
Commissioner Jeff Kennard moved to deny the application CPA‑AA‑2024‑00017; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Janet Barrick. The chair called for a voice vote and commissioners signaled in favor; the board then concluded the meeting with the motion to deny recorded and the meeting adjourned. The Planning & Development Commission had earlier issued a unanimous recommendation of denial and staff noted the revised materials were received too late to be fully reflected in the staff report.
The denial preserves the site’s current low‑intensity land‑use designation; appeals and permitting details, if any, will be a separate process.

