Commission backs Stillwater Estates master‑plan changes, including conversion of cabins to RV sites and added storage with new buffering conditions

Citrus County Planning and Development Commission · February 19, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission recommended approval of a master‑plan modification for Stillwater Estates to replace 55 proposed cabins with 213 RV pads (a net increase of 158 units), add a second clubhouse and a 0.9‑acre RV/boat storage area, with conditions on buffers, park‑model limits and temporary occupancy/storage rules.

The Planning and Development Commission voted 5–2 on Feb. 19 to recommend approval of a modification to the Stillwater Estates master plan that would remove 55 cabins in a northerly phase and replace them with up to 213 recreational‑vehicle sites, add an outdoor RV/boat storage area and a second clubhouse.

Applicant Paul Furman said the change responds to market demand and noted the resort’s amenities and infrastructure already constructed in Phase 1. Furman described the proposal as an increase of 213 RV spaces (a net gain of 158 units after deleting cabins) and said Phase 1 provided the infrastructure (central water and sewer) to support additional phases. Developer Keith Ponikos said the project preserves large portions of the property as wetlands and upland preserve and that pond and drainage design has supported the park through recent storms.

Staff told the board the site table on the master plan lists a total buildout of 588 RV spaces; staff also flagged that park models (smaller, ANSI‑standard RVs) were new information to staff and must be limited by the Land Development Code. Joe Hockadell, principal planner, noted that the LDC limits park models to 15% of total RV spaces and that state statute caps RV park occupancy at 180 days. Hockadell also recommended reinstating a 10‑year termination condition for remaining unbuilt phases and noted removal of unpermitted signage in the county right of way as a precondition.

Commissioners focused questions on potable water capacity, wastewater connections (applicant said the project ties into Citrus County sewer and provided a county capacity letter), traffic and turn lanes, stormwater and the adequacy of pond volumes for fire‑fighting. Commissioners asked the applicant to clarify park‑model counts and to delineate any park models on the master plan. The applicant said the project will comply with the LDC limits on park models and will not request deviations to allow permanent park models beyond code allowances.

The board negotiated conditions at the hearing: require a north‑side buffer (a 10‑foot berm with vegetation or an equivalent Type D buffer where a berm cannot be constructed), limit the outdoor RV/boat storage to park occupants while occupying the park (to avoid long‑term off‑site storage), reinstate a 10‑year PUD termination clock for remaining unbuilt phases, require park models to be limited to 15% of total RV sites and delineated on the master plan, and remove unpermitted signage from rights of way. The PDC’s motion found the application consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and recommended approval to the Board of County Commissioners with those conditions.

The applicant may now submit revised master‑plan maps and engineering that reflect the conditions and complete required permitting for stormwater, tree preservation and other LDC requirements. Commission members who opposed the recommendation cited outstanding questions on emergency evacuation in the Coastal High Hazard Area and the need for clearer staff analysis on park models and storage operations.