Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve PUD modification for Orange Lake RV resort with day‑use limits, traffic follow‑up
Summary
After a lengthy hearing and public comment, the board approved a PUD modification clarifying amenity uses at the Orange Lake RV Resort (Camp Margaritaville), allowing limited day‑use passes when RV capacity exists and requiring a supplemental traffic study and monitoring. Approval was 4–1 with a single dissent.
The Marion County Board of County Commissioners voted to approve a Planned Unit Development modification for the Orange Lake / Grand Lake RV Resort that clarifies how on‑site amenity spaces may be used and permits limited day‑use access when RV capacity exists. The modification also adds conditions including a supplemental traffic study for the site’s Highway 318/45th‑Ave intersection and standard lighting and buffer requirements.
Developers and representatives from the Margaritaville brand described the resort as a family‑oriented destination that has already invested substantially in on‑site amenities, including pools, a lazy river and a 40‑foot tower slide. Jim Wiseman, president of Margaritaville Development, said the company expects to operate strict brand and operational standards and to manage capacity through reservations and day‑pass limits.
Staff and the county engineer reviewed the developer’s traffic study and accepted its baseline findings but required a supplemental study focused on the immediate intersection; county engineering also requested a review two years after opening to monitor any emerging issues and to install warranted turn lanes if data show a trend. The developer agreed to those conditions and to comply with state permitting for on‑site water and wastewater systems.
Opponents, including Horse Farms Forever and many nearby residents, argued that allowing public day‑use changes the character of land inside the Farmland Preservation Area and could increase traffic, noise, water use and conflicts with adjacent equestrian operations. A certified planner retained by opponents concluded the change in amenity use was inconsistent with the county’s farmland preservation policies and urged denial. Commissioners debated the compatibility and the need for strong conditions.
The motion to approve included an explicit requirement that any future increase in amenity capacity or new amenity types return to the Board for review. The PUD modification passed 4–1, with Commissioner Curry dissenting.
The board also adopted implementing ordinances (vote recorded in same meeting). County engineering will track traffic and the developer must submit required as‑built plans, lighting and buffer verification before final certificates of occupancy for the amenity complex.
