[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6165984,"mediaKeyId","5416085-2d7346e101e999479726889fc08ceb15","parentId",5416085,"title","Planning commission denies variance for garage that would expand a nonconformity on seven‑lot site","audioSeconds",1446,"startMs",664000,"endMs",2110000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5416085-2d7346e101e999479726889fc08ceb15&start=664&end=2110","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5416085-2d7346e101e999479726889fc08ceb15/thumbnail_664000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6165984/Citrus-County/Florida/Planning-commission-denies-variance-for-garage-that-would-expand-a-nonconformity-on-sevenlot-site","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6165984-eb37203081edc36790812774d8983887/orig.mp4?Expires=1774958726&Signature=jd1EFj6Q4GQSXQGkqPH5X3Crjx52E1HoJZQ~y4t4gTjJy~Hg-DBX7Vl13emk4zgy97Nn2C9xuG5rKEtM4SgHas0ktp5CmtYZIQtJm6DZ~v51r~WAhYZ~qwC2BSSVqRJ2BJSa4QDeof84QMVeGCX-CsD1PD2mrqxmeTwFZ86oe~hCwCak32ppkkOB7s0~Paato--z0K~XudqBMdWiv9t39tlJzH6h22oKmwca8eLAlhwtV~yYrD6F05UdvQ59WORm5HAEgxf7KM2d6vD5gtnSVHWwc1aXErEcr3D3bSdOscxB98a70NRwlfWlYGU~t7AYoRlug0~q13KhoAts~qHYEA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Citrus County, FL","date","2025-07-18T04:11:08.527Z","article","Citrus County Planning and Development Commission members on July 17 denied application V‑2025‑1, a request by Aluminum Structures LLC on behalf of property owners Walter and Annette Bridal, to replace a screened room with a larger detached garage that would remain 6 feet inside the county’s 50‑foot front setback.

The commission voted 7‑0 to find the application inconsistent with the Citrus County Land Development Code and the policies of the county comprehensive plan and to deny the variance, citing multiple unpermitted accessory structures on the site and staff findings that the proposed garage could be located elsewhere on the combined building site.

The variance sought permission to place a detached garage closer than the required 50‑foot setback from the center line of East Hilltop Loop. Senior planner Jen Perkins told commissioners the owner is combining seven separately recorded lots into a single building site totaling about 1.21 acres. Perkins said an existing screened room sits 44 feet from the right‑of‑way center line — a 6‑foot encroachment — and the applicant proposed to replace the 12‑by‑20 screened room with an 18‑by‑22 detached garage that would maintain the 6‑foot encroachment but increase the amount of square footage inside the setback.

Perkins also reported site‑visit observations that eight of 11 accessory structures on the parcel are unpermitted, that a shipping container and unpermitted pole barn and carports are present, and that two pieces of heavy equipment and a gate with the business name “TNT Sewer” were observed. Perkins said shipping containers are not allowed on residential properties and noted that a third driveway shown on the site would need to be removed per engineering requirements. She told the commission she had checked SunBiz business registration records and that the TNT Sewer business remains active.

Applicant representative Shane Carter (who filed the application on behalf of the owner) told the commission the proposed garage would align with the existing house and “would not extend any farther into the setback than the house,” and that neighboring houses also do not meet the 50‑foot setback. Carter said he would inform the property owner about staff’s concerns and the need to address unpermitted structures.

Commissioners repeatedly raised the unpermitted structures, the existence of a visible business operation and signage, and multiple driveways as reasons for concern. Several commissioners said they had little confidence the owner would correct longstanding code violations if the variance were approved. Commissioner Michael Facemeyer told the commission he would not support approval and said he had “little confidence” the owner would remediate the unpermitted items. Commissioner Jeanette Collins said the request was not a minimal variance and that the site could be developed to meet the intent of the Land Development Code. Commissioner Robert Sherra and others noted staff’s point that the garage could be sited in a location on the seven‑lot build site that would meet setback requirements.

With no members of the public speaking for or against the application during the public comment period, the commission moved to a formal motion. Chair Richard Barmez made a motion that the commission find application V‑2025‑1 inconsistent with the Land Development Code and the comprehensive plan and deny the petition; Commissioner David Bramblett seconded. The motion carried by a 7‑0 vote.

Next steps: staff and site review staff advised that if the owner later seeks a building permit, outstanding unpermitted structures would need either after‑the‑fact permits or removal; the Connex/shipping container and the third driveway must be removed or otherwise corrected to meet engineering and land development requirements before permits for new construction could proceed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning and Development Commission - July 17, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Citrus County Planning and Development Commission members on July 17 denied application V‑2025‑1, a request by Aluminum Structures LLC on behalf of property owners Walter and Annette Bridal, to replace a screened room with a larger detached garage that would remain 6 feet inside the county’s 50‑foot front setback.","taxTitle","Citrus County, Florida","taxId",12756,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6165977,"County attorney briefs planning commissioners on quasi‑judicial rules, evidence and ex parte risks",4899,2118000,7017000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5416085-2d7346e101e999479726889fc08ceb15&start=2118&end=7017","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5416085-2d7346e101e999479726889fc08ceb15/thumbnail_2118000.jpg","/articles/6165977/Citrus-County/Florida/County-attorney-briefs-planning-commissioners-on-quasijudicial-rules-evidence-and-ex-parte-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6165977-12510d800c0d930e3c15259e0812cd82/orig.mp4?Expires=1774958726&Signature=PPVeXe4PIeJC2rkpE5UIwNxq0uRzm6MLmAI32SpDn0E3TX6Hmpz8dZmxBbPY-ua35v76UOALVmKluPiGQpyGrQNxIWjyQO2sIN2HL3Y7z6fVlQHS0VdTnnkq2HxWvvT5ZF28UfF9M4p3N0HpZVfrbeN1FZNkBx895UHsDkYF8UWwFvO741sOwZqLuwiHdpALBb~y6JMMq8MTLSsGVauHydPPlbmEs44oHDoE3PxypJZZs56ZosUYKxyGD-qdYYSOZ94mH1NNl2EnDG959JnbzfRuyNIURDGKHBXe~CL0nagN~DNCIQUgH4yo3kx2~bfQ4u9Uk8t1VkFBKN~SK9D2BQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Denise Landis, Citrus County attorney, spent the second half of the July 17 Planning and Development Commission meeting giving a legal briefing to commissioners on quasi‑judicial procedure, evidence rules, ex parte communications and other land‑use topics relevant to how the commission must hear and decide applications.

Landis told the commission that applicants carry the initial burden of proof (citing the Snyder case) and that legal arguments from attorneys are not evidence unless supported by sworn factual testimony or qualified expert witnesses. “You can't base your decision on the argument of counsel. You must have factual testimony,” she said.

Landis reviewed roles and evidence sources the commission should rely on: applicant testimony and expert witnesses (engineers, planners), staff technical reports, and public comment (which she said are not parties in the proceeding but can provide factual testimony). She cautioned against independent research and outside contacts and urged commissioners to decline off‑record discussions and to forward any outside communications to staff so they become part of the record.

On ex parte communications, Landis said Citrus County has not adopted the state statutory scheme that some counties use to make certain ex parte contacts non‑prejudicial; under existing case law (Jennings and related decisions) off‑record communications are presumed prejudicial and can be grounds for appellate reversal if a challenged decision relied on such contacts. She said one possible path is for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt the statute and a disclosure process, but until that happens she recommended commissioners avoid ex parte contacts.

Other guidance Landis gave included:

- Distinction between the comprehensive plan and the Land Development Code (the comp plan is the county’s guiding policy document; the LDC implements it). She said the Future Land Use Map (GFLUM) is part of the comprehensive plan (Chapter 10).
- Concurrency in Citrus County applies to a limited set of services (Landis cited solid waste, stormwater, water and sewer) and does not include roadway capacity as a concurrency test, though access management and turning‑lane requirements are reviewed by technical staff.
- Floor‑area ratio and ISR questions are controlled by the comp plan and the land‑use category; site‑plan or project‑wide deviations are not explicitly authorized in the LDC and have been the source of ad hoc decisions in the past.
- Development agreements are governed by state statute; they are negotiated with the BOCC and are not tied to a fixed lot size or dollar threshold.
- New statutory timelines require a board decision within 180 days after a complete application is filed, which may accelerate negotiations and increase instances where applicants request continuances.

Commissioners asked procedural questions about sworn testimony, whether staff can supply technical backups (environmental health, engineering) to rebut applicant experts and how to handle written, signed and sealed reports when the certifying engineer is not present. Landis told the commissioners they must weigh written evidence and assess credibility; if the certifying witness is not present the board must give the document the weight it deems appropriate. She emphasized that staff technical reports are competent evidence and that applicants should arrange for expert witnesses to be present if they wish to contest technical findings.

Landis closed by urging the commission to deliberate openly in public hearings, to rely on the recorded evidence, and to avoid private communications about pending matters. She noted the BOCC is considering whether to adopt the statutory ex parte disclosure framework and that the commission will have further opportunities to discuss Land Development Code updates and comprehensive plan amendments in upcoming workshops.","Denise Landis, Citrus County attorney, briefed the Planning and Development Commission July 17 on quasi‑judicial procedures, evidentiary standards and the county’s current approach to ex parte communications and land‑use rules.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission denies variance for garage that would expand a nonconformity on seven‑lot site

County attorney briefs planning commissioners on quasi‑judicial rules, evidence and ex parte risks