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

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.