Planning commission recommends denial of LKQ salvage-yard expansion after neighbor, staff concerns

The Citrus County Planning and Development Commission on June 10 recommended denial of application CPA/AA/PUD‑2024‑00018, a request by LKQ Southeast to change roughly 34.56 acres of low‑density residential land to heavy industrial and add open outdoor storage for auto salvage.

The commission’s recommendation — which the board framed as inconsistent with the county comprehensive plan and land‑development code — passed 5–1 and will be forwarded to the Citrus County Board of County Commissioners for final action; the hearing was scheduled for July 29 at 5:01 p.m.

The applicant told the commission the expansion would enlarge LKQ’s existing Crystal River operation by about 35 percent to provide additional storage of already‑dismantled vehicles, not to change the on‑site dismantling. Engineer Michael Wilburn described the site as roughly 34.56 acres and said the proposal “is just storage of already harvested cars,” while company representative Casey Ingram said LKQ’s dismantling work remains inside a roofed building and that the operation follows best practices. Ingram told the board, “All of our dismantling process takes place under roof. Everything takes place on top of concrete. None of the all the fluids are contained. We've not had an environmental issue in the 25 years that I've been there.”

Staff and consultants disagreed about buffering and required setbacks. County code for “auto salvage/junkyard/abandoned property” (LDC §3.350) requires no outdoor storage within 75 feet of a property line, or within 200 feet of a lot line that lies in a residential district. Applicant consultant Paul Gibbs proposed an alternate approach: a 6‑foot earthen berm topped with a Type D landscape buffer (the code’s densest buffer) and, where grading requires it, a retaining wall that would depress the storage area another 1 to 8 feet. Gibbs said the berm-plus‑landscape combination would screen views and noted, “we're proposing a 6 foot high berm,” arguing the alternative would provide equal or greater visual screening than an 8‑foot wall.

County staff opposed the applicant’s requested deviations from the 200‑foot residential setback and from the wall requirement in several locations. Planner Joanna Appling told the commission the site was previously approved as residential lots and that the proposed expansion would extend industrial use well into an area mapped low‑density residential on the county GIS. Appling also said phase 1 of LKQ’s site is in use but lacks the full perimeter wall that had been required when phase 1 was approved; she said that absence factors into staff’s recommendation and that, if the current application is not approved, staff would not sign off on final approvals for phase 1 until the wall was installed.

Neighbors and other members of the public urged denial. Anthony Ayo said he feared contamination of the county’s aquifer and asked whether a nonpermeable barrier would protect groundwater; Teresa Waldron and Rachel Langley, homeowners near the site, described dust, noise and the visual impact from recent land clearing and said additional industrial expansion would worsen those conditions. John O’Connor and other speakers urged the commission to preserve the low‑density character of the area and said the Suncoast Parkway and related FDOT drainage lands nearby made visual buffering and setbacks especially important.

Applicant representatives and counsel pointed to routine inspections and compliance: Ingram said an EPA site inspection three weeks earlier produced no findings, and attorney Sid Anspacher argued LKQ follows EPA/DEP best management practices for fluid handling and stormwater monitoring. The applicant also emphasized the industrial activity that generates most noise and fluids — the dismantling — remains under roof on concrete with closed‑loop fluid handling, and that the storage areas are not lit at night.

The commission’s motion found the application inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and LDC, recommending denial and citing the proposal’s heavy industrial intensity near residential parcels and unresolved buffering/setback disagreements. The motion passed 5–1; the commission record noted the item will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on July 29 at 5:01 p.m.

Clarifying details from the hearing included: the expansion parcel is approximately 34.56 acres; applicant said the expansion equals about a 35% increase in yard area; phase 1 (north) originated as a 38‑acre facility with a later 24‑acre expansion approved in 2021; the LDC requires a 75‑foot setback from property lines and 200 feet where adjacent to residential lots for auto salvage uses; Type D buffer requirements are six canopy trees plus 12 conifers per 100 linear feet and a continuous hedge that must reach 4 feet in one year and be maintained at 5 feet thereafter; applicant proposed a 6‑foot berm plus Type D planting and, in one sensitive location, a 6‑foot privacy fence because a home is elevated relative to the site.

Next steps: the planning commission’s denial recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision at the scheduled July 29 meeting.