Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waterfront Variance Homosassa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies waterfront‑setback variance for Homosassa lot
Summary
The Planning and Development Commission denied a variance request from Rodney Beebe to reduce the waterfront setback to 21.7 feet for a new stilted house and porch, concluding the applicant did not demonstrate a hardship to the land and that the proposal could be reconfigured to meet setbacks.
The Citrus County Planning and Development Commission voted 6‑0 to deny variance application V‑2024‑00005, in which applicant Rodney Beebe sought a waterfront setback less than 35 feet so a raised home and screened porch could extend closer to the canal.
"We're asking to save the porch because that's the area we wanna be at," said Rodney Beebe during his presentation. Beebe said he had adjusted the house orientation to maximize usable living area and that the porch and covered stairwell would sit on columns over the canal side and that the main structure would be roughly 30 to 31 feet from the seawall, with the porch extending forward.
Kelly Caudill, planning staff, summarized the request as "a request for waterfront setback less than 35 feet" and noted the plan showed a proposed setback of about 21 feet. Staff explained measurement rules under the Citrus County Land Development Code (including Chapter 2, 2300, E): enclosed rooms, screened rooms and steps count toward the waterfront setback; slabs and patios without walls are treated differently. Using the code’s methods, staff said the applicable setback in this case would be 27 feet (the "no closer than on either side" test), while the applicant requested 21 feet.
Commissioners and staff discussed elevation, foundation type and stormwater. Beebe said the home would be a stilted structure on pilings with a finished‑floor elevation about 12 feet above grade and that existing riprap seawall with a concrete cap would remain.
Several commissioners said the application failed the variance tests because the applicant had not shown a hardship to the land and the project could be redesigned to meet the setback requirements. "The property could be redeveloped and designed to meet the setbacks," Commissioner Bramlett said in moving to deny the application. Commissioner Sherra seconded the motion. The commission voted to deny the variance; the record shows there were no members of the public who spoke in favor or opposition at the hearing.
The denial means the applicant must either revise the design to meet the Waterfront Setback provisions of the Citrus County Land Development Code or pursue other lawful options.
