The Citrus County Planning and Development Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of two linked items that will modernize an undeveloped portion of the long‑standing Beverly Hills development‑of‑regional‑impact (DRI): a planned‑unit‑development (PUD) amendment and a 25‑year development agreement. The applicant, Metro Development Group (Tuscany Ranch/Metro), proposes to update a 1981 plan to current mixed‑use master‑plan standards while not increasing the DRI’s total approved residential unit count.

What commissioners voted on
- A PUD that adjusts the land‑use pattern of undeveloped DRI parcels to concentrate commercial uses along County Road 491, allow mixed housing types, set development standards (setbacks, impervious‑surface ratios, open‑space targets) and identify optional amenities such as a recreational “lagoon.”
- A legally binding development agreement (25‑year term) that commits the developer to infrastructure and mitigation items, including right‑of‑way dedications for widening County Road 491, roadway and drainage contributions, geotechnical/erosion protections, school‑site reservation and a contribution to construction of a fire station once a development threshold is reached.

Key points from presentations and staff review
Metro’s team (attorney Rob Batzel; Justin O’Brien, Metro Development Group; Paul Gibbs, Community Land Design) said the application updates only an undeveloped portion of the 2,233‑acre Beverly Hills DRI — roughly 1,070 acres of that DRI — and does not increase the total number of residential units entitled across the entire DRI. The developer proposes to modernize lot design and increase the mix of housing types, including multifamily and town‑home products, to respond to market demand and county forecasting work calling for more mixed‑use, walkable development where utilities are available.

Infrastructure and funding commitments
The development agreement obligates the developer to convey additional right‑of‑way for County Road 491 (Metro agreed to provide 50 feet instead of the DRI’s 30 feet) and additional right‑of‑way at the Hampshire Boulevard intersection to accommodate a future signal, as well as to convey drainage capacity and participate in design and construction of transportation improvements. The applicant and staff described a transportation contribution package and a conceptual cost estimate for one additional travel lane over a 1.4‑mile stretch: an estimated $7.78 million for one lane (land acquisition, drainage, construction), and the developer said total contributions, including right‑of‑way, drainage and impact‑fee credits, would be sizable (figures cited during the hearing clustered around tens of millions of dollars). The development agreement documents a process for future negotiation of any impact‑fee credits in accordance with state statute.

Utilities, water and wastewater
Central States Utilities (private utility) has submitted permitting to expand capacity and has provided a will‑serve assertion in the project packet; staff and the applicant said wastewater (not potable water) is the primary capacity issue historically, and the developer agreed that no subdivision plat or nonresidential permitting would be accepted without written confirmation of available capacity from the utility. The development agreement contains requirements for geotechnical reporting (sinkhole buffer was discussed) and SWFWMD/DEP best practices for stormwater.

Lagoon amenity and water usage
The developer described an optional recreational lagoon amenity and provided operational data from comparable Metro projects: typical steady‑state water makeup for a lagoon of the size discussed would be on the order of 8,000–10,000 gallons per day (after initial fill), and prefill would be staged over many weeks and coordinated with the utility to manage draw. Metro compared that daily demand to a nearby golf course water permit (quoted as roughly 319,000 gallons/day) to illustrate that a lagoon’s daily maintenance demand is much smaller than some typical golf course uses. The PUD text and a staff condition identify the lagoon as a permissible recreational/bathing feature subject to regulatory permitting.

Housing mix, density and impervious surface ratios
A central focus of commission questions was how the updated PUD translates the old DRI housing categories into contemporary product types. The applicant said it is not increasing the DRI’s overall residential entitlement and that it intends to provide a range of “single‑family detached, cluster and attached” products, as well as multifamily concentrated near town centers. The PUD tables permit a graduated approach to impervious surface ratio (ISR) — higher ISRs for attached/multifamily areas (up to 70% for some multifamily) and lower ISRs for detached single family — which generated debate among commissioners about consistency with older DRI standards. Staff noted the PUD approach aligns with other master‑planned communities approved in Citrus County in recent years, while several commissioners pressed for limits where multifamily interfaces existing single‑family neighborhoods. The record shows the PUD includes footnotes restricting three‑story multifamily buildings to specified MF zones and limiting higher‑density/multistory units where they abut existing single‑family lots as of the agreement’s effective date.

Public testimony and concerns
Members of the public raised concerns about loss of rural character, tree clearing, water usage, wastewater capacity, traffic on CR‑491, and timing/pace of build‑out. Proponents included the Citrus County Chamber of Commerce and the Citrus County Building Alliance, which emphasized economic and housing benefits and urged working with local contractors.

Commission action and conditions
After extensive public testimony and hours of technical discussion, the PDC voted to recommend approval of both the development agreement and the PUD with staff‑recommended conditions. The development agreement was read into the record and recorded as approved by the PDC (vote 7‑0). Commissioners asked staff and the applicant to clean up language to remove ambiguity (notably around the use definitions for “multifamily” versus “single‑family attached” and the interchangeability language) and to add clarifying text about where apartments (multistory multifamily) may be located; the applicant offered to strike multifamily from the interchangeability clause and to add a clear definition that “apartment” is only permitted in MF districts.

The PDC motion (development agreement and PUD amendment) was accompanied by a list of staff conditions and minor drafting clarifications agreed during the hearing; both items will be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on May 13 (development agreement) and May 27 (PUD) per staff announcement.

What remains to be resolved
Key technical items remain for implementation at permitting or in future agreements: exact transport improvement design and cost allocation (future DRA and impact‑fee credit calculations), final geotechnical design for areas near sinkhole features, and written utility confirmations for potable and wastewater capacity tied to plats and nonresidential approvals. The lagoon remains optional and subject to SWFWMD and health‑department permitting and will require a utility‑capacity demonstration before construction.

Sources: Applicant presentations (Rob Batzel, Justin O’Brien, Paul Gibbs), Citrus County staff report and addendum, technical services memo, public testimony (including Citrus County Chamber and Building Alliance), and recorded PDC motions and votes.