Citrus County planning panel continues review of Tuscany Ranch PUD and development agreement amid questions over density, roads and water

The Citrus County Planning and Development Commission on Feb. 26 heard a detailed presentation from Metro Development Group on proposed updates to the Beverly Hills development of regional impact (DRI) — the application is filed as PUD2663 with a companion development agreement DA‑2024‑2 for a project the applicant calls Tuscany Ranch — but commissioners voted to continue both files to a later meeting for additional revisions and staff review.

Metro’s entitlement team told commissioners the application does not ask for any additional units than those already authorized in the 1981 Beverly Hills DRI (most recently amended in 2021). “We are not seeking any additional units,” said land‑use attorney Rob Batzel during the applicant presentation. The firm said the request is a modernization of an older plan and that a development agreement is intended to bind infrastructure and environmental commitments over the long term.

Commissioners and dozens of public commenters pressed the applicant on several core issues: placement and possible expansion of multifamily housing and three‑story apartment buildings, how water and sewer service would be staged, the applicant’s transportation commitments along County Road 491, and an optional “lagoon” amenity that drew repeated environmental concern.

Why it matters: the project sits inside the long‑standing Beverly Hills DRI (2,233 acres total) but the applicant’s focused application covers roughly 1,069.5 acres in the DRI’s northern portion. The plan would use a mix of commercial, multifamily and single‑family product types, and the development agreement attempts to lock in who pays for and when certain off‑site improvements would occur. Commissioners said they need clearer, complete contract language before recommending approval to the Board of County Commissioners.

What the applicant told the commission

Metro’s entitlement director, Justin O’Brien, described Metro as a master‑plan developer that builds mixed‑use communities and touted examples of completed work in Central Florida. Paul Gibbs, the project landscape architect, walked the commission through maps showing the proposed reconfiguration of town‑center commercial along County Road 491, multifamily nodes behind the commercial frontage and lower‑density housing to the east. Batzel and Metro emphasized that the total entitled residential count under the DRI would not increase and that the development agreement would be used to phase and guarantee infrastructure commitments.

The development agreement draft the applicant submitted would, among other things, require Metro to convey 50 feet of right of way along its frontage on County Road 491 and to reimburse the county for the cost of an additional travel lane along the property frontage. Batzel said Metro is prepared to pay for that lane and to work with the county on signalization and other intersection mitigation. Metro also proposed a 20‑year agreement term and described an assumed absorption rate of roughly 300 housing units per year for planning purposes.

What commissioners and the public raised

- Density and building heights: Commissioners pressed the team about a proposed footnote that would allow apartments within a designated multifamily area to exceed 10 dwelling units per acre in limited locations (the applicant agreed to cap those areas at 15 units per acre) and to allow three‑story multifamily in isolated areas. Staff noted the DRI historically limited building height and density; some commissioners and residents said the combined mapping and footnotes give the developer too much flexibility to relocate more intense multifamily uses within the plan area.

- Water and sewer: The applicant provided letters from Central States Utilities (formerly Rolling Oaks) asserting available capacity to serve initial phases and described ongoing coordination about future capacity expansions. Metro’s presentation said the development agreement and will‑serve letters would require proof of capacity prior to plats and building permits. Still, several speakers from the public and commissioners asked for clearer, documented thresholds and for explicit contractual language spelling out sequencing if additional treatment capacity or permits are required.

- Roadway commitments and impact fees: The development agreement draft calls for Metro to convey right of way and reimburse the county for construction of one additional lane along the property frontage of County Road 491; the county expects to lane‑balance the corridor when it widens in the future. Staff and the applicant also discussed signal warrants at West Hampshire and Forest Ridge, and the applicant signaled it would contribute toward those improvements and toward transportation impact fees. The agreement as drafted referred to possible impact‑fee credits for land conveyances; staff said the mechanics of any credit will be handled under a separate impact‑fee agreement in accordance with county code.

- Lagoons and environmental risk: Metro said a lagoon (a private, commercial amenity similar to features Metro has built elsewhere) is optional and not included in every plan. Applicant representatives described operational controls and lower ongoing chemical use compared with traditional pools, and said any lagoon would require state and water‑management permitting. Multiple residents and several commissioners raised groundwater and karst (sinkhole) concerns and urged the commission to require stronger, explicit language in the development agreement and to delay action until permitting and environmental studies are clearly defined.

- Schools and public safety: The development agreement draft included an obligation to work with the school board to identify and, if feasible, site a charter school within the project; the school board representative and staff asked that final contract language not assert there is existing capacity. The applicant agreed to provide annual absorption reports and comments to the school district. The DA also contemplates a lump sum or land conveyance to help fund a future fire station; the applicant indicated the county would prefer to own and control station design and construction.

Public comment

Dozens of residents attended the hearing; several spoke against the lagoon option and urged the commission to slow the process until state and water‑management permits are complete. Others asked for stronger buffers between existing single‑family neighborhoods and proposed multifamily areas, questioned transportation staging, or asked the applicant to include deed‑restricted affordable units.

Commission action

After discussion the commission voted to continue both applications to a future meeting so staff and the applicant could finalize outstanding contract language and address the questions raised at the hearing. A motion to continue PUD2663 and DA‑2024‑2 passed and the commission set the items for a future public hearing.

What comes next

The applicant and county staff will prepare a revised development agreement and updated PUD exhibits for the commission’s next hearing; if PDC recommends approval, the items will then go to the Board of County Commissioners for the required final hearings on the development agreement (Chapter 163) and the PUD. The commission asked for clearer, final language on multifamily placement and density limits, sequencing of water and sewer capacity commitments, stormwater and sinkhole protections, and the mechanics for any impact‑fee credits tied to land conveyance or off‑site improvements.

Ending

No final land‑use approvals were made at the Feb. 26 hearing. Commissioners said they will review the applicant’s revised documents when those materials are resubmitted and will expect explicit, enforceable contract language before forwarding any recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.