Planning commission backs broad LDC amendments: floor‑area rule for elevated coastal buildings, home‑occupation rewrite, tree fund changes

The Citrus County Planning and Development Commission voted to recommend approval of OA‑2024‑00006, a set of amendments to the county’s Land Development Code, at its February 2025 hearing and forwarded the package to the Board of County Commissioners.

The proposed ordinance package contains multiple, mostly technical changes. The most prominent is a revision to the definition of gross floor area for nonresidential buildings in coastal zoning categories: where a building is elevated to meet FEMA flood‑elevation standards, the draft change excludes the horizontal area beneath an elevated first floor ‘‘that is utilized exclusively for parking’’ from gross floor‑area calculations used to enforce floor‑area ratios (FAR) in certain coastal commercial and other nonresidential districts. Attorney Clark Stilwell, who spoke for a property owner with a coastal commercial rental project in Homosassa, said the revision would allow developers who elevate buildings to meet flood rules to provide parking beneath elevated units without triggering a large increase in FAR that could force deep reductions in unit count. Stilwell described a client project that would otherwise fall well above the 0.3 FAR cap in the Coastal Lakes Commercial category if the elevated parking were counted.

Planning staff said the change is countywide but limited in scope to nonresidential floor‑area calculations; it does not alter height limits (staff noted the county retains a 50‑foot cap and story limits). Joanna (planning staff) told the commission the revision is intended to be a common‑sense accommodation for buildings elevated to meet flood and building‑code requirements and said the proposed language requires the under‑building area to be “utilized exclusively for parking.” Joanna and staff flagged that the amendment would apply across the county’s zoning districts where FAR rules are in place and cautioned the change might require additional safeguards in practice.

The package also includes several other changes: clarifying that accessory uses or structures may not be placed on a vacant parcel before establishment of a principal use (preventing people from removing trees and erecting outbuildings prior to primary development); a narrowly‑written exception allowing docks on otherwise undevelopable wetland lots where mitigation is infeasible; a reworded home‑occupation section to align with recent Florida statute changes (including explicit nuisance criteria: noise, vibration, dust, odors); a tailored sign allowance for the Old Homosassa overlay allowing on‑site wall signage to advertise other off‑site nonresidential uses within that defined overlay area (subject to size limits and permitting); removal of an obsolete site‑grading permit provision; revisions to wall and buffer language; an updated landscape enhancement (tree mitigation) administrative regulation that would substantially raise the per‑tree mitigation credit to better reflect market replacement costs; and a requirement that contractors performing work in county rights‑of‑way hold applicable FDOT prequalification and maintain an on‑site representative for active work sites.

Commissioners questioned several points: whether the parking exclusion could be exploited by later enclosing under‑building areas with walls, how the change might affect future hotel or higher‑intensity nonresidential applications, and whether the new Old Homosassa sign provision would spread beyond the overlay. Joanna advised that permitted conversions or new enclosed floor area would trigger FAR calculations at permitting, that the height limits remain in force, and that the Old Homosassa sign allowance is narrowly limited to the overlay defined in the comp plan.

Attorney Stilwell described a Homosassa waterfront project that currently contains 28 rental units at grade; by elevating units to comply with FEMA and the Florida Building Code the owner would lose density under existing FAR rules unless the under‑building parking were excluded from gross floor area. Stilwell said the owner proposed reducing to 18 elevated units to meet the FAR limit but that financial feasibility would be strained; the change would allow safer, elevated construction while preserving more units.

Public comment on the ordinance package was limited and generally supportive of using zoning tools to reduce coastal vulnerability; one commenter, Paul Daugherty, urged the county to continue pursuing broader housing‑and‑landscape objectives and to apply elevated standards where appropriate. After discussion the commission voted to recommend the ordinance package to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Schara moved to find OA‑2024‑00006 consistent with the county comprehensive plan and to recommend approval; the motion carried on a voice vote and staff said the item is scheduled for the BOCC on March 11 at 5:05 p.m.

Key items to watch: if the BOCC adopts the changes, the floor‑area exclusion for elevated parking will be a countywide change to how FAR is calculated for nonresidential, coastal commercial and other affected districts; tree‑mitigation fees will increase if the administrative regulation is adopted by the county; Old Homosassa overlay businesses will be able to display limited off‑site advertising on permitted wall signs. The package does not alter existing height limits or FEMA/building‑code flood requirements; any enclosed ground‑level space built later would be subject to FAR and permitting rules.

Votes at a glance: OA‑2024‑00006 — LDC amendments Motion: Find OA‑2024‑00006 consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners Mover: Commissioner Schara Second: (recorded second) Vote: unanimous (voice vote) Outcome: Recommendation to Board of County Commissioners (scheduled March 11, 2025, 5:05 p.m., Inverness)