Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Citrus County planning panel recommends denial of 136‑lot PUD after residents raise drainage, traffic and density concerns
Summary
The Planning and Development Commission unanimously recommended denial of Garden Street Communities’ PUD to convert land for 136 single‑family lots, citing incompatibility with surrounding low‑density neighborhoods and unresolved concerns about drainage, traffic and utility capacity.
The Citrus County Planning and Development Commission voted unanimously on Jan. 2 to recommend denial of a planned unit development proposal that would rezone land for 136 single‑family homes along Rock Crusher Road.
The commission’s recommendation, based on testimony presented at the hearing, cites incompatibility with the county’s comprehensive plan and Land Development Code and will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 11 for final consideration.
Ron Pianta of Coastal Engineering, representing applicant Garden Street Communities, described the master plan as a 136‑lot subdivision at about 3.99 dwelling units per acre with 6,000‑square‑foot lots, an enhanced 25‑foot buffer and a 40‑foot perimeter setback. Pianta said the applicant is requesting a modification to the county’s impervious surface ratio (ISR) — from the LDC’s 0.35 maximum for low‑density residential to 0.55 — arguing the higher density is necessary to fund required off‑site utility work, including a long force‑main extension and a pump station to connect the site to potable water and sanitary sewer.
Melissa Morris, the county planner, told the commission the application would remove a mobile‑home designation and reclassify the site for single‑family development at roughly 3.9 units per acre. Morris reiterated staff’s point that surrounding platted lots are substantially larger and that the proposed ISR exceeds the LDC maximum for the zoning district.
Numerous residents who live adjacent to the site told the commission they feared the scale of the project would worsen local drainage and flooding, increase traffic near Rock Crusher Elementary and change the character of nearby low‑density neighborhoods. Neighbor Chuck Shinski told commissioners, "You're gonna put 136 houses in the lowland... Ain't no way," and raised concerns about retention ponds, tree clearing and the distance to the nearest sewer pumping station.
Other neighbors asked for clearer information on the proposed buffers and setbacks and questioned whether a traffic study had accounted for other nearby developments and school‑related congestion. The applicant said preliminary traffic work had been done and that a traffic impact analysis will be submitted with the preliminary plat; county engineering and technical services will review those analyses and require off‑site improvements if warranted.
Commissioners asked staff whether wastewater and road impacts are considered in the aggregate as multiple nearby developments move forward; staff said the county’s water resources/utility staff does evaluate capacity cumulatively and requires sufficiency letters and permitting to address off‑site upgrades.
School board representative Chuck Dixon said the district has a project in its five‑year work plan to master‑plan Rock Crusher Elementary, including a second entrance, but described the application’s density as troubling and questioned using a PUD solely to obtain variances rather than for a mix of land uses.
After discussion, Commissioner Stacy Worthington moved — and Commissioner Sherra seconded — a finding that application AA PUD‑2024‑000099 is inconsistent with the Citrus County comprehensive plan and Land Development Code. The motion passed unanimously. The commission placed the application on the Board of County Commissioners agenda for Feb. 11.
The applicant told the commission it intends to meet county and Water Management District stormwater and permitting requirements, pursue required threatened‑species permitting for gopher tortoises, and negotiate any necessary water and sewer agreements with county utilities.
The hearing record includes edits staff proposed to several recommended conditions to correct typographical errors and to remove or revise conditions that staff said conflict with state statutes; the recommended changes and the commission’s recommendation will accompany the application when it goes before the Board of County Commissioners.
