Ashley Miller asked the Citrus County Planning & Development Commission on Jan. 15 to allow 10 dwarf or pygmy goats per acre — a total of 20 animals — on a roughly 2.3-acre rural-residential parcel she bought Oct. 1, saying the animals are small, quiet and primarily pets.

Miller told the commission she bought the property to raise her son “in the country” and that the goats are “very small… They don’t cause a smell,” adding that she intended to permit existing fences and structures and to comply with any conditions the board required.

But staff said the Land Development Code (LDC) allows one goat per acre (the parcel would allow two) and that a code-compliance case is open for exceeding the allowed number. Senior planner Jen Perkins confirmed 20 goats were observed on a site visit and noted perimeter barbed wire that staff recommended be removed as a condition of any approval.

During public comment several nearby residents said the herd and other site conditions had already affected the neighborhood. "When the temperature goes above 80 degrees, all I smell is goat crap," Michael Genovese said, adding he believed his property value would be harmed. Other neighbors testified they had no problem with the goats and defended the applicant’s guardian dogs.

Commission debate focused on the LDC limit, University of Florida IFAS guidance cited in the staff backup about forage needs, the applicant’s failure to check zoning before purchase, and the lack of permanent housing seen for animals on site. Commissioner Michael Facemeyer said the request “to go from… 2 goats per acre to 20 goats per acre is a quantum leap.” Commissioner Jeanette Collins cited IFAS best-management practices saying one to three goats foraging per acre is typical and described the request as excessive for a parcel surrounded by residences.

For a purpose of a motion, the commission found application CUDash2025-00014 inconsistent with the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan and the LDC and denied the conditional-use request based on staff findings and testimony. The motion carried by voice vote, motion passes 6-0. The denial does not overturn the ongoing code-compliance process related to unpermitted structures or barbed wire on the parcel.

What happens next: the denial closes this route to permitting the requested number of goats; code enforcement follow-up will cover unpermitted accessory structures and the perimeter fencing condition.

Sources: Staff report and presentations at the Jan. 15 Planning & Development Commission hearing; testimony from Ashley Miller and several neighbors.