Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hernando County postpones Baxter Street variance after neighbors press for revised plan and notice
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners continued a requested setback variance for a Baxter Street lot to March 24 after neighbors testified they were not properly notified and said the lot configuration and historic alterations created the dispute. Staff will require a revised site plan and re‑notice before the board considers the request again.
The Hernando County Board of County Commissioners voted on Feb. 3 to continue a variance petition for property on Baxter Street after neighbors said a recent sale and changes to lot lines created the setback dispute.
Development Services Director Omar De Pablo told commissioners staff had recommended approval for the request to reduce side setbacks from 35 feet to 25 feet because the lot is unusually narrow. Senior planner Michelle Miller said staff found the lot legally existed for decades but acknowledged neighbors had filed a written objection and raised concerns about a self‑imposed hardship and proximity to an adjacent home.
When the applicant was initially not present, the board briefly moved the item later in the agenda. When the petitioner’s representative, Chris Glover of Paulmont Construction, arrived and was sworn, neighbors James and Lorena Johnson told the board they believed the seller had included part of the Johnsons’ land in the sale and that prior additions to the adjacent home had left them with a reduced buffer.
Commissioners discussed alternatives including shifting the proposed house 10 feet to the east to preserve a 35‑foot setback on the western side, or pushing the dwelling farther back on the lot. County staff and legal counsel said any significant shift would require a new site plan and re‑notification of adjacent property owners.
Vice Chair Champion moved to continue the item to the second regular meeting in March (March 24) with direction that the petitioner submit a revised site plan and that staff complete the required adjacent‑owner notifications. The motion passed 5–0.
What’s next: Staff will notify adjacent owners and request a new site plan showing any proposed shifts; the item returns to the Board on March 24 for further action.
