Citrus County approves 38‑unit Hills of Lecanto townhome PUD over neighbor concerns

The Citrus County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously on Feb. 26 to approve PUD202500010, a 38‑unit townhome development proposed by Townsley Construction in the Pinecone Avenue area of Lecanto. The proposal, described by applicant attorney Austin Daley as fee‑simple townhomes intended to produce a more attainable homeownership product, passed with conditions tying the project to central water and sewer and to off‑site utility and buffering improvements.

Supporters told the board the project fills a local “missing middle” housing gap and would be marketable to first‑time buyers and local workforce employees. "This product type lets people buy a home and start building equity without the cost of a detached new build," attorney Austin Daley said in the hearing. The developer also offered to place an HOA in charge of common roads, stormwater and landscaping.

Opponents living on Pinecone Avenue and nearby Woodview Lane said the site is incompatible with adjacent low‑density residential lots and raised repeated concerns about traffic, on‑site stormwater and sewer capacity. "It may be a beautiful plan, but I don't want it in my backyard," resident Dwayne Hitchcock told commissioners. Multiple neighbors described narrow local roads, children playing near the right‑of‑way and a history of localized runoff; one resident said county notices were not received in their neighborhood.

County staff told the board central water is available but that mandatory connection to county sewer will require off‑site collection and transmission upgrades to reach the site; utilities staff did not provide a fixed dollar estimate at the hearing. The board’s approved conditions require the applicant to obtain necessary wastewater and site‑improvement permits and to pay for any upgrades needed to connect the project to central sewer.

Board members debated landscaping and fence standards, with staff recommending a 25‑foot Type‑D buffer and masonry wall and the applicant asking to use a 20‑foot buffer with a vinyl privacy fence set on the inside of that buffer so neighbors would see vegetation outside the fence. The developer agreed in the hearing record to place buffering vegetation outside the project fencing; the board added related language to the approval conditions.

The board also required compliance with building and fire codes for attached housing, traffic mitigation if required by county code, and the execution of HOA documents to ensure long‑term maintenance of shared infrastructure. The PUD passed with a recorded vote of 5‑0.

The county clerk recorded public testimony from more than a dozen neighbors both for and against the project; staff and the applicant said site engineering, stormwater and wastewater designs will be finalized at the permitting stage. The applicant and staff were directed to work with utilities and public works to provide more precise cost and timing estimates for sewer connection and traffic improvements before final permits are issued.