Citrus County commission accepts court ruling on Pine Ridge development, will not pursue county-funded appeal

The Citrus County Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 on Sept. 2 to accept a circuit court order that quashed a county approval relating to the Pine Ridge golf-course property and to forego county-funded appellate litigation. The meeting opened with public comment from dozens of Pine Ridge residents who urged the commission not to spend taxpayer money defending the earlier decision.

Chair Diana Finnegan introduced a motion early in the meeting to "not engage in any further legal practice" on the matter, which initially failed after board debate. Outside counsel Dale Scott told the commission he believed the judge's ruling was legally unsupportable and that an appeal was defensible; he cautioned of risks to future county decisions if the ruling stood. After procedural votes, Commissioner Jeff Kennard made the decisive motion late in the meeting: "we accept the ruling," and the board approved it 5-0. Kennard also asked staff to place a proposed text amendment to the county's land-development code on a future agenda to address how DRI (development of regional impact) amendments are handled going forward.

The public-comment period was dominated by Pine Ridge residents who said the community relied on the master plan and that the circuit court's finding that the county had failed to observe essential requirements of law meant the county should not expend additional funds contesting the ruling. "By not appealing the judge's decision, you show good leadership and integrity," said John Devore, environmental committee chair for Pine Ridge. Other residents warned of potential impacts if the property is redeveloped as residential: traffic on single-lane roads, loss of tree buffers, and threats to an equestrian lifestyle.

County Attorney Denise Lynn said the staff would ensure any offer or correspondence from the applicant's counsel would be placed in the record; an email from the applicant's attorney offering to pursue an appeal and to allow the county to join as a co-petitioner was read into the record during the meeting. Commissioners debated three options: accept the ruling, pursue an independent county appeal at public expense, or join the applicant's appeal as a co-petitioner if the applicant filed one and assumed expense. In the end the board chose to accept the circuit court's order and move to correct or clarify its land-development code rules separately.

The board did not adopt any emergency changes to the code at the meeting; Kennard said he would request a future agenda item to propose a text amendment to clarify procedures for amending DRIs. The county did not authorize participation in or funding for any appeal at this session.