An Ordinance by the Pasco County Board Of County Commissioners Amending the Pasco County Land Development Code; Amending Chapter 100 to Create Section 106.6, Amendments After August 1, 2024; and Other Sections, as Necessary, for Internal Consistency; Providing for Applicability; Repealer; Providing for Severability; Inclusion Into the Land Development Code, and an Effective Date
What the county recorded
Staff recommendation
Approve
No disposition in the minutes
The approved minutes do not say what became of this item. That is a gap in the record, not a decision. It is the normal state for 24% of items. Most of those are regular business and board reports that the minutes do not dispose of in writing. This archive never infers an outcome from the fact that someone called a vote.
The source document
The county’s agenda for Planning Commission, Aug 21, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
PDE-25-0425 in full →PDE-25-0425 was taken up 3 times between Aug 21, 2025 and Sep 16, 2025 — this is appearance 1.
- Aug 21, 2025PlanningPC4▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Sep 3, 2025BoardP47▶No action
- Sep 16, 2025BoardP78▶No disposition in the minutes
What was said
Machine transcription of 34m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 77% of 208 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
Item PC four is PDE twenty five zero four two five an ordinance amending Pasco County Land Development Code Chapter one hundred, creating section one hundred six point six presented by staff.
Good afternoon, Planning Commission. Rebecca Bogue, Planning Development, Economic Growth. Here today to present item PDE 250425, Section 106.6, amendments to the LDC. And I do have a presentation.
So on July fifteenth, the Board of County Commissioners uh considered the applicability of Senate Bill 180 on the county's ability to propose, adopt, or enforce any new regulations following a hurricane.
At that meeting the board directed the county to proceed with business as usual, um, except for imposing any new regulations that could be considered more restrictive or burdensome on properties that have been damaged by a hurricane. So in furtherance of this direction, um section we are proposing section 106.6, creating amendments after August 1, 2024. This amendment essentially states
that the county will not impose any new any new LDCs that could be considered more restrictive or burdensome. on properties that have been damaged by a hurricane until October 2nd, 2007, or one year after a hurricane that resulted in a federal disaster declaration. This would also apply to resolutions, manuals, or written procedures.
This slide is of the actual text. And then our recommend that the local planning agency find the proposed amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Mr. Chairman to this? Yes. Go ahead. Um so we are working on Um Mr. Moody sent me an email and I thought he raised a very good point, which is Yeah.
Sure.
The law and doesn't really clarify what is a property damage by a hurricane, but we do have a database. The Building and Construction Services Department maintains a database. of properties that were damaged by hurricane and so We likely will add a definition to what that means, property damage by hurricanes, that refers to those databases um because we are able to track we do track them by partial ID, so th the there there will be an additional language added
to this that defines what property dam which properties are damaged by hurricane. We're just not we don't have that finalized yet because we're working with the DCS on how exactly to define what that means.
Okay.
Okay. Anyone else up here?
And I'll thank Mr. Moody for that.
Thanks, John. Thank you.
So one question I've got is w so are we then exempting Buildings that are built after on a new land development code, did not have to comply to that. If they're later damaged, so they go back to the two thousand four when they're being reconstructed?
So what this is saying is that First of all, you're not exempting them from the entire code. Right. You're exempting them from only any regulations that are considered more restrictive burdensome that were adopted after August first of twenty twenty four. So And it's only for a period of time. Sort of a pause. But so I'm not sure if I understand your question.
It I mean it's it's it's a short period, but I'm I'm just thinking if s if a property's developed based on the land development code
after the August first date, say next year than is damaged in a hurricane, is the reconstruction of that building now held to the lesser standard of the old
hurricane hits It re-triggers this Code provision. In other because what it says is it's to the later of October second, twenty twenty seven, or one year after Hurricane makes landfall in Pasco, whichever occurs later. So So let's just say a a property were built
Another hurricane hits us. then for one year after that this provision applies again.
It has to make landfall in Pasco to retrigger?
Within a hundred miles of p any part of Pasco County. And a disaster dec declaration as well, right? Which almost always happens if if a hurricane is may landfall in Pasco, we almost always get a federal disaster declaration. But Does that answer your question?
I'm just reading the text again. Sorry. Um
In essence if if a property gets repeatedly damaged by a hurricane This provision could continue to I guess arguably assist them for more restrictive more burdensome regulations. If we got hur hit with a hurricane every year, it would just re trigger every year.
Right.
So that's on that that's on so if there's a newer building that's built after this, it gets triggered again, are they held to a less burdensome standard? than they were actually built under.
So
You're talking about okay, so it was it's built
after uh it's built after aug august first, twenty twenty four. And before October second, twenty twenty seven?
Right.
And then it gets damaged again by another hurricane? Or
if it doesn't exist now, it gets built under the more burdensome
code is damaged, is it then? If it gets damaged again.
And they're trying to rebuild after being damaged again, they would have the benefit of this provision again. In other words, every time a hurricane comes through and damages a building for at least one year after that happens they'd have the benefit of this provision.
The the one exception to that is for the hur the hurricanes that just hit us last year, the pause goes to October second, twenty twenty seven. It's not a year, it's longer than a year.
Good. Every time the property gets damaged it. potentially triggers this happening again.
Am I making
Kavan I have a
question.
The language says shall not apply to the construction, reconstruction, or redevelopment of any property damaged by a hurricane. You're presupposing that a n undeveloped property cannot be damaged by a hurricane?
So this goes to the definition of what is property damage by hurricane and I've spoken to our BCS department. That definition will clarify that it's damage to structures, because that's what we track in terms of And I believe that what likely was the legislative intent is that you're trying to protect dam those property owners that had structural damage from the hurricane if they're trying to reconstruct or redevelop that property. Um I
don't believe the intent was that it was applying to just vacant land. But the definition When we define property damage by hurricane, it will be limited to structural damage that's recorded in our database of Yeah. Damage by hurricane.
Okay.
I mean if I read the legislative history of this bill, all of the discussion is about helping those that were that had their homes or businesses damaged by A hurricane.
I do not believe there was any intent to help A vacant landowner.
So David, just a general question and I mean, is the purpose of needing to do this amendment is just To provide some provision to the county. I mean w as far as Senate Bill one eighty goes, was it is there questions on the what it applies to? Is that why this has to be
put in place?
The law is Not clear at all. Um so but we believe this interpretation is consistent with the legislative intent and it's the only interpretation that would be constitutional. Um so that's one reason we're codifying it.
And and I understand if you're not, are you at liberty to explain why you think that's the only way it can be constitutional.
Because I think if it was interpreted in any any other manner it would violate single subject requirements, it would be arbitrary and capricious and violate constitutional requirements for standing. I can send you the case law. There's we have the w there's a we've drafted some whereas clauses that I don't think those made it to the Planning Commission, right?
No.
But they're part of the WHERES clause for the ordinance that explain that. But that's the short version of The bottom line is this act it was it was an act related to emergencies and emergency management. So If the property was not damaged by hurricane, Those are the only people that were affected by the emergency. Anybody else was not affected by the emergency if they were not damaged by the hurricane.
There's a general rule that you your law has to match the title of your law and the subject of your law and it can't be arbitrary and capricious.
So
I'm not sure
I agree. Where'd you get your law degree, Mr. Moody?
I knew that was coming.
I'd
like to see your constitutional analysis.
I'm not. An example. I may business owner and my power was out for three weeks. Was I damaged?
I think it this this is d this law is dealing with somebody trying to construct, reconstruct, or redevelop after a hurricane. So Presumably you need to have some structural damage to your
Have been affected. You may have lost money. as a result of the hurricane. But but but but but that doesn't mean you were Damaged by the hurricane.
Go ahead.
I mean, but more importantly, you have to look at what this law is. It's dealing with regulatory amendments. Our our regulations aren't affecting the loss of power anyway. What our regulations affect is your ability to redevelop, construct, reconstruct your business. And so I think the legislature was trying to stop us from making it more difficult for you to Reconstruct your business. If your if your house was damaged, your business was damaged, if we the legislature did not want us to make it
more difficult for somebody who
I'm sitting here looking at the text of S B one eighty, and if any of you want a copy, I got it here. And I not my intent to get in debate with the County Attorney's Office.
I'm happy to debate it with you.
Your duty as the county attorney is to represent the Board of County Commissioners and I understand that and if the Board of County Commissioners wants to attempt to sidestep and or circumvent Senate Bill one eighty or come up with a creative interpretation of what Senate Bill one hundred eighty is, that I understand that that's your obligation to try to defend that position. So I don't wish to get into some kind of debate Over with you. about that.
I'll just say this.
In Florida. The law requires that you come to a complete stop at a red light before you turn right. Okay. Every day we see people that roll through red lights. But and maybe they disagree with the law that they needed to stop. The other morning I was on my way down nineteen and a school bus stopped. and its stop signs came out, its red lights were flashing. And there were no kids, no parents, and
there were three lanes of US nineteen backed up waiting for this school bus, but it's not proper for me to go around the bus. The law stops me from doing that. I don't get to pick and choose whether the situation fits my my need.
And I'll just say for that particular reason I wouldn't be supportive of this language and I'll say something else and I'm not speaking to you. I'm speaking to the board when I say this. We spend a lot of money Paying lobbyists. To go to Tallahassee to seek earmarked appropriations for Pasco County.
Do we not think we're going to draw the ire of the legislature who passed this bill? With only two dissenting votes in the House and one dissenting vote in the Senate.
I mean, that's a pretty good majority of the State's House of Representatives and State Senate. that voted in support of this bill and we're going to go ask them for money and at the same time kick them in the teeth and our own local legislative delegation All of them. voted for this bill. They can choose to do that. I'm advising that I don't think that's smart politics. I copied you on a letter. I have no idea whether
you knew that letter existed, but Orange County attempted to change its comprehensive plan. and the Florida Department of Commerce citing Senate Bill one eighty. rejected it ab initio, as is the language In The statute. And I don't understand why we think we're going to be treated Any differently? Like I said, I don't want to get into a legal argument here. I'm looking at Do
we really want to kick sand in the face of the governor and our Legislature. I'm just not thinking that's a smart idea. That's just my personal opinion. And
That's not okay, so that's not a legal analysis, that's a policy issue. But
but but but that's what I'm saying, because this is a policy issue by the board.
I
don't want to get into a legal
debate about it.
And so they have a duty to apply laws in a constitutional manner. And in my opinion this definit this interpretation of the law applies the law in a constitutional manner. Your policy point is well taken, but we've asked Some of the legislatures who voted for this bill. They thought they were voting for this.
I think it it's it's probably poorly drafted. Wrwiła. We've asked multiple legislators, our lobbyists asked multiple legislators. What did they think they were voting for? They thought they were voting to protect properties that were damaged by a hurricane.
They do not want to make things more that if somebody went Sustained damage by hurricane. They didn't think it should be more difficult for them to have to rebuild their homes, rebuild their businesses owing that damage. And I if you you You w do you go ask all those people who voted for it? What they thought they were voting for I bet you ninety-five percent of them th would agree that's what they thought they were voting for. I I would hope
that
poking our eye of anybody's eye.
I would hope that they're I would hope that our Local legislative delegation isn't like the Democrat Party while passing the Affordable Care Act and that you don't get to know what's in the bill until after we pass the bill. It's only Twenty eight pages, I'm sure they're capable of reading the twenty eight pages that is Senate Bill one eighty.
Actually this bill m got this language got inserted in this bill on the last day of the session. At the basically the eleventh hour. I'm not sure how many of the legislatures actually took the time to read it and debate whether what its intent was. So while I would normally agree with you that we shouldn't poke the legislature because that there's that bad idea. I don't think that the legislature intended to have the law apply beyond properties damaged by
hurricane.
Then would should we not allow the legislature to go back and fix its
Yeah we and we have we have a legislative proposal to the legislature to do that very thing. The problem we have is that in the interim. This is a retroactive law. I understand that. We have we have regulations, and this was to Mr. Gerardi's point why we're doing this. We have regulations that we already adopted after August.
now and whenever the legislature might fix it to implement the law. We're implementing the way we think the legislature intended and the way that we think is constitutional. And we do w our bo our own board doesn't want to make things more difficult for somebody who was actually damaged by hurricane. So we do think they should be exempt even from the regulations we adopted after August first of twenty twenty four.
I understand that. And that's a policy decision. They can make. I'm just telling you for me, speaking for myself. And I'm not trying to claim that I have higher or better morals than anybody else. Just for me. I'm looking at what the plain text of the law says. And I have no wish or desire to violate that. I would also say and I'm sure you'll have some legal defense
for this, but I looked up For what reasons can the governor remove a county commissioner or one of us planning commissioners? from this position and misfeasance is one of those. Then I had to go do a whole bunch of AI research as to what constitutes misfeasance.
And I would I'm not sure if you're reasonably convinced That that Passing this may constitute A misfeasance. be careful not to say the word malfeasance, it's misfeasance, but I speak only for myself. This is just something I'm not comfortable supporting. I Have No problem with the rest of the board if they want us Agree to this I don't judge anybody for that. Just for
me this is something I Can't recommend.
That's your prerogative. I'm just saying you have not re you have not reviewed the case law on I
not here to get in a legal arg debate with you, David. That's not my not my place here. And I understand what your place is and I respect that.
But if you look at the entire law and you have it right there, the real remedy No, I actually have the only
thing.
If we violate it, is that somebody could sue us and get attorney's fees for implementing for not applying it properly. Um the county, the Board of County Commissioners is the one that assumes that liability, not Planning Commission members.
No, I understand that. I don't wish to commit what I think. can be considered a misfeasance.
That's why we're all here.
And there's never going to be a hundred percent unanimity on every issue. Sometimes we are in lockstep, sometimes there are split votes, and that may be what happens here today. I'm just telling you where I personally am at.
Okay.
Well obviously I I mean I I I don't know a lot of the details and it de I definitely am not gonna get into any kind of debate, but I mean, I know other counties and other county attorneys have taken a c position contrary to the can to Pasco's on this ordinance. I know there was something just either last week or this week as far as moratoriums and compliant amendments, etc. that
So I mean we kind of get put in a spot here where this is something we're asked to vote on, but we don't really I mean that that's way above my head. I guess we're gonna be able to do that. Well we went
to we went to our board and Rebecca summarized it. We went to the board and asked the board w what position do they want to take on this bill. And this was the direction we got. This implements the board's direct
yeah and
I
just
for
clarification, I'm looking at this as My role at the Planning commission is not to make policy, it's only to make a recommendation to the Board. My personal recommendation is that you adhere to the law and that you take advantage of the opportunities that's in the law. I mean th th the law lays out a a procedure if a city or county has a question about one of its regulations, they can go to a court of competent jurisdiction
and seek some type of ruling on it. There's a path. Th there's other opportunities. If they're if you're worried about the constitutionality you could you know, sue the legislature, I guess, and try to get to the Florida Supreme Court so that you can review the constitutionality, but I'm just I can't in good context.
Remind me what y let me remind you what your statutory duty is as it relates to this amendment, which it may give you some comfort.
make an opinion about whether this law is legal or not, whether it's constitutional or not. Your sole duties determined is it inconsistent or consistent with a comp plan? I don't even not sure if this is a complan issue. No,
I don't know when we look at the new comp plan later today, how do I determine if it's consistent with the comp
I could I could I could tell you when the comp plan the comp plan has a similar issue when we do the update, but There likely would be similar language in the Com Plan when that comes forward. But The comp plan that's in effect today doesn't even address this issue.
Well then how can I determine whether that's consistent with a comp plan that doesn't
Well I don't think you can say it's inconsistent with a comp plan.
If it is, you'd have to tell me where what provision of the compliance is inconsistent with.
My point is that if you somebody tried to accuse you of malfeasance, I think you could say my only duty was to determine whether it was inconsistent or consistent with a complaint, not whether It With good policy, illegal, unconstitutional, any of those things.
I understand your position.
So
But To Mr. Dorothy's point. I think that the the various county attorneys and city attorneys are still evaluating how they want to deal with this Right. I could tell you that Pasco is not alone in taking this position. I've already spoken to other counties that have taken a similar position.
Anybody else?
Okay.
There's other counties that have also also implemented the Live Local Act on its face. Casco has chosen not to do that.
We may not be, you know, enforcing a law strictly as Mr Moody has interpreted it.
Mm. There's not too many laws I read that are crystal clear.
And I don't spend a lot of time reading them.
I don't particularly like this legislation. I feel like
the the legislature is stepping on Pasco County's ability to determine its own destiny. But at the end of the day I just feel like this is what the law says. I read the law I don't see where it says anywhere in here applies only to hurricane damaged properties. Maybe that was the intent, but that's not what's in the language, at least as I read it. But Again, I speak only for Me.
And I understand and you don't have the benefit of
Three years of law school and twenty years of legal practice that I have, right? The arguments that I can make on it regarding its constitutionality.
Kate, did did I already ask for public comment? Is there anybody else here to speak on this item?
Thank you, Rebecca.
Hi, William McCaw, uh [address removed]. Um good afternoon, Count uh Commissioners. My only concern is the language specifically addressing landfall within a hundred miles of Pasco County. Uh as landfalls defined, I think, is the m important thing. Helene didn't make landfall anywhere close to a hundred miles within Pasco County, and so I think There may be
a change of language, such as if Pasco County declares an emergency in those situations. That's my only comment.
Yeah, well I may agree or not, that's that's straight out of that language is straight out of Cinnabil 180. Um no
it's not actually. Okay, well then tell me because I got the lane here. All right. It says the Senate Bill 180 says within a hundred miles of the track of the hurricane, not where it last made landfall.
All right, well let me see.
It's um
Sorry, it's number one. Two fifty two four twenty two one.
Within one hundred miles of the track of a storm nuclear okay, so but then Two says for when you're after Hurricane makes landfall.
Right. So the time clo the time clock st in my opinion, my non-lawyer, non-constitutional attorney opinion is that the plain language says that the time clock starts one year after the hurricane makes landfall. So the time clock didn't start while Helene was passing us along the coast. It started when it hit the easy.
Has
This is the version
that the governor assigned.
where the track of the storm
Within one hundred miles of the track of a storm.
But
you still have to have the landfall data in there, so Yeah, I mean it has to make landfall though, because otherwise it would never trigger it.
I mean I guess that's the problem is is it
one year after a hurricane has made landfall and the and the track is within a hundred miles, is that what
That's what probably should say. Mr. Chair. I and I I'm only doing this not 'cause I want to debate this, just so that you guys have the language. I brought copies for you all if you would like copies.
No, I'm I'm open to changing this. I'm just trying to figure out how we change it. So Because I think it has to make landfall, otherwise it doesn't trigger two. Right. Yeah. So if so if a Yeah,
it says for one year after a hurricane makes landfall an impact local government may not impose round up.
The issue is if it only We're steed in the Gulf. The reason it says landfall is because
Yeah.
If it only stayed in the Gulf it would never trig number trigger number two. Like y the time period would never start start. So
We suggest the language is mi minorly flawed.
So I so I guess
the ironic thing is a hurricane can make a close call and then turn back out. But it's not never make landfall. Still do
the language in your ordin the proposed ordinance, I don't want to call it yours, entirely your portion. Has made landfall within a hundred miles. I think the difference here is that they're actually trying to take into account what happened with Helene. That We were within a hundred miles of the track of that center of the hurricane and of course that put us in the wrong side of the wrong quadrant for storm surge and you know to get all of the wind from Milton even
though it may not have actually made landfall on our coast. That's w that's the damage we suffered. But I would agree that according to this, the time clock doesn't start
after it makes
landfall.
If the track of the storm is within one hundred miles of any portion of Pasco County? Yes. I think that would be accurate.
It ha I think it has to make landfall though. I don't know how you can see
the the track determines the area, hundred miles of the track, and then the landfall date determines when the time is the same.
Within
Is last made landfall if the track uh after the word landfall say if the track of the storm is a very strong He's within one hundred miles of any portion of Pasco County.
Or you can say i is within uh a hundred miles of any portion of Pasco County and has made landfall.
I'm fine with that too. I'm fine with either way either version. You're basically saying it needs to I think we're basically saying the same thing. It's gotta make landfall and it's gotta the track has to be within a hundred miles of Pasco County.
I I get the point.
I'm fine with that change. I don't think that's not a constitutional argument, Mr. Moody. That's just a Not
here to make constitutional arguments.
Mm-hmm.
In the bill it de defines impact of local government as somebody that's within a hundred miles of the track of the storm. And then for one year after the hurricane landfall and impact the local government may not propose or adopt. And then it goes into that.
Okay, so you Rebecca, are you clear on how you're
redrafting that?
Yes.
And understand that it does say the word may not propose. Or adopt. It's okay.
Not only is it they made it illegal to adopt, they've made it illegal to even think about it.
Well the the issue is that with that as you go through then in conjunction with seven twenty eight, some of this we already adopted. Right. if we already adopted it, it's you ca too late to not propose it if we already adopted it.
I'm sure you'll have fun in front of the Supreme Court arguing all of these nuances.
I can't wait, Mr. Munich. You've got
nothing else to do.
Yeah.
Okay, is there anybody else here for public comment?
Okay, do we have a motion?
Thanks for bringing that up.
Is eh an official motion?
Anyone?
So again I'll remind you, your duty only duty here is to determine whether it's consistent with the comm plan or not. So you can you can make a motion finding it consistent with a comm plan even if you don't agree with any of the rest of it.
I'll move that we find it consistent with the comp plan.
With the
change.
Okay. I'll second.
All
right,
we have a motion and then second.
Does that include us adding an additional change to define properties damaged by hurricane? Yes. Yeah. Okay. That
we just discussed, yeah.
Right.
Okay, we have a motion and a second uh and no further discussion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Motion carries with Mr. Moody dissenting.
Thank you.