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.

4:27Aye. Okay, P forty seven.

4:32Stand by. All right, P forty seven was advertised in the Tampa Bay Times August thirteenth, twenty twenty five.

4:41Uh item P forty seven is PDE twenty five oh four two five. This is 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 one, twenty twenty four. And other sections as necessary for internal consistency, providing for applicability repealer, providing for separability inclusion into the Land Development Code and an effective date. This is the first public hearing of the proposed Land Development Code amendment and we have a presentation.

5:13Okay.

5:27Yeah.

5:32Good afternoon, Board of County Commissioners, Rebecca Bow, Planning Development and Economic Growth. Here to present PDE 25 0425 Section 106 amendments of this code.

5:47Someone need to pull up the PowerPoint for me? Can you talk more into that microphone? Yes. Sorry, last time I felt like I was right there. No. Um I have a PowerP okay, here we go. So on July uh fifteenth, twenty twenty five, the board considered um How Senate Bill 180 would affect new regulations in Pasco County.

6:10Specifically those that have been affected by a hurricane.

6:19So as part of that conversation, um the county Board of County Commissioners directed the county to proceed with Business as usual, except where those any new regulations might affect a property damaged by a hurricane.

6:34So we're proposing section one oh six point six amendments after august first, twenty twenty-four.

6:44Microing.

6:47Thank you. Okay, so essentially what this uh amendment is saying is that Any new regulations that the county proposes are applicable across the county except where a property has been damaged by a hurricane, and that would apply to any code amendments, resolutions, manuals, or written procedures. Next slide. We took this item to the Planning Commission on August 21st, 2025, and They found it consistent with a

7:17comprehensive plan. They recommended adding some additional language to um to reflect Senate Bill eighty more appropriately regarding proximity, tract, and landfall, and then they recommended defining properties damaged by a hurricane.

7:36So this is the amendment we're proposing. The text in italics is the changes that were made post the local planning agency's recommendations. So as mentioned, this is the first public hearing and we're hoping for final adoption at nine sixteen.

7:59And that's it. I'm here for questions

8:01if you have them. Can you go back to the red typed screen and just let us peruse that just for a second?

8:17Sure, who's the subject matter on this? David Goldstein? I

8:20think David is, yeah. And I listened to the planning committee committee discussion.

8:25Yeah, I I think Chair, do we have a good audience here? How far yes, how far in depth do we want to talk about Senate Bill one eighty with hurricane season upon us and what what this is doing to uh put us in a better position with regards to the the state's new requirements.

8:52So as I explained to you at the last time this came up to the board, this legislation is not a model of clarity. In fact, I would say that Remember all the complaints we've had about Live Local, this is probably even worse in terms of how clear the the bill is. And it's subject to many competing interpretations. Um this change to the code effectively implements an interpretation that Senate Bill 180 is limited to properties damaged by hurricanes. I

9:23can't tell you definitively that a court's going to uphold that interpretation or not, but it it is consistent with what the board directed us at the last meeting in terms of how we should interpret Senate Bill 180. I will tell you that we do have a legislative proposal. Ralph has already submitted that to the Florida Association of Counties. It's going to be discussed, I think, at their next meeting. There's probably three or four other counties that have already joined our legislative proposal to clearly limit this the impact of this bill to properties damaged

9:53by a hurricane. And so this code amendment is consistent with what we're requesting that the legislature actually clarify in the law. Um so I believe that at least attempting to implement Senator Bill 180 in some form gives us a better defense if we're sued than just ignoring the law. There are some jurisdictions that are basically just choosing to ignore the law entirely. Um and I'm not sure it's going well for them or

10:23they're just implementing an affirmative lawsuit against the state, which I'm not sure that's gonna go. Well either we're just trying to set this up so that we can best defend any claims made under Standard Bill one eighty. Hopefully we get the legislature to fix the law so it's consistent with this Interpretation. Um But in the interim, we do have regulations on the book that are p books that are potentially affected. And so this is basically codifying an exemption for properties damaged by hurricane from those regulations.

10:51Um Commissioner, I was on the Florida Association of County's call yesterday where um it's the community um something something group, I don't know what what it's called there. I'm now a voting member of it, and this came up and um And yeah, there are some communities, counties who are just totally ignoring everything. But um for the most part, this is what most people think is what they meant. I mean that there's some I think it was in a a bill

11:22that happened at the very end and didn't get

11:26a

11:26chance to get

11:27And we had one of our lobbyists from Southern Groups actually spoke to the sponsor of the bill and Based on the conversation we had with him, we believe this the Senate sponsor did intend this was his intent when he asked this bill to be adopted. But there may be another different intent. I can't tell you definitively what the order because Commissioner Starkey's right, this is something that this language wasn't even in the final bill until the final day of the session. And it was something that the House put in that

11:57the Senate had previously objected to. So I can't tell you definitively what the legislature's intent was or how courts can interpret this law. But What I can tell you is the language we've drafted here is consistent with what the Board directed us to do when we brought the fire rescue impact fee to you for action, and it's consistent with the legislative proposal that we've submitted to FAC. And do I think it's a better it's easier for us to defend a lawsuit if we've implemented Senate Bill

12:28180 in some form? Yes, I do. I think that's a better way to defend the law than to just ignore it entirely.

12:35Yeah, it's not our I I just want to be clear, it's not our intent to ignore Sand Belt when even like something.

12:40Plus I

12:41it's I

12:41I have I have to believe that the our own board doesn't want to make things more difficult for properties damaged by a hurricane.

12:48Yeah, so this is for the most part most of the state's understanding of what is meant. And and that's kinda that's kinda speaks to how hastily potentially this was written and intent. So I'm I'm fine

13:06with this. Plus there is an argument to be made that this is the only constitutional reading of the law. And I don't want to bore you with constitutional theories, but um The whereas clauses of the ordinance do kind of get into that issue.

13:18I think I recall you chal doing some challenges at the Planning Commission on that.

13:24Commissioner Oakley, uh seemed to think he had a law degree, so I guess I had to uh

13:31Although this passed

13:32unanimously at the Planning Commission.

13:34Commissioner Moody actually voted against it, but the the rest of the Planning Commission didn't vote for it.

13:40There's a lot of things in that bill that are undefined.

13:44And that is one of our constitutional arguments is that it's it's incredibly vague.

13:50Yeah, it's yeah. Okay, um any other questions on this? All right, um this is a public hearing. It does anyone here wish to speak to what number are we? P forty seven.

14:06Is there anybody online to speak to people? No one online, no one signed signed up. up.

14:09Okay. Okay.

14:11No actual reverse

14:13for free. Okay, here. Um

14:20Do you know the second hearing for this is? It seems it's written here.

14:24September 16th.

14:27This the adoption hearing will be September sixteenth, twenty twenty-five.

14:30Oh here it is. It's and it's publicized. BCC adopted it. N P R on nine sixteenth, twenty twenty-five. A very, very important day. This is my birthday.