An Ordinance By The Pasco County Board Of County Commissioners Amending The Pasco County Land Development Code Section 530.5 Parking Or Storing Of Recreational Vehicles; Section 530.16 Parking And Storage Of Commercial Vehicles And Commercial Equipment In Certain Residential Areas Prohibited; 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, Oct 2, 2025
The published PDF, as served by the county. This item is one entry in it.
This case, across meetings
CC-26-0001 in full →CC-26-0001 was taken up 3 times between Oct 2, 2025 and Nov 12, 2025 — this is appearance 1.
- Oct 2, 2025PlanningPC7▶No disposition in the minutesthis item
- Oct 21, 2025BoardP66▶No action
- Nov 12, 2025BoardP63▶No disposition in the minutes
What was said
Machine transcription of 23m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 74% of 130 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
And welcome today. Mr. Hernandez.
Mm.
Hello. All right. So um this item, Denise Hernandez, uh Code Compliance Department. This is your last item on the agenda, I'm hoping, and it is CC260001. This is Land Development Code Amendment 80, which is really this is a glitch amendment to be honest with you. So these amendments were presented to the Horizontal Roundtable Interested Parties meeting on September 17, 2025, by my esteemed colleagues Elizabeth Blair and Sam Boundy
with the County Attorney's Office. I was on vacation, so I wasn't able to be there. So, first we're gonna start with the first section, and these are truly glitches, and as I'm here with code compliance, it was because this is an item that came through our code compliance department, and we found that there were some issues with the land development code that needed to be addressed. So the first section is we're making some modifications to section 530.5, which is parking or storing of recreational vehicles, and this section uh just clarifies that parking is storing storing of recreational vehicles
in the right of way is prohibited in all zoning designations. Let me show you the strike through underline section, the or the red line section, which is your first attach your attachment one on your packet. So basically the same language with some clarification because we now have um other things that occur in the right-of-way, such as multi-use trails and bicycle lanes and those type of things. But as you can see, this section used to reside under C, which only applied to residentially
zoned property that's less than one acre or ER. So now it applies countywide. So no recreational vehicle shall be parked or stored on the right-of-way. No portion of any right of any RV shall extend over or interfere with the use of any sidewalk, multi-use trail, bicycle lane, and/or right-of-way intended for vehicular traffic. So we're just moving it from a subsection that only applies to residential districts into the general broad range. and um updating it to include that, you know, we
now have uh multi-use trails and th and those other things that occur in the right of way.
So the next section that we're modifying is um very similar except that now we're uh talking about commercial vehicles. So it's 530.16. Uh this is in supplemental regulations and 530. And this is parking and storage of commercial vehicles and commercial equipment in certain residential areas prohibited. So now we're now adding MPUD, Master Plan Unit Development District, to the list of districts where commercial vehicle parking is prohibited. So going to the strike through underline section of
that. So basically we're just clarifying that no commercial vehicles and no commercially related equipment shall be permitted to be parked or stored in any areas of unincorporated county, including county-owned right-of-way. As you could and as you can see, we're adding MPUD Master Plan Unit Development District. There is um just want to clarify that um the second Piece that's kind of SNP there, always clarified that except when such commercial vehicles and equipment are being utilized as part of a business lawfully operating in the said zoning
districts. So as you know, MPUDs do have residential and commercial components. This these com this comment that's coming in the next slide came from the horizontal round table because they wanted to make sure that this Was not going to affect businesses. So we added this underlying red area that shows an E or the new E. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit the lawful use of commercially zoned property as approved in the applicable site plan
or on designated commercial areas within the MPUD. So the horizontal roundtable felt that this section was needed to th this language was needed to clarify the general intent. So those are the changes that are being proposed with this. Again, it's a minor modification. We're asking that you find the proposed ordinance amendments consistent with the Pasco County Comprehensive Plan. And these are scheduled to go to the Board of County Commissioners for first reading on the 21st
of October at 1.30 in Newport Ritchie and for adoption on November 12th at 1.30 in Dade City. And that's all I have for you today. Okay.
Any questions? Yeah. Denise, can you back up to the last one?
Absolutely. Do you want to see five thirty
point one six?
Did you okay,
sure. Th I was just a c curiosity question. I'm in the one, two, third line down. It says R-2 M H rural density mobile home. PUD PLAND Unit Development and then you add M PUD Yes. Do we have a PUD Plan?
So they we did, um, and that's a r that's an excellent question. So the PUD district was a district that was sunseted on or around 2008, but there's still PUDs that exist out there that are still PUDs that have uh been have been platted, have gone through all the site plan review, et cetera. Um so that's why that section is still cook um included in there.
But when we sunset it, we didn't take away their existing PUD zone and it was still there.
Some substantive difference between the PUD and
the
DC.
Yes, very, very big difference. Um so basically a PUD district, Planned Unit Development District, is a district where you're approving the zoning and the site plan at the same time. So the zoning and the site plan came in together and it was being approved. by the back then DRC and BCC.
And then Back to the
So you didn't have in PUDs you didn't have bubble plans. You had the entire site plan and even the plat and everything was all being done in one suit.
And then back to the R V parking.
This is more a question for David.
in an effort to avoid drawing a potential legal challenge. Is there a place in the code of ordinances that might be a safer place to add this prohibition of R V parking in the right of way? I'm not opposed to this. I'm just saying this is in the land development code so someone could make the S B one eighty claim whereas if it was in the code
of ordinances just under parking then maybe you have some safe harbor.
I mean I do think it could have gone on the code of ordinance. Um
I mean, but it's also kind of a land development regulation as well, because as a site plan comes in, we would if somebody showed R V parking in the right-of-way we probably shouldn't be approving it 'cause it It would violate the section of the code. So
But if you had a countywide ordinance that said you can't park your R vehicle right away, then it wouldn't be the same thing.
Yeah, I'm just saying that the people in development review aren't necessarily reviewing against the code of ordinance. So they wouldn't necessarily What I'm
getting is
if you're in
may I phrase it a different way. If there is a countywide prohibition of in the code of ordinances of parking and RV in the right of way than one then the county probably would not agree an A site plan approval or an M V U D approval to approve R V parking in a right of way if there's already a law against it, right?
That's a pat this is a Patrick Dutter question. 'Cause I I don't know whether when they're reviewing a site plan the parking on a site plan if they are looking at
If they're only looking at what the land development code allows, or if they're also looking at what the code of ordinances allows.
And if I may to clarify some of that, there is some prohibitions in the code of ordinances. However, code of ordinances, those prohibitions have to do with class of parking violations, and they all refer to passenger vehicles. This is for recreational vehicles. So that's my that's not saying it couldn't go in there. It's just where it exists already, it it relates to um violations. violations and it has to do with passenger vehicles, not with recreational
vehicles.
Even if you added this prohibition in the code of ordinance, you'd have a conflict between the two if you didn't amend the land development code.
Right, but then you would
Just take all of this out of the land development code so that you don't have a conflict.
I mean if the only I understand you're raising a Senate Bill 180 issue, but I mean if if if the only issue was enforcement Our code enforcement folks can enforce either one. They don't need doesn't matter whether it's land development code or code ordinance, they can enforce both. I understand. I understand you're trying to protect us from a Senate Bill one eighty issue. Um But this is the least of our problems understand a bill. I mean I I I d I'm I
if somebody tries to challenge us under Shinable One E, we're gonna raise all the same defenses we would raise on any challenge under Shinonville one eighty.
So a hurricane victim can park the R D in the right away?
Yeah.
If the
That
was
coming on
for a while. Yeah, I mean it's for a limited window of time, okay. Um but arguably yes, if they were trying to rebuild after hurricane and they needed to temporarily park their R V in the right away, they might be able to invoke the
That preemption.
The preemption. Yes.
But my argument would be that maybe they need to do that to have a place to park their RV while they're rebuilding it. That maybe that is an appropriate use of the R180. I mean I would argue maybe if that if that's what they need to happen to get their property rebuilt. Yeah, we're not probably a legitimate use of sending a
one
eighty.
I think after her Helene and Milton we had this issue and the BCC told the people you can't park your RVs in the right if you can park 'em on your front yard. And you could park them, and there was a state law that allowed them to park their RVs on the front yard while they go through the rebuilding effort, but the board made it very clear that they couldn't park them in the right-of-way or block the right-of-way with them.
But what I'm saying is is that to the extent this is more stringent and to the extent this regulation would prevent somebody who's trying to rebuild after Hurricane
I would argue they should be able to invoke the exception.
I if I may also, um as it's written right now, all those pro For the most part, all those properties that were affected by Hurricane Milt um Helene and Hurricane Milton, um they already cover they they would have already had to admit that. So if you see C and this is sub six, I probably should have put one, two, three, four, and five as well. But it does say on residentially zoned property. Residentially zoned property by definition in our land development code are those pieces of property that are zoned R1, R2, R2 M
H, R one M H, R three, R four, E R. Um, so they would no R V shall be parked or stored in the right-of-way. So that would have also always
They were already prohibited.
They're already prohibited. The only
one that maybe wouldn't be is if they were in an M P U D.
That's correct. And and the code enforcement issue that I'm dealing with is related to an MPUD.
So AR and larger than one acre.
Yes. That's that's accurate.
And if any of them truly were damaged by a hurricane and they're trying to rebuild, yes, they would be able to Chances are if they have more than an acre they
have less than
the right-of-way.
It was a question about is there a place so that we don't draw a challenge. I'm not opposed to this in any.
I'm I don't think that's should be a reason the only re the reason just is throw it into the code of ordinance.
In additionally, I do have uh both Elizabeth Bayer and Sam Boundy with the County Attorney's Office. They should be on if they have any comments about it. uh regarding the the enforcement section, particularly with Sam Boundy, because he's w we're dealing with this in in an enforcement capacity.
Yeah, 'cause I was wondering the logistics of it too, 'cause um, you know, it doesn't I don't I don't think there's anywhere in the land ordinances that deal with um vehicles like actual transport, personal conveyance. This is just RV.
That's correct. Yeah. This what the sections I was mentioning, you're right, they're passenger vehicles.
Yeah, the passenger vehicles are dealt with in the ordinance as opposed to so that's why I was wondering, you know, kind of along his question line of questioning, what is the most logistical place to keep you know, in theory we should have Have an ordinance on both the passenger vehicles and the RVs in one spot. So, would it make more sense for that to be in the land development code than one passenger vehicle?
Well, um let me tell you, and and uh and maybe and and I don't want to overstep Sam Boundy, who's our county prosecutor. Um code of ordinance typically, for the most part, the Sheriff's Office handles those cla those parking violations. Um I'm not saying that the Sheriff's Office cannot handle land development code violations, but typically they handle more code of ordinance and Florida statute.
Yeah, it's just weird, you know, if you park in the street in a passenger vehicle, one department handles it, and if you par have your boat parked in the street, then somebody else handles it.
Well, it in actuality, really, there is a section in in 900 that does talk about parking the passenger vehicle in the right-of-way. When you kinda like, and I'm sure John probably remembers this part where you kind of go over the sidewalk, you know how you're parking your vehicle in your driveway. and you're overlapping into the sidewalk area off your driveway into the apron area, that's addressed in the land development code as well.
So Mr. Dutter escaped. He never got up and answered my question.
My I still would like an answer, which is if a prohibition on parking only resides in the Code of Ordinances and not in the Land Development Code, would your department
review for that.
A prohibition on a certain type of parking?
Yeah. So for example, let's just say the the prohibition on no RV parking in the right of way or or any of these provisions that Denise just talked about. If those only resided in the code of ordinance Can you get a site plan in?
Sure.
Would you be reviewing it to see if it did or didn't comply with that?
We generally stick to the land development code and what's in the land development code. We generally don't look in code of ordinances for those types of things. Um and when we're talking about parking within the right of way, um it's it's rare. Well I mean it happens, but I mean um specific parking spaces within the rights of way. So dedicated spaces. Uh I would assume we're talking about dedicated spaces in the right of way.
Well presume uh the where this would arise is somebody was trying to use the right of way to count towards the required parking spaces.
If if there is dedicated parking spots, we generally let them use those towards their parking requirements. There is no dedicated parking spots, we generally don't let them use um like right of way, um like the fifty foot right-of-way as to meet their parking requirements.
What I was going to suggest, David, was
You can't circumvent an ordinance by asking for a site clan approval. So for instance, we have in our ordinance is that you can't let your grass grow more than x many inches ti high. You can't go in in a site plan approval and say, well I'm gonna let the grass grow five feet high over here.
I don't disagree, but the problem is is that and I don't want to get into all the nuances, is that that if Patrick goes and then approves it, notwithstanding that violation of the code of ordinance is it does make it more difficult for us to enforce.
Because now they're going to argue that Pat Well Patrick gave his stamp of approval to this. Sounds like Patrick better read the code of ordinance. Which is fairness. But that's my point, is that is that I think his department is primarily reviewing the land development code. They're not reviewing the code of ordinances. And I'm saying that I think from an enforcement standpoint, we can enforce either. That's it. That's something that's going to be a good idea.
John, I guess what what what is the concern with keeping in the land development code? Just simply the Senate Bill one eighty stuff or
Yeah, my my only issue again, I'm have zero objection to this whole prohibition of parking RBs. All I'm asking is is it bet is it better placed in the code of ordinance? Senate Bill one eighty Does not at least by my understanding of that bill, maybe Bidave will have a different thing. You're right-you're correct. It does not apply to it does not apply to your county ordinances, it applies to your comprehensive plan, your land development code, and
your internal policies. about those documents. It doesn't apply to the code of ordinances, so you can simply put this in the code of ordinances and avoid any possibility of somebody coming and give you g giving you a S B one hundred eighty challenge. Again, I not object to this in any way, shape or form.
Well I I mean I think this has probably made it here because there are problems and I think we need to get it in in part of the code part of the land development code now and if there is some kind of challenge we can always
go the ordinance route down the road, correct?
Yeah, I mean if it gets challeng if that's this if somebody challenges this particular regulation, I guess you we could just throw it in the code of ordinance. Hello? But I'm not gonna do that unless I lose my ten constitutional arguments first. So they got a big uphill battle decline before they're gonna get that declared as a violation of Senate Bill 180.
But wouldn't it make most more sense to have mirroring language in both?
That way it's covered in the Land Development Code, it's covered in the code of ordinances.
Because I uh I don't I guess I'm gonna let Denise or Sam weigh in on that.
Or you can refer to one or the other. Have it in there but refer to what you know have it in the code land development code but refer to the
Yeah I mean my concern with not having land development code is I think with all due respect to Patrick his ta staff is going to probably miss it.
No but you could you could specifically refer to um you know as according to the code
of ordinance. The code of ordinance may already have a general prohibition on that sort of incorporates everything in the land development. Oh but I'm gonna I don't know if Sam's on or Denise knows, like I'm pretty but I'm pretty confident that we enforce code does enforce violations of the land development code.
Absolutely. Yes.
That's great. I don't the Sam Bay from the County Attorney's Office. I don't believe that the code ordinance has any reference to incorporating the L B C D, but I mean I agree generally with what Denise and David have been saying.
We already had a mass prohibition on storing RB to right away we're just crazy. We're we're just bringing it county wide as opposed to some specific zillion districts. So I think MQD are really the folks that are going to be affected. Arguably with all those residential districts, it's not going to be more restricted as was already appropriately.
So so couldn't you just refer to that particular ordinance in this section?
No, I
think
Sam is saying it's it's prohibited in the land development code of it. Okay, it's not
a
good I think what he's saying is the the code of ordinance doesn't really regulate this this issue currently.
Yes.
We do have um Chapter 106, traffic in vehicles. It's mostly just regular parking violations, parking on sidewalk, parking in front of the driveway without the owner's consent, parking crosswalks, but it doesn't necessarily touch on RV, parking storage. Yeah.
And remember that our uh recreational vehicles in our land development code are very broadly defined. So these include not only your typical like fifth wheel, these are also boat trailers, trailers, and this is what we've been seeing. People are parking on on street parking spaces in the right-of-way, just the trailer that carries the boat.
Yeah. Again there's no objection to regulation. It's only can you provide safe harbor from a legal challenge under that particular Senate bill. That's all.
If it gets that far, and I'm not sure it will, um could probably just move all of our parking regulations to the code of ordinance as I but Okay. Oh.
They're c if they file that claim in Pasco County, they are going to have a mountain to climb before they get that far. That's all I'm gonna tell you.
That's enough for me.
Not
saying they can't climb it, I'm just saying it's gonna be
a mountain. Why do you climb Mount Everest? Because it's there.
I tell you if I climb a mountain I wanna be on David's team climbing the mountain. Not on the team that's against David.
I'll let you be my Sherpa.
I'll make a motion to approve.
I'll second it. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed by sign. Thank you. Thank you, Denise.