Comprehensive‑plan language on coastal infrastructure and artificial waterways set for revision after commissioner concerns
Summary
Commissioners questioned repeated or ambiguous draft policies that would limit county investment and private infrastructure in coastal high hazard areas and flagged an existing policy on 'artificial waterways' for removal; staff and natural resources agreed some language should be struck or moved into the land development code.
Commissioners reviewed draft Pasco ADAPT policies that limit county expenditures or the provision of infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area and raised issues about scope, exceptions and unintended consequences for private development.
Several commissioners noted the draft contains similar or duplicate paragraphs (policies 2.3.4 / 2.3.7 / 2.3.8) addressing infrastructure limitations and county investments. They questioned whether the draft’s opening clause — "shall not provide nor allow the direct provision of infrastructure" to offshore islands, coastal swamps, marshlands and beaches — unintentionally bans private infrastructure or private investment in locations that could have public recreation or restoration benefits.
Cynthia Bridal (Barbas Kramer), representing a private interest, pointed out the comp plan defines the coastal high hazard area differently for comprehensive plan purposes (the SLOSH/slosh model) than the land development code and Florida Building Code (velocity zones), which can create conflicts for projects seeking federal funding or for permitting. Commissioners suggested separating prohibitions on county investments from broader statements about private development and moving regulatory specifics (for example, open‑space requirements and lot size triggers) into the land development code rather than embedding them in the comprehensive plan.
Natural resources staff recommended striking the artificial‑waterway limitation (a policy that would limit construction of new dredged canals), noting dredge‑and‑fill activities are already regulated by state and federal agencies and by existing county code. Commissioners accepted removing the artificial waterways policy for clearer policy alignment.
The nut graf: commissioners directed staff to reconcile duplicated policies, to clarify whether exceptions for public recreation, restoration or overriding public interest apply to both county and private investments, and to move regulatory details into the land development code where appropriate.
Ending: Staff agreed to redraft the coastal infrastructure language to avoid unintended prohibitions on privately funded projects that meet statutory and permitting requirements, and to reconcile different coastal high hazard definitions between the comp plan and the land development code before public hearings.
