Pasco County staff presented Pasco Conserves — the conservation element of the Pasco 2050 comprehensive plan update — at a Planning Commission workshop on Aug. 21, 2025. Hyatt Mazelli (senior planner, Planning Services) reviewed the chapter’s reorganization (two goals, nine objectives and 67 policies, including 12 new policies) and explained the chapter links community input, habitat study recommendations and statutory requirements to conservation strategies.

Keith Wiley, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources, and other staff described new policy language addressing ecological planning units (EPUs), tree preservation, wetlands and water quality, estuarine/marine habitat management, and linking natural areas for potential open‑space protection. Staff said the chapter aims to produce a clearer, more navigable conservation element aligned with state law (chapter 163, Florida Statutes) and county priorities.

Most of the workshop time was spent on four interrelated matters: (1) a map identifying EPUs and an “agricultural reserve” layer that staff proposed as candidate target areas for future open‑space requirements or eligible conservation acquisitions; (2) how to define “open space” (urban/suburban/rural distinctions and whether farmland counts as open space); (3) wetland categories and buffer rules (including the role of the state ERP process and whether the county should maintain more stringent standards/cumulative impact analysis); and (4) mapping of greenway/trail opportunity zones.

Commissioners, the county attorney and public commenters expressed concern that the agricultural reserve/EPU map as drafted could be read as a regulatory map that would limit future development or be used to deny future plan amendments without clear policy language or compensation. Several commissioners urged staff either to remove the agricultural‑reserve polygon from the conservation element or to add explicit text clarifying that the map is non‑regulatory and intended only to guide voluntary conservation or targeted open‑space incentives. County attorney Elizabeth Blair recommended an “umbrella” open‑space definition with context‑specific sub‑categories (urban, suburban, rural, natural lands) rather than a single one‑size‑fits‑all definition.

On wetlands and buffers, commissioners pressed staff about the rationale for county standards that differ from state practices. Staff and legal counsel explained the county’s historic wetland categorization and mitigation banking preference, said some legacy policies originated from earlier litigation and noted the county has implemented local protections beyond state minimums in some instances. Several commissioners suggested removing specific regulatory buffer language from the comp plan and instead placing technical buffer standards and deviation mechanisms into the Land Development Code so application‑specific flexibility remains available.

Natural resources staff also described the greenway/trail opportunity map; staff later agreed the trail layer belongs in the parks/trails chapter rather than the conservation element. Multiple public commenters and commissioners asked staff to define open space, explain acquisition funding sources (ELAMP referenced), and identify which policies are statutory requirements versus county policy choices.

Staff closed the workshop acknowledging revisions are needed: (1) clarify the purpose and legal footing for any map showing EPUs/agricultural reserve; (2) consider removing or rewording regulatory details from the comp plan and put technical requirements in the Land Development Code; (3) define open space with context‑specific subcategories; and (4) move trail/opportunity mapping to the parks/places chapter or the data and analysis only if it will not be used as a regulatory conservation tool. The commission scheduled follow‑up review in the next workshop cycle.