The Pasco County Planning Commission voted to recommend a county-initiated amendment to the Land Development Code (section 1.16/0.6) that would pause application of any new local regulations that could be considered “more restrictive or burdensome” to properties damaged by a hurricane. The Planning Commission considered the item on Aug. 21, 2025, and the motion to find the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan carried with 1 dissent (Mister Moody).

The amendment was presented by Rebecca Boat, Planning Development & Economic Growth, who told the commission the ordinance implements the Board of County Commissioners' direction after consideration of Senate Bill 180 and states that the county will not impose new LDC rules judged more restrictive on properties damaged by a hurricane for a defined pause period. Boat said staff will add a definition that ties “property damaged by hurricane” to the Building & Construction Services damage database so the rule applies to properties with recorded structural damage.

The item drew legal and policy questions from commissioners. County legal counsel told the commission staff interprets SB 180 as aimed at properties actually affected by an emergency and said limiting the pause to properties with recorded structural damage best aligns with legislative intent and avoids constitutional problems such as single-subject or arbitrary classifications. Counsel also explained the pause’s timing language as drafted: it would apply through the later of Oct. 2, 2027, or one year after a hurricane that made landfall in or otherwise triggered the statute for Pasco County, and that a future hurricane that causes damage could re‑trigger the pause for another year.

Several commissioners sought clarification about how the rule would affect properties built after Aug. 1, 2024, whether repeated hurricane damage would repeatedly re-trigger the pause, and whether the county’s adopted regulations after Aug. 1 should be suspended for eligible properties. Boat and county counsel said the pause is temporary and tied to documented hurricane damage; counsel added that applying the pause only to damaged properties is the only interpretation staff believes would be constitutional and that other interpretations risk litigation.

One commissioner, identified in the meeting minutes as Mister Moody, said he could not support the ordinance as drafted and raised political and legal concerns about adopting language that would appear to conflict with the state law; Moody emphasized he spoke for himself and not the entire commission. Several other commissioners and staff said the commission’s role was to determine consistency with the county comprehensive plan, not to decide constitutionality; staff noted the board had directed this approach and the ordinance is intended to protect residents and businesses who were damaged by a hurricane from suddenly more restrictive post‑disaster rules.

A member of the public, William McCah, suggested clarifying the definition of “landfall” and timing language so the pause triggers and time clock are certain; staff acknowledged they would revise the text to clarify that the triggering hurricane must make landfall and that the track must come within the statutory distance in the statute. County counsel said staff would add the database definition for “damaged property” and tighten the draft whereas clauses explaining the constitutional analysis.

After discussion the Planning Commission voted to find the amendment consistent with the comprehensive plan and to recommend the ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners; the motion carried with Mister Moody recorded in the minutes as dissenting. The commission directed staff to incorporate a definition of “property damaged by hurricane” tied to the Building & Construction Services damage database and to clarify the ordinance text on the landfall/track trigger and the pause dates.

The commission’s recommendation now goes to the Board of County Commissioners for final action; staff and counsel noted the BOCC previously gave direction on this topic and the BOCC may further edit the ordinance or seek judicial resolution if the board or counsel determine additional legal certainty is needed.