Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pasco planners continue tree‑ordinance amendments; commission seeks full ordinance and public input
Summary
The Planning Commission voted to continue consideration of Land Development Code changes and the tree mitigation/resolution package to Nov. 20, requesting staff return with a comprehensive tree ordinance addressing fees, grandfathering and canopy preservation.
Get email alerts on the Environment Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning Commission continued consideration of proposed Land Development Code amendments and actions tied to the county’s tree mitigation fund, directing staff to return to the commission on Nov. 20 with a consolidated, substantive tree ordinance and related fee language. Commissioners and staff discussed three concurrent efforts: a July board resolution that adjusted tree mitigation contribution rates and clarified use of funds, a minor LDC amendment now before the commission to remove inconsistent fee language, and a more substantial rewrite of LDC Chapter 802 that staff is drafting with internal and external stakeholders for presentation in November. Commissioners pressed staff on timing, grandfathering for active applications, and whether contribution rates should be set by ordinance rather than by resolution; several commissioners urged that fee changes affecting property and development rights should follow a public hearing process to ensure due process. Staff told the commission an amended resolution with a $3,500 per upland developable acre cap was being prepared for board consideration and that the LDC text should be adjusted to avoid conflicting fee language; staff also said the comprehensive tree‑protection rewrite would be returned in November after stakeholder review. Members of the public and stakeholder groups urged stronger mandates to preserve canopy (one commissioner cited a 20% canopy retention standard used in other counties), questioned whether fee increases alone will save valued heritage trees, and asked that mitigation funds be spent on canopy preservation and targeted land purchases. The commission voted to continue the item to Nov. 20 and asked staff to address concerns raised on grandfathering, fee authority (resolution vs. ordinance), and substantive tree preservation measures.

