Pasco staff withdraw proposed tree-preservation ordinance after commission criticism; will amend fee resolution and hold workshops

Pasco County planning staff presented a proposed update to the county's tree-preservation ordinance that would have tightened exemptions, clarified survey and inventory requirements, and increased tree-mitigation fees and in-lieu payments; after extended public and commissioner debate staff withdrew the ordinance to pursue a separate fee-resolution update and a stakeholder workshop.

Planner Patrick Dutta outlined the package's major changes: removal of exemptions that previously permitted tree removal for fences or for creation of surveys without a permit; clarification that a tree-removal permit is required for trees of 5-inch DBH or greater except where state statute allows removal with an arborist risk letter; tighter tree-survey and inventory content requirements; and a revised tree-mitigation fee structure. Dutta summarized the proposed fees as $75 per inch for removed trees (with $150 per inch for qualifying heritage trees) and a new in-lieu option calculated per developable acreage of $2,750 per disturbed developable acre until May 1, 2026, increasing to $3,500 thereafter.

Commission discussion and public comment were lengthy and sharply critical in places. Commissioner John Moody argued the proposal was unlikely to "move the needle" on large-scale clear-cutting, saying "these penalties are meaningless in the scale of the value of a lot" and urging an incentive-based approach that rewards developers who preserve canopy rather than simply raising fees. Multiple commissioners and speakers asked whether the code's incentives and how the mitigation fund is used might be restructured; staff said the fund currently holds more than $3 million and proposed clarifying allowable uses so the county could spend funds on tree planting, neighborhood landscaping grants and beautification.

Developers, engineers and arborists at the meeting urged caution on some changes that would affect surveys and geotechnical access; staff agreed to rework language on geotechnical and survey exemptions to avoid delaying needed site investigations.

After debate staff withdrew the proposed ordinance and said it would immediately pursue two parallel steps: (1) amend the existing fee resolution (which sets mitigation rates by resolution) to update fees and clarify eligible uses of the tree-mitigation fund, and (2) schedule a Planning Commission workshop with industry stakeholders to develop a more comprehensive, incentive-focused approach to preserving trees and canopy. Planning director David Engel said the ordinance presented was intended as a "first step" and that staff would come back with a more coordinated program; he also confirmed county staff will work with the Tampa Bay Builders Association and other stakeholders.

Ending: staff will prepare a revised fee resolution for Board of County Commissioners consideration and convene workshops with the planning commission and development stakeholders to craft longer-term amendments, including possible codification of PM-26 landscaping/tree provisions and incentive mechanisms.