The Pasco County Planning Commission held a public workshop on tree preservation and related changes to the county's land-development approach, during which residents urged simpler protections for mature native trees and planning staff said they will study options used by other jurisdictions.

The workshop, led by staff member Terry (Planning, Development and Economic Growth), opened with a review of draft ordinance revisions and a separate resolution under preparation that would raise fees paid to the county's tree mitigation fund. "We will take a look at other jurisdictions," Terry said in a recap near the close of the session, "what did they do to protect larger trees, but not just larger trees, the forest as a whole."

Why it matters: Speakers linked tree loss to higher summer temperatures, stormwater and habitat loss and urged the commission to favor rules that preserve existing mature stands rather than rely solely on small replacement trees. Several participants said the current system's inch-for-inch mitigation (paying a fee for removed tree diameter) can be insufficient because many small replacement trees do not recreate a mature canopy for decades.

Speakers and key points

- Jennifer Sini, a resident of Wesley Chapel, advised simplification. "Keep your hands off of any native or non invasive tree of X diameter or larger," she said, adding that exemptions could be narrowly defined for necessary public-safety or utility work.

- Clark Hobby, a planning commissioner, urged incentives to keep mature live oaks in place. "It needs to incentivize people to leave them," Hobby said, proposing credits or offsets that reward developers for designing around large trees.

- Cindy Buckle, a resident of Zephyrhills, supported mitigation funds but opposed additional developer incentives: "I like the idea of a tree mitigation, but I don't like the idea of giving these developers any more incentives than they already get."

What staff and commissioners discussed

Staff described two parallel tracks: a resolution to increase tree-mitigation fees and a separate, longer land-development code update that could change how tree protections are written and enforced. Several commissioners and speakers suggested focusing on "stands" or clusters of trees (not only individual specimens) and using density or other development credits as an incentive to preserve those stands, similar to how the county now gives bonuses for wetland preservation.

Participants repeatedly raised implementation questions: topography and flooding in central Pasco often require site fill that kills trees; developers may choose to pay mitigation fees rather than design around trees; and maintenance costs for newly planted trees (for example, street trees and landscaping) are real, ongoing budget items for the county or homeowners associations.

Residents and staff also asked that the county study successful examples elsewhere, and they flagged practical items for code drafting: allow existing native tree lines to count toward buffer requirements when they provide equivalent screening, and make sure any new rules are clear and predictable for developers so permitting does not stall.

Constraints and state law

Staff briefed the commission on a pending state measure (Senate Bill 180) that, if signed, could limit local governments' ability to adopt regulations deemed "more restrictive or burdensome" than current rules through Oct. 1, 2027. Staff said this pending state action complicates the county's timeline for major code changes and that some actions—such as fee increases under a board resolution—are already moving forward separately from the ordinance rewrite.

Ending: Next steps

Staff said they will compile suggestions from the workshop, review ordinances used by other Florida jurisdictions, and return with options that emphasize simplicity and predictability: target protection of high-value trees/stands, explore density or open-space credits for preservation, offer clearer language to allow existing vegetation to meet buffer requirements, and finalize the resolution to adjust tree-mitigation fees.

The Planning Commission did not adopt any land-development code amendments at the workshop; rather, staff took direction and committed to follow-ups and further drafts for public hearings.