Pasco commissioners continue debate on accessory dwelling units; second hearing set for March 25

Pasco County commissioners on March 11 continued a first hearing on a proposed ordinance to allow accessory dwelling units, or ADUs, across single‑family zoning areas and set a second public hearing for March 25.

Planning staff presented a draft ordinance that would add a formal ADU definition to the land‑development code and allow one ADU per lot in districts that permit single‑family homes. Patrick Dutter, Planning, Development & Economic Growth, told the board an ADU is “an ancillary or secondary living unit that has separate kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping area.” He summarized key proposed standards: a default maximum of 900 square feet, unit heights and setbacks matching the principal structure, on‑site parking unless on‑street parking is permitted, connection to water, sewer and electric where required, and a requirement that ADUs be built on permanent fixed foundations (poured footers, stem walls, piers or engineered slabs). The draft would exempt ADUs from comprehensive‑plan and zoning density calculations and allow property owners to seek a special exception to exceed the dimensional limits.

The ordinance also would require a Florida Department of Health letter where wells and septic systems serve a property, incorporate Florida Building Code requirements for habitability, and treat garage conversions by removing the garage door and enclosing the opening. The planning commission requested a flood‑vulnerability map; where staff or the map finds flood‑prone lots, a special‑exception review by the planning commission would be required before an ADU is permitted.

Why it matters: County staff and several commissioners framed ADUs as a tool to expand housing options and help older residents and families stay on their property, while critics warned of unintended neighborhood impacts if rules are too permissive. The board’s direction will shape whether ADUs are treated as small caregiver cottages or as near‑household second dwellings requiring additional review.

Board debate focused on three fault lines: size limits, mobile homes and trailers, and the relationship between ADUs and short‑term rentals. District 5 Commissioner Mariano said he wanted flexibility for property owners with large lots who may need more livable square footage for family members and urged avoiding overly restrictive maximums. Other commissioners pushed back that very large units risk becoming separate homes; Dutter and other staff noted the special‑exception route if owners need to exceed the 900‑square‑foot baseline.

Commissioners also spent time clarifying that the ordinance is not intended to allow two full single‑family homes on one lot. Several commissioners and staff emphasized that an ADU is typically a one‑ or two‑bedroom unit “usually 1 bedroom” used for a relative or caregiver rather than a separate household. The county attorney reiterated that a unit larger than the principal structure would not likely meet the ADU definition and would be treated as a separate dwelling.

On vacation‑rental use, District 2 Commissioner Wake and others noted registered short‑term rentals already must follow county rules (section referenced by staff as 402.5(b)); Dutter said ADUs would not be automatically barred but would have to comply with existing vacation‑rental requirements. District 4 Commissioner Yager and others worried about compounding impacts in lakeshore neighborhoods where unregulated short‑term rentals are a persistent issue.

School impact fees and other development fees drew repeated questions. The planning commission had recommended that ADUs be assessed a reduced rate equivalent to multifamily or apartment fees; several commissioners said they would not support exempting ADUs entirely from school impact fees without coordinating with the school district. David Angle, Planning & Economic Development director, told the board staff would consult the school district and return with options before final adoption.

Public comment: Jeremy Couch, 6624 Wisteria Loop, spoke during public testimony and urged the board to allow accessory setbacks for ADUs rather than forcing ADUs to meet principal‑structure setbacks. He said garage apartments typically sit within five feet of property lines and that forcing principal setbacks could preclude many practical ADU designs. Couch told the board, “If the intent is to have garage apartments, garages can be built within 5 feet of the property lines.”

Staff and board next steps: Commissioners expressed general support for the concept but asked staff to refine several details before final action, including (1) the 900‑square‑foot baseline and the special‑exception process to allow larger units where appropriate, (2) a clear policy for ADUs and registered short‑term rentals, (3) utility and flood‑proofing requirements for garage conversions and lots served by wells/septic, and (4) consultation with the school district on impact‑fee thresholds. The board scheduled the second hearing and final consideration for March 25, 2025.

What was not decided: The board did not adopt the ordinance on March 11; several policy choices — the maximum square footage that should be exempt from density or impact fees, whether ADUs can be allowed on lots with existing mobile homes and how the county will treat registered versus unregistered short‑term rentals — remain unresolved pending the March 25 hearing.

Ending: Staff will return with revised draft language and additional information on school fees and flood‑vulnerability mapping ahead of the March 25 hearing.