Port Richey’s planner presented a package of evaluation‑and‑appraisal‑based (EAR) comprehensive plan amendments at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, including updates to transportation, water supply, intergovernmental coordination, capital improvements and a substantially revised conservation and coastal management element. After discussion the board voted to table the item to a future meeting for further review.

Tammy Vrana, the planner working on the amendments, said the changes were driven by state statute updates and the city’s 2023 evaluation and appraisal of its comprehensive plan. She described several specific updates: recognizing US 19 as part of the state Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), coordinating transportation level‑of‑service with neighboring jurisdictions and FDOT, and incorporating a 2025–2035 water supply facilities work plan. Vrana said the city proposes reducing a previously used per‑capita water demand figure from 105 to 96 gallons per day per capita for planning purposes.

On conservation and coastal management Vrana proposed adding peril‑of‑flood policies and revising the element to reflect recent vulnerability assessments, adaptation planning and updated data. The revised element includes goals on natural and cultural resource protection, coastal resiliency, evacuation and post‑disaster redevelopment, and community engagement. Vrana also described proposed wetland buffer standards tied to wetland category and cited coordination with the Southwest Florida Water Management District on water supply planning.

Board members asked about implementation and enforcement, where Vrana and staff said policies are implemented through land development regulations, capital improvements planning and subsequent code amendments. One board member asked who interprets and enforces the policies; planner and staff answered enforcement is accomplished through a mix of city code, permitting and department roles, with ultimate policy direction from City Council.

Board members raised questions about specific thresholds and policy language. The planner noted an internal committee discussion and that one numeric threshold for “severe damaged structures” had been discussed; staff reported that the figure would be adjusted to 50 percent following committee discussions. After discussion a board member moved to table the EAR‑based comprehensive plan amendments; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote. The board directed staff to return with any clarifications and refined language for the next meeting.

Next steps: staff will revise draft language per board feedback and bring the EAR amendments back to the Planning and Zoning Board before transmission to City Council. If the board adopts recommended amendments, Council and the state review process follow — adoption is required to keep the city’s comprehensive plan consistent with current state statutory requirements and to remain eligible for certain state grants.

Ending: The board’s vote to table gives staff time to provide clarifying changes and to refine numeric thresholds and implementation language before the board issues a formal recommendation to Council.