Pasco commissioners approve replacement of mispermitted mobile home, seek reuse options

The Pasco County Board of County Commissioners voted 3‑1 on Feb. 17 to require the county to replace a mispermitted mobile home at 12674 Valimar Road with a modular home and to first seek a timely reuse or storage option for the existing unit.

David Goldstein, chief assistant county attorney, told the board the building permit was issued after a county reviewer mistakenly thought the lot was zoned AR; the lot is zoned R‑1 and mobile homes are not permitted there. Goldstein said the permit was issued 09/29/2025, installation began in October 2025, and the county revoked the permit on 11/21/2025 after a neighbor complaint. He cited the vested‑rights standard in the land development code, saying the test requires "good faith reliance, an act or omission by the county, and a substantial change in position or the incurring of extensive obligations or expenses." (Goldstein referenced section 407.6 of the land development code.)

Clark Hobby, attorney for the applicants Joshua Ortiz and Daniel Souza, urged the panel to consider "fundamental fairness," noting Ortiz obtained financing and began paying a mortgage in reliance on the permit. Hobby told commissioners, "What this is really a case of is just fundamental fairness," and said his client would accept option 2 — replacement with a modular home — if the county made him whole.

Goldstein's staff memo presented four remedies: a limited personal vested‑rights grant so the home could remain only while Ortiz occupies it; denying vested rights and paying to replace the unit with a modular home (staff estimated a net cost of about $162,474); granting permanent property‑level vested rights; or denying relief altogether. Goldstein recommended alternatives 1 or 2, and suggested reimbursing Ortiz for rent incurred after the permit revocation.

Neighbors testified strongly against allowing a mobile or modular home in the R‑1 neighborhood. Joan Field, who said she has lived on Valimar Road for 40 years, told the commission, "I don't want the mobile homes," and pressed staff for stronger enforcement on driveway and appearance requirements. Other residents described repeated calls to the building department and expressed concern about neighborhood character.

Commissioners debated whether Prestige Home Centers — the contractor that applied for the permit — should remove the unit or provide a trade‑in credit (staff said Prestige offered a roughly $55,000 credit if it removed the existing unit). The board also discussed whether the county could repurpose the mobile home for another department or program, and whether holding it would add roughly $55,000 in costs to the building department if the county retained the unit.

Commissioner Starkey moved that the county pursue staff option 2 — replace the mobile home with a modular home to make Mr. Ortiz whole — with the modification that staff first seek, within a timely window, a practical reuse or quick removal plan for the existing mobile home; Commissioner Yeager seconded. The clerk called the roll: District 1 Commissioner Oakley voted No; District 2 Commissioner Waitman Aye; District 3 Commissioner Starkey Aye; District 4 Commissioner Yeager Aye; District 5 Chairman Mariano absent. The motion passed 3‑1.

The board instructed staff to coordinate implementation steps including driveway/permitting follow‑up and to report back on potential reuse options for the unit. The matter was resolved by formal motion; staff will now implement the board's direction.

What's next: staff will negotiate logistics with Prestige and report back to the commission on a plan to either repurpose, store or remove the existing mobile home and on timelines to install the replacement modular unit.