For a resource on Pasco County’s Register of Historic Resources, a Certificate of Appropriateness addresses the effect of proposed work on the historic resource. It is not a building permit. The County code places the certificate before development, remodeling or demolition permits affecting a listed resource, subject to its stated exceptions. The governing register provision is Section 809.10, not Section 809.7, which concerns archaeological resources. Source: Chapter 800.
Establish which historic review applies
Ask Planning to confirm the resource’s designation and the authority reviewing the proposed work. County Register status is not interchangeable with a Florida Master Site File record or National Register listing. Section 809.10 says those other records may carry other or additional requirements; Section 809 also contains separate survey and archaeological protections.
The general jurisdiction provision applies the land-development code to unincorporated Pasco, with specified exceptions and possible municipal interlocal agreements. A Pasco postal address alone therefore does not settle the reviewing authority. Source: Section 103.1.
The application’s introductory statement that all exterior work requires a certificate must be read with those jurisdiction, listing and exception provisions. It is not evidence that every exterior repair anywhere in Pasco County needs this certificate.
An attachment should answer a design question
The County’s application, updated October 23, 2024, asks for more than a description such as “replace windows” or “repair siding.” LSL’s attachment cross-check below connects the requested documents to what a reviewer needs to compare.
| Application attachment | County’s requested content | Check before sending |
|---|---|---|
| Request statement | Design, construction methods and effects on historic features; relevant rehabilitation standards or district guidelines | Does it explain why the proposed change fits the resource, rather than only describing the contractor’s task? |
| Existing conditions and proposed site plans | Separate illustrations legible at 11 × 17 inches | Can the reviewer locate each proposed change on the property? |
| Architectural elevations | Existing and proposed conditions side by side for each affected facade; legible at 11 × 17 inches | Is every altered side shown, including a side not visible from the street? |
| Floor plans | Plans for affected existing or proposed buildings/structures | Do plans and elevations describe the same work? |
| Site/building photographs | Photographs labeled with location and viewing direction | Can each photo be matched to the correct facade or feature? |
| Materials description | Proposed materials and colors, with their locations | Is the replacement identified precisely enough to compare with what is there? |
| Earlier reviews | Applicable LDC 809, Section 106 or cultural-resource assessment documentation | Have existing review records been attached rather than merely mentioned? |
Material samples and other supporting materials are marked optional on the form. An agent-of-record form is conditional. For archaeological sites, the application separately requests the work area and mitigation narrative, with archaeological surveys where applicable. Do not turn that site-specific branch into a universal homeowner attachment list.
For demolition, the form calls for a narrative addressing Section 809.10 criteria and additional Section 106 documentation in the circumstances it describes. Ask Planning which evidence applies to the actual designation; the checklist is not a demolition authorization.
A small repair is not automatically the same as an exemption
Section 809.10.D.2 excludes work for which a permit is not normally required and permitted work classified as ordinary maintenance and repair. The application describes limited matching-material work such as localized rotten-trim replacement, window repair or small repointing areas. It also says limited matching-material projects are generally reviewed at staff level. Those statements should not be collapsed into a promise that any replacement is exempt.
Before ordering a different window, profile, material or color, send Planning the existing condition and proposed replacement and ask for the applicable classification. Keep its direction with the project documents. A building-permit requirement and a certificate exception are separate questions.
Section 809.10.D.3 separately allows immediate correction of conditions presenting serious threats to public health, safety or welfare. LSL cannot determine that a particular condition qualifies, or extend that provision to unrelated renovation work. Source: certificate provisions.
The 60-day provision starts with a complete application
Section 809.10.D.4 states a 60-day certificate-issuance period after submission of a complete application, with consideration of the resource’s neighborhood importance, whether it is the last example of its kind and reasonable measures to save it. Sending an incomplete packet does not establish that starting point, and the provision is not permission to begin work merely because time has passed.
The application directs filing through Building Construction Services/Permitting and consultation with Planning staff about completeness. Its Planning contact is 727-847-8140, 8731 Citizens Drive, Suite 200, New Port Richey. Confirm current intake instructions and ask which attachments are missing if the application is deficient. Once the certificate is issued, address the separate permits needed for the work rather than treating the certificate as a construction release.
Review scope
LSL read the three-page application, Chapter 800 Sections 809.1–809.6 and 809.10–809.11, and the jurisdiction provision on September 21, 2026. The attachment cross-check is our synthesis, not an official County form. No property designation, exemption, emergency condition, application completeness or approval was determined. The corrected section reference replaces the prior article’s erroneous attribution to 809.7.