Ruskin development seeks variance to build inside 50‑foot wetland setback

A developer asked the Hillsborough County land use hearing officer on June 23 to allow buildings, parking and recreational improvements to encroach into the 50‑foot wetland preservation setback on a 4.85‑acre parcel in Ruskin.

The request was made by Little Harbor Investments LLC. Ryan Joyce of County Development Services told the hearing officer the applicant seeks a variance from “section 4.01.07.b.4 of the land development code,” which requires “no filling, excavating, or placement of permanent structures or impervious surfaces” within the 50‑foot wetland preservation setback. Joyce presented staff findings and identified the code section cited by staff.

Dylan Reeves, the environmental consultant for the site, said the parcel is composed of four lots within the South Bay community development district and that the request would allow “encroachment for asphalt, concrete, pool, pool equipment, fence, and a retaining wall to be within the 50 foot wetland preservation area setback.” Reeves said the parcel has been reviewed by the water management district and that the applicant has purchased mitigation credits: “we have provided mitigation already through the purchase of Mangrove Credit at the Mangrove Point Mitigation Bank.”

Reeves said the proposal would not directly impact the wetland line and that the applicant plans additional measures including a retaining wall outside the wetland line, planting of upland buffer areas with Florida native vegetation, and a six‑foot opaque fence on top of the retaining wall to reduce light and noise intrusion. He said those buffer plantings and the fence are not required by any agency but are being proposed “to be good environmental stewards.”

Opposition testimony focused on wildlife and water quality concerns. Neighbor Sean Storch said the area provides habitat for manatees and birds, that the canal connects to Tampa Bay, and that the proposal does not address hydrocarbon runoff from additional parking: “they've mentioned nothing about how to handle the hydrocarbon load coming from all the additional parking space in that area.” Storch identified himself as living near the site and said he opposed the project.

Reeves responded in rebuttal that the canal is about 25 to 30 feet wide and that the project team does not expect direct manatee habitat impacts; he added there is no recorded eagle nest within 660 feet of the site. He reiterated that the site received a wetlands review and that direct wetland impacts were not proposed.

The hearing officer closed the hearing; she said she will issue a written decision within 15 working days and that decisions are filed with the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. No vote or final decision was made at the hearing.

The record includes the applicant’s site plans showing existing adjacent encroachments into buffers and a water management district permit number provided by the applicant. The hearing officer reserved decision and closed the record for this item.