Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing officer takes testimony on after‑the‑fact wetland setback encroachment in Hillsborough County
Summary
Marilyn Birch asked the Land Use Hearing Officer to permit after‑the‑fact encroachments into a 30‑foot wetland conservation area and reduced yard setbacks at her 0.48‑acre property in unincorporated Hillsborough County.
Marilyn Birch asked the Land Use Hearing Officer to permit after‑the‑fact encroachments into a 30‑foot wetland conservation area and reduced yard setbacks at her 0.48‑acre property in unincorporated Hillsborough County.
Birch, who identified herself as the property owner, said she applied for a permit last May and was told a variance would be needed after county staff determined a proposed deck widening would encroach on the wetland setback. “The reason for the widening was so that we could have my husband have his wheelchair and or walker and chairs out there to be able to maneuver and navigate on that deck,” Birch said.
County Natural Resources staff summarized the request as an after‑the‑fact encroachment for part of a manufactured home and replacement of an existing deck into the 30‑foot wetland conservation area setback required by LDC section 4.01.07.B.4, and additional variances tied to front‑yard and side‑yard standards (LDC section 6.01.01) and a front‑yard fence height limit (LDC section 6.07.02). Staff said the parcel had been certified as a legal nonconforming lot under application NCL 25580 and that RSC‑2 setback standards could apply based on that certification.
Neighbors and the prior owner, Paul Cruisinger, appeared for the applicant to provide historical context. Cruisinger said his family has owned the larger property since the 1960s and that the original house dates to the 1930s; he told the officer the house and an accessory shed had been on the site “a long time.” Staff and the hearing officer clarified on the record that portions of the structures appeared to predate contemporary code and that the nonconforming‑lot determination means some setback requirements differ from the ASC‑1 district numeric standards cited in the staff report.
No proponents or opponents spoke during the public comment portion. County staff had no additional testimony. The hearing officer closed the item on the record and said she will issue a written decision within the time required by the hearing procedures. The record for that case is now closed until the officer issues her decision.
