Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks variances to rebuild home partly inside wetland conservation setback in Hillsborough County
Summary
An applicant asked the land use hearing officer to allow reconstruction of a dilapidated single‑family home and retain an existing shed that encroach into the county's 30‑foot wetland conservation setback and multiple yard setbacks, arguing the parcel's small, irregular upland area creates unique hardships.
Hillsborough County — An applicant asked the county land‑use hearing officer on March 9 to approve multiple variances that would let a reconstructed home and an existing shed remain inside setback requirements, including a 30‑foot wetland conservation setback.
The hearing officer, Susan Fenton, heard staff present Variance 26‑03‑97 and legal guidance on appeals and evidence. Development Services staff summarized the requested relief under the Land Development Code (including the wetland setback and rear/side/front yard setback sections) and said staff would present findings before the officer issues a written decision within 15 business days.
Clay Matthews, representing the property owner, said the parcel is largely submerged and that the existing single‑family house and shed were built decades ago. Matthews said the owner wants to rebuild “essentially the same footprint as the existing structure” and preserve the ability to reconstruct in the future. He argued the site’s unusual size, shape and the small remaining upland area create practical difficulties that meet the LDC variance criteria.
Expert testimony and exhibits shown to the officer described the lot as a narrow “skinny parallel” parcel with most of the lot submerged; photographs and a wetland cross‑section exhibit were entered to show the existing encroachments and the proposed modest expansion. A stormwater engineer, Bruce McArthur, testified the project would use standard erosion‑control measures during demolition and construction and said “we're not asking for... discharge anything into the wetland system.”
County staff and the applicant debated a late letter from an adjacent property owner raising drainage and runoff concerns; the applicant said no expert evidence accompanied the letter and that the applicant’s engineers had reviewed stormwater impacts. Staff and the applicant agreed the record would be the primary evidence for any later appeal.
The hearing officer closed testimony on Variance 26‑03‑97. No vote was taken at the hearing; the officer will file a written decision within 15 business days. The record includes the staff report, applicant exhibits, and testimony from the applicant’s attorney and technical experts.
