Planning commission rejects Office Commercial reclassification in Ruskin, cites traffic and compatibility concerns

Hillsborough County Planning Commission · January 13, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners voted 7–1 to find HCCPA 25‑30 (11th Ave SE in Ruskin) inconsistent with the comprehensive plan after staff warned of traffic capacity shortfalls, potential wetlands, and incompatibility with end‑of‑road residential character; applicant and a local business owner had argued neighborhood support.

The Hillsborough County Planning Commission on Jan. 12 found HCCPA 25‑30 (a small‑scale map amendment in Ruskin at 11th Avenue Southeast and 27th Street Southeast) inconsistent with the comprehensive plan by a 7–1 roll call vote.

Planning staff presented the ~4.7‑acre proposal to change future land use from Suburban Mixed Use (SMU‑6) to Office Commercial 20 (OC‑20). Staff flagged multiple concerns: the site sits at the end of a local unimproved right‑of‑way, transportation agency comments indicated inadequate capacity on four of five impacted roadway segments for the projected additional trips, and the site appears to contain wetlands. Staff said the higher density and building massing allowed under OC‑20 could be incompatible with the larger lot suburban and mobile‑home neighborhoods on nearby 11th Avenue SE.

Applicant Todd Pressman and a local business owner, Johnny Soap, said the parcel sits among intensive uses and submitted petitions of support. Pressman argued economic and agricultural support uses are appropriate; Soap said his trucking/storage business has operated seven years with no complaints.

Commissioners discussed the remand history from the Board of County Commissioners, road‑width/right‑of‑way questions, enforcement/costs of PD rezoning, and agency traffic comments. Commissioner Lankes moved to find the amendment inconsistent; the motion was seconded and carried on roll call: Bowden Yes; Cardenas Yes; Kona No; Kugler Yes; Linkus Yes; Lauck Yes; Seben Yes; Joseph Yes (7–1).

Next steps: the inconsistency finding remains part of the record; the applicant may revise and return, or pursue other zoning remedies at the Board of County Commissioners stage.