Planning Commission Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendments – January 12, 2026
Planning Commission Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendments – January 12, 2026
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 12, 2026, starting at 10:30 AM and adjourning at 8:01 PM, to consider several privately initiated small-scale comprehensive plan map amendments for unincorporated Hillsborough County. The commission reviewed eight items, hearing staff presentations, applicant arguments, and public testimony. Votes were taken on each item, with most amendments receiving a finding of consistency or inconsistency based on the comprehensive plan’s goals, objectives, and policies.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Item 2C (HCCPA 25-30 – Ruskin) – Johnny Soap, the property owner, spoke in support of the amendment, stating he has operated on the site for seven years with zero complaints and has gathered petitions from neighbors supporting his continued use.
- Item 2F (HCCPA 25-34 – Waters Avenue) – Pamela Conrad, a resident of River Oaks Estates, expressed concerns about increased traffic and fire rescue response times, noting difficulty exiting the neighborhood. She said she had no problem with residents staying but worried about additional impacts.
- Item 2H (HCCPA 25-36 – County Road 579) – Cynthia Godwin Wilson, a resident of Buster Bean Drive, opposed the intensity of the proposed SMU-6 designation, citing noise, traffic, and environmental concerns. She stated she has lived in the area since 1972 and feels residents are being squeezed out. Barb Allen also spoke, questioning whether the rezoning would allow future sale of the property for more intensive uses and noting traffic congestion on Mango Road.
Discussion Items
-
Item 2A (HCCPA 25-01 – 2002 West Highway 60) – Request to change from Residential-1 to Suburban Mixed Use-6 (SMU-6) on 9.5 acres in the rural area. Staff recommended inconsistency due to significant increase in density and intensity. Applicant argued the use is agriculturally supportive and the Board of County Commissioners remanded the request as SMU-6. Commissioners discussed the remand and agricultural policies. Motion to find consistent passed 6-2.
-
Item 2C (HCCPA 25-30 – 11th Avenue Southeast, Ruskin) – Request to change from SMU-6 to Office Commercial-20 on 4.7 acres at the end of a dead-end road. Staff found inconsistency due to compatibility and traffic concerns. Applicant argued the area is already intense and neighbors support the change. Commissioner discussion noted the existing right-of-way and potential for future road improvements. Motion to find inconsistent passed 7-1.
-
Item 2D (HCCPA 25-31 – 12780 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard) – Request to change from Residential-1 to Light Industrial on 4.45 acres in the rural area. Staff recommended inconsistency, citing incompatibility with rural character. Applicant noted nearby industrial uses along MLK corridor and support from the Seffner-Mango Community Plan. Commissioner Lauk questioned whether the current land use is appropriate. Motion to find consistent passed 7-1.
-
Item 2E (HCCPA 25-33 – College Avenue and 18th Street Southeast, Ruskin) – Request to change from SMU-6 to Residential-12 on 19.53 acres. Staff found consistency, noting compatibility with the evolving corridor and protection of wetlands. Applicant highlighted need for multifamily housing near employment centers. Motion to find consistent passed unanimously.
-
Item 2F (HCCPA 25-34 – 8400 West Waters Avenue) – Request to change from Residential-9 to Residential-16 on 41.92 acres. Staff found consistency, citing the need to bring existing mobile home park into compliance and retain residents. Applicant explained the property’s history and that the change recognizes existing units. Public comment raised traffic and resource concerns. Motion to find consistent passed unanimously.
-
Item 2G (HCCPA 25-35 – 6210 County Road 579, Urban Service Area Expansion) – Request to expand the Urban Service Area on 34 acres. Staff found consistency, noting adjacency to existing USA and compatibility with the industrializing corridor. Applicant argued the expansion is a logical correction. Motion to find consistent passed unanimously.
-
Item 2H (HCCPA 25-36 – 6210 County Road 579, Land Use Change) – Request to change from Residential-4 to SMU-6 on 34 acres, associated with the USA expansion. Staff found consistency, citing appropriate transition and compatibility. Applicant noted the existing PD and community plan support. Public comments expressed concerns about traffic and noise. Motion to find consistent passed unanimously.
-
Item 2I (HCCPA 25-38 – 11017 East US Highway 92) – Request to change from Residential-9 to SMU-6 on 4.36 acres. Staff found consistency, noting the site is along a commercial corridor and the change aligns with the Seffner-Mango Community Plan. Applicant highlighted intensive surrounding uses. Motion to find consistent passed unanimously.
Key Outcomes
- Item 2A (HCCPA 25-01): Found consistent with the comprehensive plan (motion by Commissioner Kona, second by Commissioner Lincoln) – Vote: 6 ayes, 2 nays (Bowden, Kugler).
- Item 2C (HCCPA 25-30): Found inconsistent with the comprehensive plan (motion by Commissioner Lincoln, second by Commissioner Bowden) – Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay (Kona).
- Item 2D (HCCPA 25-31): Found consistent with the comprehensive plan (motion by Commissioner Kona, second by Commissioner Lauk) – Vote: 7 ayes, 1 nay (Lincoln).
- Item 2E (HCCPA 25-33): Found consistent with the comprehensive plan (motion by Commissioner Lauk, second by Commissioner Kugler) – Vote: unanimous.
- Item 2F (HCCPA 25-34): Found consistent with the comprehensive plan (motion by Commissioner Kona, second by Commissioner Kugler) – Vote: unanimous.
- Item 2G (HCCPA 25-35): Found consistent with the comprehensive plan (motion by Commissioner Lauk, second by Commissioner Kugler) – Vote: unanimous.
- Item 2H (HCCPA 25-36): Found consistent with the comprehensive plan (motion by Commissioner Lincoln, second by Commissioner Bowden) – Vote: unanimous.
- Item 2I (HCCPA 25-38): Found consistent with the comprehensive plan (motion by Commissioner Kona, second by Commissioner Kugler) – Vote: unanimous.
All items will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for final decision.
Meeting Transcript
Welcome to a meeting of your planning commission, the official local planning agency for the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, Plan City, and unincorporated Hillsboro County. The Planning Commission provides innovative leadership and long-range vision that contributes to the creation of a thriving, prosperous community that offers opportunity, fairness, and choice in how we live, move, learn, work, and play. For more information about the Planning Commission, please call 813-272-5940. Follow us on social media or visit our website at PlanHillsborough.org. Happy New Year, everybody, and welcome to the January 12th, 2026 public hearing of the Planning Commission on Hillsborough County Comprehensive Plan Amendments. We thank you for attending this meeting. Your comments and participation are encouraged. For those attending in person and wishing to speak on any agenda item, please sign the register at the rear of the room and turn off any devices that may be a distraction. To minimize feedback in the audio, all online participants in the meeting will be muted until it is their opportunity to speak. Planning commissioners should unmute themselves to indicate that they would like to speak. Please be sure to state your name at the beginning of your remarks for the benefit of the clerk. There will be an opportunity for members of the public to provide comments. When your name is called, you will be unmuted when it is your turn to speak. Please wait until the chair calls on you to begin speaking. State your name at the beginning of your comments and adhere to the time limits. If anyone has difficulties or is watching via HTV and would like to provide comments to be included in the record for the local government hearing, please email them to planner at Plancom.org. For those of you who are not familiar with our process, the meeting will be conducted as follows. The agenda item will be introduced. Staff will give their presentation with a 15-minute time limit. The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation with a 15-minute time limit. Following presentations, members of the public may address the planning commission when recognized by the chairman. Public comment will be heard for three minutes per person. The applicant will be afforded a three-minute period for rebuttal response. Planning commissioners will then ask questions. Public comment will be closed. Then upon a motion, a second and discussion, a vote will be taken. Zoning conditions are not relevant to plan amendments and may not be considered by the planning commission. That opening, I'll ask the clerk to please go ahead and call roll. You have a quorum, sir. Thank you. All right. All right. So now we will start with our first action item 2A, ATCPA 25-01, comprehensive plan map amendment. 2002 West Highway 60. And the presenter is Tyreek Royal. Good evening, everyone, Tyreek Royal Planning Commission staff. Today I'll be presenting HCCPA 2501 at 2002 West Highway 60. This request is privately initiated, small scale map amendment with approximately 9.5 acres. The request is to change the future land use designation from residential one to suburban mixed use six as directed by the Board of County Commissioners on August 14th, 2025. The original privately initiated requests sought a future land use designation of Office Commercial 20. The location of the site is in the eastern portion of Undercraper Hillsboro County. This is within the rural area, a woodhood protection area, and not located within the limits of a community plan. This is an aerial photo of the site outlined in pink. It's located north of State Road 60, south of Mud Lake Road. Surrounding uses include agricultural uses to the west and south, single family uses to the north, and light commercial uses to the east. The road service area is located to the south uh west, and you can see it in blue. This is a photo facing north towards the subject site. And here's a photo facing south with the subject site being behind the camera. And here's the east view of the property with the site being located to the left. And finally, there's a west view of the property, and the site is being located to the right.
openpublica.com