Tampa council rejects mediated settlement for 2713 Bayshore rezoning; debate centers on synagogue deal, neighborhood impact

TAMPA — The Tampa City Council voted 4–3 Tuesday night to reject a mediated settlement that would have rezoned 2713 Bayshore Boulevard to allow a 16‑story, 195‑foot residential tower alongside Congregation Rodef Shalom.

The vote followed nearly eight hours of testimony, including presentations by the developer and synagogue, expert witnesses and more than 75 public speakers who were split between supporting and opposing the proposal. Supporters said the project would secure the synagogue’s long‑term future; opponents said the scale and density are incompatible with the neighborhood and could worsen traffic and flooding.

Deputy City Attorney Kate Wells told the council the hearing stemmed from the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act, section 70.51 of the Florida Statutes, which creates a two‑step administrative process when an applicant seeks relief after a rezoning denial. Judge Lamar Battles, the special magistrate who mediated the negotiations, described his role as a facilitator who helped the parties reach the proposed settlement at mediated sessions on June 25 and July 26, 2024.

The settlement — proposed by developer Related Group and congregation leaders — would have rezoned the property from one planned development (PD) to a revised PD permitting an 18,014‑square‑foot place of religious assembly to remain on site and a new multifamily building with 38 units. Jake Kramer, attorney for the Related Group, and Nick Perez, president of Related’s condominium division, emphasized revisions from earlier proposals: reduced height (from a previously denied 26‑story design to 16 stories), fewer units (from 42 to 38) and smaller building area (from about 275,028 square feet to 196,338 square feet). Kramer said the new design includes a stepped massing away from nearby townhomes and adds landscape buffering along the garden club property.

Opponents — including the Tampa Garden Club, the Altura Bayshore Condominium Association and numerous neighbors — urged council to deny the settlement. Garden Club attorney Richard Harrison repeatedly criticized the mediation process and contested the assertion that nearby parcels already supported high‑rise development. Altura’s attorney, Jane Graham, and planning expert Jeff Catums told council the proposal is inconsistent with the city comprehensive plan’s R‑35 future land use guidance and with site compatibility standards in the land development code.

City planning staff and natural resources staff recommended the revised PD as consistent with the comprehensive plan, noting the site’s R‑35 designation can accommodate multifamily uses and that the design preserves existing grand trees and increases required green space. Aaron Mayer of Development Coordination said the plan provides 35,995 square feet of green space, well above the 15,481 square feet required by code, and that specimen live oaks on the site will be protected under a submitted tree protection plan.

Council members debated the tradeoffs. Supporters of the settlement pointed to the negotiated deed restriction that would keep the synagogue’s building in religious use for a stated period and the elimination of bonus density requests, parking waivers or other special exceptions. Opponents emphasized neighborhood character, traffic and flood risk: speakers cited repeated storm surge flooding near the synagogue and argued the project increases residential density in a coastal high‑hazard area.

After public comment, Councilmember Hertek moved to reject the mediated settlement; Councilmember Carlson seconded. A roll‑call vote recorded yes votes from Councilmembers Miranda, Carlson, Hertek and Maniscalco and no votes from Councilmembers Clendenin, Henderson and Viera (4–3). On the record, Deputy City Attorney Kate Wells reminded council that rejecting the settlement would trigger the second step of the 70.51 process: a hearing before the special magistrate to determine whether the council’s prior denial was unreasonable or unfairly burdensome to the property owner. The developers and synagogue had told council in the hearing that litigation claims, including a Bert Harris Act claim and a petition for certiorari, are stayed pending the outcome of council’s action.

The proposal’s key numeric details, as described during the hearing: the proposed multifamily building would be 16 stories and 195 feet tall, with 38 dwelling units and 196,338 square feet of building area; the existing place of religious assembly on site is 18,014 square feet and would remain; the project provides 170 parking spaces (the number required by staff) and retains all grand trees while adding an enhanced 20‑foot landscape buffer along the north property line. The developer agreed to add an 8‑foot sidewalk on Isabella Avenue and a 6‑foot sidewalk on Barcelona Street, plus a relocated mid‑block pedestrian crossing and off‑site sidewalk extensions requested by the community.

Synagogue leaders said the project would create a revenue stream and an endowment to secure the congregation’s future while preserving the historic building in its present location. Lloyd Stern, president of Congregation Rodef Shalom, called the settlement “a win” for the synagogue and the neighborhood. Opposition speakers, including Tampa Garden Club representatives and nearby residents, emphasized the project’s contrast with the low‑rise character of most R‑35 parcels in the South Tampa district. Several residents and experts presented a compiled dataset showing that, within the South Tampa R‑35 land use, nearly all parcels are 1–4 stories and none exceeded eight stories.

With the mediated settlement rejected, the statutory process requires the next step: the special magistrate will hold a de novo hearing to decide whether the council’s original denial was unreasonable or inflicted an undue burden, a determination that would resolve the parties’ pending claims unless further appealed to the circuit court. The council did not vote on any ordinance or rezoning ordinance at the meeting.

Votes at a glance

- Motion: "Reject the mediated settlement presented under section 70.51, Florida Statutes." Mover: Councilmember Hertek; Second: Councilmember Carlson. Vote: yes — Miranda, Carlson, Hertek, Maniscalco; no — Clendenin, Henderson, Viera. Outcome: motion carried (settlement rejected).