Contentious West Tampa rezoning stalls after 3‑2 council split over alley access

Tampa — A proposed rezoning in West Tampa that would have allowed two semi‑detached houses on a 4,800‑square‑foot lot failed to win the four affirmative votes required under the city’s quasi‑judicial process and was continued to April 16.

The ordinance, REZ2629 (2414 West State Street), would have rezoned the parcel from RM‑16 to a plan development (PD) designation to permit two single‑family semi‑detached units. Staff from the planning commission and development coordination found the application consistent with the city’s land‑use policy, and the developer said the project would create “missing‑middle” housing consistent with the West Tampa overlay.

But the hearing focused on a discrete technical and policy question: whether the narrow alley behind the block qualifies as an “open and used public alley.” Mobility staff (Jonathan Scott) told council that his February field inspection found the alley paved but overgrown and that at the time of inspection it appeared “open but not used.” Several neighborhood speakers, civic association representatives and community advocates strongly disputed that conclusion.

"This waiver is a direct conflict with the West Tampa overlay provision for alleys," said Sandra Diego Sanchez, an Army Gardens resident and community advocate. "Mobility reports that the alley is clear but unused. This is untrue... Please deny this rezoning. This waiver does not comply nor is it the true and accurate." Sanchez and others presented photos and said residents and some property owners use the alley for access, walking and necessary loading. Opponents warned that allowing front‑street vehicular access would reduce separation between residents and the new development and set a precedent for spot rezoning.

Applicant James Lascara and his counsel stressed neighborhood outreach and said the project was compatible with nearby two‑unit properties. Lascara argued the PD process was necessary because the lot was 40 square feet smaller than a plain RM‑18 duplex minimum and that the PD would be constrained to the agreed residential use. “We have overwhelming supportive neighbors along the street,” Lascara said; he also presented example properties and urged that development could meet overlay design standards.

Council members voiced concern on both sides. Mobility and development staff noted that if the alley were determined to be an appropriate used alley for vehicular access, the city could require the developer to improve the alley to public‑works standards. The staff position that the alley was “open but unused” was central to the waiver request that would allow the proposed units to take access from the street rather than from the alley.

When the council voted, the motion failed to achieve the four votes required for approval in a quasi‑judicial rezoning (the tally recorded on the floor was three in favor, two opposed, with two members absent). Under council procedure the matter will be automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting with a time certain — April 16, 2026 at 10:00 AM at Old City Hall — so the absent members can participate and so staff can provide additional analysis on the alley’s condition and any technical improvements that might be required.

What to watch next: The April 16 rehearing will focus on additional staff findings about alley usability, any proposed public‑works improvements, and whether the applicant will alter the application to address neighbors’ safety and buffering concerns. Residents asked council to require a masonry wall, improved alley maintenance, and stricter conditions on any bonus density agreement before any approval.

Attribution: Quotes and attributions are taken from speakers who identified themselves on the record at the April 9 council evening session; technical claims about the alley came from Mobility staff (Jonathan Scott) and were contested by residents and civic leaders on the record.