What the City is proposing at 4902 E Whiteway Drive
The City of Tampa is building Fire Station 24 — a four-bay, roughly 17,500-square-foot, 24-hour station on about 3 acres at 4902 E Whiteway Drive, a lot zoned Residential Single-Family (RS-60) next to Greco Park. To do it, the City’s Variance Review Board approved (Case VRB-26-45) cutting required tree retention from 50% to 3%.
At 3% retention, up to 97% of the lot’s protected trees can be cleared — an near-total removal from the standard set by the City’s own tree ordinance (Tampa Code § 27-285). A standard the City wrote, and asked to be exempted from for its own project.
The tree variance already passed 5–1 on April 14, 2026. This Thursday, July 16, the City Council votes on the $17.4 million construction contract — the last major approval before groundbreaking. That vote is where public comment still matters. The ask: defer until the records are produced.
Five things every neighbor should know
1. A residential street would get a 24-hour emergency facility
RS-60 zoning exists for low-density single-family homes. A round-the-clock station with lights and sirens is not a residential use. Neighbors who bought into a quiet street would be handed something entirely different.
2. The trees are the buffer — during a canopy emergency
The mature canopy shields the surrounding homes from the noise and lights of the softball fields behind the lot. And the timing is stark: a 2026 USF study found Tampa’s canopy fell from 31.4% to 29.9% in a single year — about 1,200 acres, its lowest level since 1973. The City is spending public money and soliciting donations to replant trees while seeking to clear 97% of this mature lot.
3. This “low-risk” area floods
During Hurricane Milton (2024), the University / North Tampa area suffered some of the worst flooding in the region — “Lake Fowler,” with 135 seniors evacuated by boat from a nearby facility — despite being mapped as low-risk Flood Zone X. Removing 97% of a wooded lot and adding impervious surface directly increases runoff.
4. The public was noticed for 6%. The vote approved 3%.
The published agenda for VRB-26-45 stated a request to reduce retention to 6%. The motion that passed reflected 3%. Residents who showed up prepared to address one request were handed another. That is a fairness and due-process question — and possibly a defective-notice question — worth a straight answer.
5. A variance is supposed to require a genuine hardship
The Board may only grant a variance on a demonstrated hardship that is unique to the property and not self-created. The City chose this constrained, heavily-wooded site and designed a footprint requiring near-total clearance. A self-created hardship, by the ordinance’s own terms, “shall not justify a variance.” The vote was not unanimous — one board member voted no.
Three questions the City hasn’t answered
Before a single tree comes down, the public deserves to see:
The wildlife survey. Florida’s protected bat maternity season runs April 16 through August 14, when it is illegal to disturb active roost sites. Is there a survey confirming whether protected bats — including the endangered Florida bonneted bat — roost in these trees?
The stormwater impact study. In an area with documented, catastrophic recent flooding, what does removing this canopy and adding impervious surface do to drainage here?
The site-alternatives analysis. A parcel roughly 0.8 miles away could host this station. Has the City documented why it was ruled out — and does existing coverage already meet national (NFPA 1710) response-time standards here?
If these documents exist, the City should make them public before Thursday’s vote. If they don’t exist, that is the story.
Every figure on this site links to its source. Statements described as resident observations are exactly that — they are not presented as engineering or professional findings. That discipline is what keeps this campaign credible.