Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOther-Letter to Members of Ad Hoc Committee Related to Agenda Item 600 Tuscawilla Unit 12/12A Wall Ad Hoc Advisory Committee Regular Meeting September 6, 2012 The attached document was provided to the Committee Members during the Regular Agenda Item "600" at the September 6, 2012 Tuscawilla Unit 12/12A Wall Ad Hoc Advisory Committee Meeting. September 4,2012 Attn:Members of Ad Hoc Committee, Regarding Tuscawilla Unit 12/12/A Wall Dear Committee Members, This letter is to voice our opinions,as homeowners,regarding your task to determine the best course of action for restoring the wall.Due to work schedules and small children,we are unable to attend Thursday's scheduled"wall walk".However,given that we walk the wall area essentially every day(with a dog and a baby),have lived in our home 4 years and plan to be here many more,we would strongly like to share our thoughts. It has been brought to our attention that the committee was given 3 options regarding the wall: 1)tear it down and rebuild it in its current location;2)tear it down and rebuild it 10 feet closer to homeowners' properties;3)repair and maintain it in its current location. We would like fervently state that THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE OPTION HERE IS OPTION 3)REPAIR AND MAINTAIN THE WALL IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION.Option 1 seems unnecessarily costly,and would effectively create a safety hazard and ugly space for months while the wall is being rebuilt.Additionally,many areas of the wall are in decent or good shape,and are aesthetically pleasing as well,so this seems to be overkill.Option 2 is UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE,as moving the wall closer to our homes will substantially decrease property values by not only decreasing the size of our lots,but also our proximity to the wall,and most importantly,by removing(at great cost)thousands of beautiful trees and other vegetation which currently provide an additional barrier from the road.I would guess that this option would devalue property for the entire Tuscawilla neighborhood, as it would be seriously ugly.Many people have purchased homes in this neighborhood expressly because they value the natural beauty,which you would destroy with option 2.We would never have purchased our home had it stood close to a retaining wall with no natural(woods) barrier. We are a young family and certainly don't want to have to move,but what you are proposing would degrade our whole lifestyle,and the lifestyles of many other homeowners.On my daily walks I talk to many homeowners,and I have yet to talk with a single person who is not in favor of option 3.Most homeowners believe the wall could be repair safely and well without great cost,and in fact several general contractors in the neighborhood are in agreement. We strongly suggest that you conduct a straw poll of homeowners in the unit to assess what the majority wishes-as should be done in a democratic society,especially since we are being asked to foot the bill. We understand that the City fears liability for keeping the wall in its current location.However,we have recently learned that the wall can be added to the insurance policy of the Tuscawilla Lighting and Beautification District,at a reasonable annual cost which we as homeowners would pay,thus eliminating liability for the City. We feel strongly that option 3,with this insurance through the TLBD,is the only acceptable solution.We are aware that many homeowners would be upset enough as to pursue legal action is option 3 is not the choice pursued by the City.If you should have any questions about our views on this matter,please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully Submitted, Sareet&Aaron Taylor,999 ping Rock Ct.,