Encroachment of retaining walls into the right-of-way

September 6, 2006

City Council
315 East Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, Florida 33602

Re: Encroachment of retaining walls into the right-of-way
September 7, 2006 Agenda, Item 7, File No. E2006-8 CH27

Dear City Council Members,

I am writing to express the views of the Old Seminole Heights Neighborhood Association (“OSHNA”) concerning code violations resulting from retaining walls built in the right-of-way. As more fully explained below, OSHNA strongly supports an expedited administrative remedy with a minimal fee to cover administrative expenses, or no fee in cases where the retaining wall provides a public benefit.

Council needs to be aware of the scope of the problem. In Old Seminole Heights alone, we estimate that there is in excess of 1000 locations where there are retaining walls that are potential code violations. Many of these walls are over 50 years old, although there are also many newer walls. Some walls run along the entire front of the property, in other cases the walls are limited to landscaping or the right-of-way portions of walkways up to the house. A large percentage are located on properties without sidewalks where it is difficult to determine where the property ends and the right-of-way begins. Finally, in an overwhelming majority of cases, the removal of the walls will cause the yard to collapse into the street, undermining the structural foundation of trees and exposing utility meters and pipes and cables.

I have discussed this issue with Gloria Moreda and Jimmy Cook. They advised me that the current remedy for a right-of-way violation is to obtain an encroachment permit. This involves a $400 fee, a survey (an additional $400) and review by no less than 15 city departments and utilities. This is clearly overly burdensome for a homeowner, especially given the nature of these encroachments. However, Gloria also indicated that an expedited remedy is being drafted for consideration by Council. Under this review, a homeowner could submit a digital photo of the encroachment, along with a hold harmless agreement and a minimal fee. While Gloria was clear that Council would decide the fee, $25 was discussed as a potential amount.

Whatever the final amount, it should be minimal enough to encourage homeowners to apply for the permit. The worst case scenario is a homeowner that decides not to pay a fee and instead removes a violating wall. This can result in, as mentioned previously, erosion of soil, exposure of utility lines and meters, instability of sidewalks and deteriorating root structures of trees within the right-of-way. Any of these consequences could expose the city to liability and would require correction by the city at potentially great expense. We respectfully submit, therefore, that it is in the city's best interest to be flexible in permitting or grandfathering the existing encroachments, especially where the wall provides the public benefit of protecting the right-of-way.

OSHNA is willing to work with the city to help identify properties with potential violations and recruit those homeowners to take advantage of the expedited review. This is a wonderful opportunity for the neighborhood and the city to work together to resolve an existing problem in a way that is least burdensome to the homeowner and still protects the rights of all parties.

Respectfully,


Randy Baron
President
Old Seminole Heights Neighborhood Association