The Daily Sun July 31,2012 Districts discuss yard sign deed restriction

[graciegirl]

The Daily Sun, July31,2012

The Villages

The look of TheVillages' neighborhood landscape could change if Community Development Districts opt to enforce a deed restriction that bans yard signs.

The issue of enforcing the deed restriction came before five CDDs and the Amenity Authority Committee in a joint workshop held Monday at Laurel Manor Recreation Center.

When Villages homeowners purchase their homes, they enter into contractual agreements, as part of deed restrictions, to not place signage outside their homes, according to Valerie Fuchs, attorney for the CDDs.

However, enforcement has been lax in previous years and currently is dealt with only when a complaint is received about a sign, according to District Manager Janet Tutt.

CDD's 1-5 took over enforcement of those deed restrictions, previously agreed to between the homeowner and the developer, after a 2009 change to Florida law made that possible.

A series of recent resident complaints brought the issue to the forefront and started discussion among the CDDs on whether they wanted to prohibit residents from placing signs in yards. CDDs have the option to enforce or not enforce specific deed restrictions, according to Tutt and Fuchs.

The biggest discussion focused on whether "for sale" or "for rent" signs should be allowed for residents wanting to market their properties.

Some supervisors expressed support for banning certain types of signs such as those that are political, commercial or homemade in nature, but allowing real estate signs. Fuchs advised the board and crowd of more than 150 that CDDs could not pick and choose to allow or prohibit, because an attempt to control content could be seen as a violation of the homeowner's First Amendment rights.

Supervisors with the five CDDs and committee members with ACC exprssed views that demonstrated a sharp divide between whether they want to enforce the signage ban.

Those supporting the signage ban said dropping enforcement would deteriorate the overall aesthetic look of the community, and those against enforcement argued that prohibiting was too restrictive for residents trying to market their home.

Audience members who spoke at the meeting also offered differing views, including as many as 30 in the crowd who identified themselves as real estate agents.

There's a separate contractual agreement between homeowners and The Villages developer pertaining to indoor displays, and the developer indicated consent for 12-inch-by-12-inch "for sale" or "for rent" signs that could be displayed in the window of a home, a practice that currently exists for Districts 6-10. The CDDs handle only deed restrictions for outside homes.

Monday's joint workshop was held to allow the district's staff and legal counsel to provide supervisors with background on the issue, as well as discuss it jointly between the six entities.

Each respective board will have the option of taking action on the issue at a later regular meeting.

End of quote from The Daily Sun, July 31, 2012

[rubicon]

If I were a prospective buyer and I noted a number of "For Sale" sign in a particular area I 'd move on

[asianthree]

thanks for the info

[elevatorman]

This sure is confusing. On the district 4 deed enforcement page http://www.districtgov.org/departments/Community-Standards/images/compliance-standards/District4-Matrix.pdf (page 37 of 38) it says for sale signs are ok.

[janmcn]

For sale and for rent signs are permitted in districts one through five in villa neighborhoods under the deed restrictions, so this information is erroneous at best.

[mickey100]

For sale and for rent signs are permitted in districts one through five in villa neighborhoods under the deed restrictions, so this information is erroneous at best.

The (developer controlled) Daily Sun has a reputation for putting its own spin on "the facts".

[justjim]

The For Sale Yard Issue is obviously no small issue. Especially for homeowners that want to put up for sale by owner signs and, of course, MLS Realtors who are in competition for resales with the Developer's Real Estate Offices.

First there is the issue of personal freedom vs. the good or betterment of the Community as a whole. This has, and always will, be debated among reasonable people. The question being-----where do you draw the line? That is the question. To me the question can only be answered case by case and issue by issue. It seems that a precedent has been set over the years to allow such yard signs in CDD'S 1-5. That being the case, those that want NO yard signs should have to present an outstanding case as to why they should no longer be allowed. That seems to me to be reasonable and proper. Have they done so????

Since I live south of 466 and in District 9, I don't have a dog in this hunt. But that is just my opinion on what seems to be an important issue to many residents in CDD'S 1-5.

[caroline]

Just one clarification regarding the audience members who identfied themselves as Realtors. I am one of those audience members, and yep, I'm a Realtor, I'm also a resident.The question that was put out by one of the board members was...." how many of the Realtors in the audience are residents and actually live in The Villages?" About 30 hands went up including my own. Somehow the Daily Sun did neglect to mention the "resident" part, and in my opinion, and mine alone, gave the impression that a bunch of Realtors showed up at this meeting who for some reason shouldn't have been there, or were just looking out for their own selfish interests. I'm sure it was just an oversight on the reporters part, but I wanted to clarify.

[eckbro]

Were I to choose to be offended by my neighbor placing a "For Sale" sign in his yard, or to have more government infringe on my life with more regulation, I would not hesitate to choose the former.

[elevatorman]

There are also procedures set up for violations of the deed restrictions. You have 3 to 15 days to correct after the first notice depending on the violation. Then the CDD sends you a letter telling you that you have 15 days to correct or you will be fined. So I guess you could put the sign up for 15 days and then take it down and call the CDD and let them know the violation has been corrected. Then there would be no fine.

[njbchbum]

thanks for posting, graciegirl! was wondering that there were no posts here yesterday after the meeting.

so now my wonderment is - if cdds 1-5 can choose to enforce or not enforce their covenants [and have been doing so], why did someone from district gov contact mls realtors to advise them the developer was going to exercise his right to enforce covenants - and then send homeowners with the signs a flyer about the enforcement and fines? none of the procedure[s] aeem to have been followed by the developer?

from the article gg posted, "Those supporting the signage ban said dropping enforcement would deteriorate the overall aesthetic look of the community" - i have to wonder why none of those supporters complained about realtor signs in the past!

if the reporter is correct, i guess each cdd will be able to decide for themselves at a future meeting...thus, i have to wonder whether the signs can stay in the lawns until the meeting is held! and further, what happens if the cdd never puts the issue on a meeting agenda?

i love the villages for its continuing episodes - this one seems like a cliff-hanger!

[graciegirl]

I wonder if... the whole thing was kind of escalated because of the pending election and those signs.

I'd hate to be on the other side of the political spectrum from a gun totin' not quite mentally well balanced villager.

[njbchbum]

I wonder if... the whole thing was kind of escalated because of the pending election and those signs.

I'd hate to be on the other side of the political spectrum from a gun totin' not quite mentally well balanced villager.

have no fear of that, gracie - ya got the posse on your side! ;)

i know there are gun totin' folks in the villages - but are there really 'not quite mentally well balanced' villagers, too? oh, i forgot - we're all over in the political forum! :)

[Moderator]

Let's try to keep any partisan political discussion out of this thread. The District Government has already published the policy on political signs on their website.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Moderator

[graciegirl]

Let's try to keep any partisan political discussion out of this thread. The District Government has already published the policy on political signs on their website.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Moderator

What did it say?

[Wing-nut2]

I hope they keep the ban.

[Bogie Shooter]

What did it say?

Village Community Development Districts (http://www.districtgov.org/PdfView/PdfView.aspx?path='/PdfUpload/Political) Signage Memo.pdf'&ql=standard

[njbchbum]

I hope they keep the ban.

this issue is in cdd 1-5 - where there is no ban on for sale signs - but there is the expressed permission for same in their covenants. enforcement of same was turned over to each individual cdd by the developer years ago.

[njbchbum]

shux, bogie - nothing cme up for me :( will keep trying.

[justjim]

thanks for posting, graciegirl! was wondering that there were no posts here yesterday after the meeting.

so now my wonderment is - if cdds 1-5 can choose to enforce or not enforce their covenants [and have been doing so], why did someone from district gov contact mls realtors to advise them the developer was going to exercise his right to enforce covenants - and then send homeowners with the signs a flyer about the enforcement and fines? none of the procedure[s] aeem to have been followed by the developer?

from the article gg posted, "Those supporting the signage ban said dropping enforcement would deteriorate the overall aesthetic look of the community" - i have to wonder why none of those supporters complained about realtor signs in the past!

if the reporter is correct, i guess each cdd will be able to decide for themselves at a future meeting...thus, i have to wonder whether the signs can stay in the lawns until the meeting is held! and further, what happens if the cdd never puts the issue on a meeting agenda?

i love the villages for its continuing episodes - this one seems like a cliff-hanger!

:jester: Njbchbum: This whole issue has been about as confusing as anything can get in TV. Were you at the meeting or do you know somebody who was? Did anybody give a compelling reason why the yard signs should no longer be allowed when in the past they were okay in CDD's 1-5. Has there been a "mountain" of complaints about the signs? It seems to me that the people who want them taken down would have filed a valid complaint with the CDD or CDD's at some point in time. From what I can understand, they (CDD'S) are the "enforcer" of such. I can understand that reasonable people can disagree about something but it has been my experience that the person or person's wanting a change is usually required to present a compelling reason to change a long standing precedent that has been in place for several years. Perhaps I am the one that just doesn't understand. Does the Developer have the power to change the long-standing policy on Yard Signs or does the CDD Boards have the power?? If its the Developer then why all the "fuss" and why bother with these meetings unless the Developer has not yet decided and wants input from the Community. Clear as mud!!! :beer3:

[njbchbum]

justjim - only know what i have read here on totv and in the covenants and have been told by a 'participant' in the villages. i am in the same quandry as your are.

[swrinfla]

Tempest in a Teapot, methinks!

Yes, I agree that signs in yards are distasteful. I also think that there are ways around the "objectionable" signs!

In my friend's quite up-scale community near Nashville, political signs are banned, as are virtually all others. But, for sale signs are permitted - so long as they are uniform in appearance and content. No glaring, blaring push for Realtor X, no yelling for Realtor Y. Just a quiet, tasteful announcement, in same-case lettering, that this is house is being offered by Realtor Z, call ###.

The issue will eventually be resolved and the agitated folks will forget it; the dismayed folks will be happy, and we will all be able to get on with our lives!

Isn't that the best way???????????

SWR
:beer3:

[Bogie Shooter]

shux, bogie - nothing cme up for me :( will keep trying.

try copy and paste to your browser. Or go to Village Community Development Districts (http://www.districtgov.org)
w w w.districtgov.org

[njbchbum]

try copy and paste to your browser. Or go to Village Community Development Districts (http://www.districtgov.org)
w w w.districtgov.org

thanx - went to dist gov before and it did not show up - but it did now that you got me to try again ;)

the material there states, "Due to the diversity of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, it is important that you familiarize yourself with your particular set." i am just more confused with the developer's actions! if one checks their covenants and restrictions as directed to do and finds that a for sale sign IS permitted - why did the developer take the action he did? bet we will never know if it was for any reason other than to stir up a hornet's nest...and he sure succeeded at that! ;)

[asianthree]

up north right now and you can't see the forest for the SIGNS barf

[jandbrare]

Thanks for posting the newspaper writeup, Gracie. I was at the meeting and have made a post regarding the signs on TOTV's. The newspaper summary is very accurate and good coverage.

[zcaveman]

thanx - went to dist gov before and it did not show up - but it did now that you got me to try again ;)

the material there states, "Due to the diversity of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, it is important that you familiarize yourself with your particular set." i am just more confused with the developer's actions! if one checks their covenants and restrictions as directed to do and finds that a for sale sign IS permitted - why did the developer take the action he did? bet we will never know if it was for any reason other than to stir up a hornet's nest...and he sure succeeded at that! ;)

If you go down to the fidth entry - Political Signage and Polling Location Activities - and click on the title the memo from Janet Tutt is pretty clear about the political signs.