Increases coming to CDD?
 

Developer ready to hand off enforcement of rules against children and businesses. CDDs will need more money for legal fees to accomplish.....per The Village News.

It’s a poor decision for the CDD’s to accept. The Developer should clean up its mess and enforce the covenants in the real estate contract!

And everyone should pay their taxes and everyone should obey the speed limit and …. When faced with a non-perfect world, what do you do, continue to whine about the developer or make changes?

*If* CDD5 passes this then the questions remain:
- Will there be an enforcement mechanism?
- Will there be sufficient additional complaints to justify additional cost?
-Will any other CDD follow suit?

Too many questions to become concerned now.

I support enforcement even if it costs money.

Maybe all of the CDDs could band together and share the legal expense as well as the actual legal firms that would be involved, I believe this would be less expensive than going individually. I also believe the best approach would be a warning letter about the infraction including that the offender could (would?) be liable for the CDD legal costs if they did not cease immediately.
I am sure there will be many other considerations for enforcement, but that can be a future discussion.

How will this affect the two old biddies as they fight for truth, justice and the American way?:BigApplause:

I’m for whatever it takes if the CDD’s are willing to enforce two specific deed restrictions, properties shall be used as single family residential units and businesses cannot be run out of residential homes. That would take care of the problem of people renting out rooms to non family members while concurrently living in the home.

Where does the Developer derive the right to drop enforcement, onto the CDD's?

I assume the Developer has the right to assign his enforcement rights to whomever he wishes, but it seems the Assignee would have to affirmatively accept them?

I haven't read all that many TV deeds, so that's a question, not an assertion.

There are some homeowners who have live-in aides. They're not family, they're contractors/employees. You'd need to offer exceptions. And that means you'd have to be up in someone's health business, which is against HIPAA law.

Also how would you know that someone is renting a room to someone, and isn't in a non-marriage relationship with them? Best friends who aren't life partners, or the lady down the street who lost her husband and downsized and sold her house, and is now renting a room at a neighbor's house...

Also what of friends who share a property, but aren't related, and share expenses and sleep in their own bedrooms.

The only thing you could really enforce, is if you catch the property being offered for rent on a website, or newspaper, or a sign on the window.

The covenant says that the Developer MAY enforce internal restrictions. It doesn't say that they WILL enforce them. It wasn't all that big a deal until the last decade or two, when the older generation of owners passed on, and children inherited the properties. Once that happened, they would move in - or rent - or sell - without concerning themselves with who the buyers were.

There was also a wave of new construction when people could buy the land for little to zero money, with the contract to build on it. They got the home cheap, and flipped it as an investment. That was before the Developers realized how much money people were making off these new homes and built a "no flipping for the first year" rule into the new contracts.

Now, it -seems- as though everyone and their brother is either in the process of buying and flipping, or bought because someone else bought and flipped. I know it's just a perception and hardly the reality, but that's what makes the news.

Just a possibility:

The enforcement clause of the deed restrictions allows the developer to delegate (or some appropriate word) its right to enforce deed restrictions. All it would then take is an official agreement between the developer and the CDD laying out the specifics. The existing agreement could be modified or a separate agreement written to cover some or all of the internal restrictions.

As much as some would like it to be, hosting a guest for a night/week/month is not a violation of the deed restrictions in most areas (there is always an exception). It is not running a business out of the home, particularly not a business requiring inventory or customer visits, and it does not violate the single-family clause. It simply doesn’t.


EDIT: I cannot find any "single-family clause" in my deed restrictions. It isn't being violated anyway, but it doesn't seem to exist.

The post I responded to was positing that there should be some way to prevent people from renting rooms WHILE LIVING THERE AT THE SAME TIME. That constitutes "something other than single family residence."

Hosting my friends from MD for a time does not constitute something other than single family residence. Hosting anyone does not change the nature of the residence. When the address is used on a piece of govt issued identification THEN it might become a problem.

EDIT: As I also noted above, there does not seem to be a deed restriction requiring a single-family residence anyway. Hosting still does not create a multi-family residence, but I did not see a restriction against it anyway.

You actually believe what’s in the village_ news? :1rotfl::1rotfl:

I know this was discussed at length on a different thread. So my question is if using a residence for AirBnb, which is supposed to be taxed (regardless of AirBnb’ hollow claims of innocent 3rd party).....doesn’t that constitute a business? Is this a way for TV to have a mechanism to work in concert with the Bill recently passed at the state level re; STR?

New to all of this so appreciate any education

Well, let’s address those situations. A live in caretaker is not a tenant paying rent. The homeowner is paying them for an essential service, totally different situation.

A non marriage relationship sharing a home is very different than a revolving door short term rental situation to complete strangers. It’s a long term living situation that should not disrupt the neighborhood.

Unrelated friends sharing a property is again not a revolving door short term rental situation. And as you described the situation, they could both be deeded owners of said property.

Another poster questioned having unrelated guests, again not a revolving door short term rental situation. Any reasonable person wouldn’t consider occasional non rent paying house guests as not being in harmony with single family residential use. I have had several guests, both family and friends, visit our home for a few days, all rent free. I take great care to insure their activities don’t disrupt my neighbors.

The issue here is not allowing revolving door short term rentals that create a situation that is not in harmony with a 55+ single family residential retirement community. Anyone advertising with the likes of AirBnB as offering one or more rooms for rent, while concurrently living in their home, is the situation that needs to be addressed. Those are the situations that will generate complaints that trigger the deed compliance system, not those you described.

If the home is being used as an AirBnB then tax is due. If it has not been collected in the past then perhaps the new bill will change that.

Renting the home is certainly a business activity. However, renting a home does not mean business is being conducted in the home. The activities being conducted in the home are eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning. These are the exact same activities that are conducted in my home and 70,000+ other homes in the Villages.

Further, even if the owner sat in the kitchen and accepted payment such that business activity was occurring in the home, it would still not be a violation of the deed restrictions. The deed restrictions prohibit business activity that involves maintaining inventory or customer visits. The sofa and kitchen table in the airBnB is no more inventory than the sofa and kitchen table in my home. The people sitting on the sofa and eating at the kitchen table are not customers visiting a business, they are guests performing the normal activities conducted in a home: eating, sleeping, cooking, and cleaning.

What some seem to want is for local government to pass a law prohibiting an owner from renting his home or a law mandating a minimum duration of a stay. (Un)fortunately, Florida law does not allow a local government to pass such a law.

The issue of taxes is a mute one the bigger complaint is retirees in their forever home being subjected to strangers weekly or even daily occupying a residence. How are the tenants being vetted ,are they given even a cursory background check? Or just the money !!

Agree with enforcement of deed restrictions as long as they are applied equally and uniformly. There is way too much selective enforcement in T V.

The Developer granting permission to certain homeowners for certain things prior to transfer of villages to T V which are against ARC deed restrictions should result in suits against the Developer. No special violations of ARC rules in exchange for back door $$ to the developer to build them in. Ie: rv garages put in as "cabanas", additional out buildings being built that look like used furniture store fronts or backyards of rocks approved by the Developer not ARC as seen up north.

Relative to renting rooms: If a person resides in their home with a person renting a single room the arrangement does not require a business license from the State of Florida. This arrange per sa does not classify as a short term rental the same way as when entire dwelling is used as a short term rental which does require FL business license.

Sitting on a couch, eating at a table, sleeping does not define business.

If one goes on ABnB to rent a dwelling for one night and the person with whom that person contacts to book it takes the money and fails to deliver a way into the home would one be ripped off by a person conducting business with a customer who is attempting to stay in the short term rental that they supposedly booked... what as just a friend, family member of the owner?

The primary function of a home test fails miserably on that logic. Not to mention short term rentals require business licenses in FL with only a small exclusion. Research will easily reveal that.

What happens if you’re a Mormon with multiple wives ??

Food for thought.....

What do you do when your Deed Restrictions expire? Not all live in new Neighborhoods.
Zoning Laws however don't expire but must be amended for change.

(Taken from a Google Search)


"What is the 30 year deed restriction in Florida?"

"Certain states, including Florida, have adopted the 1956 Marketable Record Title Act, which says that deed restrictions expire within 30 years of inception. That means after 30 years, a homeowners' association is technically unable to enforce the rules and can no longer collect monthly dues from community homeowners."

People wave around HIPAA like they understand it, but most do not. This would not be a HIPAA violation because the Developer is not a covered entity.

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/fi...nforcement.pdf

I would do some more research and instead of just reading & citing 2 sentences taken out of context, you include the analysis in its whole.

No.

Florida Law prohibits communities from regulating the length of stay for rentals and prohibits them from out-lawing STR's.

Regardless of the fact that STR's require a "Business License" from the State of Florida, court decisions and legislative actions in FL (& most all of the USA) over the last 20-25 years, have consistently and almost unequivocally held that STR's are an allowed use in a Residential Zoning District, unless otherwise specifically defined or prohibited.

The nearly universal flaw in Zoning Regulations throughout the USA, is that the basic premises & definitions adopted pursuant to Euclid vs Ambler Realty Co. (1926), didn't foresee the advent of the internet and platforms that allowed residential homes to be rented on a short term basis and therefore, never defined "Short Term Rentals" as a specific use. Technology, out-paced zoning amendments.

For a myriad of reasons, I don't think you'll ever see an effort by the Developer or the CDD's, to eliminate STR's in TV. I've said a zillion times on here (as have others), the only practical way to exercise some modicum of control over STR's in The Villages, would be a revamping of the Guest/Resident ID system (controlling access to the amenities).

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

Read Villagetinker
 

VillageTinker always has good suggestions.

I often let friends and family use my home for free when I travel. I travel at least a month at a time 4 times a year. That violates nothing as I receive no compensation. That doesn't violate anything. It is my home, I should be able to let friends and family enjoy it. It's no ones business but my own. My neighbors have never complained, on the contrary, they enjoy visiting with my friends and family. What is being suggested might not he all that easy to enforce is all I'm saying. What next, trolls knocking on doors to see who is living there???

Yours is an acceptable use. The difference is you and your guests RESPECT your neighbors.

The Villages was organized into a CDD type government in 1992 - 32 years ago. Does this mean I don't have to submit to the ARC anymore ?

Let me ask my next door neighbor if he has ever had a problem.

I suspect all the homes in the Villages are zoned single family, so if you are renting room(s) to other than immediate family that would be an issue. Regardless of deed restrictions, zoning is zoning.

That is not accurate. The majority of homes in TV are in a "Residential" zoning district and most have been the subject of a Site Plan Permit of one sort or another.

There's hardly a jurisdiction in the entire United States, that would consider the renting out of a "room" to a boarder, would be considered a violation of zoning in a Single Family Zoning District. That's tantamount to saying, if you charged your 22 year old child for "room & board", it would make his occupancy illegal. Not likely.

That is for a court to decide but I think you are wrong. If you are renting a room out in your house, you need a business license, therefore, it is a business.

Even if it was a business, since it is not a business in the home storing inventory or involving customer visits then it is not a deed violation.

Categorically incorrect.

Pretty sure I read the CDD concerned approached the Developer to take over the enforcement.
Not the Developer dumping it on the CDD.

That Florida law has a date of enforcement on it and some homes in the Northern section don't fall under that Florida law.

2/3 of my CYV block is STR and has totally lost any neighborhood feel. It's more like a resort or time share than a community.

It's chasing year round residents out and more STR in which the whole block will eventually be 100% STR.

How is it condominiums in Florida are able to implement restrictions on STR but not TV?

So when do you think CDDs will not need more money? IMO 5 or so years us lower income population in villages will have to on move and higher income will be plucked like chicken sandwich at Chick-fil-A :22yikes: