[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by beartrack

Okay, let me try to explain my thoughts with a hypothetical situation. You have a hedge across your back yard. The restrictions call that a barrier, so no barrier can be more then 4' tall. Your hedge is 41/2' tall. Some neighbor, name unknown, calls ARB to complain. An inspector shows up and says sorry but, you must cut your hedge down to 4' in order to comply. I say you are correct and I will trim them down to the required height today. As I say that, I look around in all directions from my yard and notice that all the homes to my left and right as far down as six or seven homes, all have 7' or 8' high hedges. The inspector see's me looking and says "If you want to complain about all the other hedges that are not in compliance then call my office and register your complaint and I will come back and issue those complaints to all your neighbors. Well I don't know about anyone else but, I could never do that. I am not saying that the ARB is doing anything wrong, what I am saying is that I feel it is wrong for me to have to act as a policeman with my fellow Villagers. I do not pretend to have the answers to what I percieve as a system with a giant flaw that sets


neighbor against neighbor. I was hoping that if we bounce this around a little more, mybe someone can think of a better way. Please understand, I'm not knocking the Villages, I just see a problem. Maybe it can be fixed and maybe not. Couldn't hurt for reasonable folks to discuss it.

I have bben down this road several times and conclude that without a doube that the district standards off has very little authority to do anything. Any authority they do have would be concerning issues in violation of specific regulations. Hedges and barriers are a prime example, we had neighbors who had dirt brought in and constructed into a 4 foot high berm, on top of that berm they planted hedge type plants. After a short time the hedge plants are now trimmed to 4 feet tall, add that to the berm height and you have a barrier now 8 feet tall. The neighbors have complained vigorously because this 8 foot barrier is on a sharp street curve and definately reeats a hazard. So here comes the district standards enforcer who measures only the hedges from the top of the berm up, yep he says, 4 feet and in compliance. And when you bring in the "aesthetics" that plays such a large part in the standards, you find the standards offices totally without teeth. Aesthetics are defined as being in the eye of the beholder, meaning " what you deem ugly, might be considered beautiful to the next person."

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Bryan

Deed Compliance is, indeed, a complaint driven process. Probably no one wants the Deed Police to patrol the area and write citations. The ARC responds to requests for approval and/or complaints - not a perfect system but the best we have. It works OK but the more public involvement (complaints over violations?) the better it would work.

As for making exceptions, not a good idea. For years exceptions were made (not exactly by the ARC though, in all fairness) for "For Sale" signs in yards. What a ballyhoo that eventually caused. Turns out the long history of ignoring enforcement meant they gave up the right to enforcement it. What was "OK" for For Sale signs for a week or so got out of control with "For Rent" signs that stayed up forever and a few other items. Now enforcement of that deed restriction is questionable - too much history of non-enforcement.

This is called "selective enforcement" of the rules. We have it in our condo complex in MI, and it has caused a lot of problems. For instance... our neighbors in another part of the complex put up a one-foot wall around some landscaping that replaced a tree that was removed, because weeds and such were growing out into the yard and dune grass. A guy across the lagoon, known not to like this neighbor, complained, and the board made him remove it. Meanwhile in our building (four townhouses), our neighbor on the opposite end from us did the same thing, then put brick edging along her and the next two condos, stopping at ours. I think she knew we would not have wanted it, but never asked. So not only was she not made to take down her low wall (against deed restrictions), we have this 3/4-finished edging. In my view, it brings our building's property value down.

However, we have been cordial neighbors for 15 years, and I am not about to rock the boat. So I haven't complained. On the other hand, I hate the unfinished look. Even though a complaint is supposed to be anonymous, we all know darn well that in our close-knit community this is not the case. So I am between a rock and a hard place. I choose the hard place because we like our neighbors. But I hate the results.

In my view, selective enforcement does not work and is a lazy way to do business. I don't believe it should be up to the neighbors to enforce the rules. If you're going to have them, put something in place to enforce them. Otherwise you're just passing the buck..

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by CFrance

This is called "selective enforcement" of the rules. We have it in our condo complex in MI, and it has caused a lot of problems. For instance... our neighbors in another part of the complex put up a one-foot wall around some landscaping that replaced a tree that was removed, because weeds and such were growing out into the yard and dune grass. A guy across the lagoon, known not to like this neighbor, complained, and the board made him remove it. Meanwhile in our building (four townhouses), our neighbor on the opposite end from us did the same thing, then put brick edging along her and the next two condos, stopping at ours. I think she knew we would not have wanted it, but never asked. So not only was she not made to take down her low wall (against deed restrictions), we have this 3/4-finished edging. In my view, it brings our building's property value down.

However, we have been cordial neighbors for 15 years, and I am not about to rock the boat. So I haven't complained. On the other hand, I hate the unfinished look. Even though a complaint is supposed to be anonymous, we all know darn well that in our close-knit community this is not the case. So I am between a rock and a hard place. I choose the hard place because we like our neighbors. But I hate the results.

In my view, selective enforcement does not work and is a lazy way to do business. I don't believe it should be up to the neighbors to enforce the rules. If you're going to have them, put something in place to enforce them. Otherwise you're just passing the buck..

You mean something like this:
http://www.districtgov.org/departmen...ct5-Matrix.pdf

[gomoho]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Dogs running free is not in the community standards, its a county law.
Don't think you violated any law...............
What are the leash laws in Sumter County?
County Code 4-10 states that all dogs must be confined on owners property at all times or under direct control or on a leash when off the owners property.

Otherwise a citation will be issued for the animal running free.

Okay, thought I would get such a response. The dogs were not running free in the community. They were in the backyards of my neighbors fetching a ball. No, I don't believe I violated a law 'cause they are under voice command and my supervision.

I say "lighten up" or "bring it on". If you are lucky enough to have a dog that is so intent on fetching the ball there is nothing that would distract him, then you are lucky enough to enjoy one of life's simple pleasures.

[jimbo2012]

berms r permitted if done to there extra 2' setback, therefore, should it be 4' from grade?

Well U could plant a 30' tree?

[gomoho]

Originally Posted by jimbo2012;6***09

berms r permitted if done to there extra 2' setback, therefore, should it be 4' from grade?

Well U could plant a 30' tree?

could you explain the berm comment??? don't understand

[tommy steam]

Originally Posted by beartrack

When you walk into Walmart's garden dept. you will see a Sunbrella gazebo structure that is 11' X 11' on display. It has four poles, one in each corner. The top is solid brown with a small vent at the top. I asked Community standards if I could put this on my 20' concrete patio. I filled out the paper work and one week later they said no. They said that we could have an umbrella but this was too tent like. I asked if I needed their permission for an umbrella, they said no, that umbrellas are allowed. Then "Lo and Behold" I recieved a flyer this morning for an umbrella that measur's 11' X 11'. With the exact same roof as the Gazebo. The only difference is instead of one support at each corner, there is one support in the middle. I just don't get it! It's in my back yard, we have hedges and other shrubs. The only thing that any of my back yard neighbors would see is the roof, and they are exactly the same. I'm confused !!!!

Go for the umbrella .

[jimbo2012]

Originally Posted by gomoho;6***12

could you explain the berm comment??? don't understand

Sorry but what exactly don't you understand the berm addition or the height?

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by jimbo2012;6***51

Sorry but what exactly don't you understand the berm addition or the height?

Jumbo, I didn't get it either. Can you have a berm if it's a certain distance from the road? Is that what's meant by set back? Also, is there a height restriction for a berm?

Also, if they wouldn't allow bushes higher than four feet, why would they allow berm plus bushes to exceed that height? Kind of defeats the purpose of the height restrictions.

(But I see bushes all over the sections south of 466 that are way over four feet.)

[jimbo2012]

Originally Posted by CFrance;6***54

Jumbo, I didn't get it either. Can you have a berm if it's a certain distance from the road? Is that what's meant by set back? Also, is there a height restriction for a berm?

Also, if they wouldn't allow bushes higher than four feet, why would they allow berm plus bushes to exceed that height? Kind of defeats the purpose of the height restrictions.

(But I see bushes all over the sections south of 466 that are way over four feet.)

Ok here's the guidelines on berms, they are not permitting them in the ROW "right of way", this is owned by the county about 13.5 ft. back from the curb.

Additionally, you must not place a berm right on that line 13.5 ft back you must set it 2' further back. Or 15.5'

The issue of how high was not mentioned, and your question for instance about 4' over let's say a 3 foot tall berm or 7 plus feet is fine, in fact you can have a 3' berm and a 10 foot tall tree/bush.

However, you can not have a continuance grouping over 4' tall.

As far as the combined height being over 4 ' on line of bushes because of the berm brings up an interesting point. I don't know!

So U can have individual bushes over 4' not a row or screen wall of them, that's my read and take on it after going thru the ARC myself.

. Simple right

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by jimbo2012;6***61

Ok here's the guidelines on berms, they are not permitting them in the ROW "right of way", this is owned by the county about 13.5 ft. back from the curb.

Additionally, you must not place a berm right on that line 13.5 ft back you must set it 2' further back. Or 15.5'

The issue of how high was not mentioned, and your question for instance about 4' over let's say a 3 foot tall berm or 7 plus feet is fine, in fact you can have a 3' berm and a 10 foot tall tree/bush.

However, you can not have a continuance grouping over 4' tall.

As far as the combined height being over 4 ' on line of bushes because of the berm brings up an interesting point. I don't know!

So U can have individual bushes over 4' not a row or screen wall of them, that's my read and take on it after going thru the ARC myself.

. Simple right

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

[Warren Kiefer]

Originally Posted by CFrance;6***54

Jumbo, I didn't get it either. Can you have a berm if it's a certain distance from the road? Is that what's meant by set back? Also, is there a height restriction for a berm?

Also, if they wouldn't allow bushes higher than four feet, why would they allow berm plus bushes to exceed that height? Kind of defeats the purpose of the height restrictions.

(But I see bushes all over the sections south of 466 that are way over four feet.)

As I said earlier, my neighbors constructed a berm and planted hedge plants atop the berm. This is along their property line and in fact is on the easement property.The deed standard enforcer insisted in measuring only the plants at 4 feet and disregarded the berm. The total height varies between 7 and 8 feet in height. I asked the enforcer if I could create a 10 foot high berm and maintain a 4 hedge on top for a total barrier of 14 feet similiar to my neighbors but a little higher. His response was, don't be ridiculous. I still cannot determine why it was OK for my neighbors but ridiculous for me. I telling you that the deed restrictions offices have practically no enforcement powers what so ever...

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by gomoho;6***08

Okay, thought I would get such a response. The dogs were not running free in the community. They were in the backyards of my neighbors fetching a ball. No, I don't believe I violated a law 'cause they are under voice command and my supervision.

I say "lighten up" or "bring it on". If you are lucky enough to have a dog that is so intent on fetching the ball there is nothing that would distract him, then you are lucky enough to enjoy one of life's simple pleasures.

I was just trying to point out that what you were doing with the dog was not a violation of the "rules".
The macho challenge to "bring it on"............was not necessary.

[jimbo2012]

Originally Posted by Warren Kiefer;6***86

As I said earlier, my neighbors constructed a berm and planted hedge plants atop the berm. This is along their property line and in fact is on the easement property.

That is absolutely out of compliance, I'm 100% certain.

The deed standard enforcer insisted in measuring only the plants at 4 feet and disregarded the berm. The total height varies between 7 and 8 feet in height. I asked the enforcer if I could create a 10 foot high berm and maintain a 4 hedge on top for a total barrier of 14 feet similiar to my neighbors but a little higher. His response was, don't be ridiculous.

you can do it, but they would come up with the issue of interfering with natural water runoff at that height & slop I suppose????

I also think the biggest you can build a berm is about 4' high because you need a slop or grade on each side so maybe at 4' tall it needs 6' on each side plus the width across the top of at least 2-3 '

So that's about 15' wide by 4' tall that size is used by several of the Patio Villa entrances on Anna Maria and in the very new Hillsborough PV'

I still cannot determine why it was OK for my neighbors but ridiculous for me. I telling you that the deed restrictions offices have practically no enforcement powers what so ever...

I have the person to contact who has that power, if interested.
PM me.

see pics, notice how those berms ARE on the ROW, they can do that we can't!

PS:Florida Friendly law says we can, but they still say no, figure that one out!

[DougB]

Yikes! Looks like you would be creating your own flood zone for yourself with those. No?