7 apartments will not amount to a hill of beans. It is an experiment to see if they can make money doing this. If so look forward to lots of apartments in the squares perhaps high rise building for residential space.

I agree, I think the developers will "follow the money" where ever it may go. In my mind that is a good thing. The downside being things change and no everyone likes change. The up side is if it makes money it will be maintained.

Anyone every seen a "downtown" that was thriving and not being maintained, or improved. But, we have all seen (a lot) of downtowns that were not making money and allowed two fall into disrepair.

In response to Boogie Shooter,

Apparently you don't get around and talk to people.
I've met people at the square who have told me they live in Stonecrest and then see them ride by on their golf cart. I spoke to two girls in Margarita Republic who told me that they came in from Stonecrest through the "Walmart Gate" with a swipe card. I dated a guy from a neighboring community (respecting his privacy) who goes to the squares on his golf cart driving over private property.
I took a pictures (can't attach) of a cart who crossed my path on Rolling Acres Road, driving from the Villages side into Recreation Plantation (just to name a few). A very good source told me there is access where they can get into the Villages from RP. I spoke to people staying at the RV resorts who hit up owners to get them guest passes so they could play golf everyday. Shouldn't the guest truly be our guests?
Now, to address the apartments. If you rent an apartment you get parking and recreation. Before I bought my property in the Villages I checked out the rentals in Brownwood. There is no reason why the Villages can't use parking spaces behind the buildings. Taking away from the limited parking around the square where "very elderly seniors" park close to enjoy the music and venues is wrong.

I don't have the energy to answer all of your insertions. Get out and talk to people...go to the square and see for yourself rather than question every line of my comments.

I'm not seeing anywhere where the developer is saying they plan on taking spaces from the front of the building. I vaguely recall some wording in the proposal saying that they "should" but not that they "shall" or "must." In legalese, these words have very significant differences, and it was a legal document.

I also recall reading (possibly from the Daily Sun the other day?) the developer stating that they do -not- plan on creating tenant-reserved parking in the front of the building.

It'd be a logistics nightmare if they did - since that would give tenants the right to drive to those spaces park there even when the road is closed for fairs and festivals. Hard to do when there are throngs of pedestrians there and the road is blocked off with cones and Community Watch folks directing traffic away.

I still don't like the idea of isolating 7 units in a single small building in a commercial zone. I still think they should repurpose the Rialto into the MPV fitness center and turn the existing MPV center into either a hotel or apartments (or combination) with amenities built into the property.

Who makes their T-times? A resident must do it...

I find your claim to be suspect...

You can make a golf reservation with a guest pass ID#. You don't have to play with a resident. However, I don't see the developer's plans for the square having much impact on the dynamic of people cheating the system with fake guest passes.

Edit: I might be wrong about that. I'm confusing when I was a renter with when I was a guest. I don't remember how it worked when I was a guest.

The attached document clearly shows assigned parking in front if the Van Patten Building.

All hearsay.

Maybe to provide facts to some of the bias erroneous opinions posted on TOTV?

Yes that is the drawn outline of the proposed plan. In the TEXT explaining the design, the wording is "should" rather than "must" or "shall" with regards to those numbered spaces. The word "should" specifies that this is not set in stone. It is changeable, negotiable, not a done deal, and not a deal-breaker.

I would agree if not for the obvious bias the paper shows to so many things.

That the developer would even consider taking away 14 spots on the square which is a public street is disheartening. I have no beef with them taking 14 spots in their parking lot.

Who started this madness? Is it the same person or people who said the bridges would never be built or the Walmart Cart Path would be closed? Calm down. Go out if you can. It's beautiful at Spanish Springs today.

Yes, you were confused. I had to have a resident make my t-times when I first came down as a guest, but I could make my own when I rented for a few months, before we bought...

The location of the building really makes it less than ideal for apartments. It is basically land locked by other buildings including a restaurant to the west and the bowling alley complex to the south. Looks like they either park on the streets or convert the retail clothing store on the ground floor to private covered parking (if that is possible, considering structural building and fire codes). Converting the empty office spaces along the commercial row and the MVP Building would make more sense in that entrances are already accessible to existing parking lots. Of course, these conversions assume basic apartment fire code construction features were originally built into the buildings.

When Spanish Springs was originally built, the second-floor offices were used principally for Developer and CDD activities and even included a "private" restaurant for Developer and selected local business executives. All that, including the restaurant moved to the second-floor offices at Lake Sumter Landing. Now most of the Developer and CDD administration activity was recently relocated to Brownwood. I assume the next massive migration of Developer office employees will be to the Middleton area once that is completed.

I assume they learned from their mistakes at Spanish Springs and built the office areas in the newer town squares to be more conducive to apartment conversions. Most of those offices have direct access to parking lots, and in fact are usually accessible only from the back or breezeways.

I believe I read somewhere that the Developer holds 120 additional "resident permits". That would probably fill up the second floors of Spanish Springs and Lake Sumter Landing areas.

In 2020 the AAC voted to allow the Developer’s remaining 286 amenity units that had been designated in 2015 for residents of independent living facilities (ILFs) or assisted living facilities (ALFs) to be used for apartments.