[JGibson]

Originally Posted by LianneMigiano

NO CONSISTENCY HERE! We can't even change the exterior color of our home (in a neighborhood of 110 gray homes)! Very few, if any, of the newer courtyard villa neighborhoods are all ONE color. There is a really nice color pallet to guide Villagers - but we don't even have THAT choice. In order to change that neighborhood rule, we need 80%+ owners' signatures to agree to allow change - a near impossibility! Does anyone know of another place in our country where 80% is needed to change anything???

How were they able to reverse needing ARC approval for removal of trees?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JGibson

How were they able to reverse needing ARC approval for removal of trees?

The ARC has recently been changing the requirement concerning removing trees. I believe this may have been due to a change in the Florida law regarding what municipalities could require.

Basically, it didn't make sense to require ARC approval if you already had an arborist's determination as required by the county. Was the ARC going to second guess the licensed professional about the health or safety of the tree? So at least in some CDDs (all are different, be sure to check yours) the ARC now defers to the county - if it is okay with the county then it is okay with the ARC.

NOTE: Even though ARC approval is no longer required there still may county requirements that need to be satisfied. Another thread strongly suggested checking with a professional before removing any trees.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

I don't know if there are too many restrictions but there is at least one bad one. I was at the ARC review for my landscape application and listened to them cover several re-roofing applications. Not the exact same shingle as the original - denied with no discussion. Original color not available and not the closest possible shade to the original - denied no discussion. The fact that you can't change your shingle color to any from an approved palette is ridiculous. People's comments about it turning into a ghetto if the exact same shingle not reapplied make as much sense as comments on so many other areas. And sorry, I had a lot more important things going on during the tumultuous purchase to study the deeds and find out I could never change the color of my roof. And no one in their right mind would make such a rule or expect such a rule.

My parents live in a gated community of single-family homes. They are -required- to replace their roofs at certain intervals, and they are -required- to replace them with the exact same terracotta tile as everyone else in the community. There is a palate of colors they can choose to paint their houses - four possible colors. But they are not -allowed- to paint their house the same color as the house immediately next to theirs. So if the house to their right is painted "pale dusty mauve" and the house to the left is "pale dusty yellow" then their only options left are "pale dusty beige" or "pale dusty grey."

What's worse, is that most of the streets in each neighborhood have the same name. Cherry Blossom Street, Cherry Blossom Way, Cherry Blossom Court - and all the houses look similar. Very easy to get lost there.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

My parents live in a gated community of single-family homes. They are -required- to replace their roofs at certain intervals, and they are -required- to replace them with the exact same terracotta tile as everyone else in the community. There is a palate of colors they can choose to paint their houses - four possible colors. But they are not -allowed- to paint their house the same color as the house immediately next to theirs. So if the house to their right is painted "pale dusty mauve" and the house to the left is "pale dusty yellow" then their only options left are "pale dusty beige" or "pale dusty grey."

What's worse, is that most of the streets in each neighborhood have the same name. Cherry Blossom Street, Cherry Blossom Way, Cherry Blossom Court - and all the houses look similar. Very easy to get lost there.

Clone City? The only part of that place that sounds OK to me is the tile roofs. I like Terracotta tile.

[Velvet]

Homogeneity brings a sense of comfort and safety but too much of it can be boring and stifling. Happy is somewhere between variety and homogeneity.

(I guess in OBB’s parents’ community, rebels need not apply.)

[graciegirl]

In answer to the original question on this thread, no I think the restrictions are just right and they keep all those who believe they have good taste from making this place look yucky and destroying the property values.

The trees issue changed when there was a change in tree protection that was from the State or the Something River authority that manages that issue.

One of the reasons this place is so absolutely sought after is that the restrictions keep things looking nice. I know many sought a place with these kinds of deed restrictions because they had previously lived in a similar place and it worked.

[KAM+6]

In

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

I don't know if there are too many restrictions but there is at least one bad one. I was at the ARC review for my landscape application and listened to them cover several re-roofing applications. Not the exact same shingle as the original - denied with no discussion. Original color not available and not the closest possible shade to the original - denied no discussion. The fact that you can't change your shingle color to any from an approved palette is ridiculous. People's comments about it turning into a ghetto if the exact same shingle not reapplied make as much sense as comments on so many other areas. And sorry, I had a lot more important things going on during the tumultuous purchase to study the deeds and find out I could never change the color of my roof. And no one in their right mind would make such a rule or expect such a rule.

I just had my roof reshingled and ARC approved a "morai black" , originally light brown. Hate those black algae streaks. Installer handled all permits.

[JGibson]

Originally Posted by KAM+6

In

I just had my roof reshingled and ARC approved a "morai black" , originally light brown. Hate those black algae streaks. Installer handled all permits.

Did you hear about the guy who got ARC approval for a roof and the residents complained and now they’re reevaluating the roof?

So even getting ARC approval doesn't make you safe.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JGibson

Did you hear about the guy who got ARC approval for a roof and the residents complained and now they’re reevaluating the roof?

So even getting ARC approval doesn't make you safe.

No, didn't hear about that. Can you point to an article to reference or an address to look up the approval?

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

In answer to the original question on this thread, no I think the restrictions are just right and they keep all those who believe they have good taste from making this place look yucky and destroying the property values.

One of the reasons this place is so absolutely sought after is that the restrictions keep things looking nice. I know many sought a place with these kinds of deed restrictions because they had previously lived in a similar place and it worked.

I totally agree with the above as it relates to external deed restrictions (outside of the home). Unfortunately, it’s a hypocritical double standard to only enforce external deed restrictions and ignore internal restrictions such as single family only usage, running a business out of a home, and no residents under 21. What’s the point of having a beautifully manicured neighborhood in a retirement community, when the neighborhood is being disrupted by activities that are not in harmony with intended usage? Selective enforcement of restrictions discredits the reason for having the them in the first place!

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by JGibson

Did you hear about the guy who got ARC approval for a roof and the residents complained and now they’re reevaluating the roof?

So even getting ARC approval doesn't make you safe.

Did not hear about that. What was the complaint about?
So ARC, the governing body, approves the roof. Other residents complain that, what, new roof makes theirs look bad by comparison? Sounds like the whiners have an issue with ARC. Don't involve the guy that jumped thru the hoops to get roof fixed.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

I totally agree with the above as it relates to external deed restrictions (outside of the home). Unfortunately, it’s a hypocritical double standard to only enforce external deed restrictions and ignore internal restrictions such as single family only usage, running a business out of a home, and no residents under 21. What’s the point of having a beautifully manicured neighborhood in a retirement community, when the neighborhood is being disrupted by activities that are not in harmony with intended usage? Selective enforcement of restrictions discredits the reason for having the them in the first place!

EDIT: Below applies to CDD10 as well as many others. However, as is pointed out in a more recent post, the CDD1 restrictions are significantly different.

Again, not a deed restriction, not necessarily a deed restriction, and not a deed restriction.

Again, no selective enforcement by the CDD; to the best of my knowledge, every CDD attempts to enforce every violation brought to their attention. Internal restrictions are the purview of the Developer *IF* they choose to act. Homeowners are obligated to enforce deed restrictions, perhaps the inaction of the homeowners is the selective enforcement you are referring to?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

I totally agree with the above as it relates to external deed restrictions (outside of the home). Unfortunately, it’s a hypocritical double standard to only enforce external deed restrictions and ignore internal restrictions such as single family only usage, running a business out of a home, and no residents under 21. What’s the point of having a beautifully manicured neighborhood in a retirement community, when the neighborhood is being disrupted by activities that are not in harmony with intended usage? Selective enforcement of restrictions discredits the reason for having the them in the first place!

The first and third restriction you specify aren't deed restrictions in The Villages. Unless you're just using generic hypotheticals?

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

I totally agree with the above as it relates to external deed restrictions (outside of the home). Unfortunately, it’s a hypocritical double standard to only enforce external deed restrictions and ignore internal restrictions such as single family only usage, running a business out of a home, and no residents under 21. What’s the point of having a beautifully manicured neighborhood in a retirement community, when the neighborhood is being disrupted by activities that are not in harmony with intended usage? Selective enforcement of restrictions discredits the reason for having the them in the first place!

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Again, not a deed restriction, not necessarily a deed restriction, and not a deed restriction.

Again, no selective enforcement by the CDD; to the best of my knowledge, every CDD attempts to enforce every violation brought to their attention. Internal restrictions are the purview of the Developer *IF* they choose to act. Homeowners are obligated to enforce deed restrictions, perhaps the inaction of the homeowners is the selective enforcement you are referring to?

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

The first and third restriction you specify aren't deed restrictions in The Villages. Unless you're just using generic hypotheticals?

I don’t claim to know the deed restrictions in any other district except for the one we live in. That being said, I respectfully disagree with both of you that any of the restrictions I mentioned are not deed restrictions in my district (as they pertain to homes, not villas), which is CDD1. I do stand corrected about residents under 21 not being allowed, it’s under 19 years old. I suppose what constitutes single family use and running a business out of one’s home is subject to interpretation, but both are most definitely deed restrictions. I do clearly understand that the developer enforces internal deed restrictions at their option. However, I stand by my claim that selectively enforcing restrictions (exercising an option to not enforce certain restrictions) discredits the reason of having them in the first place.

I disagree that homeowners are obligated to enforce deed restrictions. Homeowners have the option to REPORT deed restrictions to the authority that is charged with enforcement. The CDD’s have an OBLIGATION to enforce reported deed restrictions that are external to the home. The developer has the OPTION to enforce reported deed restrictions that are internal to the home. Therein lies the problem. There should be no OPTION to enforce any reported deed restrictions, that is what discredits the whole system.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

I don’t claim to know the deed restrictions in any other district except for the one we live in. That being said, I respectfully disagree with both of you that any of the restrictions I mentioned are not deed restrictions in my district (as they pertain to homes, not villas), which is CDD1. I do stand corrected about residents under 21 not being allowed, it’s under 19 years old. I suppose what constitutes single family use and running a business out of one’s home is subject to interpretation, but both are most definitely deed restrictions. I do clearly understand that the developer enforces internal deed restrictions at their option. However, I stand by my claim that selectively enforcing restrictions (exercising an option to not enforce certain restrictions) discredits the reason of having them in the first place.

I disagree that homeowners are obligated to enforce deed restrictions. Homeowners have the option to REPORT deed restrictions to the authority that is charged with enforcement. The CDD’s have an OBLIGATION to enforce reported deed restrictions that are external to the home. The developer has the OPTION to enforce reported deed restrictions that are internal to the home. Therein lies the problem. There should be no OPTION to enforce any reported deed restrictions, that is what discredits the whole system.

Yes, there are several significant changes between CDD1 and others including CDD10. From the CDD 10-201 restrictions:

Only certain commercial activities are prohibited:

2.10 Properties within the Subdivision are intended for residential use and no commercial, professional or similar activity requiring either maintaining an inventory, equipment or customer/client visits may be conducted in a Home or on a Homesite

The owners have a duty to prosecute violations while the Developer has the right but not the duty to enforce:

All Owners shall have the right and duty to prosecute in proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenants, conditions or reservations, either to prevent him or them from so doing, or to recover damages or any property charges for such violation. The cost of such proceedings, including a reasonable attorney's fee, shall be paid by the party losing said suit. ln addition, the Developer shall also have the right but not the duty to enforce any such covenants, conditions or reservations as though Developer were the Owner of the Homesite, including the right to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Developer may assign its right to enforce these covenants, conditions or reservations and to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs to a person, committee, or governmental entity.