Originally Posted by sallyg (Post 2331109)

Few restrictions are enforced and few are followed. What difference does any of it make?

Originally Posted by JGibson (Post 2330890)

Deed restrictions are necessary so TV doesn't turn into a flop house but in your opinion do they take it a little TOO far and TOO restrictive.

Sometimes I feel like I'm renting opposed to being a homeowner in TV with not being able to put any small personal touches to my home.

I realize if I don't like it I can move or I should've not moved here if I didn't like the restrictions so I will save those opinions from a couple of key strokes.

I do talk to a lot of folks in nearby retirement communities and when I ask them why they didn't buy in TV they all have the same answer, "too many deed restrictions"

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Jim 9922 (Post 2330910)

Generally, the deed restrictions are a hodge podge of restrictions that have evolved over the years and thus vary somewhat in different areas. To me they seem to be a bureaucrat's delight with prompt and strict enforcement of the petty items and delayed, partial, or ignoring of the more serious and significant problems. Usually there is quick action or dire results for a little white cross, or for using last year's color chart to paint your home, a bird bath without flowing water, or for some violation created 15 years and 2 previous owners ago, etc. On the other hand, anything that may need possible legal action, or a real effort to enforce is partially addressed, delayed or seemingly ignored until it hopefully goes away on its own. And, it seems fines, assessments and reimbursement of costs on many major problems are eventually greatly reduced or forgiven. Abandoned properties, junker cars, extended stay of minor children, very short-term rentals, disruptive businesses operated out of a residential home all come to mind as violations that should be as sternly and quickly enforced as the "little white cross problem" seemingly is.

On the other hand, there are many examples of gaps in tasteful restrictions. It seems that in many areas you can cover your driveway with any material and whatever color you want and with whatever picture or design you desire, including a BIG white cross (if you so wanted), or fly obnoxious flags, or post obscene signs in your windows, or have whatever characters or words displayed and hanging from your lamp posts.

I am happy to reside in an area with few minor restrictions. The few garden ornaments displayed by the neighbors seem to be a tasteful reflection of the personalities and interests. And best of all we aren't tattling at each other for petty "violations".

A bit of irony concerning some of the restrictions applicable to residential areas apparently do not apply to the town squares, where it becomes part of the "ambiance" and "cultural esthetics" of the area. Broken down inoperable trucks, rusty gas pumps and other equipment, "faded" and "bleached" signs and murals, statues and sculptures, all come to mind. But heck, I like it the way they did it.

Originally Posted by JGibson (Post 2330890)

Deed restrictions are necessary so TV doesn't turn into a flop house but in your opinion do they take it a little TOO far and TOO restrictive.

Sometimes I feel like I'm renting opposed to being a homeowner in TV with not being able to put any small personal touches to my home.

I realize if I don't like it I can move or I should've not moved here if I didn't like the restrictions so I will save those opinions from a couple of key strokes.

I do talk to a lot of folks in nearby retirement communities and when I ask them why they didn't buy in TV they all have the same answer, "too many deed restrictions"

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by LianneMigiano (Post 2331190)

Originally Posted by retiredguy123 (Post 2330949)

The courtyard villas have a deed restriction that prohibits homeowners from parking their vehicles in the visitor parking spaces. But, when I complained to the deed compliance office about a non-homeowner, a non-resident, and a non-visitor parked/stored a vehicle in a visitor space for almost a year, the answer I got was that he was not violating the deed restriction because he was not a homeowner. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Velvet (Post 2331192)

Most places you can paint your door rainbow if you want no signatures required, so why would you buy here? It’s like going into a sporting store and expect to be buying groceries.

Originally Posted by MrFlorida (Post 2331097)

Deed restrictions are good, they keep the place from looking like a circus. Can't believe the junk people put on their lawns.

Originally Posted by JGibson (Post 2330890)

Deed restrictions are necessary so TV doesn't turn into a flop house but in your opinion do they take it a little TOO far and TOO restrictive.

Sometimes I feel like I'm renting opposed to being a homeowner in TV with not being able to put any small personal touches to my home.

I realize if I don't like it I can move or I should've not moved here if I didn't like the restrictions so I will save those opinions from a couple of key strokes.

I do talk to a lot of folks in nearby retirement communities and when I ask them why they didn't buy in TV they all have the same answer, "too many deed restrictions"

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by JGibson (Post 2330890)

Deed restrictions are necessary so TV doesn't turn into a flop house but in your opinion do they take it a little TOO far and TOO restrictive.

Sometimes I feel like I'm renting opposed to being a homeowner in TV with not being able to put any small personal touches to my home.

I realize if I don't like it I can move or I should've not moved here if I didn't like the restrictions so I will save those opinions from a couple of key strokes.

I do talk to a lot of folks in nearby retirement communities and when I ask them why they didn't buy in TV they all have the same answer, "too many deed restrictions"

Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2331253)

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.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2331253)

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. --------- .

Originally Posted by JGibson (Post 2330890)

Deed restrictions are necessary so TV doesn't turn into a flop house but in your opinion do they take it a little TOO far and TOO restrictive. ... Thoughts?

Originally Posted by LianneMigiano (Post 2331190)

Originally Posted by Jim 9922 (Post 2331266)

But, you may slap a solar water heater or electrical grid contraption on your roof wherever and more or less however you wish with no consideration for materials, color, harmonious alignment or size in relation to the roof area on which it is being applied to, and who cares about the ugly piping and wiring conduits running all over and down the roof and along the eves --- NO problem at all for the ARC to approve. Who cares that the neighbors have to look at that mess every day.

Originally Posted by LianneMigiano (Post 2331190)

Originally Posted by JGibson (Post 2331820)

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

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2331253)

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.

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2331841)

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.

Originally Posted by Cybersprings (Post 2331253)

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.

Originally Posted by KAM+6 (Post 2332054)

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.

Originally Posted by JGibson (Post 2332433)

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.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 2332026)

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.

Originally Posted by JGibson (Post 2332433)

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.

Originally Posted by tophcfa (Post 2332439)

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 tophcfa (Post 2332439)

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 tophcfa (Post 2332439)

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 (Post 2332445)

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 (Post 2332476)

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

Originally Posted by tophcfa (Post 2332500)

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.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2332510)

Interesting that the newer the district, the stricter the deed restrictions. Interesting that the old districts with the least strict deed restrictions have absolutely NO/NO problem selling their homes for a satisfying profit. When I first arrived in The Villages, I looked at a village of court yard villas and immediately told the agent that there was no way in h3ll that I was interested in living in one of those. They were ALL/ALL gray and looked like base housing on a Navy installation. Let's face it, some districts have deed restrictions that go to the extreme. I enjoy driving through my village where every home is personalized with the home owners idea of what is pleasing to (their) the eye. I fail to see why it is anyone's obligation to please someone else, when it is the owner that is paying quite a sum to purchase in the Villages. I absolutely did NOT purchase in the Villages because of the deed restrictions. I purchased because the Villages has a multitude of things to do and "normally" very friendly residents. At least they were friendly when I purchased over a decade ago. I have no problem with my deed restrictions because they are minor guides that allow personalization without infringing on a residents creativity.
The question was related to the Villages having too many deed restrictions. Not where I live, but I wouldn't live further South in the Villages, if they gave me a new home at the same low price I originally paid for this one. I am an adult and do NOT need or want someone else making decisions for me. And I do not care if my neighbor does not like the color of my car or whether or not I wear a T shirt in the yard when I am landscaping. Don't worry, I wear a collared shirt when I play golf.

Originally Posted by Byte1 (Post 2332510)

Interesting that the newer the district, the stricter the deed restrictions. Interesting that the old districts with the least strict deed restrictions have absolutely NO/NO problem selling their homes for a satisfying profit. When I first arrived in The Villages, I looked at a village of court yard villas and immediately told the agent that there was no way in h3ll that I was interested in living in one of those. They were ALL/ALL gray and looked like base housing on a Navy installation. Let's face it, some districts have deed restrictions that go to the extreme. I enjoy driving through my village where every home is personalized with the home owners idea of what is pleasing to (their) the eye. I fail to see why it is anyone's obligation to please someone else, when it is the owner that is paying quite a sum to purchase in the Villages. I absolutely did NOT purchase in the Villages because of the deed restrictions. I purchased because the Villages has a multitude of things to do and "normally" very friendly residents. At least they were friendly when I purchased over a decade ago. I have no problem with my deed restrictions because they are minor guides that allow personalization without infringing on a residents creativity.
The question was related to the Villages having too many deed restrictions. Not where I live, but I wouldn't live further South in the Villages, if they gave me a new home at the same low price I originally paid for this one. I am an adult and do NOT need or want someone else making decisions for me. And I do not care if my neighbor does not like the color of my car or whether or not I wear a T shirt in the yard when I am landscaping. Don't worry, I wear a collared shirt when I play golf.

Originally Posted by MikeVillages (Post 2332511)

Read the 4 dead restrictions in post #58. Two of them violate the law and the other two are ridiculous.