[Mrbill1500@gmail.com]

I would think that If they had a home inspection this should of been noted and the original home owner should of been responsible to bring it to code or reduce the purchase price to cover the cost so the new owners could bring it to code????

[dennisgavin]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Tell them ỳou will grow corn and potatoes if they do not aprove the retro permission!

I like your style!

[Nick G]

What EXACTLY is the complaint? What is wrong with the landscape?
No record of a permit is most likely the biggest problem to overcome.

[Bigmike18]

As an old title guy, I will tell you that title insurance normally has no obligation to check zoning, or restrictive covenants, zoning has nothing to do with ownership, or title

[Win1894]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Because there is a legal concept that you need to be consistent when enforcing rules and covenants. I don't think that only enforcing violations that are reported to you is being consistent. I think The Villages has an obligation to enforce their rules in a manner that treats eveyone equally, especially when they know that there are multiple violations all over The Villages. Many homeowners and condo associations have learned this lesson the hard way by losing lawsuits.

Yes - The Equal Protection Clause contained in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution has been intrepreted by the SCOTUS and lower courts to hold state and local governments must treat everyone the same under the law. I'm not a lawyer but to my way of thinking everyone must be held to the same standard including landscaping restrictions. The restrictions cannot be whimsically, capriciously, or inconsistentantly applied. Try that on the authorities.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by diane reynolds

I am not commenting about the not getting a permit for the landscape, but I totally applaud any homeowner who removes all the grass and replaces it with native groundcover so that poison and water can be eliminated. If the developer had any sense, he would have required solar panels on all homes and landscaping friendly to our FL climate, especially when building new homes. The Villages, with its polluting gas golfcarts, immense use of water for lawns, and no alternative energy use like solar and windmills, is a travesty. The developer could have led the state in innovations in this area, but as usual money rules!

1. I agree with native ground cover, minimal need for pesticides that are toxic to birds, mammals, and fish, or artificial chemical fertilizers. Or decorative rock beds. I also don't understand why so many landscapers insist on using the more toxic solutions when less - or even non-toxic solutions (such as diatomaceous earth) are available and affordable.

2. Gas golf carts pollute less than gas motor vehicles, and the equipment needed to supply charging stations for electric vehicles also are high polluters.

3. I agree 100% with solar, however there ARE homes in the Villages that have solar panels. It's absolutely allowed and any homeowner whose home can carry the weight of the panels can apply for them and get approved. The double-wides and single-wides in the Historic Section might have difficulty because their roofs aren't designed to accommodate things put on top of them. You could certainly enquire though.

4. In most of the Villages, the water used to water lawns comes from the retaining ponds and their own water filtration system for grey water re-use. That's part of what the retaining ponds are for. Rain run-off is pooled, and then the pooled water is churned back into the area to serve as external non-potable use. This is actually a pretty significant ecological breakthrough. Not many developments of this size use this kind of technology and eco-scaping. So in that, the developer has done a pretty awesome job.

[newgirl]

I sold real estate in Mi my whole career and up there I was responsible ( as was the seller) to find out everything on the property and surrounding areas. I watched a case go to arbitration because a Realtor did not disclose a hwy would be going past their back yard within a year and the buyer won. A professional Realtor if not here, should do due diligence when listing a property or as a buyers agent. In this case ( beside having horrible neighbors ) the broker would be held libel , the seller secondary. I was shocked at how little Realtors and sales people actually due in real estate transactions here. And the title company Tri County title I closed at was the worst, most unprofessional company that had they screwed up a deal as bad as they screwed up mine.. they would not be in business.( I know for a fact they are just as bad with others as they were to me. The numbers were incorrect and she actually refused to change them screaming she was the professional and in Florida they do things different.I wanted to walk out then but the sellers were so sweet and desperate to close on that day, they paid me out of pocket via check for the difference ) They were wrong about my tax telling me it was homestead when in fact, it was not so I had to pay 900. more and when I called them they told me they ‘aint’ paying Nothing and for me to get a lawyer if I wanted a penny ..on and on.
I did ask owner if all the rocks were in compliance and he said yes but now after reading this, I think the house has been sold a few times with all the rocks . I was also told they were grandfathered in . So I am very curious how this situation is resolved . I can’t afford to re- landscape ( thank God I have fabulous neighbors)
The title company refused to let me read the title prior to close( again, told it was not allowed in Florida) and the restrictions I was given have nothing about easements or landscaping in them outside having to get permission to remove trees.

[pvb526]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

The parts highlighted above are not correct. Village Watch people do not come onto your property at any time of the day to remove anything and most certainly do not say "or else" to anything. They also do not report items out of deed compliance. The sign on the lawn was out of compliance but a sign in a window is allowed. ReMax has no pass.

Yes, they certainly do come on your property and move /remove items they believe are not in compliance. Both me and my next door neighbor had a small ornament and they moved it onto our porch. We then put it under the awning which is allowed. This was approximately one foot difference.

[Midnight Cowgirl]

Originally Posted by Chatbrat

Personally I would have loved to put down astro-turf, instead of grass--no mowing, no irrigation, dogs hate it, no brown spots, no mushrooms, no pesticides & fertilization-it would be a win/win dollar wise in a short period of time

When I originally moved here years ago, I wanted to have turf as opposed to having grass for all the reasons you mention (except dogs don't hate it).

Backing up for a moment, there is a public park with a child's playground in West Palm Beach that has the most incredible turf I had ever seen. You could NOT tell it from real grass! I called the city and got the information regarding the manufacturer and the installer -- a company in Orlando.

When I told them I lived in The Villages they told me not only could I not have turf in a Designer Home but that unless their company would give TV a royalty (a piece of the action!) on every job they sold (because the walled-in villas could have turf), they could NOT do ANY business in The Villages!
I was flabbergasted.

It's all about the money, folks -- the almighty dollar.
Yes . . . in a community this size you would think they would want to do the right thing -- the ecologically sound and intelligent right thing. But no.
In so many ways having blinders on prevails as does simply turning the other cheek.

[Falvotc]

A few points to consider -
1) Title insurance is purchased to protect you title, it has NO part in being sure your homes landscaping is in compliance.
2) MOST importantly lets be careful of what we ask for - if we suggest equal compliance we may get it and then we will ALL BE SORRY.
We will all be paying for a new enforcement team that will be checking on compliance. I do not need to pay any additional fees for enforcement - ALSO this new team would be MUCH stricker in enforcement. I am100% sure we do not want this changed.

[davefin]

Originally Posted by biker1

How would a realtor verify deed compliance? Compliance is complaint driven; you need to file a complaint about a specific issue that you believe is non-compliant and that will trigger an investigation. I don't believe there is anyone you can call who will come out and give you a piece of paper that says the property is totally "deed compliant". In this regard, The Villages is different than another deed restricted community I lived in. In that community, compliance was monitored and enforced by an HOA. You could ask the HOA representative if a property was compliant.

Realtor only need to look at the property. If they are selling here they know the "rules". No grass is a clue to look further into documentation!

[Chatbrat]

Irrigation $$, IMHO, is a big money maker, get water for free and sell it--thats why, no turf

[Bobever]

Has anyone said anything about the court yard villas in Creekside at Lake Sumter-all stone landscaping and owned by The Villages??!! Hummm.

[biker1]

The point is I doubt a realtor is going to start checking setbacks from property lines for landscaping and their opinion doesn't really matter if a complaint is filed later. And I doubt many actually know the rules.

Originally Posted by davefin

Realtor only need to look at the property. If they are selling here they know the "rules". No grass is a clue to look further into documentation!

[biker1]

The infrastructure to deliver the "free" water is not free. That is what you are really paying for. Given our ample rainfall, the irrigation needs, once a lawn and scrubs are established, isn't all that large.

Originally Posted by Chatbrat

Irrigation $$, IMHO, is a big money maker, get water for free and sell it--thats why, no turf