[Clarkee]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Representative from Community Standards advised us today we had a landscape violation. Flowers planted within the 13’ street right-a-way. Regardless that flowers have been there since 2005
Ours was one of 25, so far, submitted by the same individual. All anonymous via email, (the real cowards way). From Lady Lake to Fenny.

The flowers were removed before the Rep. had finished talking to a neighbor across the street….who also had a violation.

The real issue is there a violation of the rules, not who filed the complaint. The rules are the rules.

[DonH57]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Interesting how one district has little if any restrictions and others have a long list of restrictions. Personally, at my age I enjoy homes that are personalized and not cookie cutter, military style homes. I may not care for some of my neighbor's preferences, but I really don't think it is any of my business as to what makes them happy, as long as it does not offend me. I have not seen any trucks or old cars on blocks or toilet flower planters, but even those might look OK if done right. Point is that I believe in live and let live at this juncture of my life. I've seen everything here in the Villages, including landscape edging consisting of beer bottles and a cast iron pig. Just stay off of my lawn, especially with your dog that wishes to use my lawn as a toilet instead of yours. Pick up your trash that might blow on my property and we will all be fine.
If you have a complaint about my landscaping, please feel free to complain to my face. I am not going to get violent with anyone that does not like my style. If I feel that your complaint is valid I'm willing to make modifications. Personally, I don't give a rat's @&& if others do not like my style. And I do not care what my neighbors do with their home as long as what they do does not purposely bother me. As far as I am concerned, deed restrictions are there as a tool to keep folks from going to the extreme. And yes, if I don't like it here, I will move. Or, if you don't like my home then you can move.

Well. True. Each district restrictions would be different since they were written at the time the districts were built. More restrictions were added as each district developed into it's identity.

[BrianNotFromNYC]

Nope. They inspect for safety and structural issues. Some for drainage. None have access to villages approved stuff. By

[fdpaq0580]

[QUOTE=Jayhawk;2210275

And by the way, keeping dogs off your lawn is not a right you have by deed restriction. But you want to impose your will apparently. You sound like the last guy I'd want to complain to face-to-face based on your comments.

Have a nice day.[/QUOTE]

Keeping dogs off your lawn is not a right you have by deed restriction, it is.a right you have by law. It is called trespassing. And that is not about imposing your will, but about expecting your neighbors to respect your property and the law.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Clarkee

The real issue is there a violation of the rules, not who filed the complaint. The rules are the rules.

It's actually both! The rules are the rules. No argument on that.
But, people do make mistakes. There are times that it serves the intent better by tempering the response, or even not responding. An example would be the vehicle that after cresting a hill gains speed and exceeds the limit by one mph. An officer may decide to ignore the infraction rather than make a traffic stop and incur the many potential dangers that go with any roadside activity. Also, currently, it seems, our Troll is not interested in actually pointing out real issues, but is making up some totally bogus stuff and distributing their often false accusations hither, thither and yon theoughout the length and breadth of The Villages. The Troll is not an honest, upstanding servant of codes, but is actually a person misusing the system, wasting time and money to get some twisted satisfaction through random assertions.
Certainly, if scrutinized closely enough, most of us could be found with "a hair out of place", so to speak. A wise man once admonished an angry mob, "let one among you who is without sin cast the first stone". I doubt our Troll is "without sin" as far as having the moral right to be harassing anyone with complaints. IMHO

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Interesting how one district has little if any restrictions and others have a long list of restrictions. Personally, at my age I enjoy homes that are personalized and not cookie cutter, military style homes. I may not care for some of my neighbor's preferences, but I really don't think it is any of my business as to what makes them happy, as long as it does not offend me. I have not seen any trucks or old cars on blocks or toilet flower planters, but even those might look OK if done right. Point is that I believe in live and let live at this juncture of my life. I've seen everything here in the Villages, including landscape edging consisting of beer bottles and a cast iron pig. Just stay off of my lawn, especially with your dog that wishes to use my lawn as a toilet instead of yours. Pick up your trash that might blow on my property and we will all be fine.
If you have a complaint about my landscaping, please feel free to complain to my face. I am not going to get violent with anyone that does not like my style. If I feel that your complaint is valid I'm willing to make modifications. Personally, I don't give a rat's @&& if others do not like my style. And I do not care what my neighbors do with their home as long as what they do does not purposely bother me. As far as I am concerned, deed restrictions are there as a tool to keep folks from going to the extreme. And yes, if I don't like it here, I will move. Or, if you don't like my home then you can move.

Originally Posted by Jayhawk

And this attitude is the very reason there are deed restrictions. There are none among us unless maybe on the far north side, who did not sign off on their district deed restrictions. Just because you "don't give a rat's ass" doesn't mean others don't. And disagreements should ALWAYS be settled in favor of the folks who follow the agreed-upon standards.

It's not just YOUR business, it is everyone's business in the district.

And by the way, keeping dogs off your lawn is not a right you have by deed restriction. But you want to impose your will apparently. You sound like the last guy I'd want to complain to face-to-face based on your comments.

Have a nice day.

So we have Byte, who offers an opinion about deed restrictions. And then we have Jayhawk, who offers an opinion about Byte.

Personally - I'd rather live next door to Byte. He seems to understand the concept of civil discourse. I'll keep the dog off his lawn partly because that's what he prefers, and partly because trespassing is against the law.

I live in the Historic Section. We have deed restrictions. They're not as strict as most of the other deed restrictions in the community. The only one that I wish we had, that we don't have, is in regards to storage trailers being left in the driveways. I also wish the county had - and enforced - distance regulations about parking near a corner or more than a foot away from the curb. The landscapers will park right AT the corner. If you're trying to take a left, and the entire right side of your view is blocked by a landscapers' truck and trailer, you have to just pray and hope no one's coming.

But that wouldn't be a deed restriction issue, it's a city/county traffic/parking regulation.

[asianthree]

Originally Posted by Clarkee

The real issue is there a violation of the rules, not who filed the complaint. The rules are the rules.

If they are true violations, in each of our neighborhoods, 60% were not violations. Such as a 6’ pink flamingos for someone’s birthday was written up in our neighborhood, what a waste of time, for CS to go to houses that have no issues. Sometimes people are so vindictive, and miserable in their own lives, they feel the need to inflict input on others.

Problem is the roving clipboard picture taking group, doesn’t have a clue from one district to the next what is allowed. It’s what they choose shouldn’t be allowed, then file.

That is the reason it’s becoming a waste if time and resources for CS. Again if there was a fee to file then this would all be corrected

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Since you must be one of the owners who is well aware of the Rules, can you please point to the rule the states there is a 13' easement in front of the house and that no flowers can be planted in that easement?

I cannot find that in my CDD10 deed restrictions but it could be a restriction in another area. Please show me where it can be found.

It can likely be found in the Deed to your property and probably identified as "Easements and Restrictions of Record". The "restriction" was likely an original condition in the 1st Grant of the Easement and wouldn't necessary be specifically in your Deed.

This is a perfect example of why folks should use Attorneys and not "Closing Mills" when they buy a home. An Attorney would have done a complete Title search and informed you of the specific terms and restrictions effecting your property.

Also, your Title Insurance Policy will have a reference to the Easement Deed, which will point you to the document that contains the terms of the Easement Grant.

If the area in question is indeed an "Easement" on your property, you own the land and unless an activity is expressly prohibited, it is allowed. If as you say, it is not contained in your Restrictions imposed by the Developer or CDD, it's entirely possible that plantings are allowed. You need to have an Attorney do a legitimate Title search and that will give you the answers.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Can someone point me to the deed restriction that mentions no flowers in a 13' easement?

I can find mention of a 10' easement but no mention of flowers. Even if "no flowers" is understood as a standard restriction on an easement, I still don't see 13' mentioned.

Originally Posted by BrianL99

It can likely be found in the Deed to your property and probably identified as "Easements and Restrictions of Record". The "restriction" was likely an original condition in the 1st Grant of the Easement and wouldn't necessary be specifically in your Deed.

This is a perfect example of why folks should use Attorneys and not "Closing Mills" when they buy a home. An Attorney would have done a complete Title search and informed you of the specific terms and restrictions effecting your property.

Also, your Title Insurance Policy will have a reference to the Easement Deed, which will point you to the document that contains the terms of the Easement Grant.

If the area in question is indeed an "Easement" on your property, you own the land and unless an activity is expressly prohibited, it is allowed. If as you say, it is not contained in your Restrictions imposed by the Developer or CDD, it's entirely possible that plantings are allowed. You need to have an Attorney do a legitimate Title search and that will give you the answers.

Note my post #105 above. I can read the easements section of my deed restrictions but I don't see 13'. Perhaps that number is in the restrictions for a different area which is why I asked someone to point to it.

Too often the reason given is "it's the law" when that isn't at all what the law says. "It must be in there somewhere" isn't evidence either. Documented on paper matters, "that's the way we've always done it" or "that's the way we want it done" means nothing.

[DonH57]

Originally Posted by asianthree

If they are true violations, in each of our neighborhoods, 60% were not violations. Such as a 6’ pink flamingos for someone’s birthday was written up in our neighborhood, what a waste of time, for CS to go to houses that have no issues. Sometimes people are so vindictive, and miserable in their own lives, they feel the need to inflict input on others.

Problem is the roving clipboard picture taking group, doesn’t have a clue from one district to the next what is allowed. It’s what they choose shouldn’t be allowed, then file.

That is the reason it’s becoming a waste if time and resources for CS. Again if there was a fee to file then this would all be corrected

Either a fee to file or fine for filing incorrect complaints wasting resources but the responsible agency should know the difference of what should go in the file 13 can.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by LuvNH

I am actually incensed by the use of Deed Restrictions for minor offenses.

I live in a very quiet small village tucked around Glenview GC. Some years ago we had a man and woman move into one of the homes and shortly after they moved in a young woman with a very young child moved in. Then we started to notice different cars arriving at all hours of the day and evening. Then an awful filthy broken recliner appeared on their driveway, followed by a filthy mattress. These items stayed for a couple of weeks. Then broken down cars were parked in their lot on both the grass and driveway. One day, quite recently, they must have done a moonlight flit, the house was then TENTED for several days, torn apart and put back on the market at a very high asking price.
When have you ever seen a home in TV TENTED?

Their immediate neighbors and the surrounding neighborhood had to put up with this and The Villages did nothing. So much for Deed Restrictions.

The home was most likely tented to erratic bed bugs brought in from one of the many vehicles arriving at all hours that had stayed at a flee bag motel on their way to the Villages.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by asianthree

If they are true violations, in each of our neighborhoods, 60% were not violations. Such as a 6’ pink flamingos for someone’s birthday was written up in our neighborhood, what a waste of time, for CS to go to houses that have no issues. Sometimes people are so vindictive, and miserable in their own lives, they feel the need to inflict input on others.

Problem is the roving clipboard picture taking group, doesn’t have a clue from one district to the next what is allowed. It’s what they choose shouldn’t be allowed, then file.

That is the reason it’s becoming a waste if time and resources for CS. Again if there was a fee to file then this would all be corrected

Perhaps a refundable fee. IF the violation was valid, and IF the offending property owner was fined for the violation, and IF that fine was paid, then the person submitting the complaint would be refunded their filing fee.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Note my post #105 above. I can read the easements section of my deed restrictions but I don't see 13'. Perhaps that number is in the restrictions for a different area which is why I asked someone to point to it.

Too often the reason given is "it's the law" when that isn't at all what the law says. "It must be in there somewhere" isn't evidence either. Documented on paper matters, "that's the way we've always done it" or "that's the way we want it done" means nothing.

As I said, it might not specifically mention the 13' in YOUR deed. Your deed should give references to every Easement ever recorded against your piece of land, but it doesn't have to.

You need to read the ORIGINAL Grant of the Easement and your Deed will not necessarily mention 13'. Your Deed will refer to "matters of record" and those "matters" are where you'll find the original Grant and likely, a plan that shows the dimensions of the Easement.

Deeds vary in language. In most cases, an actually deed can be as simple as "... being the same property conveyed on ________________ and recorded at: _____________.

Which is why a Title search is so important. People accept Deeds that don't tell the whole story and Title companies gloss over this stuff. Your property is subject to: "anything of record", prior to your purchase.

[brianherlihy]

well i live south of 44 and i need help to keep dogs off my lawn from poop and p can the trolls drive by and du her job and keep the trucks off my lawn and park ware the job is i park my car and truck in front of my home all the time

[Inexes@aol.com]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Um, post #105. So at least one person mentioned
it

Yes, that is who I was responding to, agreeing with the 10' vs 13'. I messed up my initial response, tried to edit and it still didn't work out as intended, lol