[Laker14]

The recent threads about the "clipboard ladies" and deed restrictions got me thinking more about them. I must admit that when we purchased our home in February 2021, I never bothered to read the document.
Having purchases the home as a "resale" I just assumed that it was in compliance, or close enough, and frankly, among all of the other burdensome legal documents to read, the deed restrictions were pretty low on my list of priorities.
So, I downloaded the "AMENDED AND RESTATED" declaration. A couple of items surprised me in their vagueness, and one surprised me that it existed at all. Among the more interesting to me were the following 3 items. Note that the numbering is mine, and not the same numbers that identify the items in the original document.

Although the original document refers often to "The Developer" I am assuming that at some point the authority ceded to "The Developer" in this document conveyed to the CDD. I am in CDD 5, and this document was downloaded from their page on the "districtgov.org" site.

1. "Lawn ornaments are prohibited except seasons displays not exceeding a 30 day duration."
What surprises me here is that I've read a few times that something that may be prohibited in the sodded area is allowed on a porch, or in a garden bed. I see no mention in the document to that effect, nor do I see any mention of the restriction applying only to ornaments of or greater than a certain dimension.

2. "No tree with a trunk 4" or more in diameter shall be removed or effectively removed through excessive injury without first obtaining permission from the Developer."
I was unaware of this restriction. I see palm trees coming down often. I'd be really surprised if the CDD is often advised of these removals. I had been told that only the oak trees were protected.

3.(Here's a personal favorite of mine, of which I was unaware: ) "All owners shall notify the Developer when leaving their property for more than a 7-day period shall simultaneously advise the Developer as tho their tentative return date."

This one got me to thinking about all of the posts I've read stating essentially "Well, if you read your deed restrictions, and follow the rules, you've got nothing to worry about." I have a hard time imagining even these strict rule followers bother to advise the CDD that they are leaving their homes for a week. And I have an even harder time imaging the reaction of whoever it is who is supposed to receive this notice, upon receiving this important information from the loyal rule follower.

I have no issue with the deed restrictions. I think they serve a useful purpose. I have seen my share of front yards in other areas, outside of TV, with more crap in the yard than I'd like to look at in my neighborhood, so I get the value of having deed restrictions, and I appreciate that to a significant degree, what I like about my neighborhood is protected by the deed restrictions.
Having said that, I don't see the value in riding around in remote neighborhoods looking for violations that evidently pass the standards of the immediate neighbors, and I do see a value in allowing a certain degree of artistic expression in the landscaping and adornment of one's property.
It strikes me as a shame that some people can't see their way to letting other people live their lives in peace, as long as they're not bothering their neighbors.

[retiredguy123]

I think your No. 1 is the result of people interpreting a loophole in the definition of the "lawn". If something is placed under the eave of the house, technically it is not on the lawn. Or so they say.

[Bill14564]

The restrictions can be slightly different in each district (and probably each unit). There is a paragraph in my CDD10 restrictions between your 2.6 and 2.7 that you don't have and your paragraph 2.20, about leaving the property, does not exist in mine (phew!).

[Bogie Shooter]

Read on here many times a palm is not a tree. I’m too lazy to do the Google thing.😃

[Djean1981]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Read on here many times a palm is not a tree. I’m too lazy to do the Google thing.😃

The palm tree is classified as a weed..

[Two Bills]

Palms are considered as grass in the horticulture world.
So you can mow them down anytime!

[Toymeister]

Retired Contracting Officer here

In any situation where two 'reasonable businessmen' can come two or more conclusions on the meaning of contract document, then the inconsistency is ruled against the drafter of the document (contract).

In other words the meaning must be contained within the four corners of the contact.

There are caveats to this, naturally. First is the cost to resolve any disagreements. Second, two reasonable business persons are difficult to find. If you have read this forum for any length of time there are some true idiots here, certainly not reasonable or of very high awareness.

[drcar]

Originally Posted by Laker14

The recent threads about the "clipboard ladies" and deed restrictions got me thinking more about them. I must admit that when we purchased our home in February 2021, I never bothered to read the document.
Having purchases the home as a "resale" I just assumed that it was in compliance, or close enough, and frankly, among all of the other burdensome legal documents to read, the deed restrictions were pretty low on my list of priorities.
So, I downloaded the "AMENDED AND RESTATED" declaration. A couple of items surprised me in their vagueness, and one surprised me that it existed at all. Among the more interesting to me were the following 3 items. Note that the numbering is mine, and not the same numbers that identify the items in the original document.

Although the original document refers often to "The Developer" I am assuming that at some point the authority ceded to "The Developer" in this document conveyed to the CDD. I am in CDD 5, and this document was downloaded from their page on the "districtgov.org" site.

1. "Lawn ornaments are prohibited except seasons displays not exceeding a 30 day duration."
What surprises me here is that I've read a few times that something that may be prohibited in the sodded area is allowed on a porch, or in a garden bed. I see no mention in the document to that effect, nor do I see any mention of the restriction applying only to ornaments of or greater than a certain dimension.

2. "No tree with a trunk 4" or more in diameter shall be removed or effectively removed through excessive injury without first obtaining permission from the Developer."
I was unaware of this restriction. I see palm trees coming down often. I'd be really surprised if the CDD is often advised of these removals. I had been told that only the oak trees were protected.

3.(Here's a personal favorite of mine, of which I was unaware: ) "All owners shall notify the Developer when leaving their property for more than a 7-day period shall simultaneously advise the Developer as tho their tentative return date."

This one got me to thinking about all of the posts I've read stating essentially "Well, if you read your deed restrictions, and follow the rules, you've got nothing to worry about." I have a hard time imagining even these strict rule followers bother to advise the CDD that they are leaving their homes for a week. And I have an even harder time imaging the reaction of whoever it is who is supposed to receive this notice, upon receiving this important information from the loyal rule follower.

I have no issue with the deed restrictions. I think they serve a useful purpose. I have seen my share of front yards in other areas, outside of TV, with more crap in the yard than I'd like to look at in my neighborhood, so I get the value of having deed restrictions, and I appreciate that to a significant degree, what I like about my neighborhood is protected by the deed restrictions.
Having said that, I don't see the value in riding around in remote neighborhoods looking for violations that evidently pass the standards of the immediate neighbors, and I do see a value in allowing a certain degree of artistic expression in the landscaping and adornment of one's property.
It strikes me as a shame that some people can't see their way to letting other people live their lives in peace, as long as they're not bothering their neighbors.

To answer one of your questions, palms are NOT trees, they are ferns and can be removed at anytime.

[Stu from NYC]

One of these days should find this document and be one of the small majority of people living here who has actually read it.

[Mortal1]

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Mortal1

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

If they dropped off a note about this at someone's home would not have a problem.

Doing this at district is something else entirely.

[villagetinker]

Originally Posted by Mortal1

Actually believing that some people ride around in "remote" neighborhoods just to point out restriction violations appears to be a creation of someones imagination. Never seen it happen and assume as do those who might believe this action might be a tad bit paranoid....personally I have no issue with folks who do this(if they exist at all)because deed restrictions aren't typically addressed unless pointed out by someone. So having a person, who for whatever reason(nothing else to do, fed up with those who could care less about restrictions, or just ignorant)decides it's a worthy past time has my thanks.

Having been a 'victim' of this I disagree, our neighborhood had 35 complaints phoned in in one day, now understand many of the items reported were there for YEARS with non of the neighbors complaining.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by villagetinker

Having been a 'victim' of this I disagree, our neighborhood had 35 complaints phoned in in one day, now understand many of the items reported were there for YEARS with non of the neighbors complaining.

Sorry this happened to you some people should just get a life

[Keefelane66]

Why would the Developer need to know if you left for a week or more?

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Keefelane66

Why would the Developer need to know if you left for a week or more?

Makes no sense to me either