Talk of The Villages Florida - Reading The Declaration Of Restrictions For The Villages Of Sumter Unit No.99

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)

- The Villages, Florida, General Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/)

- - Reading The Declaration Of Restrictions For The Villages Of Sumter Unit No.99 (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/reading-declaration-restrictions-villages-sumter-unit-no-99-a-331109/)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laker14 (Post 2083002)

... I must admit that when we purchased our home in February 2021, I never bothered to read the document...

A perfect illustration of a big part of the problem. People do not bother to read the documents.

Cudos to you for taking the time to inform yourself. It is the first step in being a good neighbor in a deed restricted community.

Let the Developer Know When you're Away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keefelane66 (Post 2083188)

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

So they know they can take all the time they want to rob you and trash your house??!?
Why else?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laker14 (Post 2083002)

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.

The covenants were not well written, and appear to be copies of each other with only minor changes between areas. One of my favorite is the pet restrictions - if you have a fish bowl, do the fish count? If so, you can only have one fish and one cat. Or two fish and no cats. The working is borderline hilarious.

But, for me, I prefer to not follow the rules are rules crowd, since the rules are written in such a way that it is up to interpretation. I prefer to just try to live by the intent of the rules, which are in place to help stop practices that can impact neighbors property values. As such, if I change anything that is visible (I am in a CYV) I contact the ARC committee first.

But, just so you know, those are not all the restrictions - there are also restrictions around the utilities and their easements. For example the power company patrols and will "clear out" the area around their transformers if you plant too close to them. (They warm first).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonanza (Post 2083223)

So they know they can take all the time they want to rob you and trash your house??!?
Why else?

The developer?

Does this mean we should booby trap our houses when we go away?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2083174)

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

And others should just follow the deed restrictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keefelane66 (Post 2083188)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2083202)

Makes no sense to me either

Think back to when The Villages was a little trailer park and Harold Schwartz walked through the community. He probably knew most residents by name. So naturally the neighbors wanted to know when someone was going to be gone. I read that deed restriction back in 2002 after our first purchase and just smiled. As I saw it as part of The Villages legacy.
Maybe that’s why it continues………

Quote:

Originally Posted by vintageogauge (Post 2083251)

And others should just follow the deed restrictions.

and nobody should drive over the speed limit.

Some rules are best followed precisely, and others are best looked upon as a mechanism for controlling the most egregious violations.
For example, "no alcohol on the beach". OK, so I'm walking down the beach, quietly with my wife, and in my Yeti cup I have a gin and tonic. I'm minding my own business, I'm bothering nobody. Was that ordinance really aimed at me with the idea that there would be patrols out, spot checking quiet people who aren't causing any problems?
Or, was the ordinance enacted to provide law enforcement with a means to break up loud, raucous gathering, fueled on cans of beer that now litter the sand?
Any rule, foolishly enforced, can become oppressive beyond it's intended effect. People calling in violations simply because they lie outside of the written rule, which are in fact not bothering anybody, are going beyond the scope of what was intended.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laker14 (Post 2083261)

Well said

There are also deed restrictions which -cannot- be legally enforced, even if someone complains about them.

1. Clotheslines in the back yard. It is against the law to forbid it. That deed restriction is invalid.
2. Antenna on top of the house. It is against the law to forbid it. That deed restriction is invalid.

There are a couple of others but those two stand out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2083298)

You are very close to right. But, the law about tv antennas does allow community regulations about where the antenna can be placed. The Antenna can not be "banned" but it can be regulated.

Again, I do think the point is to maintain property values, which is in all our best interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2083298)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2083302)

The deed restrictions say antennas of any kind are prohibited to the extent allowed by law. Location of any approved device will be as previously approved in writing.

The FCC says it is unlawful to prohibit antennas and there can be no regulations that unreasonably delay the use of antenna. The FCC further describes regulations that require obtaining approval as an example of an unreasonable delay.

Prior approval may be permissible and our restrictions do seem to indicate that prior approval has been granted - they just don't describe that prior approval or where to find it. (and I'm not interested in searching districtgov.org to see if it is there)

The deed restriction appears to be valid since it qualifies itself to be limited by the law and the law does not allow a prohibition. The prohibition is valid because it does not prohibit anything. If the location requirement is easily attainable and will not delay installation then that aspect would seem to be allowable too.

Can you really assume that the "violations evidently pass the standards of immediate neighbors"? Could there be other reasons why they continue to exist, and why the neighbors don't report? And why do the standards of immediate neighbors matter? No one is bound by the neighbors standards. And who is to measure "artistic standard"? We all see that differently...that is why there is one standard, THE COVENANTS. And why continually confuse the issue by judging other's behavior, (those that report violations)? The issue is a violation, not who reported it nor how it became known to Community Standards. The perspectives you mention may be just attempts by violators/perspective violators to rationalize their behavior, consistent with feelings of entitlement that run rampant here in TV.

[QUOTE}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.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=roob1;2083331]Can you really assume that the "violations evidently pass the standards of immediate neighbors"? Could there be other reasons why they continue to exist, and why the neighbors don't report? And why do the standards of immediate neighbors matter? No one is bound by the neighbors standards. And who is to measure "artistic standard"? We all see that differently...that is why there is one standard, THE COVENANTS. And why continually confuse the issue by judging other's behavior, (those that report violations)? The issue is a violation, not who reported it nor how it became known to Community Standards. The perspectives you mention may be just attempts by violators/perspective violators to rationalize their behavior, consistent with feelings of entitlement that run rampant here in TV.

To answer some of your rhetorical questions:
Yes, I think one can assume the immediate neighbors are OK with an object that may be in violation if nobody has reported it for years, and it becomes reported along with a slew of other previously unreported problems in the neighborhood, as other posters have described. I think it's a very safe assumption that someone from out of the neighborhood decided to ride through with a clipboard and make it their business to see the deed restrictions are all enforced. I think it's the most logical assumption to make in that circumstance

Could there be other reasons? Yes there could be many.
Why do the standards of immediate neighbors matter? Because that is IMO, the intent of the deed restriction covenant.
Who is to measure artistic standard? The immediate neighbors would be a good start. I'm pretty sure if I suddenly put up a slew of those cute little wood painted lawn ornaments, you know, the ones that are painted to show a lady bent over weeding, with her bloomers showing from behind, it wouldn't take 5 years and a pair of ladies in a clipboard to find out I'd violated a standard. However, I ride around and I see in my neighborhood what I consider to be a tasteful sculpted rendition of a sandhill crane artfully placed in a flower bed and I think "gee, I hope the clipboard ladies don't come and write that one up", because I think it adds some grace to the neighborhood. I think it's safe to assume the neighbors don't mind it either, since it's still there.
Since you can't dictate it in printed words, you have to let the process work it out, and the process works best if people don't treat the printed words of the COVENANT as a sacred book.

I'd go on but this post is too long already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mortal1 (Post 2083121)

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.

There is a person or person(s) who rides around doing this. We had it happen in our neighborhood as well when a bunch of so called "violations" were all reported in one day. Someone has too much free time on their hands. Our neighborhood is very well maintained with beautiful landscaping, yet this person was unhappy with some tasteful lawn ornaments that were nestled among the landscaping, that all the neighbors loved and admired. So the neighbors took them down as requested, then replaced them a month later. Problem solved.

I remember when we first moved in there was some restriction against having a vegetable garden or growing vegetables on your property. The restriction has hopefully since been changed. But at the time, I mentioned it to an acquaintance and this person said "my neighbor has a tomato plant, I think I'll report him." That just speaks to the type of people that are around. I mean, who would do something so petty and mean?