Some communities have a standard shed they allow that can handle wind etc and one color, size throughout the community. It can only be put in a certain area that is discrete near the house. They look neat and solve a lot of storage problems for items not needing to be inside.

What meetings?

And some communities allow chickens...............

I respect your opinion and I, too, want to maintain the integrity of the neighborhoods. but for me personally, if I can't see something, it doesn't bother me. btw, I have lived in Florida for over 30 years so I'm familiar with what you speak about. I think there's a difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. so as long as the part of one's property that is exposed is presentable, I'm happy.

Not true. I'm looking out my lanai windows at a deed violating storage shed in my neighbor's yard right now. I don't have to peek over the wall to see it - the entire roof line is visible. Doesn't bother me at all, in fact it looks rather nice, but if someone complains, the powers that be will force them to remove it.

Slippery Slope
 

I agree with Rubicon and others that the deed restrictions need to be followed (the letter versus the spirit). We were informed of the deed restrictions PRIOR TO buying our home and I can assure you that there was no one in the closing meeting that held any sort of weapon or leverage on me (other than my wife.....<g>) to buy our home here.

There is a very slippery slope here that we can COMPLETELY avoid if we followed the restrictions WE AGREED to follow when the home was purchased. While the discussion in this thread is relative to storage sheds, when there is a tacit agreement to violate a deed restriction because the topic of discussion doesn't bother a person one way or the other, just change the topic a little. How would you feel if your neighbor decided to adopt another dog or two in addition to the two they already had when they moved in? How about putting up inflatable displays (outside of approved time frames) in a yard? Pick another example if you like, it doesn't matter how small or large the issue may be to you.

All of the scenarios above may not bother someone, but each and every one of them might bother someone who chose to live here in part because of the deed restrictions. If you perceive the deed restrictions to be too onerous, then either sell your home and move to a neighborhood that will allow you the "freedom" that apparently The Villages does not offer to you, or follow the deed restrictions and just enjoy living here.

The slippery slope starts when we venture from the objective to the subjective. There are those who grouse about people turning them in for deed restrictions, those who complain about deed restriction violators, and those who pick and choose which restriction needs to be followed. All of that can easily be avoided if we don't go down the slope. Wouldn't life be so much simpler if we "manned up" and accepted responsibility for our choice to live here?

Your opinion is great, but look at the post prior to yours, and you will see that because deed restriction enforcement
is purely a complaint driven system and
it is not uniformily enforced.
A lot is determined by what type of neighbors one has!
There are many homes not in compliance that I know of,
and I don't think the home owners are purposely flaunting the restrictions.
Believe it or not, there are some things that may not be in compliance but they beautify a property and neighborhood.
Deed restrictions in the main are good, but keep in mind
they are created by humans and therfore not always perfect!
My opinion is that deed restrictions in the main are good, but the system for enforcement is not really good!

Me too, how sensible. 99% of us just want a beautiful community and common sense. Rigid people wear me down if I let them. A law often cannot cover everything that comes up...of course it is the spirit not the letter of the law.

I so agree... rigid people are so tedious

Thanks for your reply. I agree with you that the deed restrictions are not uniformly applied since it is a complaint driven system. However, wouldn't it all be moot IF the deed restrictions were followed by all? One could argue that the subjectivity is being applied by the neighbors (I don't think we should be in a police state, just that people should accept responsibility for their decisions) because the "offense" doesn't bother them. However, I do think that the Villages is walking a fine line in not appearing to be a police state by "cracking down" on the offenders unless there is a blatant "offense".

Where people don't know that they violated the restrictions, my question is why don't they know? Did they not review the restrictions before they bought the home? If not, why not?

I also agree that the restrictions may not be perfect, but you CAN go to the AR review board. I know that not every application is turned down by the board, so where there is an enhancement to the area, I suspect it would be considered. Maybe not all of them will be approved, but there is a system and apparently there are those who choose to not follow the restrictions or the system that was set up to ask for approval.

My personal "soapbox" is that, generally speaking, personal accountability and responsibility for making decisions is not owned by enough people, no matter where they live. I point to not complying with deed restrictions for whatever reason as one example of such behavior. Perhaps this also triggers the dreaded "entitlement" behavior that I unfortunately see as well-but that is a subject for another thread.

Thanks for the constructive dialogue!

Your welcome,
Did you ever consider that even though some new TV home buyers (existing homes) were aware of deed restrictions,
but previous owners might have planted or done things
that were not in compliance but were actually quite nice in appearance.
And these things were fine for many years, until some
new or irritated neighbor made a complaint.

Maybe you did. but I didn't match up every item in the deed restrictions
with the existing house I purchased,
which had existed as it was for 10+ years.
Plus I looked over my deed restrictions again just recently, and to me,
they are not the easiest or clearest read around!

I agree but.....................
 

This can and has turned into ridiculous AND EXPENSIVE WARS.

We've contacted the architectural committee a while ago after first speaking to a neighbor and they were professional and polite. Long story short he had hired a landscape,"DESIGN EXPERT." The person declared HE WAS AN EXPERT with plenty of profanity. The CLAIMED EXPERT was wrong. He had not even filed the required plan and the archetectural committee forced him to first file a plan and then correct what he had done.

The policy of people ANONYMOUSLY turning in neighbors frankly reminds me of the Salem Witch Trials.

The original post is looking for a place to store lawn mower. I don't think it would fit into one of those boxes suggested by others. It would likely, as originally posted, require a shed. As to CODES-I DO NOT KNOW but if a shed is allowed the code may say you need to have it secured to a cement floor-foundation. There are some attractive sheds available-IF THEY ARE ALLOWED.

If, it seems unreasonable, remember this is FLORIDA. hurricanes are common. At a 120 mph wind YOUR unsecured ???????? can do a lot of damage.

I mow my own yard, my stinky gas mower is on my front porch day & night. U will have a hard time see'in it from the road. If a hurricane comes, I'll strap it down to the rallying on the porch....
I'm more worried about the 3 Huge Oak Tree's in my yard. They have to be over 175-200 years Old!!! I can't strap them down...

Lol

That's what she said...