Originally Posted by Bambi (Post 536845)

I was at the meeting yesterday and I am offended by this remark. The members of the AAC are dedicated people serving our community. Name calling is very immature and should not be tolerated by this forum.

The debate regarding the detrimental appearance of signs is a subjective one. However, the legal liability of prohibiting signs is a real one. The cost of defending the suit and the subsequent award if we lost would be the responsibility of all of us.....our amenity fees.

Originally Posted by inda50 (Post 536924)

For the last 20 or 30 years they were not enforced. Should I assume that all of a sudden because it clearly benefits the developer they should be enforced? If you bought here clearly you saw the signs. Why did you buy here where there were for sale signs clearly for so long?

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter (Post 536926)

Sorry you were offended..........some will agree & some will be offended.
If the covenents say no signs and that is enforced, where is the legal liability?

Originally Posted by mikeod (Post 536911)

I'm afraid the AAC has opened a large can of worms with this vote. If residents can ignore deed restrictions as far as signs are concerned, what other restrictions can be ignored? Turn your home into a storefront with the traffic that will occur? Cut down that ancient, pesky live oak that drops leaves into your pool? Install that 14' windmill in the front yard you've always wanted? Let that hedge grow to 20' blocking your neighbor's view? Why not?

Also of concern is that the AAC decision opens the district to lawsuits. I would expect the Morse's to file suit over each and every violation of the deed restrictions and be joined by homeowners doing the same. How long will it take before we are spending a lot of amenity monies trying to justify not enforcing existing deed restrictions.

Yes, we are an older population, and there will be circumstances when we have to sell a home. If the deed restriction on signs is so onerous, perhaps it would have been better to not buy here. Somehow, I don't see a large build-up of pre-owned homes inventory here. I also don't see the outside realtors going out of business because of the lack of signs here. And doesn't the developer also adhere to the "12X12 window only" restriction?

Apparently, a signature on the bottom line accepting these restrictions means nothing anymore. I didn't think we were the generation that decided to ignore rules when they became "inconvenient". I served a president of a homeowners association in CA and I can tell you truthfully that if you allow the slightest deviation from a deed restriction, someone will take advantage of it. And if you try to enforce it, they will point to that exemption and you will lose.

Originally Posted by janmcn (Post 536931)

Not all deed restrictions say no signs. Some clearly state that professional for sale and for rent signs are allowed.

Originally Posted by ilovetv (Post 536936)

This, quoted above, is the wisdom that matters.

And here is another perspective:

Virtually ALL homes south of 466 sold as RE-SALES have been sold and bought without a sign in the yard. IF it is so "difficult" and "uncompetitive" to market a home in The Villages without a sign in the yard, then how in the heck did all these hundreds/thousands of re-sale homes south of 466 get SOLD by both TV and MLS agents and homeowners themselves?????

Originally Posted by ilovetv (Post 536936)

This, quoted above, is the wisdom that matters.

And here is another perspective:

Virtually ALL homes south of 466 sold as RE-SALES have been sold and bought without a sign in the yard. IF it is so "difficult" and "uncompetitive" to market a home in The Villages without a sign in the yard, then how in the heck did all these hundreds/thousands of re-sale homes south of 466 get SOLD by both TV and MLS agents and homeowners themselves?????

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1 (Post 536935)

I wish the Daily Sun did a better job of covering meetings insomuch as the motion and votes were put in the stories such as this. I don't see that there was an official motion or vote. That isn't to say that there wasn't, just that the story doesn't indicate who made a motion, who seconded the motion and the the vote. The story only gives the discussion and says four of the board members voiced support for not wanting district staff to enforce the deed restrictions that prohibit residents from placing signs in their yards.

I'm not sure if that was an official vote but it sets and defines policy.

The slippery slope fallacy you give sounds good, except for the fact that these things you are saying haven't happened in all the years the restriction hasn't been enforced.

So, to me, now the board has set a policy for this one area of TV and the matter is settled. Do you live in Lake County/Lady Lake that this particular discussion is about? If not, then I suggest, very respectively, that you go to the appropriate meeting that does affect where you own in TV and voice your concerns.

Originally Posted by cathyw (Post 536948)

Some of the individual CDD's meetings are scheduled for tomorrow at Laurel Manor and this issue is on all of their agendas.
8am CDD1
11am CDD3
1:30 pm CDD4
I attended the CDD Workshop on July 30th. The board members from CDD1 thru 5 were threre as well as the AAC board,District Staff and the lawyer for the CDD's.
They are all still in discussion mode, no votes requested YET. This will be discussed at the individual CDD meeting and a recommendation given back to District Staff. It seems like this could go on for a while.
The main issue is that ALL VILLAS north of 466 and several Villages, including Santiago, Santo Domingo and Rio Grande, to name a few, have in their current deed restrictions that they ARE ALLOWED to have signs in their front yard.
If you live below 466, the deed restrictions say you CAN'T have a sign in your yard. This has always been the case and has been enforced. The issue, as I see it, is whether they can now say no signs in the VILLAS and Villages mentioned.
Currently, the signs are still up.....have most of you even noticed them.....probably not.
This is only affecting a small part of the Villages, yet so many are up in arms.
So, come to the meeting,and you will hear the arguments for both sides.

Originally Posted by rhood (Post 536953)

You can read the AAC agenda and minutes on the District's web site.

Originally Posted by rhood (Post 536953)

You can read the AAC agenda and minutes on the District's web site.

Originally Posted by cathyw (Post 536948)

Some of the individual CDD's meetings are scheduled for tomorrow at Laurel Manor and this issue is on all of their agendas.
8am CDD1
11am CDD3
1:30 pm CDD4
I attended the CDD Workshop on July 30th. The board members from CDD1 thru 5 were threre as well as the Acc board,District Staff and the lawyer for the CDD's.
They are all still in discussion mode, no votes requested YET. This will be discussed at the individual CDD meeting and a recommendation given back to District Staff. It seems like this could go on for a while.
The main issue is that ALL VILLAS north of 466 and several Villages, including Santiago, Santo Domingo and Rio Grande, to name a few, have in their current deed restrictions that they ARE ALLOWED to have signs in their front yard.
If you live below 466, the deed restrictions say you CAN'T have a sign in your yard. This has always been the case and has been enforced. The issue, as I see it, is whether they can now say no signs in the VILLAS and Villages mentioned.
Currently, the signs are still up.....have most of you even noticed them.....probably not.
This is only affecting a small part of the Villages, yet so many are up in arms.
So, come to the meeting,and you will hear the arguments for both sides.