I keep hearing that this is only for homes North of 466 but I live in District 5 which is south of 466 and there is a meeting on Aug 17 to vote on this matter. Whats this all about? Are we in or out?

big guy - your cdd is in the fray and the supvs mtg is aug 17.

you can click here VCDD Meetings/Agendas and it will take you to the district gov website for your cdd5

from there you can click on the agenda and on the agenda you will note the hilited agenda numbers - you can click on them to read the detail re same.

hope that helps. and don't forget to contact your supvs to let them know your opinion any time - whether it be pro or con re any issue.

Simple
 

There is a simple answer to this debate. As the old famous statement said:FOLLOW THE MONEY..The question is who will benefit from restricting the advertising of resale homes for sale.? If anyone believes this is strictly a concern with appearance they should get real. There are TWO factions. Ones who are concerned with appearances and one that sees $$$$'s in the final answer. It is like two sides on a "rope pulling contest" one for appearance and the other for money. One side is made up of residents of N466 along with one made up of those that want the money They are allegedly on the residents side of the rope.. If appearance's win then one side of the $$$$ hopefull will reap the rewards and allegedly they are cheering for the win by the residents. If OK for sign's another side of the $$$$ hopefull will reap the rewards. GOOD LUCK..:mmmm:

I think the issue should be that we can not just selectively enforce restrictions we all agreed to when we bought. If you want to have signs then have a referendum in your district and change the covenant.
But then that opens the door to changing all the covenants.
Personally if there is no enforcement, I'm going to look into renting out my lawn for political signs and also look into a fence for my back yard - it'll have to be a little on the high side since I have cats and face a busy street.

quietman - if you knew what the deed restriction was and you knew that it was not enforced, why did you buy in the neighborhood anyway and why was it not a big enough deal before now to press for enforcement of the deed restriction?

I'm not quietman, but have my own opinion. Perhaps people were not that concerned about the For Sale/Rent signs, but are now concerned that not enforcing the sign prohibition now opens the door to any and all signs in any and all sizes. Posters claim the complaint process is still in effect. But, if I put up a sign and am told to remove it, I could refuse, pointing out the district's new policy to not enforce the deed restriction allows me to place a sign. And, the district has allowed similar signs in other places. Are we going to have a situation like defining porn, "I can't define what it is, but I know it when I see it." So the district can say one sign is OK but another one is not? What will the standard be, if there is any standard? Will the standard change as new people are elected to the boards? If so, will approved signs have to be removed if the new board doesn't like them? This, to me, opens up so many potential problems. Decisions like this one will be hard to undo once formalized.

I guess my attempt at sarcasm missed the point - sorry. I know the rules and would like to see them stay and enforced. Its one of the things I liked so there would always be a pristine look everywhere.

No signs!

agree with you, mikeod - a great big can or worms! but i have to think that on the other side of the coin...since there has been no enforcement of signage in the past and there has not been a plethora of signs in the past, how does one come to the conclusion that there is going to be an abundance of a variety of signs in the future?

A lot of comments that support signs have been made by people who are interested in purchasing in TV in the future. Once they are Frogs, their perspective may well change.

I agree with Mikeod ... If sign prohibitions are not enforced, it's like opening Pandora's box.

I just can't wait until the build-out and the developer turns The Villages over to us "inmates" and all our special interest.You want the definition for the word chaos, just visit TV after the build-out and you will see it first hand.Without the present strong leadership group in charge,the future growth and appeal of TV will be in jeopardy.We might as well start junking up TV now with all these signs,and it will become a "Pandora's Box",so we can get an unequivocal representation of our future without the developer,his family, and his leadership group in charge.Just be careful what you wish for.

As a former condo board president, I have observed first hand that it is next to impossible to get the "volunteer" board members to ignore their personal agendae and vote for the good of the community even when it hurts.

With this new found wave of enthusiasm for deed restriction enforcement, every resident should get out the copy that they signed and was also signed by the developer's representative and refresh their memories.

Residents might be surprised that their village only allows two pets per household...that's two dogs or two cats or one of each. Some villages also have a 20 pound limit on the size of pets. Some new residents are under the impression that they can bring more than two pets. Some of the older neighborhoods only allow one pet per household.

Other residents, in the older neighborhoods, might be surprised that they are not allowed to have an outside TV antenna or satellite dish. This would eliminate Direct TV or Dish TV as an option for service.

Residents can't be selective in the deed restrictions they want to see enforced.

I think people noticed the only extra signs were those For Sale/Rent signs. While there may have been interest in personal signs it was apparent they were not being displayed or perhaps the restriction was being enforced for those. Once enforcement is halted for signs in general, why wouldn't other signs appear? No limit to number, size, location. Once enforcement is halted, you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

grest points, janmcn! getting rid of a dish or antenna is one thing - but getting rid of pets! oh, my, my!

why won't other signs appear? how about because no one had a need/desire to put one out before and nothing has changed in the resident's life to need/desire to put one out now?

i just can't figure out why a cdd would exercise the selective enforcement of all signs other than for sale signs for many years and then suddenly make an issue of enforcing the restriction over for sale signs that were okay for so long.

i really do feel bad for the residents who want their homes and neighborhoods to look pristine, sterile, cookie-cutter, uncluttered or however it can be described and the vote of no enforcement of the signage deed restriction will cause them discomfort, pain and/or anguish. but i guess they will have to live with the vote of their supervisors. it seems it's in their hands!

Absolutely, Steve. And, while you and I may have had good intentions, I've found that the primary reason for people to seek Board positions is to control their neighbors lives.

I do believe any law banning outdoor antennae has already been deemed illegal by the courts....

Off topic, but I think the ruling was in regards to satellite dishes, but outside TV antennas are still able to be banned if there are alternatives such as cable or satellite.

With regard to pets, I understand new residents with more than 2 pets are allowed to bring them all, but cannot replace the extra pet(s) when it passes so they get down to two pets only.

Where is that pet waiver regulation written?

Mike, According to the FCC, TV antennae are also protected. Go to this link:Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule | FCC.gov

one example is:

http://www.districtgov.org/images/De...ke/L-1-2-3.pdf

pae 3 of the restrictions under 'use of property' 2.16

All I saw under section 2.16 is one cat OR one dog allowed with a maximum weight of 20 pounds. Did I miss something?

i believe the explanation given by mikeod is the practical application of the deed restriction for new residents given that no one in the villages wanted to see the 'extra' pet[s] 'sacrificed' for the sake of the strict interpretation of the deed restriction. and just like other deed restrictions, residents are expected to abide by this one as well. you can see how that works - just like signage - venture into the lake county villages you will again find that this deed restriction is far from adhered to much less enforced!

It sounds like this pet waiver is one of those 'slippery slopes' mikeod warned us about not going down.

The deed restrictions clearly violate the Florida law that says deed restrictions may not ban clotheslines. How did the developer get around that law?


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

agree with you there...if a neighbor wants to issue a complaint about someone because of a for sale sign or some lawn ornaments - imagine the strife when someone issues the complaint because a neighbor has more that a 20 lb dog or more than 1 or 2 dogs! oh, my, my!

my guess is that this particular language was enacted after the deed restrictions were created and deed restrictions were never updated to reflect same.

wanna got to target and get a clothlesline with me? :a20:

It appears that the Developer started off in Historical with the "standard" pet restrictions which are quite common in mobile home sites throughout Florida. And as time went on and the Developer wanted to sell more homes, the pet restrictions relaxed. Now we have huge dogs romping around The Villages, on leashes of course, followed by conscientious residents with huge poop bags. :coolsmiley:

If what you say is true, and I don't know when this statute was passed, shouldn't the deed restrictions be changed at that point to abide by the law? People don't usually get to choose which law they want to follow and which law they choose to ignore.

maybe they could update the covenants and deed restrictions and get the dog regs and clothesline regs straightened out at the same time! or maybe someone will hafta lodge a complaint about the lack of compliance re the clothesline statute.

Boy Howdy.

you can say that again! ;)

njbchbum, what brought about the clothesline comment? I haven't seen any illegal clotheslines, just illegal dogs.

it was janmcn's post - check out the link!

From what I have read, deed restrictions are cast in stone. They can only be changed by the original deed holder prior to the first transfer of title. As far as the deed restrictions that are superseded by state or federal statutes, then it is what it is...the deed restrictions cannot be enforced. No need to change them, even if you could.

Couldn't the developer change the deed restrictions on houses that have never had a transfer of title, ie new construction, so as not to be in violation of state statute?

Saw in today's paper,District 5 will enforce the deed restriction, regarding signs.

so that mean folks could put up a clothesline on their property and no one could do anything about it because of the statute. boy howdy!

He certainly could, however, the developer is not violating a statute unless he tries to enforce the restriction. If he leaves the deed restrictions as is, then if the law changes, the restriction is already there. No way to change it back, otherwise.