[Indydealmaker]

Originally Posted by mikeod

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.

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

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Where is that pet waiver regulation written?

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

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

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?

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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!

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

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.

[janmcn]

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

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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

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!

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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

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?

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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?

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.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

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?

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.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

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.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Boy Howdy.

you can say that again!

[bkcunningham1]

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

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

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!