[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

So where does that leave us....

Most deed restrictions do not mention rentals at all. When businesses are mentioned in the deed restrictions, most specify maintaining an inventory or customer visits, neither of which likely apply to rentals.

The Florida law 509.032 mentions law, ordinance, or regulation but does not mention deed restriction. This likely means it would not invalidate a Villages deed restriction (but that would be up to a court to decide).

No one has yet cited a case ruling against renting in the Villages.

Thank you for doing some research and providing links but I'm still feeling pretty good about my understanding of things.

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?

When I lived in Virginia, 20 or more immigrant construction workers would stay in a rented house. When questioned about the law regarding single family members, they would say that they were all "cousins".

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?

Singe-family zoning likely means no apartment buildings and maybe no duplexes though the existence of the lofts at Brownwood would argue against that. I did not find any mention of single-family in my restrictions. I may have missed it and most restrictions differ in some way so maybe that is a requirement in others.

I have to believe that I am allowed to have friends visit so single-family cannot prohibit overnight guests who are not related. At some point an extended stay becomes a residency but my guess is that anything less than 30 days (maybe even 90 days) would not be an issue.

My restrictions have a long paragraph on at least one resident being 55 years of age. Within that paragraph there are exceptions for ages 19-55 residing in a home without one resident over 55 as long as the number of these homes does not exceed 20% of all homes. 20% of all homes is a very large number and a renter is likely not considered a resident.

All the above and the section 8 or flop house question depend on enforcement. The Developer should be able to enforce the rules at the time of sale (keeping 55+ owners in 80% or more of all homes) and they certainly have the right to enforce the deed restrictions after the sale. However, either the restrictions do not prohibit rentals or no one, including the Developer, is sufficiently interested to attempt to enforce a rental prohibition.

Note: IANAL (as has been point out), these are just my thoughts after reading the restrictions and observing what is happening

[bogmonster]

Do what most Yankees would do, put a sign out demanding $15/hr minimum wage and then walk over and offer them $1/hr to mow your yard, trim the bushes and clean your house.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?

Rentals aren’t necessarily permissible in The Villages, but are done. If I were in the OP’s position, I’d gladly dish out 10 to 20K (Would probably be a lot less in cost) get something moving through the courts. Just nuke the situation before it gets out of hand. You would save that just in property value. There are 6 paying customers living next door violate the spirit and intent of purchasing a retirement community home. I’m sure there are more than a few investigative reporters who would love to cover this too.

[asianthree]

Originally Posted by TEXJK

Hello,
Recently moved into the villages fantastic experience so far.
Question is it common practice for villas to be rented for a week or less to day workers? One currently rented to 6 non English speaking day workers.
What is the HOA policy for renting?
Thanks

The developer rents out villas for lifestyle visits. 2-10 days depends on the time of year. In 2010, Our first home in TV had a rental on the corner, one of the four spoke minimal English. They rented for 3 months, working construction in TV.

Always friendly bringing great food to driveway parties. I am totally against ABnB short term rentals, I definitely am not against renters that English is not first language. Our children & grands can speak, read and write, French, German, Russian, Spanish, Vietnamese.

My granddaughter will switch to Cantonese with her fiancé when she visits TV, especially at the pools.

Her quote “sometimes older generations don’t feel comfortable when she visits”. Her ethnicity is hard to determine, she is Vietnamese, native American, Swedish, Celtic.

[RedChariot]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?

Well said. You state our fears exactly after seeing over 11 years the changes here. Don't think it can't happen here. It can!! Your final sentence I want to scream it out loud. Please listen folks!

[JGibson]

Does anyone know how far a barbecue grill has to be from your exterior wall?

The next-door CYV which turned into a monthly rental has the barbeque grill right up against my wall in a CYV.

I’m gonna tell the owner when I can locate her to move it to her side of the wall.
The smoke and grease are getting all over my wall.

I said on page 2 I will be the biggest PITA if her tenants turn this into some timeshare/college dormitory kind of thing.

Especially after she said she doesn't care about neighbors who don't like the rentals.

Her first tenant I had to chase away from my window because he was smoking and coughing his brains out at 5 am with the smoke coming into my window.

As someone with COPD, I don't need this.

This CYV design of curved driveways and having to go into the neighbor's backyard to clean my exterior wall is starting to become a headache.

I’m glad I didn't invest a lot into the inside of the house because it seems like the renters are gonna win and I may have to move.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Singe-family zoning likely means no apartment buildings and maybe no duplexes though the existence of the lofts at Brownwood would argue against that. I did not find any mention of single-family in my restrictions. I may have missed it and most restrictions differ in some way so maybe that is a requirement in others.


My restrictions have a long paragraph on at least one resident being 55 years of age. Within that paragraph there are exceptions for ages 19-55 residing in a home without one resident over 55 as long as the number of these homes does not exceed 20% of all homes. 20% of all homes is a very large number and a renter is likely not considered a resident.

All the above and the section 8 or flop house question depend on enforcement. The Developer should be able to enforce the rules at the time of sale (keeping 55+ owners in 80% or more of all homes) and they certainly have the right to enforce the deed restrictions after the sale. However, either the restrictions do not prohibit rentals or no one, including the Developer, is sufficiently interested to attempt to enforce a rental prohibition.

Note: IANAL (as has been point out), these are just my thoughts after reading the restrictions and observing what is happening

Most "anal" folks would be more sure of their facts.

Age Restricted Housing is regulated (primarily) by the Federal Government.

The standard is NOT 20% owned by someone over 55.

The standard is NOT 20% of the residents must be over 55.

The standards IS, 20% of the OCCUPANTS must be over 55.

The Villages has an obligation under HUD regulations, to insure that housing constructed as "Age Restricted" always remains in compliance. The methodology developers use to maintain compliance, varies.

"Single-family zoning" is designation, without specificity. It means only what that particular City/Town/County/State has defined it as and it can be modified on an ad hoc basis, by a plethora of exceptions (notably, affordable housing, special use housing, age restricted housing, etc.).

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I'm still feeling pretty good about my understanding of things.

On the Internet Discussion Boards, facts don't matter ... only one's confidence level.

(You probably should have read the links and been educated)

[oldtimes]

This is the law:
The Fair Housing Act: Housing for Older Persons


What Are the Fair Housing Act’s "Housing for Older Persons" Exemptions?

The Fair Housing Act specifically exempts three types of housing for older persons from liability for familial status discrimination. Such exempt housing facilities or communities can lawfully refuse to sell or rent dwellings to families with minor children only if they qualify for the exemption. In order to qualify for the "housing for older persons" exemption, a facility or community must comply with all the requirements of the exemption.

The Housing for Older Persons exemptions apply to the following housing:

Provided under any state or federal program that the Secretary of HUD has determined to be specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons (as defined in the state or federal program);
Intended for, and solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older; or
Intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older.

The 55 or older exemption is the most common of the three.
How to Qualify for the “55 or Older” Exemption

In order to qualify for the "55 or older" housing exemption, a facility or community must satisfy each of the following requirements:

At least 80 percent of the units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older; and
The facility or community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to operate as "55 or older" housing; and
The facility or community must comply with HUD's regulatory requirements for age verification of residents.

The "housing for older persons" exemption does not protect such housing facilities or communities from liability for housing discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national origin.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by JGibson

I would’ve believed the post if you didn't put in the non-English speaking bit.

The Villa next to me has turned into a monthly rental. I’ve seen in 4 months 4 different sets of renters.

The Owner who lives around the corner and I quote “I know people don't like it but I don't care”

She is not going to like me as a neighbor if she turns into a timeshare.

Deed restrictions might be slightly different depending which CDD district you live in. Knowing your districts deed restrictions is important but another districts deed restrictions not so much unless you plan to purchase real estate within that district. I understand there is a “process” to make changes though your district board. I’m not aware of any district attempting to change deed restrictions on length of time you can rent out your property. We own a condo outside of TV, and there is a minimum 3 month restriction on rentals. It’s a restriction put in place to keep a neighbor from turning their place into a motel/hotel. In CDD 10, (my CDD) there are no such limits on rentals. I have no knowledge of other CDD rental restrictions but suspect they are likely the same. No problem unless a house or villa in your back yard is turned into a motel/hotel.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Most "anal" folks would be more sure of their facts.

....

Originally Posted by BrianL99

On the Internet Discussion Boards, facts don't matter ... only one's confidence level.

(You probably should have read the links and been educated)

I know it is exciting to argue on social media but when you are done schooling me and the adrenaline wears off you should go back and read what I wrote. You will find that it is consistent with the deed restrictions which appear to be consistent with the HUD rules.

In case it confused you, I used the word "resident" to mean an individual occupying the home over a period of time and not just the body within the home at a specific moment.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Most "anal" folks would be more sure of their facts.

Age Restricted Housing is regulated (primarily) by the Federal Government.

The standard is NOT 20% owned by someone over 55.

The standard is NOT 20% of the residents must be over 55.

The standards IS, 20% of the OCCUPANTS must be over 55.

The Villages has an obligation under HUD regulations, to insure that housing constructed as "Age Restricted" always remains in compliance. The methodology developers use to maintain compliance, varies.

"Single-family zoning" is designation, without specificity. It means only what that particular City/Town/County/State has defined it as and it can be modified on an ad hoc basis, by a plethora of exceptions (notably, affordable housing, special use housing, age restricted housing, etc.).

No the standard is not the bold underlined area. In fact it's not even a standard. It's an actual law. The law is as follows:

Federal Register 24 CFR Part 100; section 760.24-760.37 (4a), Florida Statutes

For a community to be considered "housing for older persons" as a 55+ community, the housing must be intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older and meet the following requirements:

At least 80% of the occupied units are occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older.

The facility or community publishes and adheres to policies and procedures that demonstrate its intent to in fact be a provider of housing for older persons.

The facility or community complies with rules established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for verification of occupancy.

So at least 80% must be occupied by at least one person 55 or older. The other 20% may, or may not, depending on the community's decisions. They MAY make it 100% must be at least 55 or older. They can be more restrictive if they want. But they may not be less restrictive.

However, the Villages has not enforced this in many years. They are selling new construction, as far as I can tell, according to the law. But resales sold by non-Villages MLS realtors don't really care who lives in the house they're selling. And the Developer doesn't ask the age of the resident until AFTER the house has sold and the residents apply for their Villages ID. By that point it's too late.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I'm confused about the whole issue, but then again I have no specific real estate or restrictive covenant knowledge, so this may be a stupid question: Isn't TV primarily zoned for single family residences, so how does 6 unrelated individuals fall into that category? Does zoning only apply to the owner and not to whomever they rent to? Isn't there some sort of remedy for this?

Which leads to the question of what's next. Section 8 housing???? Halfway houses? Homeless shelters??? Bronx style high rise tenements? Are we primarily a 55+ retirement community or a 1 week vacation destination and flop house for illegal aliens?

I’ll answer this the best I can, addressing deed restrictions only but not local, state, or federal law. Unfortunately, I felt a need to learn about this because a very poorly run AIRBnB was being operated in close proximity to our home (fortunately the woman running the neighborhood disrupting operation has moved away).

First, let’s talk rentals where the owner of the home is not concurrently living there. There are no restrictions, even for renting by the hour. If you live next to one of these, you are basically SOL. The only protection you have is the hope that the homeowner wants to be a good neighbor, carefully screens their tenants, and rents longer term.

Second, let’s talk rentals where the homeowner rents out space in their home while simultaneously living there. Two deed restrictions come into play in this scenario. A home shall be used as a single family residence and a business shall not be run out of the home. Both of these deed restrictions do not specifically refer to rentals, so an interpretation of the intent of the restrictions is required.

Let’s discuss each restriction:

The intent of single family use is to insure exactly that. It is entirely reasonable for homeowners to have non family member guests visit and stay in their homes. I have some golf buddies that visit for a few days once or twice a year. They are not paying to stay there and are not a revolving door of non stop customers with no other connection to the homeowners other than an income source. Most importantly, occasional visiting guests are not detrimental to the neighborhood and the quality of the neighbor’s lifestyle.

The intent of restricting running a business from one’s home is also an attempt to insure an operation is not detrimental to the neighborhood and the quality of the neighbor’s lifestyle. Someone working from their home on line, who does not carry business inventories or have customers coming and going from their home clearly doesn’t fall within the intent of the restriction. On the other hand, someone running a revolving door rental operation, for profit, with renters (paid business customers) constantly coming and going, creating parking issues, and making excessive noise, certainly does fall within the intent of the restriction.

I get it that both of these deed restrictions are subject to reasonable interpretation of their intent. Given that, I couple years ago I calling community standards to report a poorly run AIRBnB operation in my neighborhood. They informed me that they do not enforce deed restriction violations that are considered internal to the home. I asked who did and they told me it’s the developers responsibility. I asked who I could contact and they transferred me. I asked the individual I was transferred to if he was a representative of the developer, and his response was I am the developer. I then explained the situation in our neighborhood and referenced the two deed restrictions I believed were being violated. He responded that based on my description two deed restrictions were in fact being violated. I then asked what steps were necessary to have the operation shut down. That’s when the backpedaling began. I was told how difficult it is to gather proof of violations and enforce internal deed restrictions as homeowners typically don’t respond to inquiries or aren’t truthful in their responses. It’s easy to see a little white cross on someone’s property, but difficult to prove they are running a rental operation inside the home while simultaneously living there. I mentioned that it’s easy to identify an AirBnB, simply go the the website and see the listing. As I talked with this individual it became very clear that pursuing this any further was an effort in futility as they have made a conscious effort not to enforce these deed restriction violations. As has been previously stated in this thread, the deed restrictions say that violations may be enforced, not that they shall be or are required to be enforced. One can speculate about the motives behind the developer’s decision to not enforce these violations, but they clearly acknowledged the violations and have chosen to exercise their right to not enforce them. In my opinion, selective enforcement totally discredits the whole intent of having deed restrictions at all.

So anyone living in close proximity to one of these poorly run businesses has two hopes. First, the homeowner suddenly decides being a good neighbor is more important than generating income from their home, or they have a conscience and don’t want to knowingly violate deed restrictions even though said violations are not enforced. Second, the deed restrictions are enforced, which appears won’t happen. The only way I can reasonably see the deed restriction violations possibly being enforced would be if another third party is charged with the responsibility of enforcement, or if new homebuyers, in large numbers, express hesitation of purchasing new homes to their Villages sales representatives because of the out of control short term rental situation.

Hopefully this information will shed some light on the situation : )