[ton80]

Originally Posted by 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.

I would suggest you request that the Fire COmpany come out and examine the situation and get their advice. General recommendations (NFPA) are 3 ft from a wall presumably fireproof and 10 ft from combustible materials. Once you get this information and there is a presumed violation, I suggest you go to CDD community standards and submit a violation. They should contact the Owner and address the issue.

Good Luck

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

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 : )

There are other ways to curtail the revolving door tenancy, as I mentioned. TAXES. Anyone renting a property MUST pay tourism taxes to the county. In addition, ZONING. If it's assessed as a single-family residential property, and it's being used as a vacation rental property, then it needs to be reassessed as such. This also affects Property Taxes, not merely tourism taxes. Once it's assessed as a vacation rental property, it falls under a different category for property taxes.

You can call the county and/or town to find out the details, but that would be the first stop, in my opinion.

A little more digging could get you more relief: if the person who owns the house, has their vehicle registered in Florida. but you know they are hardly ever here and is using this property as their excuse to have the lower taxes and insurance costs for their vehicle - a phone call to the local DMV and/or tax office could give the homeowner a nudge in the right direction.

Lastly, peaceful protest is a thing. It has been for many years. As long as you are on public property and not private property and (thanks Florida government) not in front of someone's house, you can picket. You could go to the Sumter County courthouse or other public property, and protest the Villages LLC (the responsible party with regards to internal deed restrictions) refusing to enforce the deed restrictions. You can also bring it up with the CDD, since they are the go-betweens between the residents of a district and the Villages LLC (the ones who are supposed to be enforcing the deed restrictions).

You could protest financially too - refuse to pay your amenity fees, or reduce the payment. A final way to protest, the most drastic, would be to gather all like-minded people together, who are in a financially sound position, and sell all your OWN homes for $1 to homeless people.

And then move somewhere else. That would likely cause the rest of the community to force change. Or turn The Villages into a dump. Either way, you wouldn't be there anymore so it would no longer matter to you.

[Happydaz]

Originally Posted by justjim

No problem unless a house or villa in your back yard is turned into a motel/hotel.

Daily rentals are a fact in The Villages. This is what a motel/hotel used to be for. I see realtors in The Villages buying up Villas and even designer homes to rent out. Over the ten years we have been here it seems as though the number of rentals in the area has increased. The number of one day or multiple day rentals appears to make up the largest part of this trend. A 3 month rental to a retired couple from Nebraska is not a problem. It is the 3 day rental to three families on vacation. The reports from South of 44 seem to indicate that real estate investors may be buying a larger share of Village homes. Just look at all the out of state, large real estate developers who are building high rise (5+stories) apartment complexes and large tracts of small rental homes. The market has changed and different people are buying property here, in my observation. Someone with more information may be aware of the percentage of short term rentals today compared to prior years.

[Normal]

Just pass a comprehensive rental law like other Florida communities have. Get rid of short term rentals. It can and has been done in several cities. Wildwood would benefit from restrictions anyway. Several developments are popping up and would benefit from new laws in Sumter County.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Normal

Of course all US citizens must be able to read and write in English.

Of course this is wrong like so many other statements of "facts" on this website. We have certainly well over several millions of US citizens who are neither able to read nor write English. Some cannot read nor write any language.

But we have suggestions that if people speak Spanish they must not be US citizens and a way to handle the Spanish speaking renters is to call ICE and the news media. I do wonder where all this hate of immigrants comes from... nah, I know where.

When all the undocumented workers leave Florida, I don't want to see you all whining about how much food costs and how impossible it has become to get workers in essential industries like construction and farming and restaurants and roofing and yard care and .....

[Normal]

Originally Posted by blueash

Of course this is wrong like so many other statements of "facts" on this website. We have certainly well over several millions of US citizens who are neither able to read nor write English. Some cannot read nor write any language.

But we have suggestions that if people speak Spanish they must not be US citizens and a way to handle the Spanish speaking renters is to call ICE and the news media. I do wonder where all this hate of immigrants comes from... nah, I know where.

When all the undocumented workers leave Florida, I don't want to see you all whining about how much food costs and how impossible it has become to get workers in essential industries like construction and farming and restaurants and roofing and yard care and .....

Thanks for clearing that up!

It should be phrased as All “naturalized “ US citizens (exception special needs, physically impaired or over 55) must be able to read and write in English. 😀

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Normal

Just pass a comprehensive rental law like other Florida communities have. Get rid of short term rentals. It can and has been done in several cities. Wildwood would benefit from restrictions anyway. Several developments are popping up and would benefit from new laws in Sumter County.

That would work great, other than Florida has a Statute that prevents Cities and Towns from prohibiting STR's, unless it was already done 11-12 years ago.

Statutes & Constitution
:View Statutes
:

Online Sunshine

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

I'm not confused, I've been doing it for a living for 35 years.

"Resident" and "Occupant" are 2 different animals.

& since this thread started, you've changed your position at least 3 times. Perhaps it would behoove you to use the links I provided you with, to become familiar with how land use regulations, restrictions and covenants work, as well as who can enforced them.

Just trying to be helpful, but you can only lead a horse to water ...

[Escape Artist]

Has the OP chimed in again or did they just throw it out there like chum in the water to watch the feeding frenzy ensue? I wish we had more details and clarification on this story because it does have a potential impact on all who live in TV.

There’s been many threads recently on what is allowed in terms of renting out homes to those who are not 55+ or rentals with a high turnover rate. When I rented, which I did on several occasions, the homeowner or property manager wanted occupants renting for at least a week or more typically, a month.

No one wants to live next door to a motel, that’s not why we reside in TV. It’s ironic that there are so many strict rules about guests or those who are not residents using amenities like golf courses or the pools, yet provisions have not been made for things like this which can negatively affect affect quality of life and home values.

[oldtimes]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

That would work great, other than Florida has a Statute that prevents Cities and Towns from prohibiting STR's, unless it was already done 11-12 years ago.

Statutes & Constitution
:View Statutes
:

Online Sunshine

Revised in 2014 to restore power to regulate, but not power to prohibit.

[golfing eagles]

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.

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

Again, this is not my field of expertise, but I think that zoning is not something in deed compliance, it is determined by the county/city. And "single family" doesn't mean no guests, but once money is exchanged, I think the narrative changes.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Again, this is not my field of expertise, but I think that zoning is not something in deed compliance, it is determined by the county/city. And "single family" doesn't mean no guests, but once money is exchanged, I think the narrative changes.

Once money is exchanged the recipient is termed a customer by law. It is a legal business transaction. In addition, if any contract is signed with a mediating authority or is established, the contract signifies a completed business transaction. This can be done on paper or through electronic communication. Oral or verbal contracts are tougher to enforce if they aren’t witnessed. Yes, you are correct.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Happydaz

The reports from South of 44 seem to indicate that real estate investors may be buying a larger share of Village homes.

Ding, ding, ding, bingo! The double jeopardy question that corresponds to the above answer is: Why has the developer made a conscious decision to not enforce deed restrictions regarding rentals?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Ding, ding, ding, bingo! The double jeopardy question that corresponds to the above answer is: Why has the developer made a conscious decision to not enforce deed restrictions regarding rentals?

choose any/all that may apply:

• difficult
• expensive
• time conuming
• bad for business
• not prohibited by the restrictions
• unenforceable

The Developer is in the business of selling houses, not making it harder for himself by chasing away potential buyers.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by blueash

Of course this is wrong like so many other statements of "facts" on this website. We have certainly well over several millions of US citizens who are neither able to read nor write English. Some cannot read nor write any language.

But we have suggestions that if people speak Spanish they must not be US citizens and a way to handle the Spanish speaking renters is to call ICE and the news media. I do wonder where all this hate of immigrants comes from... nah, I know where.

When all the undocumented workers leave Florida, I don't want to see you all whining about how much food costs and how impossible it has become to get workers in essential industries like construction and farming and restaurants and roofing and yard care and .....

You're right. OBB should never have made those assumptions... Very hateful...

As to the point you made about workers... Maybe if we had some sort of "Temporary Worker Visa Program"... Oh, wait...