[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by TNGary

Anyone know how many homes will be involved to split the $100k fee? Curious if all homeowners will be excited to belly up the $.

If I lived there I would.

[GoodLife]

Originally Posted by TNGary

Anyone know how many homes will be involved to split the $100k fee? Curious if all homeowners will be excited to belly up the $.

Kind of obvious that no legal agreement could have been reached without consent of all property owners affected.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by GoodLife

I doubt the board of the SFWD (unpaid appointees of Govenor) were bribed by a few homeowners affected. They merely worked through the system, said they would pay for the work and yearly maintenance to remedy problem, and got agreement. If they want to pay for this why would anyone care?

PS What "rules" were changed?

OK, so then why would anyone care if I went behind my house and cleared some of the vegetation blocking the view of the preserve? If the water management district regulators are concerned with water quality, they surely would value protecting the water quality of Lake Miona more than the glorified swamp behind my house. Hopefully the regulators will treat us common Villages residents the same as those who can afford the luxury of Bridgeport at Lake Miona. Nothing against the Lake Miona residents, just want equal treatment for all.

[villagetinker]

Originally Posted by TNGary

Anyone know how many homes will be involved to split the $100k fee? Curious if all homeowners will be excited to belly up the $.

I looked at Google Earth (2017 map), and it appears to be around 90 IF (big IF) you count all the houses that appear to border on the water and wetlands. If you only count the ones with what appears to be docks, maybe 2 dozen. So without knowing the homes with the affected view, it will be difficult to get a good number. So this is approximately ~$5000 per house to ~$1100 per house initially, and ??? per house going forward.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by villagetinker

I looked at Google Earth (2017 map), and it appears to be around 90 IF (big IF) you count all the houses that appear to border on the water and wetlands. If you only count the ones with what appears to be docks, maybe 2 dozen. So without knowing the homes with the affected view, it will be difficult to get a good number. So this is approximately ~$5000 per house to ~$1100 per house initially, and ??? per house going forward.

Clearing big trees is very expensive, but once the big ones are gone it takes very little ongoing work to remove new growth. In fact, the ongoing maintenance wouldn't even require a chainsaw, as long as all new growth is removed on an annual cycle.

[GoodLife]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

OK, so then why would anyone care if I went behind my house and cleared some of the vegetation blocking the view of the preserve? If the water management district regulators are concerned with water quality, they surely would value protecting the water quality of Lake Miona more than the glorified swamp behind my house. Hopefully the regulators will treat us common Villages residents the same as those who can afford the luxury of Bridgeport at Lake Miona. Nothing against the Lake Miona residents, just want equal treatment for all.

As long as you do it legally, get agreement of all your neighbors, agree to pay the costs involved, I am sure nobody will care.

[asianthree]

Originally Posted by Coal Miner

Just curious, why do people refer to the news site "as the site we cant mention"?

Name will be removed so can’t mention

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

OK, so then why would anyone care if I went behind my house and cleared some of the vegetation blocking the view of the preserve? If the water management district regulators are concerned with water quality, they surely would value protecting the water quality of Lake Miona more than the glorified swamp behind my house...

You really need to learn about possible easements and environmental permitting related to clearing vegetation and your "glorified swamp". You could easily have some very undesirable results if you proceed without due diligence.

[Wiotte]

Originally Posted by Coal Miner

Just curious, why do people refer to the news site "as the site we cant mention"?

Because.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Coal Miner]

thank you,I didnt know

[Goldwingnut]

The area affected is shown in the picture below. The agreement for maintenance appears to affect about 25-30 homes, depending if you count just those with direct views or include those with indirect views. The agreement itself is between Mr. White and SLCDD.

The area in question is different from the other wetlands areas in TV as it is a conservation easement and has a different agreement with SWFWMD on how it is to be maintained and what is allowed. The residents and their attorney over the last year and a half or so had made multiple appearances before the PWAC using multiple tactics, arguments, and justifications to persuade the board, many had merit and were logical, some were questionable, some bordered on pathetic. Most of the arguments centered around either what the agreement said (the lawyering of the words on the paper was amazing) or what they were told by the salesman who sold them the property (you know, the same ones who told you build out was just around the corner...).

In the end it simply came down to a question of was the property being maintained properly and in accordance with the SWFWMD permit and agreement, SWFWMD said yes the district was in compliance and no additional actions were required.

The residents presented a plan to the committee and SWFMD for additional maintenance of the area which was found to be acceptable but not required. It was also expensive. PWAC was reluctant to take on this large expense for many reasons and was considering their options when the resident came forward with the offer of paying for the work themselves.

Before approving the agreement to allow the residents to spend their own money to maintain this land at a higher level than was required the question was ask by the board if someone doesn't or decides not to pay to maintain the area per the agreement what happens, the answer was that if they didn't pay the additional maintenance doesn't happen.

The long term of what will become of the agreement is yet to be seen, in the short term hopefully this issue appears to finally be put to bed and we should hear no more about it. Personally, I think this saga is far from over and when the checks have to be written in a year, or two, or three, this will raise its ugly head again.

[TNGary]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

The area affected is shown in the picture below. The agreement for maintenance appears to affect about 25-30 homes, depending if you count just those with direct views or include those with indirect views. The agreement itself is between Mr. White and SLCDD.

The area in question is different from the other wetlands areas in TV as it is a conservation easement and has a different agreement with SWFWMD on how it is to be maintained and what is allowed. The residents and their attorney over the last year and a half or so had made multiple appearances before the PWAC using multiple tactics, arguments, and justifications to persuade the board, many had merit and were logical, some were questionable, some bordered on pathetic. Most of the arguments centered around either what the agreement said (the lawyering of the words on the paper was amazing) or what they were told by the salesman who sold them the property (you know, the same ones who told you build out was just around the corner...).

In the end it simply came down to a question of was the property being maintained properly and in accordance with the SWFWMD permit and agreement, SWFWMD said yes the district was in compliance and no additional actions were required.

The residents presented a plan to the committee and SWFMD for additional maintenance of the area which was found to be acceptable but not required. It was also expensive. PWAC was reluctant to take on this large expense for many reasons and was considering their options when the resident came forward with the offer of paying for the work themselves.

Before approving the agreement to allow the residents to spend their own money to maintain this land at a higher level than was required the question was ask by the board if someone doesn't or decides not to pay to maintain the area per the agreement what happens, the answer was that if they didn't pay the additional maintenance doesn't happen.

The long term of what will become of the agreement is yet to be seen, in the short term hopefully this issue appears to finally be put to bed and we should hear no more about it. Personally, I think this saga is far from over and when the checks have to be written in a year, or two, or three, this will raise its ugly head again.

Great post! Txs

[kcrazorbackfan]

Originally Posted by GoodLife

I doubt the board of the SFWD (unpaid appointees of Govenor) were bribed by a few homeowners affected. They merely worked through the system, said they would pay for the work and yearly maintenance to remedy problem, and got agreement. If they want to pay for this why would anyone care?

PS What "rules" were changed?

People at Osceola Hills at Soaring Eagle were doing the same thing, as far as clearing vegetation, and the workers were told to cease and desist.

So apparently, the folks at Bridgeport Lake Miona have more coin in their pockets to be able to get this done, hence the "golden rule"; they don't like their view so they're going to show us commoners how they can flaunt their wealth and buy their view.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

The area affected is shown in the picture below. The agreement for maintenance appears to affect about 25-30 homes, depending if you count just those with direct views or include those with indirect views. The agreement itself is between Mr. White and SLCDD.

The area in question is different from the other wetlands areas in TV as it is a conservation easement and has a different agreement with SWFWMD on how it is to be maintained and what is allowed. The residents and their attorney over the last year and a half or so had made multiple appearances before the PWAC using multiple tactics, arguments, and justifications to persuade the board, many had merit and were logical, some were questionable, some bordered on pathetic. Most of the arguments centered around either what the agreement said (the lawyering of the words on the paper was amazing) or what they were told by the salesman who sold them the property (you know, the same ones who told you build out was just around the corner...).

In the end it simply came down to a question of was the property being maintained properly and in accordance with the SWFWMD permit and agreement, SWFWMD said yes the district was in compliance and no additional actions were required.

The residents presented a plan to the committee and SWFMD for additional maintenance of the area which was found to be acceptable but not required. It was also expensive. PWAC was reluctant to take on this large expense for many reasons and was considering their options when the resident came forward with the offer of paying for the work themselves.

Before approving the agreement to allow the residents to spend their own money to maintain this land at a higher level than was required the question was ask by the board if someone doesn't or decides not to pay to maintain the area per the agreement what happens, the answer was that if they didn't pay the additional maintenance doesn't happen.

The long term of what will become of the agreement is yet to be seen, in the short term hopefully this issue appears to finally be put to bed and we should hear no more about it. Personally, I think this saga is far from over and when the checks have to be written in a year, or two, or three, this will raise its ugly head again.

Thanks for the great and informative post, it explains a lot, but not everything. Not sure why this particular area has a different agreement than other wetland areas? It seems to me that the only logical explanation is that if you can afford to hire enough high priced lawyers and drag out the legal process long enough, eventually the water management district will fold and let you have your way? Kind of too bad for us common folks that would just like to clear some vegetation and reclaim the lost view without emptying the bank account.

[Goldwingnut]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Thanks for the great and informative post, it explains a lot, but not everything. Not sure why this particular area has a different agreement than other wetland areas? It seems to me that the only logical explanation is that if you can afford to hire enough high priced lawyers and drag out the legal process long enough, eventually the water management district will fold and let you have your way? Kind of too bad for us common folks that would just like to clear some vegetation and reclaim the lost view without emptying the bank account.

Originally Posted by kcrazorbackfan

People at Osceola Hills at Soaring Eagle were doing the same thing, as far as clearing vegetation, and the workers were told to cease and desist.

So apparently, the folks at Bridgeport Lake Miona have more coin in their pockets to be able to get this done, hence the "golden rule"; they don't like their view so they're going to show us commoners how they can flaunt their wealth and buy their view.

Why this particular section of land has a different agreement with SWFWMD as compared to others in our community is not entirely clear but it is in part due to that area of the bank of Lake Miona having a lesser slope and ground composition that makes the area not the typical swampy muck we see in most of the local wetlands, hence it has a different botany than other areas and requires a different agreement. Tophcfa the documents are public records and are available for review if you are truly interested and not just complaining.

The big hammer here is carried by SWFWMD who has the power to enforce the water management and usage agreements and levy fines and penalties. In this case they agreed that the district was maintaining the property per the agreement and also had no issue with further maintenance but did not require it. If they had required it then the district (from your annual maintenance fees south of CR466) would be paying for the maintenance.

Not being required but being allowable has given the residents the avenue to take further action if they desire, actions which they will have to pay for themselves, not the rest of TV residents.

The clearing being done at Soaring Eagle was and is illegal. It violated the SWFWMD permit and they (the residents) violated their deed restrictions by entering into that area and doing any clearing out of undergrowth. They don't own the land and it isn't theirs to maintain or utilize, this is spelled out very clearly in the documents they signed and agreed to when they purchased their homes. If they didn't read or understand these documents that is their own folly, if they were gullible enough to believe every word their salesman said (can you say build out) again their own folly. The correct action in the case of Soaring Eagle would be to request the maintenance be address by District Property Management who would them assess and execute any required maintenance.

Whether it be the Lake Miona residents, the Soaring Eagle residents, the residents adjacent to Tradewinds development, the residents of Adamsville now surrounded by VOSO, or anyone else who has "view" property, unless you own the land that is your "view", you are using it and enjoying it at the good graces of the actual owners. If the owner decides to change the property they have that freedom, within the bounds of the law, to do so and those with a "view" of the property have no say in such a matter.

Yes, I would agree that the residents in the Lake Miona are may have more financial resources than many others, well good for them and it's none of anyone else's business. They did and are using their own resources to address the matter in the proper manner and have achieved a legal and allowable outcome. Is it 100% of what they wanted, I doubt it as they now have a recurring expense of significance that they must fund now and in the future.

Read and understand what you are signing, follow the laws, and follow the rules, if you don't like all of these them move on to somewhere else where these are to you liking. If you find no place that suites you, maybe it's not the places you are looking at that are the problem but the person looking back at you in the mirror.