Tougher enforcement of deed restrictions was approved Friday by four Villages community development districts.
Revised procedures would provide a shortcut for recurring violations, raise fines up to $500 a day and cut the time to correct violations to three days in some cases. CDDs 1-4 approved the new rules.
“It just gives us a better way,” said Candy Dennis of the Community Standards Department.
Rex Hamlett of the Village of Palo Alto said he hopes the tougher enforcement will help eliminate a golf cart repair and lawn business that operates out of a neighbor’s driveway.
Hamlett said the business has operated for four years near his Antonia Place home. Real estate agents have told him the situation depresses his home’s value by $6,000 to $8,000.
Another neighbor, Jan Lindsey, said people unrelated to the owner were living in the garage.
Dennis said the revised procedure makes it easier to deal with recurring violations. In the past, for example, someone cited for debris in their driveway could move it to the garage before the hearing and then move it back to the driveway so the enforcement process would have to start over.
The revised rules would enter a guilty plea for the first violation and then impose fines if the violation comes back, Dennis said.
She said higher fines of up to $500 a day for violations also could be a deterrent. CDD boards impose the fines after a hearing.
Lawn ornament, parking and signage violators would have three days for corrections instead of the 15 days allowed for other violations, Dennis said. She said the shorter time period is justified because these violations can be corrected easily. CDD 1 does not enforce lawn ornament violations and CDD 4 does not enforce signage violations.
Supervisors praised the new enforcement rules.
“This is absolutely streamlining the process,” said CDD 1 chairwoman Ellen Cora.
“I think it’s a good idea,” said CDD 2 supervisor Bill Schikora. “It will expedite things.”
CDD 3 vice chairman Gail Lazenby also said he agreed with the new rules.
Despite some criticism about continuing to allow anonymous deed restriction complaints, none of the boards supported changing that part of the process.