Supervisors in three Community Development Districts on Friday expressed concern over recent reports that an 8-year-old child is living with his 41-year-old mother on the Historic Side of The Villages.
The supervisors all said they understood that they have no jurisdiction in such issues, as they only can get involved in external deed restrictions. And they made it clear that they understand it’s an issue between residents and the Developer.
But CDD 3 Supervisor Gail Lazenby said he doesn’t want to ever again face a situation like the board went through earlier this year when residents who were fed up and frustrated over a “problem child” living in the Village of Summerhill packed the board room during a CDD 3 meeting.
“It’s very difficult to hear a group of individuals complain about something that is definitely a violation of deed restrictions, and to have to sit here and say, ‘We can’t do anything about it, we have no recourse,’” Lazenby said.
The issue earlier this year came to a head when residents came to complain about a teenager they claimed was living at a home on Idlewood Loop. They said they repeatedly had called the Sumter County Sheriff’s Office about the teenager, who they claimed roamed the streets, peeped in windows and had exposed himself to at least one woman. They said they believed the teen was autistic and was living with his mother and grandmother in the home.
District Counsel Valerie Fuchs had to explain to the residents that the CDD 3 board had no legal standing under Florida statute to address the situation because it is an internal matter in the home.
Not wanting to see any supervisors face that situation, Lazenby suggested CDD 3 “use its power as a bully pulpit” to send a letter to the Developer a letter asking that they become involved when requests are made to make sure that internal deed restrictions – particularly with underage children – are enforced. He said the kind of publicity that such issues generate simply aren’t good for the community.
“If people realize they can get away with it, it encourages individuals to flaunt the regulation and overstay their welcome,” he said.
Lazenby added that he isn’t sure what, if anything, would come from the board writing a letter to the Developer.
“I know we can’t do anything about it and I recognize that we may get absolutely nothing from the letter,” he said. “But we will have gone on record as saying we would like to see something done on the part of the entity that can do something about it.”
Like Lazenby, CDD 2 Supervisor Bryan Lifsey, who in May wrote a position paper on the topic of internal deed restrictions, suggested the possibility of writing the Developer. And CDD 4 Supervisor Don Deakin expressed interest in having his fellow supervisors take a look at Lifsey’s paper.
District Manager Richard Baier reiterated that CDD boards have no authority when dealing with internal deed restrictions. But he told supervisors that when the District’s Community Standards Department receives those kinds of complaints, they do everything they can to help residents by logging the complaint and then passing it along to the Developer’s representative. That way, Baier said, the District isn’t just turning away people with legitimate complaints away, even though their issues don’t fall under the responsibilities of the District.
Baier also said that the best bet for residents hoping for enforcement of internal deed restrictions involving children under 19 living in The Villages is to call the Developer’s point person for the issue, Martin Dzuro, who can be reached at (352) 753-6260.