The public record
Thursday, April 17, 2025 · Community development district meeting record
The 30-second read
Recorded outcomeWhy it matters
The official meeting record is available below. Item-level plain-language summaries are not available yet.
What happens next
No later meeting or follow-up date is stated in the reviewed record.
Listen to the meeting The recording is not indexed to individual votes.
4 recorded votes0 split
Split votes (0)
Every recorded vote passed unanimously.
Unanimous votes (4)
3.A. Approval of Minutes
4.A. Case No D10-10-25 VCDD No. 10 vs. Karen S. Dubinski and Robert D. Dubinksi, as
4.C. Case No FHA-D10-12-25 - Frederick Montgomery Livingston III and Barbara
Adjourn
The opening of 93,673 stored characters
Call to order the April 17th meeting of Community Development District 10 supervisors. Welcome everyone. All supervisors, with the exception of Mr. Bova are present. So we do have a quorum. Our first item on the agenda will be the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by an observation of a moment of silence For our in our military. Please stand I Pledge Allegiance, United of America, the Republic, which stands, one Nation, nation under God in Liberty, justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated. Welcome, everyone. Appreciate your participation. Before we begin, please make sure all cell phones, recording devices, anything that can make any noise. They will affect the recording of this meeting. Make sure they're either on mute or turned completely off. Thank you. First item will be anyone that has any comments that they would like to make, bring to the board. Uh, if you would, if it's something that is not already on the agenda, if you will come to the podium, state your name and your address, and you will have three minutes. Thank you, Jack. Uh, my name is Kurt McGee. 1 2 4 7 Zydeco Court, the villages CDD 10. Um, thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. Um, I'm gonna read this not too long. On November 14th, 2024, I made a request to this board for a single village of Dunedin Sign. Brittany Wilson handled the request for the board, and in the January meeting, you, you had the board meeting. Ms. Wilson reported that the village of Dunedin is located between two entrances that do have entry signage, and they recommended not placing any additional signage. I'd like to point out that those two entrances are for the village of Charlotte and the village of Hillsborough. And I have two, I have two pictures in what I'm gonna give you when I'm done. Uh, north of Highway 44, CDD 10 is the largest district in the villages, and the village of Dunedin is the largest village in CDD 10. And Dunedin has no sign since we've been here 10 years, people have asked, where's, where's Dunedin? And I'm requesting, I'm making two requests. I'm requesting a single village of Dunedin sign be placed on the north side of Hillsborough Trail, just west of the last home on the village of Charlotte, in the village of Charlotte. Somewhere between this last house and in Charlotte and the intersection with Oracle Court in the V in Dunedin, there's an available area of about two football fields of just grass. And I asked for an eight foot, one post, 30 inch sign, which would be similar to a speed limit sign. Not too big. The sign should cost around $200. That was back in November when I priced it. And the post for the sign's about $48. And if for some reason this request is rejected, then I would like to propose one other thing that the board, uh, to add the village of Dunedin's name to either the Morris or Buena Vista entrances to Hillsborough Trail. This was proven, just to let you know, this was previously done on Morris to, to combine the village of Mallory Square, along with the Village of Amelia. And it was done on Buena Vista showing the Village of Virginia Trace, along with the village of Sable Trace. So we're not asking for something that doesn't have, haven't been done before. And I've provided two, two pictures of the gates that I've talked about on Hillsborough Trail, and two pictures with the two villages on each. So if I can give you this, Is that those pictures leave with us, please. Yes. Thank you. Any comments from supervisors? Can you tell us any problems you, you've personally had where someone can't find your house because of lack of signage? Well, first started with UPS here. First it started with UPS and FedEx. They didn't, they didn't know where all the, when all the new homes were there. And then they come in from, when you come in the gate at Hillsborough, you have a guard. When you come in the gate at Charlotte, you don't have a guard. So you're driving without knowing where Dunedin is. If, if there's mention of it, even on the website for CDD 10, I looked at it today. You have a photograph of, of, um, oh, I can't remember the name of the place, but there, there, it's not a village. It's, it's one of the, like Whitney, they call those things. Villas. The villas, yeah. There's a picture of, of a, the group of villa, and there's a villa sign there. So Si signs are everywhere, but there's no village of Dunedin sign. Other people that have mentioned it too, we've been in the Dunedin Social Club, we've been in other things. We're involved in lots of different clubs. Some people said just generally that, that have just moved here. Where's Dunedin? And, and we're huge. We're, we're a big, big village. So, I mean, I can imagine other villagers not knowing where Dunedin is, but FedEx and UPS, uh, they would never Be given that information in your address. And so I can't imagine them asking about that. Well, Again, I'm just mentioning it, we're a large village with no sign and we can do something about it. And if $248 is is not enough or too much, um, maybe we can get the sign for our village added to one of those other two that exist. That's all. Yeah, I think I, I would, I would just reiterate, I I seem to recall two points from the meeting where this was actually discussed with. It was at January, perhaps, um, there were a couple of issues. First of all, the signage that you have proposed would not meet the standards for the community, number one. Second of all, not every neighborhood has a sign. Lake Deaton doesn't have a sign either. Um, just in that off Hillsborough Trail, they don't. Um, and the purpose of the signage is to really identify Gates, not community. So it's Hillsborough there. So you can tell people to turn at the Hillsborough gate or, you know, it's not necessarily that every ev not every neighborhood has a sign. The signage is mostly there to Mark Gates, not neighborhoods. Well, some neighborhoods Two, two neighborhoods, two villages are on one side in at least two places that I've seen just for, Sorry, that is not ne in two places is not everywhere. Well, Isn't there a dunum pool? There is marked right There, there on Hillsborough. So there is a, there is a Dun Eden pool Sign. Yeah. Every pool has their own unique sign besides the village signs, that's all. Yeah. But there aren't pools necessarily. Each is Dun Eden closer to the Charlotte Gate? Yes. Or the Hillsborough Gate? Charlotte Gate. Charlotte Gate. I was gonna say yes. By the two lakes there. Are you, do you know of any other instances where there is signage similar to what he is proposing for this $248? No, I, and I, I don't have the, or if you have a copy of the original proposal, but it, it would not be something that we would typically, that we would recommend installation of. Um, so when in the, the benefit of living in the villages of the, it is a master planned community. So it is all planned out through the engineering and design and all of the entry features and things of that nature are taken into consideration. This isn't the first time that I've heard this type of request, um, from different boards. Um, but ultimately the boards have deferred back to what was the original design intent. Because if you, if you do something outside of that, you're, you're potentially opening the box for a lot of other villages that may not be specifically marked in that same manner. Um, I did pull up when this was addressed in January, and um, there is no welcome sign for this particular unit. It is in accordance with the original design and as-built construction plans. And it is between two separate entrances. That village is in between two entrances. So that's really the set of circumstances for this area. Um, you know, with the advancement in technology, a lot of people do use the Villages app. They rely on Google Maps, um, by physical address rather than looking for a specific village entry sign and where there's potentially multiple points of entry too. Does that kind of mean you'd always have to put one on each end? It makes sense Because it's, but this may not be the only scenario where, where this exists. So the challenge becomes not every village is necessarily marked or it could be marked, for example, at a neighborhood pool and postal that sort of identifies the geographic area, Which in your case, I think you said the pool is marked. Yep. Is marked with signage Pool. Yeah, I think there's three villages in that. Um, well, sort of, uh, in, in that scenario there's Lake Deaton. Those are Lake Deaton, um, Dunedin. And then there's that, um, premier section, justice, justice off of Hillsboro. I forget what that one's called. Separate? No, the Enterprise. What, What is it? Enterprise and that's part of, yeah, it's enterprise. That's part of Charlotte, what is it called? Part of Charlotte? Yeah. But it has a sort of a separate little name for it. I don't think so. Well, Hillsborough, the other, the only other ones I can think of are mainly Courtyard, Villa Red, uh, areas, uh, Pensacola. I think it's one right down there towards the end. Um, I live at the other end. The were, I mean, nobody refers to it as that, but I mean, officially there is that other one that the off enterprise drive. Unfortunately, I putting up a sign that is totally different and I understand what you're trying to do and you're trying to be reasonable about it as far as the size and everything else, but it would be something that is totally different than anything else that has been done. Uh, and we do try to keep things as consistent as we can, not just in signage, but a lot of other items that come up. Um, I see your point about putting additional verbiage on the, uh, village of Charlotte sign. And it looks like possibly there would be room to be able to do it, uh, whether it would be cost prohibitive to do it or not. I have no idea what it would take to add that kind of lettering or whatever. Village of Hillsborough at the other end. There's not enough rain. Everything would have to be redone. You could put Lake Deaton on there. Village of Lake Deon on that one. Um, not according to the picture you showed me, I don't think they would be enough room without having to change all the entire sign. Um, I think in this particular regard, uh, I think the board is gonna have to go with management recommendation and just say it just wasn't part of the master plan. And at this time, there are no plans to add. Brittany, is there any possibility of researching? I know it would be way, way far back, but, um, what led to the Virginia Trace Sable Chase combination sign? Sure. I'll ha I'll have to take a look at it. I did see that, that in here. So I, I'll find out the, if there is the, the history behind that sign and how it was originally installed. Yeah, I would like to know the history of that. That would be, yes. Helpful. Is there a way to just see what it would take to add the verbiage on this village of Charlotte and down below it or something without having to change everything else? Yes. And that, that is a new request from the previous one, so we'll take a look at that as well. Okay, Wonderful. I mean, we'd have, we'll give it a shot. Be fair. We'd have to be fair, I think to Lake Deaton too then, then. Well, I'm sure there are a lot of other neighborhoods that are in the same situation. I know, I know. Or whatever. And that I agree with what Brittany is saying about everybody uses either the village DPS or whatever. I go by a address. Mm-hmm. And, uh, But I wouldn't wanna do it for Dunedin and then have Lake Deaton say, well, well you did it for deed not doing it for us. And that's the challenge with, with the adjustment. That's Problem. Right. Okay. We'll look into it. Thank you. It was a good idea. We'll look into it. Alright, anyone else? Any comments, name and address please, sir? Yes, sir. Uh, hi. I am Don Johnston, 1843 Waiting Herring Way. And, uh, I am new to the villages, so, uh, pardon me if, uh, any of this is redundant. But, uh, my understanding is that I'm on the corner house and there's the basin right behind me. And my understanding is that there used to be a sign that says, it used to say no trespassing. And I think the board voted last time, may on, uh, no public access sign. And I do not rise in opposition to those decisions. And, uh, I, I respect them. Uh, having said that, I also think that something that would be neighborly kind and appropriate and lawful is to put up a sign. No fishing past this sign Florida statute. And Florida law says that you cannot fish within, actually the law is that you cannot have activities with 100 feet of private or public property. And that's defined as fishing, swimming, boating, uh, jet skis, et cetera. And so that is, you know, according to the Florida, you know, statute, that is Florida law. Uh, I will tell you that I have been there for a short time, and there's been about four or five instances when somebody's been fishing in that area where they're not supposed to be. Uh, first of all, I just simply went down. I said, uh, excuse me, d are you aware? And I found, uh, things were very consistent. That happened every single time. Number one, the people were very, very, very nice. Every one of 'em. Number two, they were very, very, very embarrassed. And number three, they were very apologetic. They were saying, I'm sorry, sir, I didn't realize, you know, I didn't know. And so to have a sign that says, no fishing pass this point, number one, is in, in accordance with the village's policy. 'cause people can walk all the way around that body of water and be within their rights. However, if Florida State law says that you cannot do an activity back there within 100 feet. So really that sign would accomplish something that is in accordance with the village's. PO policy is also in accordance with the Florida State law. Uh, I'll tell you that I, I kind of wondered what those people did when they went back. 'cause at least half of them were not villagers. They were either sons visiting their parents or grandchildren. And I can imagine when they went back and they said, how was your fishing? Well, you know, a guy there said that we couldn't fish there. What do you mean we can't fish there? You, you, you could fish there. So, you know, within that I could see a misunderstanding and, and a thing that would not be a neighborly interaction. So I think that if you had, uh, I'd respectfully, uh, request that you would consider a sign that would, on the edges that would say no fishing, uh, past this point, Florida statute, and the number has been cited in previous minutes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh, this is not anything new to us. Um, we've spent probably six months on this topic and just resolved it, I thought last month. Uh, I'm not aware of any Florida statutes that pertain to these retention basins, uh, counselor. Well, the issue is not so much a statute, it's that you have no enforcement power. You have no police power. So there's nothing you can do about it. It's something for the resident to reach out to the police department and let them know that they have people constantly coming into the property or fishing in areas where they shouldn't be. And again, this, you're right, we, we've discussed this for six months, maybe longer. We have talked about having no access, no public access, no fishing. Um, unfortunately most of them get ignored. And as Mr. Brianis says, we have no enforcement power to do anything about it. If someone is crossing your property, trying to go to the retention basin, then they're trespassing, then that is something that you need to pick up the phone and call Sumter County and have them trespass from your property. They will come and talk to 'em and explain to 'em. Uh, most of the ponds have either a, an easement that gives access mainly for, uh, maintenance equipment purposes, uh, to get to it. And if they walk down that easement, then they are not trespass. They are not supposed to trespass on your property. They're not supposed to cross over any district property, golf courses, whatever, to get to any pond to do any fishing. Naturally, the ponds and the golf courses and so forth are private and they are off limits. Period. Parks and Recreation provides a map that shows recommended fishing areas. They are strictly recommendations. That does not mean everything else is off limits. Um, we know that the way that some, I don't think it's all, but some of the basins when they were deeded said that they were only for use for village residents. And we have discussed how to go about asking someone for an ID or whatever else. The problem gets to be back to how do we enforce it if someone is there and does not live there, whether they're a guest or whether they're part of a work crew that was there that day and decided that looks like a good fishing hole. I'm coming back after work. Um, unless it gets to be a nuisance, and then that gets reported to the sheriff's office. I don't know. There's nothing that we have the power to do. As President Clinton used to say, I, I feel your pain because I know, because I know that you've dealt with this in the past. And I know that there was a, you know, I read the minutes and I talked to a neighbor, and so that's why I'm here now, as opposed to then, because I wasn't here during all those meetings. And, uh, I respect all that you just said. I would say we agonized over. Yes, we did. So I guess the thing that I wanna differentiate before between is enforcement and being nice and just being neighborly. And I'm not really asking for enforcement. I'm, I'm, I'm not gonna change, it's not gonna change my life either way, to be quite honest. I'm gonna still be nice to those people down there. And I'm not looking for something like, gosh, I gotta have this, or I'm gonna go home and take my ball and go home. Uh, what I'm asking for is a consideration to say, you know what? It's really a point of potential conflict that can be avoided by just simply having a no fishing be beyond this sign, because that is in accordance with Florida statute. In Florida law. I'm not asking about enforcement because I respect what you're saying is that they're trespassing to call the police. I'll also tell you that there was, uh, on the other side of the pond, the other basin, there was a well-known YouTuber who was basically fishing there. The police had been called, the police were there, and that he wouldn't move. He just kept on doing it. And he said, well, the only recourse that I have is to arrest him. And interestingly enough, having known a little bit about the policy at that time, I asked the police officer about it, and I'll tell you that he got it absolutely wrong in every, every way. In a way he was explaining it. And so even the police officers don't really understand that. So I guess what I'm asking for is just a simple sign that says, no fishing beyond this point. Doesn't say no trespassing. They can still walk past there, uh, in accordance of, you know, village policy and village law and, uh, whatever rules and regulations there are. But I guess what I'm asking for is just a sign that says, Hey, you know, this is a simple thing that could potentially prevent conflict. I, I would like to just bring up that there is also a history here where there was a situation in which this district was taken to court over a sign. And because there was a sign that we could not enforce, we were required to take that sign down. We cannot put up signs that we cannot enforce. And respectfully, my understanding of that was a no, uh, trespassing sign that was taken down, that sign that said no trespassing, which is not, it is not technically, it's actually, it's, it went against it. The same situation. I can't put up a no fishing sign. If I can't enforce no fishing. I cannot put up any sign I cannot enforce, and I cannot enforce It. Okay. I, I understand, uh, with a proper venue for me to then go to the county and have them put up a sign because it is, or they go to, to the state or their state representative, because it is within that law for that to occur. How does that interact then with the villages? And again, I'm, I'm new, I'm not trying to rock the boat. I'm not trying to, I'm, I'm asking for informational purposes. I believe that most of the basins around here are owned by the various districts. The way that they are deeded, right. The county, they are not Public property in the sense that the county or whatever controls them. The village, various districts, control 'em, maintain 'em. Uh, I don't believe that the state of the county can do anything. I mean, you, you can talk to 'em, but I I, no, I'm, I'm just asking. I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to do anything except to understand. So you're saying that Florida state law would not apply in this situation then? Well, and I'll go back to what Ms. Bell said is whether we decide to put up a no trespassing, a no access, no public access, whatever it is, the first time someone walks past there and we don't do anything about it because we can't, we have no enforcement power whatsoever as a governing body here, then you've got somebody else standing back saying, well, you're not enforcing your rules and so we are gonna sue you for it. So Mr. B Down, I seem to recall there was an issue too, with the way that those basins were deeded that this hundred yard or whatever this law was that he's referring to, was not necessarily applicable to our situation. I, I don't remember that. I mean, but again, I think, you know, you're right on point with the conversation. And that is, we have been sued and, uh, for putting up a sign, and I don't even remember what it said, it wasn't a no trespassing, I think it was, um, No public access. Um, and people were accessing it. The district didn't do anything about it and got sued. And we were in litigation for a year and a half or two years. Um, certainly we were successful in, in the case, but, you know, you had to have insurance pay for your defense in that lawsuit. And it went through about four different attorneys, um, representing the property owners before. Um, we were successful in getting dismissed. So there is the potential for litigation, again, even with regard to the statute, I, I don't, I don't know it off the top of my head. I'd have to read it. But again, so what if it says that you can't do anything about it? The property owners can do something about it, but this district cannot. Yeah. The property owner is empowered if somebody is back there and they should not be back there to contact the Sumter County Sheriff's Department. Okay. If they're trespassing on your prop, trespassing on your property. But the problem Sumter County has, and we have actually a representative here who I may be willing to talk about this if, if he is, is so inclined. Yes. This is Sergeant Edon Dodge. No pressure sergeant. I would love the opportunity. I can tell you I was, uh, so pleased to hear the topic come up Again, Trying to sneak out. But I, so, um, I guess my first question, if I can, I can, I can inquire. Can you tell me what statute it is you're referring to? Because I'm not familiar with the statute, uh, restricting, uh, someone's use of private property within a distance of another persons. Do we have, uh, it was in the minutes of the meeting, I believe in the November minutes of the meeting. Uh, I don't know if I, after that, of course, we Would have to go back and research that. We don't have 'em in our fingertips right now. Okay. Uh, and I just, uh, so I do not have that, but I have read. Okay. And basically it just says it defines the activities specifically. It mentioned fishing, swimming, boating, jet skiing, are all activities back there now. The village property, you know, you're able to walk around there and people getting, find a terrible, not terrible slogan, alligators right there. Not encouraged. Anyway, as far as, you know, going down and fishing. The four six statute says, I'd be really interested, I'd be really interested to read the statute. 'cause I'm sure there's some nuance about what sort of property that statute covers, public Or property. And I seem to recall though, the challenge we had with that particular statute mm-hmm. Is that if you are a resident, you own that Property. Absolutely. So you can, you can go there. Mm-hmm. So that would be that we would call the police and Well, that's what I'm saying. They can't, they potentially can't enforce it because if it's a villager who's out there fishing, they own that property that is part of their property, Many times they not do. And the thing is, I don't want to call the police on, I respect too, my staff to deal with that. So that's the thing. I'm, I'm trying to prevent that. I saying, uh, you know, I really don't wanna do that. I'm not gonna do that, to be quite honest. Yeah. I'm sorry, sir. I, I've interrupted your No, You, I'm, I'm gonna leave you my, my business card. If you end up looking that statute, please send it to me. I, I'd like to review it and make sure there's not something that I'm not aware of that we could be, uh, utilizing to help in that sort of situation. And Sergeant Dodge, before you speak, can I just, A lot of villagers don't understand, we are not a municipality. We don't have the same police powers, code enforcement power that uni municipality has. We're not mayors, we're not councilmen. This is a special purpose government. We lack police authority. And so we, that's why we often have the sheriff here to help us. Mm-hmm. We have, we have maintenance responsibility, but not police authorities. Correct. Yeah. We don't have police enforcement authority. So could you just speak to what would happen if, um, a resident called you? Uh, certainly. So, uh, with the, with my understanding of the current guidance provided by the district, uh, that body of water, I'm not aware that that body of water doesn't meet the requirements for, uh, the use of, uh, five people who elect to fish. Um, so if a deputy came out, they would, uh, address the issue, the concern with the citizen, uh, make sure there's not an issue with the person being on their private property. But if they're on district property and it doesn't appear as though they're not in violation of, uh, district's guidance on what is, uh, accessible for fishing, uh, we would likely make contact and then try to educate them If there is an issue and contact, we would, uh, make contact through community watch if there was a trespassing issue where we would be issuing a trespass warning. But I don't believe in this situation, especially if they're only on the district property, that we would need to, uh, elevate it to that level. Uh, certainly the property owner, if they'd like to have someone trespass from their property, they can make that election. But that trespass warning would only be, uh, applicable there on their privately owned property and not necessarily down at the water's edge. Uh, where I believe these fishermen are likely to be standing. And, and I think the exception in the past has been when, for example, I believe there was, there were some people out there at night with flashlights making a lot of noise, haunting gators, things like that. They will certainly do something about that if it's a nuisance. Public nuisance. Yeah. Yeah. And my guess about the state statute pertains to, you know, like wildlife preserves and things like that, where we can't even cut trees, you know, beyond that Point. I, I'd hate to speculate without having the ability to review that, that statute. Right. Okay. Alright. Don't go anywhere 'cause you're gonna be up next. As long as you don't have any other comments. I don't, I believe, are we done here? I just have one other question. Alright, sure. Uh, regarding the, uh, and it's just because I don't know, I'm asking the question. Uh, as far as, you know, it tells you where the fishing areas are. Yes. And what is the appropriate area, uh, to have that amended or, uh, or is that just, uh, that goes strictly through Parks and Recreation. Is there a district, our District of Parks and Recreation, or is that a, that is villages wide. Village villages wife recreation department. Okay. And so if you did that, I mean, or is there a universal, it applies to all basins that Fishing's allowed it? No, here again, as I said, they, they post a map and they show, uh, recommended fishing locations, but that doesn't mean anything else is off limits. Right. These are just the ones that perhaps they have stopped that con and it's a nice place to go fishing or whatever, but if this one they say is good fishing and the one across the street they don't mention, that doesn't mean that's off base. Right. I mean, off limits. Okay. Alright. I appreciate your time. I, I apologize for having to, uh, bring up this painful, I know it's gonna be painful, but thank you very much. Thank you. Alright, anybody else as far as audience comments? Then we will move on to the next section of our meeting, which will be law enforcement accordingly update. Fantastic. Good afternoon. My name's Sergeant Adam Dodge with the Sumter County Sheriff's Office, and I'm here to provide you with your quarterly law enforcement update. Uh, in past quarters when I've, uh, had the pleasure of coming before you, I've, I've been unable to provide statistics on vehicle golf cart crashes and citations. I do have numbers, which is great. Uh, however, I've been forewarned that these numbers, uh, if we're off by 10, if within six months we find out, hey, we had a couple more or a couple less, please don't be upset with me. These are the best numbers our records division is able to provide at this date. Over the last quarter, Sheriff's Office has responded to 467 motor vehicle crashes, 36 golf cart crashes, and have issued 653, uh, motor vehicle citations here, uh, within the villages. So, uh, we're out and about on the roadways within your community, um, trying to make sure traffic's, uh, safe, uh, and operating, uh, within the bounds of the, of the law. Uh, I do wanna bring to your attention, um, one thing we're talking about Motor Vehicle Safety. Uh, the Sheriff's Office partnering with Community Watch recently is, has, uh, done training with Community Watch and what's called Tims or Traffic Incident Management System. Uh, which is trained Community Watch drivers and equipped them with, uh, the applicable markings on their vehicles to help us in controlling traffic flow around, uh, especially, uh, motor vehicle crashes or road blockages. And that's just one of the partnerships between the Sheriff's Office and Community Watch that I wanna make you aware of. Sometimes people aren't aware of the great relationship that we share, uh, between the Sheriff's Office and Community Watch. Uh, we also had a, a recent golf cart theft at Lake Sumter Landing. And, and so often when we get a call about a vehicle or a golf cart theft at Lake Sumter Landing, we know we can probably help them find that vehicle that is parked somewhere. They, uh, they're just confused as where it was parked. And, and we, the majority of the time we locate that vehicle, it's not been stolen. We had a recent issue of a, of a golf cart that was legitimately stolen there from Lake Sumter Landing, surprisingly. Um, but through our partnership with Community Watch, we we're able to locate security camera video, both from the square and through a, a nearby gate, which showed that individual driving through that photo of him coming through the gate and those gate cameras. Sometimes people ask, Hey, if, if all they have to do is press a button, does it really help us all at all in, in safety within our community? And I tell you absolutely, uh, by slowing down to press that button or, or use your gate card, um, you've got a great video and an image of someone's face, usually a license plate. And we were able to identify that individual through that, uh, image. And we've since, uh, located him and recovered that stolen golf cart, which is great news. And that's just, uh, one of several examples of our great working relationship there with community Watch. Uh, we really wanna make you aware, uh, about scams. Scams is not something new. I'll tell you that the community we serve, uh, is full of people who grew up in a time where, uh, you shook hands, you look people in the eye, what you said you were gonna do is what you were gonna do and you meant it. Unfortunately, there's a large number of people today who just look to take advantage of that situation. Uh, and they'll call you with, uh, any number of things trying to convince you whether that's you miss jury duty and there's a warrant for your arrest. We tell people frequently that we're gonna tell you have a warrant for your arrest. When we show up to arrest you. We're not gonna call and give you a heads up or give you a warning. It's not a a playground game where we're gonna give you a ten second head start to take off. No, we're just gonna show up and, and make that arrest. So if someone calls you, uh, and tells you that you have a warrant, please know that's likely a scam. Or if someone asks you to pay for a bill in Home Depot gift cards, it's likely a scam. Okay? Uh, the best thing we can do to prevent scams is just to talk about them. Uh, the Sheriff's Office has a mobile app that, uh, you can input. If you encounter a suspicious or a strange situation you think may have been a scam, let us know. Uh, that information's vetted through our white collar crimes detective and pushed out to all the users, users of our mobile app just to make them aware. Uh, the more people that are aware of a potential scam, uh, the less people who are likely gonna fall for it 'cause they just had no idea. So that's kind of what's going on. That's all the information I have for you for this quarterly update. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Emailing Florida Sun Pass, getting a text that you exactly like SunPass. Exactly like Sun Pass. That's, that's the new one. And, and if you hadn't heard that, that's ongoing. Uh, some people like to fall for that. Uh, one, one thing that's, that's important with scams, sharing information's important. And sometimes people are victims of scams and they're embarrassed that they're a victim. They don't wanna tell their family whether they're taking advantage of or $10 or $10,000. They're afraid of, uh, telling someone 'cause they're embarrassed. Uh, but just sharing that information could keep someone else from becoming a victim. Any questions? No, sir. Fantastic. Thank you sir. Thank you very much. Have a great rest, rest of your day. Next item, we go into new business approval of minutes from our previous meeting. Any questions, comments, revisions? If not entertain a motion. Motion to approve the minutes. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. A aye. Motion passed. Next item on the agenda will be public hearings. And we have two, not three. The second one, four B has been taken off. First one will be page number D 10 dash 10 25 dash 25 VCDD number 10 versus Karen s Divinsky and Robert d Dubinski as trustee of the Karen s Dubinski Living Trust dated January 14th, 1994. Seven 15 Loop Just a quick overview. Uh, before the public hearing begins in public hearings, the board of supervisors access both the judge and jury. In that capacity, the board will consider evidence, make findings of fact draw all conclusions of law during the board. During the hearing, the board may only receive evidence from the property owner, district staff, and those that will be substantially and directly affected by the outcome of the Board's decision. The board is required to limit testimony to relevant evidence as it relates to the matter before it at the conclusion of the public hearing, the board will determine whether staff presented substantial competent evidence to support a finding of the alleged violation. And if so, the board must enter an order of enforcement against the property owner. If there's anyone here who will be testifying, if you please stand and raise your right hand, Do you solemnly swear or affirm this testimony in evidence you're about to give in the hearing today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. We can open the public hearing. I the hearing is now open. Good afternoon. Board Shannon Boyd, community Standards. Today I have before you case number D one zero dash zero dash 25 Village Community Development District number 10 versus Karen s Dubinski and Robert d Dubinski As trustees of the Karen s Dubinski Living Trust dated January 14th, 1994. 7 1 5 Con Loop Unit 1 9 4. Lot nine violation of the district's rule to bring about de compliance. And specifically the rule that states no building or structure shall be constructed, erected, placed or altered on any home site until the construction plans and specifications in a plan showing the location of the building or structure have been approved. And section 2.5 after the home has been, uh, been constructed, no reconstructions, additions, alterations, or modifications to the home or in the locations and utility connections of the home will be permitted without the written consent of the developer or an architectural review committee appointed by the developer. No owner other than the developer shall undertake any such work without prior written approval of the plans and specifications thereof by the developer or architectural review committee appointed by the developer. Also, as stated in the Village Community Development District number 10, external deed restrictions standards, the district is responsible for approving alterations, changes or modifications to home site and the exterior appearance and structure of the home. No aftermarket change should be made to any home site or home without first obtaining district approval. On January 15th, 2025, a complaint was received regarding landscaping without architectural approval. The violation was verified and staff spoke with Mr. Dubinsky, who indicated an A RC application would be submitted on February 7th, an a RC application was submitted and on February 10th a deed restriction reminder was written. The initial and second letters were sent out on February 20th and March 5th. And after following the procedures of compliance of external deed restrictions, a notice of public hearing was sent by regular and certified mail on March 27th. On February 19th, uh, the a RC application number 1 7 2 9 5 2 was approved. With the stipulation that the landscaping bed on the left side of the home is required to be three feet off of the property line. The homeowner indicated they had scheduled a landscaper to relocate the landscaping bed to meet this three foot setback requirement. During an inspection of the property on April 15th, it was determined that the property remains out of compliance. So staff's recommendation would be to find the owners in violation of the district's de compliance rule as cited by the decompliance staff owners have 30 days to move the landscaping bed on the left side of the home, three feet off the side property line, and bring the property into accordance with the approved a RC application number 1 7 2 9 5 2 or to restore the property back to its originally constructed design to bring the property into compliance. If the landscaping is moved three feet off of the side property line and is brought into accordance with approved a RC application number 1 7 2 9 5 2 or if the property is restored back to its originally constructed design and the property is brought into compliance within 30 days of the order of enforcement case number D one zero dash zero dash 25 shall be closed. If the landscaping is not moved three feet off of the side property line and is not brought into accordance with a RC application number 1 7 2 9 5 2 or if the property is not restored back to its originally constructed design and the property is not brought into compliance within 30 days of the order of enforcement, impose $150 fine to be paid within 10 days of the invoice and impose a $50 daily fine until the property is brought into compliance. If the property is not brought into compliance as required herein, staff shall record this Order of Enforcement claim of lien in the public records of Sumter County, Florida. It is a property owner's responsibility to contact the Community Standards Department to request a deed compliance officer revisit the property to confirm compliance. If the fines reach $1,500, the case shall be turned over to district counsel to seek all available remedies which may include initiating a lawsuit or seeking an injunction against the homeowner. The property owners are responsible for reimbursing the districts for all attorney's fees, costs, and expenses associated with or related to this Order of Enforcement claim of lien. If the property is brought into compliance and all fines are paid, the Chairman authorizes staff to execute and record a satisfaction and release of claim of Lien chairman to execute the order of enforcement. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have. It appears to me that it's the landscape wall. That is correct. No. Is there an update in terms of, because you said the landscaper was supposed to be there by the 15th and nothing's been done. We do not have an update on it, but yes. They, the homeowner had told staff that the landscapers Yeah. Um, 'cause it looks like the house at one point was for sale or was this the, they bought it from this flyer. We have a flyer in here that's from a realtor. I am unaware if they are the, um, if they bought it that way. Okay. The owners are not here, correct? They are not. Yes Sir. So what's your take on this mark? Well, I was just, because I saw that the, the home was for sale. I'm just wondering did they buy it out of compliance or are they trying to sell it? Just ignoring it and trying to pass on the problem to the next homeowner? I wasn't sure what the, because I don't see a date on that, uh, real estate flyer that's in here. So the bottom line is they've had several months and still haven't done anything about it. Correct. Because it was, I, again, I signed the approval, but specifically we were questioning that, that particular wall just from vision and they agreed to fix it but have not fixed it. Correct. That the ARC application actually says that the work was done by the original owner in 2018. So it looks like they bought it That way. Okay. Yeah. So that maybe that was the, what they were showing was the real estate flyer that they bought it from, which is was a common situation. I didn't do it. It doesn't matter. Right. Okay. Any other questions? There's no other questions or comments. I will close that portion of the public hearing And we just need a motion to accept staff's recommendation. I move that we, uh, accept staff's recommendation on case number D 10 dash 10 dash 25. Second. We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Are question on this one? No. Yeah. Um, before we get started, so this next, um, public hearing will be for a FHA request for a property that, um, had some improvements done to the driveway and, um, attempt to get ARC approval from it, I believe. Um, and which was denied because it's not permitted. So again, this is an FHA request and at this point in time, if there's anyone who is here to testify, if you please stand and raise your right hand, uh, Ms. Boyd's already been sworn. Uh, so you can open a public hearing for case number FHAD 10 dash 12 dash 25. The hearing is now open. Okay. Board, both. I have a case here before you FHA dash D 10 dash 12 dash 25, Frederick Montgomery Livingston II and Barbara Jean Livingston. Individually and as, as co-trustees of the Frederick Montgomery Living Livingston II and Barbara Jean Livingston Revocable trust dated October 29th, 2019 three nine, uh, two two East Torch Lake, uh, unit 9 6 6, lot two four. This, uh, the district's adopted rule, um, section. It provides no owner other than the declarant or its transferees shall make any structural alteration or shall undertake any exterior repainting or repair of or addition to his residence, which would substantially alter the exterior appearance thereof without the prior written approval of the plans and specifications. Therefore, by the declarant or the Architectural Review Committee appointed by the declarant. As stated in the Village Community Development District number 10 external deed restriction standards, the district is responsible for approving alterations, changes or modifications to home site and the exterior appearance and structure of the home. No aftermarket change should be made to any home site or home without a first obtaining district approval. Also, as stated in the Village Community Development District number 10, architectural review manual under driveways and walkways for Courtyard Villas, driveway extensions are not permitted. On, on September 16th, 2024, a complaint was received. Um, a complaint was received regarding a driveway extension. Staff verified the violation and a deed restriction reminder was written. On November 12th, staff received a letter from the homeowner stating they purchased the home in early 2024 with the driveway extension. The homeowner cited concerns about removing the extension due to disability related needs. Staff contacted the homeowner and explained the FHA process. On November 24th, a uh, certification of status of an individual with a disability and request for accommodation modification form was completed, um, by Mr. Livingston and his physician on February 18th. Staff and legal counsel reviewed and discussed the accommodation modification requests to keep the existing driveway extensions on both sides of the driveway. After discussion, in reviewing the submitted documents, it has been determined that the requested accommodation modification is reasonable and at the present time, there are no feasible or reasonable alternative available. On March 12th, Mr. And Mrs. Livingston submitted an architectural review application for the driveway extension that was denied on March 28th. Um, staff's recommendation staff recommends, uh, a motion by the district board to approve the recommended findings of staff and for an order approving the accommodation modification. In determining that staff and the requester have thoroughly engaged in the interactive process contemplated by the Fair Housing Act, the requester currently has a disability or handicap within the meeting of the Fair Housing Act. The requested accommodation modification is directly related to requester disability. The requested accommodation modification is necessary in order, uh, for requester to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling. The requested accommodation modification is reasonable and at the present time, there are no feasible or reasonable alternatives available. The requester's request for an accommodation modification to the above-referenced rules and manuals to permit requester to keep the, the existing driveway extension as described and indicated and exhibits A and B attached here too is hereby granted as necessary to afford the request for an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling and or home site. The existing driveway extension related to the accommodation modification is already installed and the district board has no obligation to pay for such an accommodation or modification. The approval does not relieve the requester from abiding by and complying with all other laws, regulations, rules, policies, permit requirements, property rights uses, and or the declarations and restrictions associated in any way with the property. The existing driveway extension is subject to any and all laws, regulations, rules, policies, regulations, requirement uses, declarations and restrictions in property rights of any person or entity associated with the property request or, and not the district board at all times remain solely responsible and liable for any claims of infringement upon any property rights of any other person or entity, any injury or damage to self or other person or property, which may be caused by the installation of or use of the driveway extension or otherwise in the implementation of the accommodation modification, including but not limited to acts caused by requester's own negligence and or gross negligence. The existing driveway extension utilized for the accommodation modification is required to be removed at the requester sole expense. In the event the accommodation and modification and or its use or implementation poses a direct threat to the health and safety of the requester and others. If there is no longer a need for the accommodation modification for any reason, and or if the accommodation modification, the driveway extension and or the use of the regulations, policies, declarations and restrictions applicable to the property with exception of the specific accommodation modification, granted herein or otherwise presents an undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alters the district board's program and services. In such an event, the property shall be restored back to its pre accommodation condition and full compliance with all laws, rules, regulations, policies, declarations, and restrictions applicable to the property. And I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. Yeah, I just have a question, Shannon. So, um, when a violation like this is cleared, um, The homeowner is notified that they would have to, upon the sale of the house, remove the ACOM accommodation, correct? They're notified of that. Correct. So this is, yes, they get a copy of the order enforcement that explains everything that Okay. That I just read to you. That's the only question I had. Any other question? No, I am, um, aesthetics not withstanding, obviously, it's nicely done and so forth. We had one at the last meeting, which was in a courtyard villa. Mm-hmm. As we all know, the courtyard, villa driveways are tight, curved, and narrow. This is not, this is a wide extension on both sides. Unless they're putting a a, an RV in there, there is no need for this to be on both sides. Apparently. It's lacking a flare. So there are multiple things. This is, this is an aesthetic change. This is, this is a normal sized driveway. Any vehicle can get in there to whatever, and let somebody out decide whatever it might be. They don't need extensions on both sides, lacking a flare and all. The other problem too is again, the rule says the driveway surface has to be consistent. It has to be either all concrete, all pavers or whatever. I don't see the need for approving this the way it's, that's just my feeling. So I can address the issue with the, um, aesthetics and the difference in the driveway and the sides. Um, you are right. They don't match. You could require that they remove the sides and replace it with concrete to match the sidewalk to, to match the rest of the, um, driveway. That's really up to this board as to whether you want them to incur that cost to do that. Um, with regard to the other issues, um, they've met the requirements of the federal law for this request. So I mean, there's not really much more to say on that issue. Well, they're going to, they're going grant that authority anyhow. Somebody has a handicap. The point is the question, like I said, the previous situation we had, which I voted for, was a courtyard goal that was a narrow driveway. And it's difficult to get in and out. This is a normal two car garage and they've got a three or four foot extension. What are they putting in this driveway that requires extensions on both sides? That's again, it, it just doesn't pass the smell test logic wise for me. But obviously we may be stuck. Yeah, I mean it passes the legal test, but again, ultimately it's up to, um, this board as to whether they wanna make those sides match or not. I am Of the, I understand exactly where you're coming from, that that was some of my concerns. And we're gonna be talking about more of that when we get into the next section. When we talk about the petition coming up for Courtyard Village. Um, no, it does not meet the current rules as far as the a RC is concerned. Uh, it's not the correct material. It doesn't have the proper flares, but given the reasoning behind the need for it, um, the flare is an aesthetic thing. It's not, they're obviously not gonna be entering, exiting in the vehicle right at the edge of the street requiring the additional width there. So I can understand that it's, it's also years of experience of the monkey c monkey two type of thing. Oh, we are gonna have none. It has nothing to do with the, the physical. How many times you gonna say, this one got a prairie, why can't I get this one? We are just gonna have to stick to the The laws. Yeah. The Law pertaining to this item and this item only. And so apparently this is the neighbor, correct. Of the one that you approved last month. Um, the driveway was a little different, but it also had stone, I think on the sides instead of the matching driveway. So you're kind of in a position to where I think it Had paper, it hit with some kind of a paper Flagstone. Yeah. Flexner or whatever it might be. Right. And, and, and you're right. You know, it gets into the, well, my neighbor had, they have to get an opinion, they have to get something from a doctor that says they have this disability. You know? Um, that's about all I can say is that they got, they have the proper Paperwork. My biggest concern is we make sure that we've got it very clearly stated, not in legal, but what would be quality along with the title of the property. You get ready to sell this house unless the person that buys the house happens to have the same adjustability and files and gets approved, it's coming out of your defense. Yeah. So the good thing now is that these are now recorded, um, in the public record. So they show up on a title search when somebody is gonna potentially purchase this. That order of enforcement will show that, um, there's an issue with it and that they're required to have it removed and the owner's required to remove it. So Yeah, mark, in light of what Mr. Brianis is saying, I could see that if they're within their legal rights to do this, um, we'd be in litigation for it if we denied it. Yeah, but the thing, the only question, just for the sake of Yeah. Throwing it out there. I know. Where does it stop, right, in terms of you don't have a narrow courtyard villa driveway like we had last month. That's a different story altogether. We have a normal two full, two car wide driveway and large extensions on both sides. Is somebody gonna come in with the same thing and they're gonna meet the court legal requirements and they can put 10 foot extensions on both sides? That's, I'm just like I said, there's, I'm, I'm, I'm too geared with logic, that's all. Well, it, I guess we have to rely on the legal process. Yeah. And say that, uh, in that particular case, they have to prove why they need 10 feet, not three feet or not five feet or whatever. And if they can't prove it, they don't get it. That's right. I Mean, is that possible, Mr. Be Where we could say it? It it could be, it has to be three feet, not 10 feet, something Like that. You can't say it's really a legal determination that's made. And so any before these come to you, um, they are going over with, uh, community standards and my office, and we review the facts. We review the requests, we review whether there's any other alternatives that could be, um, to meet the, to accomplish the goal without violating or changing our rule for them. Um, so when we come to you, we've already reviewed it and we've said, based on what they've sent us, provided us with, you really need to approve it. Otherwise we would recommend against it. I think the fact too that we have existing situations like this that are being approved as opposed to somebody who's made an ARC request for a driveway extension is been denied, and then they come to us and say, we'd like to do a driveway extension, um, to accommodate this, then I, we may be able to say yes, as long as it's concrete or, you know, to meet that. But since it's already an existing structure and they've approved this, I don't think there's anything we can do about it. Yes. I I think that's part of the problem is they're asking, uh, forgiveness, not permission at this point. Correct. Mm-hmm. But under the circumstances, uh, well, the A-R-C-A-R-C can't grant permission. Yeah. That's why it goes through this channel. Yeah. They come back this direction. Mm-hmm. Alright. So at this point I'm going to close the public hearing. Public hearing is now closed. We have a recommendation from staff, a motion to approve or disapprove whatever I move that we approve. Staff recommendation for case FHAD dash 10 dash 12 dash 25. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion is passed. Thank you. Board. Thank You. Thank you. We're gonna move on now to all business, all business status update. Good afternoon Board members. Um, the only item on old business is included as a presentation pertaining to Antrim Dell's entry. Um, good afternoon board, Shannon Boyd Community Standards. Um, today I am here, um, regarding possibly amending the architectural review manual, the section, the front entry screening and flooring for Courtyard Villa units to include the petition process to allow villa units to add concrete or pavers in the area between the front entry of the home and the driveway or walkway. Um, this request is being brought before the board for your consideration to amend the architectural review manual, the section front entry screening and flooring in Courtyard Villa units to allow residents to add concrete or pavers in the area between the front entry of the home and the driveway or walkway at the March 20th Village. Community Development District Number 10, board meeting, a resident expressed interest in being able to modify the area between the front entry of the home and the driveway walkway. Uh, this process would be similar to the petition process. The board has previously approved for courtyard, villa driveways, walkway, uh, painting, the home repainting and stone veneer. Um, so here I will, uh, have a little presentation. So this is going to, uh, we're gonna discuss the, um, the front entry widening. So the, and the petition process. So the petition process allows courtyard villa homeowners to request modifications to the exterior of their villa units that substantially alter the appearance. To initiate this process, the homeowner must request a petition for the modification they are requesting to make. So the staff will check to see if the district board has previously approved that petition process. If previously approved, community standards will provide that homeowner with the petition, with the requested, the number of signatures they're required to get. If it was not previously approved. Uh, community standards will present information to the district board regarding that particular modification, which is what we're doing here. Um, the board will then decide if that modification is something that you believe will benefit and enhance the subdivision if denied. The petition process for that particular modification is declined. Um, if approved, the petition process is allowed, um, staff would provide the petition to the homeowner with the number of signatures they are required to get. Uh, the homeowner must obtain signatures from at least 75% of the other homeowners in that
MINUTES OF MEETING VILLAGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 10 A Meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Village Community Development District No. 10 was held on Thursday, April 17, at 3:00 p.m. at the SeaBreeze Recreation Center, 2384 Buena Vista Boulevard, The Villages, Florida, 32162. Board members present and constituting a quorum: John Miller Chair Christine Bradshaw Vice Chair Mark Welzel Supervisor Holly Bell Supervisor Staff Present: Brittany Wilson Assistant District Manager Mark Brionez District Counsel Brandy Cook Budget Director Chantel Pierre Assistant Finance Director Shannon Boyd Community Standards Assistant Director Mike Harris District Property Management Director Katie Evans Deputy District Clerk Heather Evans Deputy District Clerk FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: Call to Order 1.A. Roll Call Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. and stated for the record that four (4) Supervisors were present representing a quorum. Steve Bova was absent. 1.B. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Miller led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1.C. Observation of a Moment of Silence
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 2 The Board and audience in attendance observed a moment of silence for those who serve our Country and community. 1.D. Welcome Meeting Attendees The Board welcomed all those in attendance. 1.F. Audience Comments Kurt McGee, Village of Dunedin, stated that at the November 14, 2024 Board Meeting he requested that the Board consider installing a single Village of Dunedin sign. Brittany Wilson, Assistant District Manager, advised that The Village of Dunedin is located between two entrances and signage is located at the postal facility. As a result, Staff recommended against adding additional signage. Mr. McGee stated that he proposed that a sign approximately eight (8) feet tall, mounted on a single post, with a 30-inch display, similar in size and style to a standard speed limit sign be installed for an estimated cost of $248.00, and inquired if that request is rejected, would the Board consider adding The Village of Dunedin to either the Village of Charlotte sign on Morse Blvd. or the Village of Hillsborough sign on Buena Vista Boulevard, similar to the signage on Morse Blvd for the Village of Mallory Square and the Village of Amelia or on the sign at Buena Vista Boulevard that shows both the Village of Virginia Trace and the Village of Sabal Chase. Vice Chair Bradshaw inquired if there were situations where someone was unable to locate a home due to the lack of signage. Mr. McGee advised that UPS and FedEx have had issues when the new homes were built because the entrance at the Village of Charlotte does not have a guard attendant. Supervisor Bell advised that the proposed sign does not meet The Villages design standards and not every Village has its own sign like, Lake Deaton. The primary purpose of signage in The Villages is to identify gate entrances not individual communities. Chair Miller inquired if Staff was aware of any existing signage within The Villages that is similar to the sign requested by the resident. Ms. Wilson advised that Staff is not aware of any such signage and would not recommend proceeding with the installation of the proposed. The Villages is a master planned community, and the engineering and design of entry features is taken into consideration. Staff has received similar requests, but the Boards have deferred back to the original design intent. Ms. Wilson advised that if the Board chooses to install signage outside of the original design intent, it could
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 3 lead to additional requests from residents of other Villages that are not individually marked in the same way. Ms. Wilson advised that there is no designated welcome sign for that unit which aligns with the original design and the as-built construction plans. The Village of Dunedin is situated between two (2) existing village entrances. Vice Chair Bradshaw requested Staff research the reason that Sabal Chase was added to The Village sign. Ms. Wilson advised that Staff can complete the requested review. Chair Miller requested that Staff provide a cost estimate to add Dunedin to the Village of Charlotte sign. Ms. Wilson advised that Staff will complete the requested review. John Donston, Village of Lake Deaton, requested the installation of a “No Fishing Beyond This Point” sign. Mr. Donston stated that per Florida Statutes, any activities such as fishing, swimming, and boating are prohibited within 100 feet of private or public property. Chair Miller inquired if District Counsel was aware of that specific Statute related to re0tention basins. Mark Brionez, District Council advised that the issue is not with the Statute itself, rather that the Board does not have the authority to enforce the restrictions on fishing in the area. It is the resident’s responsibility to contact Sumter County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) to report individuals fishing in prohibited areas. Chair Miller advised that the Board has reviewed the potential signage options such as “No Access, “No Public Access” and “No Fishing” but due to enforcement limitations, the Board has elected to not install signage. Chair Miller advised that the District’s Recreation and Parks Department provides a fishing map that shows recommended fishing areas. However, that does not mean that everywhere else is off limits. Mr. Johnston requested the Board consider adding signage to help homeowners avoid confrontations with individuals fishing in the area. Supervisor Bell advised that the Board was previously taken to court over signage and due to a lack of enforcement authority the Board was required to have the sign removed. Signage cannot be installed if the Board does not have the authority to enforce it. Mr. Johnston inquired whether he could request the signage be installed by the county or the state. Chair Miller advised that the retention basins are owned by various Districts throughout The Villages.
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 4 Supervisor Bell inquired whether District Counsel was aware of any issues related to how the retention basins are deeded and whether the relevant Florida Statute applies to the Board’s situation. Mr. Brionez advised the litigation over the “No Public Access” signage lasted nearly two (2) years, primarily because the District lacked enforcement authority. The Board ultimately won the case; however, the defense was paid for by insurance and the lawsuit involved four (4) different attorneys representing the homeowners before it was dismissed. Mr. Brionez advised that he would need to review the specific Florida Statute referenced by Mr. Johnston but stated that the Board does not have the authority to enforce the statute. However, homeowners can express their concerns by contacting SCSO. Supervisor Bell inquired if Sgt. Dodge could further address the residents’ concerns. Sgt. Dodge, SCSO, provided Mr. Johnston with his business card to facilitate answering questions about the Statute and discussing what SCSO can do to assist the residents. Vice Chair Bradshaw inquired if Sgt. Dodge could speak about instances where SCSO has been called to enforce such matters. Sgt. Dodge advised that if the SCSO responds, it would address the concern with the citizen and ensure the individual is not on private property. If the individual is on District property and not violating any District guidelines regarding fishing access, the SCSO would likely educate the individual and notify Community Watch of the situation. Sgt. Dodge advised that if the homeowner wishes to trespass an individual from their property, the homeowner has the authority to make that decision. However, this would only apply to that homeowner’s property and not necessarily to the area near the water's edge. Mr. Johnston inquired who would be the appropriate party to contact to request that the fishing map. Chair Miller advised that he should speak with the District’s Recreation and Parks Department, but the map only highlights basins where fish may be stocked and does not imply that fishing is not allowed at other basins. SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS: Law Enforcement Quarterly Update Sgt. Dodge advised that the SCSO continues to input data that was lost during the ransomware attack. In the first quarter, there were 467 vehicle accidents, 36 golf cart accidents and 653 citations were written. Sgt. Dodge advised that SCSO worked with Community Watch to identify and arrest an
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 5 individual who was involved in a golf cart theft at Lake Sumter Landing. Sgt. Dodge advised residents to be aware of scams and that no one would demand payment in the form of gift cards. Supervisor Welzel stated that a SunPass scam is currently circulating. Sgt. Dodge advised that it is a new and ongoing scam. THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS: New Business 3.A. Approval of Minutes On MOTION by Mark Welzel, seconded by Holly Bell, with all in favor, the Board approved the Minutes for the Meeting held on March 20, 2025. FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Public Hearings 4.A. Case No D10-10-25 VCDD No. 10 vs. Karen S. Dubinski and Robert D. Dubinksi, as Trustee of the Karen S. Dubinski Living Trust dated January 14, 1994, 715 Congaree Loop A. District Counsel Overview of Public Hearing Process Mr. Brionez provided an overview of the Public Hearing process as information to the Board and residents in attendance. B. Swearing-In of Those Providing Evidence/Testimony Katie Evans, Deputy District Clerk, administered the swearing in of those individuals who identified that they would be providing evidence and/or testimony in this case. C. Open Public Hearing Chair Miller opened the Public Hearing at 3:39 p.m. D. Staff Presentation of the Facts Shannon Boyd, Community Standards Assistant Director, advised that Case No D10-10-25 VCDD No. 10 vs. Karen S. Dubinski and Robert D. Dubinksi, as Trustee of the Karen S. Dubinski Living Trust dated January 14, 1994, 715 Congaree Loop, Unit 194, Lot 9, is in violation of the District's Rule to Bring About Deed Compliance, and specifically the Rule that states: “No building or structure shall be constructed, erected, placed or altered on any homesite until the construction plans and specifications and a plan showing the location of the building or structure have been approved…” Ms. Boyd stated that on January 15, 2025 a complaint was received regarding landscaping without
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 6 architectural approval and the violation was verified, and Staff spoke with Mr. Dubinski who indicated an ARC application would be submitted. On February 7, 2025 an ARC application was submitted and on February 10, 2025 a Deed Restriction Reminder was written. The initial and second letters were sent on February 20, 2025 and March 5, 2025. After following the Procedures for Compliance of External Deed Restrictions, a Notice of Public Hearing was sent by certified mail and regular mail on March 27, 2025. Ms. Boyd advised that on February 19, 2025, ARC application #172952 was approved with the stipulation that the landscaping bed on the left side of the property is required to be three (3) feet off the property line. The homeowner indicated they had scheduled a landscaper to relocate the landscaping bed to meet the three (3) foot setback requirement. During an inspection of the property on April 15, 2025 it was determined that the property remains out of compliance. Ms. Boyd advised that Staff is recommending that the Board find the Owners in violation of the District's Deed Compliance Rule as cited by the Deed Compliance Staff; Owners have thirty (30) days to move the landscaping bed on the left side of the home three (3) feet off the side property line and bring the property into accordance with the approved ARC application #172952 or restore the property back to its originally constructed design to bring the property into compliance; if the landscaping is moved three (3) feet off the side property line and is brought into accordance with approved ARC application #172952 or if the property is restored back to its originally constructed design and the property is brought into compliance within thirty (30) days of the Order of Enforcement, Case No. D10-10-25 shall be closed; if the landscaping is not moved three (3) feet off the side property line and it is not brought into accordance with ARC application #172952 or if the property is not restored back to its originally constructed design and the property is not brought into compliance within thirty (30) days of the Order of Enforcement, impose a $150 fine to be paid within ten (10) days of the invoice and impose a $50 daily fine until the property is brought into compliance; if the property is not brought into compliance as required herein, Staff shall record this Order of Enforcement/Claim of Lien in the Public Records of Sumter County, Florida; it is the Property Owner's responsibility to contact the Community Standards Department to request a Deed Compliance Officer revisit the property to confirm compliance; if the fines reach $1,500 the case shall be turned over to District Counsel to seek all available remedies which may include initiating a lawsuit and seeking an injunction against the Property Owners; the Property Owners are responsible for reimbursing the District for all attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses associated with, or related to, this Order of
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 7 Enforcement/Claim of Lien; if the property is brought into compliance and all fines are paid, the Chair authorizes Staff to execute and record a Satisfaction/Release of Claim of Lien and Chair to execute the Order of Enforcement. Supervisor Welzel inquired if Staff had received any updates from the homeowner. Ms. Boyd advised that Staff has not received any updates. Chair Miller inquired if the homeowner was present for the hearing. Ms. Boyd confirmed that they were not present for the hearing. Mr. Brionez advised the Board that the ARC application indicated that the work was completed by the original owner in 2018, and it appears that the current homeowners purchased the property with the existing violation. E. Owner/Interested Parties No public comment was received. F. Close Public Hearing Chair Miller closed the Public Hearing at 3:45 p.m. G. Board Determination On MOTION by Holly Bell, seconded by Mark Welzel, with all in favor, the Board found the Owners of 715 Congaree Loop, Unit 194, Lot 9, in violation of the District’s Deed Compliance Rule as cited by the Deed Compliance Staff; Owners have thirty (30) days to move the landscaping bed on the left side of the home three (3) feet off the side property line and bring the property into accordance with the approved ARC application #172952 or restore the property back to its originally constructed design to bring the property into compliance; if the landscaping is moved three (3) feet off the side property line and is brought into accordance with approved ARC application #172952 or if the property is restored back to its originally constructed design and the property is brought into compliance within thirty (30) days of the Order of Enforcement, Case No. D10-10-25 shall be closed; if the landscaping is not moved three (3) feet off the side property line and it is not brought into accordance with ARC application #172952 or if the property is not restored back to its originally constructed design and the property is not brought into compliance within thirty (30) days of the Order of Enforcement, impose a $150 fine to be paid within ten (10) days of the invoice and impose a $50 daily fine until the property is brought into compliance; if the property is not brought into compliance as required herein, Staff shall record this Order of Enforcement/Claim of Lien in the Public Records of Sumter County, Florida; it is the Property Owner's
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 8 responsibility to contact the Community Standards Department to request a Deed Compliance Officer revisit the property to confirm compliance; if the fines reach $1,500 the case shall be turned over to District Counsel to seek all available remedies which may include initiating a lawsuit and seeking an injunction against the Property Owners; the Property Owners are responsible for reimbursing the District for all attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses associated with, or related to, this Order of Enforcement/Claim of Lien; if the property is brought into compliance and all fines are paid, the Chair authorized Staff to execute and record a Satisfaction/Release of Claim of Lien and Chair to execute the Order of Enforcement. 4.B. Case No D10-11-25 VCDD No. 10 vs. Michael A. OIeszczak, Individually and as Trustee of the Michael A. Olesczcask Trust under Agreement dated August 20, 2014, 950 Pickering Path Chair Miller advised that Case D10-11-25 has been brought into compliance. 4.C. Case No FHA-D10-12-25 - Frederick Montgomery Livingston III and Barbara Jeanne Livingston, as Co-Trustees of the Frederick Montgomery Livingston II and Barbara Jeanne Livingston Revocable Trust, Dated October 29, 2019, 3922 East Torch Lake Drive A. District Counsel Overview of Public Hearing Process Mr. Brionez advised that this is an FHA Case which differs from a Deed Compliance Public Hearing. B. Swearing-In of Those Providing Evidence/Testimony Ms. Evans administered the swearing in of those individuals who identified that they would be providing evidence and/or testimony in this case. C. Open Public Hearing Chair Miller opened the Public Hearing at 3:47 p.m. D. Staff Presentation of the Facts Ms. Boyd advised that Case FHA-D10-12-25 - Frederick Montgomery Livingston III and Barbara Jeanne Livingston, as Co-Trustees of the Frederick Montgomery Livingston III and Barbara Jeanne Livingston Revocable Trust, Dated October 29, 2019, 3922 East Torch Lake Drive, Unit 966, Lot 24, and the District's Adopted Rule (Rule) Article X Section provides: "No owner, other than declarant or its transferees, shall make any structural alteration, or shall undertake any exterior
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 9 repainting or repair of, or addition to his residence, which would substantially alter the exterior appearance thereof, without the prior written approval of the plans and specifications therefor by the declarant or an architectural review committee appointed by the declarant." Ms. Boyd stated that per the District 10 External Deed Restrictions standards “The District is responsible for approving alterations, changes, or modifications to homesites and the exterior appearance and structure of the home. No after- market change should be made to any homesite or home without first obtaining District approval. Driveways and Walkways: Courtyard Villas: Driveway extensions are not permitted." Ms. Boyd advised on September 16, 2024, a complaint was received regarding a driveway extension. Staff verified the violation, and a Deed Restriction Reminder was written. On November 12, 2024 Staff received a letter from the homeowner stating they purchased the home in early 2024 with the driveway extension. The homeowner cited concerns about removing the extension due to disability-related needs. Staff contacted the homeowner and explained the FHA process. Ms. Boyd advised on November 24, 2024 a Certification of Status As An Individual With A Disability and Request For Accommodation/Modification Form was completed by Mr. Livingston and his physician. On February 18, 2025 Staff and District Counsel reviewed and discussed the accommodation/modification request to keep the existing driveway extensions on both sides of the driveway. After discussion and reviewing the submitted documents, it has been determined that the Requestor currently has a disability within the meaning of the FHA and that the requested Accommodation/Modification is reasonable and at the present time there are no feasible or reasonable alternatives available. Ms. Boyd advised on March 12, 2025, Mr. and Mrs. Livingston submitted an ARC application for the driveway extension that was denied on March 28, 2025. Ms. Boyd advised Staff recommends that the Board grant the Accommodation/Modification Request to allow the existing driveway extension as the following have been determined by Staff: 1. Staff and the Requestor have thoroughly engaged in the interactive process contemplated by the Fair Housing Act. 2. The Requestor currently has a disability/handicap within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act. 3. The requested Accommodation/Modification is directly related to Requestor's disability. 4. The requested Accommodation/Modification is necessary in order for Requestor to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 10 5. The requested Accommodation/Modification is reasonable and at the present time there are no feasible or reasonable alternatives available. 6. The Requestor's request for an Accommodation/Modification to the above-referenced rules and manuals to permit Requestor to keep the existing driveway extension as described in and indicated Exhibits "A & B", attached hereto, is hereby granted as necessary to afford the Requestor an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling and/or homesite. 7. The existing driveway extension related to the Accommodation/Modification is already installed and the District Board has no obligation to pay for any such Accommodation/Modification. 8. The approval does not relieve the Requestor from abiding by and complying with all other laws, regulations, rules, policies, permit requirements, property rights, uses, and/or declarations and restrictions associated in any way with the property. 9. The existing driveway extension is subject to any and all laws, regulations, rules, policies, requirements, uses, declarations and restrictions, and property rights of any person or entity associated with the property. Requestor, and not the District Board, at all times remains solely responsible and liable for any claims of infringement upon any property rights of any other person or entity, any injury or damage to self or other person or property which may be caused by the installation and use of the driveway extension, or otherwise in the implementation of the Accommodation/Modification, including, but not limited to, acts caused by Requestor's own negligence and/or gross negligence. 10. The existing driveway extension utilized for the Accommodation/Modification is required to be removed at Requestor's sole expense, in the event the Accommodation/Modification and/or its use or implementation poses a direct threat to the health or safety of Requestor and/or others; if there is no longer a need for the Accommodation/Modification for any reason; and/or if the Accommodation/Modification, the driveway extension and/or the use of the driveway extension, is no longer in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, policies, declarations and restrictions applicable to the property (with exception of the specific Accommodation/Modification granted herein) or otherwise presents an undue financial or administrative burden, or fundamentally alters the District Board's programs and services. In such an event, the property shall be restored back to its pre-Accommodation condition in full
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 11 compliance with all laws, rules, regulations, policies, and declarations and restrictions applicable to the property. Vice Chair Bradshaw inquired if homeowners are notified that the FHA accommodation must be removed when selling the property. Ms. Boyd advised that the homeowner will receive a copy of the Order of Enforcement. Supervisor Welzel stated he is not in favor of approving the driveway extension as the existing driveway layout does not appear to need extensions on both sides and the surface materials should be uniform using either all concrete or pavers. Mr. Brionez advised that the Board could require the homeowner remove the extensions and replace them with concrete to match the existing driveway. However, the homeowner has met the requirements under the FHA for the request so the Board cannot require the removal of just one side of the extension. Chair Miller stated that he agrees with Supervisor Welzel that it does not meet the Architectural Review Manual standards, but the resident has met the requirements. Mr. Brionez advised that this case is the neighbor of the property approved at the March 20, 2025 Board meeting where the driveway material used for the extension did not match the existing material. Vice Chair Bradshaw stated that the homeowners are within their legal rights to keep the extension and that denying the request could potentially result in litigation against the Board. Vice Chair Bradshaw inquired whether the Board could limit the number of feet for the driveway extension. Mr. Brionez stated that the Board cannot make that determination as it is a legal matter for Community Standards and District Counsel to review the facts, the request, and whether alternative solutions can be provided to the homeowner in order to meet their goals while preventing violations or changes to the rules. Supervisor Bell stated that if the driveway was pre-existing the Board should approve it but could request that any new driveway extension applications ensure that the material matches the existing material. E. Owner/Interested Parties No public comment was received. F. Close Public Hearing Chair Miller closed the Public Hearing at 4:01pm.
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 12 G. Board Determination On MOTION by Holly Bell, seconded by Christine Bradshaw, with all in favor, the Board granted the Owners of 3922 East Torch Lake Drive, Unit 966, Lot 24, the Accommodation/Modification Request to allow the existing driveway extension as the following have been determined by Staff: 1. Staff and the Requestor have thoroughly engaged in the interactive process contemplated by the Fair Housing Act. 2. The Requestor currently has a disability/handicap within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act. 3. The requested Accommodation/Modification is directly related to Requestor's disability. 4. The requested Accommodation/Modification is necessary in order for Requestor to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling 5. The requested Accommodation/Modification is reasonable and at the present time there are no feasible or reasonable alternatives available. 6. The Requestor's request for an Accommodation/Modification to the above- referenced rules and manuals to permit Requestor to keep the existing driveway extension as described in and indicated Exhibits "A & B", attached hereto, is hereby granted as necessary to afford the Requestor an equal opportunity to use and enjoy his dwelling and/or homesite. 7. The existing driveway extension related to the Accommodation/Modification is already installed and the District Board has no obligation to pay for any such Accommodation/Modification. 8. The approval does not relieve the Requestor from abiding by and complying with all other laws, regulations, rules, policies, permit requirements, property rights, uses, and/or declarations and restrictions associated in any way with the property. 9. The existing driveway extension is subject to any and all laws, regulations, rules, policies, requirements, uses, declarations and restrictions, and property rights of any person or entity associated with the property. Requestor, and not the District Board, at all times remains solely responsible and liable for any claims of infringement upon any property rights of any other person or entity, any injury or damage to self or other person or property which may be caused by the installation and use of the driveway extension, or otherwise in the implementation of the Accommodation/Modification, including, but not limited to, acts caused by Requestor's own negligence and/or gross negligence. 10. The existing driveway extension utilized for the Accommodation/Modification is required to be removed at Requestor's sole expense, in the event the Accommodation/Modification and/or its use or implementation poses a direct threat to the health or safety of Requestor and/or others; if there is no longer a need for the Accommodation/Modification for any reason; and/or if the Accommodation/Modification, the driveway extension and/or the use of the
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 13 driveway extension, is no longer in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, policies, declarations and restrictions applicable to the property (with exception of the specific Accommodation/Modification granted herein) or otherwise presents an undue financial or administrative burden, or fundamentally alters the District Board's programs and services. In such an event, the property shall be restored back to its pre-Accommodation condition in full compliance with all laws, rules, regulations, policies, and declarations and restrictions applicable to the property. FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Old Business 5.A. Old Business Status Update Ms. Wilson advised that the only item on the Old Business Status Update will be addressed next on the agenda. 5.B. Courtyard Villa Front Entry Widening Petition Request Ms. Boyd advised that at the Board’s request, Staff has included the petition process presentation for the front entry widening for Antrim Dells Courtyard Villas for the Board’s consideration. At the March 20, 2025 meeting a resident expressed interest in being able to modify the area between the front entry of the home and the driveway/walkway. This process is similar to the petition process that the Board has previously approved for courtyard villa driveway/walkway painting, home repainting and stone veneer. Ms. Boyd advised that the petition process allows Courtyard Villa homeowners the ability to request modifications to the exterior of their villa units that substantially alter the appearance. To initiate this process, the homeowner must request a petition for the modification they are requesting to make. • If previously approved, Community Standards will provide the petition to the homeowner. • If not previously approved, Community Standards will present information to the District Board regarding the particular modification request. The Board will decide if that modification is something they believe will benefit and enhance the subdivision. • If denied, the petition process for that particular modification is declined. • If approved, the petition process is allowed, staff will provide the petition to the homeowner with the number of signatures they are required to receive.
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 14 Ms. Boyd advised that the homeowner must obtain signatures from at least 75% of the homesites within that villa unit, indicating approval for the proposed modification. Each homesite is permitted only one signature from a homeowner and renters are not allowed to sign the petition. Ms. Boyd reviewed photo examples of villa driveway widening. Vice Chair Bradshaw requested confirmation that this expansion would allow free access to the gate for the next-door unit and expressed concern that a golf cart could be parked in front of the gate limiting access to the backyard. Ms. Boyd advised that the expansion would provide unobstructed access to the gate. Supervisor Welzel inquired if there is a requirement for the front entryway material to match the existing material. Ms. Boyd advised that if the Board approves the petition process, the Board can include a requirement that the material match and Staff would update the ARC Manual. Other Districts have allowed either concrete or pavers without specifying that the materials must match. Chair Miller stated that he is not in favor of the pavers and provided support for the materials to match. Joseph Palermo, Village of Collier at Antrim Dells, stated that the petitioner for this request is the second home example on the presentation for the front entry widening and is currently parking their cars and golf carts under the eave. Supervisor Welzel stated that he has only seen requests for areas with limited space not for spaces that have doubled the size of the driveway. Supervisor Bell inquired if this is a situation where a home is out of compliance. Ms. Boyd advised that the home is currently not in compliance. Chair Miller inquired if a complaint has been filed on the home. Ms. Boyd advised that the homeowner is requesting the ability to utilize the petition process in an attempt bring the property into compliance. Chair Miller expressed concern about approving the front entry widening given that various homes are filling in the entry regardless of its size. Supervisor Welzel concurred. Supervisor Bell inquired what the intended purpose of the front entry widening is for residents. Ms. Boyd advised that Staff has received a variety of responses, including safety concerns related to
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 15 stepping down or navigating around the space, additional seating or the potential to accommodate another vehicle or golf cart. Supervisor Bell inquired at what point does the modification become a driveway extension. Supervisor Welzel stated most of the courtyard villas have narrow curved driveways that often force homeowners to step into the garden and normally these extensions were meant to create a wider walkway between the driveway and the path to the home and not to widen the driveway itself. Chair Miller expressed concern that if the Board were to approve a modification similar to the second example shown in the presentation it could set a precedent for residents to use the space as an outdoor patio area. A stipulation should be included that states under no circumstances can the area be used for parking golf carts or vehicles. Supervisor Welzel inquired if the Board could restrict having the standard widening by the walkway to the home with matching materials. Ms. Boyd advised that District 10 includes a variety of homes with different sizes in the front entry areas, which makes it difficult to attempt to standardize the size throughout the District. Ms. Wilson recommended delaying the approval to allow Staff time to complete a review with District Counsel. The goal will be to assess what has been done at that specific property versus others that have a more minimal approach to front entry widening. Following Board discussion, the Board provided consensus to table the matter until Staff can return with additional information. SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Informational Items Only 6.A. DPM Monthly Report The DPM Monthly Report was provided to the Board, as information. 6.B. Financial Statements The Financial Statement as of February 28, 2025 was provided to the Board as information. 6.C. District Organizational Chart The District Organizational Chart was provided to the Board as information. 6.D. Deed Compliance and Architectural Review Semi-Annual Fiscal Year 24-25 Statistics
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 16 The semi-annual review was provided to the Board as information. Vice Chair Bradshaw stated that it appears that District 10 residents continue to prefer the anonymous complaint process. Supervisor Welzel advised that he has provided Staff with a few suggested updates to be made to the Architectural Review Manual, specifically regarding villa roof guidelines and the clarification of metal roofs. Ms. Wilson advised that Staff is reviewing the request. There are varying restrictions across The Villages and Staff is assessing how these differences would be applied within the Standards. Chair Miller expressed concern about the increase to the number of Public Hearing cases during this fiscal year and advised that he has received requests for the Board to consider eliminating the anonymous complaint system. Supervisor Welzel inquired if Mr. Brionez could advise how the number of Public Hearings in District 10 compares to other Districts. Mr. Brionez stated that Community Standards would be better suited to provide a definitive answer. However, aside from the two (2) FHA cases presented to the Board in the past two (2) months, he has not observed a significant increase. 6.E. Village Community Development District No. 10 Public Hearing Updates The monthly Public Hearing Case Update was provided to the Board as information. SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: District Manager Reports 7.A. 2024 District Annual Report Ms. Wilson advised that the 2024 District Annual Report is now available on DistrictGov.org. 7.B. SECO Update Ms. Wilson advised that Staff has forwarded an email to the Boards that included a letter from SECO which addressed the proposed reduction to the 50% increase that was scheduled to be instituted in Fiscal Year 2025/2026; however, that letter did not provide the specific economic impact to each District. SECO has advised that information pertaining to the actual increase for each District is forthcoming, and Staff will forward that information once it has been received. Additionally, SECO has also indicated that there will be some adjustments made to performance-type measures, which will assist in keeping costs down.
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 17 Supervisor Bell inquired whether this represents a reduction from the 600% increase, rather than from the 300%, and if it still reflects a significant overall increase. Ms. Wilson advised that the reduction is from the initial full increase . Supervisor Welzel inquired whether the Districts are now responsible for reporting outages, since SECO will no longer be monitoring outages. Ms. Wilson advised that several factors were considered including: SECO’s cost-of-service study which examined response times and adjusted 24 hours to 30 days, aligning with typical industry standards. SECO reviewed the role of their evening rovers who check for outages and moving forward pole replacements will be done on an as-needed basis. Supervisor Bell inquired whether SECO will continue utilizing fixtures that adhere to The Villages design standards. Ms. Wilson advised that SECO has not provided additional details, but Staff will request clarification from SECO. Chair Miller expressed his disappointment with SECO’s decision to change their response time and advised that residents will now need to be informed on how to properly report outages. Ms. Wilson advised that Community Watch will continue to report outages identified during patrols and will mark the pole. Vice Chair Bradshaw requested clarification of the date of the SECO Teams meeting. Ms. Wilson advised that it will be on May 2, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. via Zoom. Vice Chair Bradshaw thanked Staff for their efforts in advocating on behalf of the Districts on the SECO increase matter. Supervisor Bell stated that she will be unavailable to attend the SECO teams meeting. EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: District Counsel Reports There were no District Counsel Reports NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Supervisor Comments 9.A. Supervisor Bova: Project Wide Advisory Committee After Agenda Chair Miller advised that the Project Wide Advisory Committee (PWAC) After Agenda from the meeting held on April 14, 2025, was provided to the Board, as information.
VCDD No. 10 – Meeting Minutes April 17, 2025 Page 18 Vice Chair Bradshaw requested a status update on the installation of the request to have the PWAC install centerline reflective pavement markers (RPMs) on the multi-modal paths (MMP). Ms. Wilson advised that the PWAC had a discussion about the installation of RPMs and the request to have the PWAC utilize the Project Wide Fund (PWF) to install the centerline RPMs for Districts 5-13. The consensus of the PWAC was to have the Engineers update the original Engineering Study to address the installation of centerline RPMs on the MMPs. Ms. Wilson advised that Staff is expecting that the updated report will be presented to the PWAC at the May 12, 2025 meeting. Chair Miller inquired if the Board would like to reconsider supporting the installation of the centerline RPM Project after receiving input from residents. Following discussion, the Board chose not to revisit supporting the centerline RPM project. TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 4:44 p.m. On MOTION by Christine Bradshaw, seconded by Holly Bell, with all in favor, the Board adjourned the meeting. Kenneth C. Blocker John Miller Secretary Chair
Showing the first 24,000 of 93,673 characters. The full document is at the source.
Call to order the April 17th meeting of Community Development District 10 supervisors. Welcome everyone. All supervisors, with the exception of Mr. Bova are present. So we do have a quorum. Our first item on the agenda will be the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by an observation of a moment of silence For our in our military. Please stand I Pledge Allegiance, United of America, the Republic, which stands, one Nation, nation under God in Liberty, justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated. Welcome, everyone. Appreciate your participation. Before we begin, please make sure all cell phones, recording devices, anything that can make any noise. They will affect the recording of this meeting. Make sure they're either on mute or turned completely off. Thank you. First item will be anyone that has any comments that they would like to make, bring to the board. Uh, if you would, if it's something that is not already on the agenda, if you will come to the podium, state your name and your address, and you will have three minutes. Thank you, Jack. Uh, my name is Kurt McGee. 1 2 4 7 Zydeco Court, the villages CDD 10. Um, thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. Um, I'm gonna read this not too long. On November 14th, 2024, I made a request to this board for a single village of Dunedin Sign. Brittany Wilson handled the request for the board, and in the January meeting, you, you had the board meeting. Ms. Wilson reported that the village of Dunedin is located between two entrances that do have entry signage, and they recommended not placing any additional signage. I'd like to point out that those two entrances are for the village of Charlotte and the village of Hillsborough. And I have two, I have two pictures in what I'm gonna give you when I'm done. Uh, north of Highway 44, CDD 10 is the largest district in the villages, and the village of Dunedin is the largest village in CDD 10. And Dunedin has no sign since we've been here 10 years, people have asked, where's, where's Dunedin? And I'm requesting, I'm making two requests. I'm requesting a single village of Dunedin sign be placed on the north side of Hillsborough Trail, just west of the last home on the village of Charlotte, in the village of Charlotte. Somewhere between this last house and in Charlotte and the intersection with Oracle Court in the V in Dunedin, there's an available area of about two football fields of just grass. And I asked for an eight foot, one post, 30 inch sign, which would be similar to a speed limit sign. Not too big. The sign should cost around $200. That was back in November when I priced it. And the post for the sign's about $48. And if for some reason this request is rejected, then I would like to propose one other thing that the board, uh, to add the village of Dunedin's name to either the Morris or Buena Vista entrances to Hillsborough Trail. This was proven, just to let you know, this was previously done on Morris to, to combine the village of Mallory Square, along with the Village of Amelia. And it was done on Buena Vista showing the Village of Virginia Trace, along with the village of Sable Trace. So we're not asking for something that doesn't have, haven't been done before. And I've provided two, two pictures of the gates that I've talked about on Hillsborough Trail, and two pictures with the two villages on each. So if I can give you this, Is that those pictures leave with us, please. Yes. Thank you. Any comments from supervisors? Can you tell us any problems you, you've personally had where someone can't find your house because of lack of signage? Well, first started with UPS here. First it started with UPS and FedEx. They didn't, they didn't know where all the, when all the new homes were there. And then they come in from, when you come in the gate at Hillsborough, you have a guard. When you come in the gate at Charlotte, you don't have a guard. So you're driving without knowing where Dunedin is. If, if there's mention of it, even on the website for CDD 10, I looked at it today. You have a photograph of, of, um, oh, I can't remember the name of the place, but there, there, it's not a village. It's, it's one of the, like Whitney, they call those things. Villas. The villas, yeah. There's a picture of, of a, the group of villa, and there's a villa sign there. So Si signs are everywhere, but there's no village of Dunedin sign. Other people that have mentioned it too, we've been in the Dunedin Social Club, we've been in other things. We're involved in lots of different clubs. Some people said just generally that, that have just moved here. Where's Dunedin? And, and we're huge. We're, we're a big, big village. So, I mean, I can imagine other villagers not knowing where Dunedin is, but FedEx and UPS, uh, they would never Be given that information in your address. And so I can't imagine them asking about that. Well, Again, I'm just mentioning it, we're a large village with no sign and we can do something about it. And if $248 is is not enough or too much, um, maybe we can get the sign for our village added to one of those other two that exist. That's all. Yeah, I think I, I would, I would just reiterate, I I seem to recall two points from the meeting where this was actually discussed with. It was at January, perhaps, um, there were a couple of issues. First of all, the signage that you have proposed would not meet the standards for the community, number one. Second of all, not every neighborhood has a sign. Lake Deaton doesn't have a sign either. Um, just in that off Hillsborough Trail, they don't. Um, and the purpose of the signage is to really identify Gates, not community. So it's Hillsborough there. So you can tell people to turn at the Hillsborough gate or, you know, it's not necessarily that every ev not every neighborhood has a sign. The signage is mostly there to Mark Gates, not neighborhoods. Well, some neighborhoods Two, two neighborhoods, two villages are on one side in at least two places that I've seen just for, Sorry, that is not ne in two places is not everywhere. Well, Isn't there a dunum pool? There is marked right There, there on Hillsborough. So there is a, there is a Dun Eden pool Sign. Yeah. Every pool has their own unique sign besides the village signs, that's all. Yeah. But there aren't pools necessarily. Each is Dun Eden closer to the Charlotte Gate? Yes. Or the Hillsborough Gate? Charlotte Gate. Charlotte Gate. I was gonna say yes. By the two lakes there. Are you, do you know of any other instances where there is signage similar to what he is proposing for this $248? No, I, and I, I don't have the, or if you have a copy of the original proposal, but it, it would not be something that we would typically, that we would recommend installation of. Um, so when in the, the benefit of living in the villages of the, it is a master planned community. So it is all planned out through the engineering and design and all of the entry features and things of that nature are taken into consideration. This isn't the first time that I've heard this type of request, um, from different boards. Um, but ultimately the boards have deferred back to what was the original design intent. Because if you, if you do something outside of that, you're, you're potentially opening the box for a lot of other villages that may not be specifically marked in that same manner. Um, I did pull up when this was addressed in January, and um, there is no welcome sign for this particular unit. It is in accordance with the original design and as-built construction plans. And it is between two separate entrances. That village is in between two entrances. So that's really the set of circumstances for this area. Um, you know, with the advancement in technology, a lot of people do use the Villages app. They rely on Google Maps, um, by physical address rather than looking for a specific village entry sign and where there's potentially multiple points of entry too. Does that kind of mean you'd always have to put one on each end? It makes sense Because it's, but this may not be the only scenario where, where this exists. So the challenge becomes not every village is necessarily marked or it could be marked, for example, at a neighborhood pool and postal that sort of identifies the geographic area, Which in your case, I think you said the pool is marked. Yep. Is marked with signage Pool. Yeah, I think there's three villages in that. Um, well, sort of, uh, in, in that scenario there's Lake Deaton. Those are Lake Deaton, um, Dunedin. And then there's that, um, premier section, justice, justice off of Hillsboro. I forget what that one's called. Separate? No, the Enterprise. What, What is it? Enterprise and that's part of, yeah, it's enterprise. That's part of Charlotte, what is it called? Part of Charlotte? Yeah. But it has a sort of a separate little name for it. I don't think so. Well, Hillsborough, the other, the only other ones I can think of are mainly Courtyard, Villa Red, uh, areas, uh, Pensacola. I think it's one right down there towards the end. Um, I live at the other end. The were, I mean, nobody refers to it as that, but I mean, officially there is that other one that the off enterprise drive. Unfortunately, I putting up a sign that is totally different and I understand what you're trying to do and you're trying to be reasonable about it as far as the size and everything else, but it would be something that is totally different than anything else that has been done. Uh, and we do try to keep things as consistent as we can, not just in signage, but a lot of other items that come up. Um, I see your point about putting additional verbiage on the, uh, village of Charlotte sign. And it looks like possibly there would be room to be able to do it, uh, whether it would be cost prohibitive to do it or not. I have no idea what it would take to add that kind of lettering or whatever. Village of Hillsborough at the other end. There's not enough rain. Everything would have to be redone. You could put Lake Deaton on there. Village of Lake Deon on that one. Um, not according to the picture you showed me, I don't think they would be enough room without having to change all the entire sign. Um, I think in this particular regard, uh, I think the board is gonna have to go with management recommendation and just say it just wasn't part of the master plan. And at this time, there are no plans to add. Brittany, is there any possibility of researching? I know it would be way, way far back, but, um, what led to the Virginia Trace Sable Chase combination sign? Sure. I'll ha I'll have to take a look at it. I did see that, that in here. So I, I'll find out the, if there is the, the history behind that sign and how it was originally installed. Yeah, I would like to know the history of that. That would be, yes. Helpful. Is there a way to just see what it would take to add the verbiage on this village of Charlotte and down below it or something without having to change everything else? Yes. And that, that is a new request from the previous one, so we'll take a look at that as well. Okay, Wonderful. I mean, we'd have, we'll give it a shot. Be fair. We'd have to be fair, I think to Lake Deaton too then, then. Well, I'm sure there are a lot of other neighborhoods that are in the same situation. I know, I know. Or whatever. And that I agree with what Brittany is saying about everybody uses either the village DPS or whatever. I go by a address. Mm-hmm. And, uh, But I wouldn't wanna do it for Dunedin and then have Lake Deaton say, well, well you did it for deed not doing it for us. And that's the challenge with, with the adjustment. That's Problem. Right. Okay. We'll look into it. Thank you. It was a good idea. We'll look into it. Alright, anyone else? Any comments, name and address please, sir? Yes, sir. Uh, hi. I am Don Johnston, 1843 Waiting Herring Way. And, uh, I am new to the villages, so, uh, pardon me if, uh, any of this is redundant. But, uh, my understanding is that I'm on the corner house and there's the basin right behind me. And my understanding is that there used to be a sign that says, it used to say no trespassing. And I think the board voted last time, may on, uh, no public access sign. And I do not rise in opposition to those decisions. And, uh, I, I respect them. Uh, having said that, I also think that something that would be neighborly kind and appropriate and lawful is to put up a sign. No fishing past this sign Florida statute. And Florida law says that you cannot fish within, actually the law is that you cannot have activities with 100 feet of private or public property. And that's defined as fishing, swimming, boating, uh, jet skis, et cetera. And so that is, you know, according to the Florida, you know, statute, that is Florida law. Uh, I will tell you that I have been there for a short time, and there's been about four or five instances when somebody's been fishing in that area where they're not supposed to be. Uh, first of all, I just simply went down. I said, uh, excuse me, d are you aware? And I found, uh, things were very consistent. That happened every single time. Number one, the people were very, very, very nice. Every one of 'em. Number two, they were very, very, very embarrassed. And number three, they were very apologetic. They were saying, I'm sorry, sir, I didn't realize, you know, I didn't know. And so to have a sign that says, no fishing pass this point, number one, is in, in accordance with the village's policy. 'cause people can walk all the way around that body of water and be within their rights. However, if Florida State law says that you cannot do an activity back there within 100 feet. So really that sign would accomplish something that is in accordance with the village's. PO policy is also in accordance with the Florida State law. Uh, I'll tell you that I, I kind of wondered what those people did when they went back. 'cause at least half of them were not villagers. They were either sons visiting their parents or grandchildren. And I can imagine when they went back and they said, how was your fishing? Well, you know, a guy there said that we couldn't fish there. What do you mean we can't fish there? You, you, you could fish there. So, you know, within that I could see a misunderstanding and, and a thing that would not be a neighborly interaction. So I think that if you had, uh, I'd respectfully, uh, request that you would consider a sign that would, on the edges that would say no fishing, uh, past this point, Florida statute, and the number has been cited in previous minutes. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh, this is not anything new to us. Um, we've spent probably six months on this topic and just resolved it, I thought last month. Uh, I'm not aware of any Florida statutes that pertain to these retention basins, uh, counselor. Well, the issue is not so much a statute, it's that you have no enforcement power. You have no police power. So there's nothing you can do about it. It's something for the resident to reach out to the police department and let them know that they have people constantly coming into the property or fishing in areas where they shouldn't be. And again, this, you're right, we, we've discussed this for six months, maybe longer. We have talked about having no access, no public access, no fishing. Um, unfortunately most of them get ignored. And as Mr. Brianis says, we have no enforcement power to do anything about it. If someone is crossing your property, trying to go to the retention basin, then they're trespassing, then that is something that you need to pick up the phone and call Sumter County and have them trespass from your property. They will come and talk to 'em and explain to 'em. Uh, most of the ponds have either a, an easement that gives access mainly for, uh, maintenance equipment purposes, uh, to get to it. And if they walk down that easement, then they are not trespass. They are not supposed to trespass on your property. They're not supposed to cross over any district property, golf courses, whatever, to get to any pond to do any fishing. Naturally, the ponds and the golf courses and so forth are private and they are off limits. Period. Parks and Recreation provides a map that shows recommended fishing areas. They are strictly recommendations. That does not mean everything else is off limits. Um, we know that the way that some, I don't think it's all, but some of the basins when they were deeded said that they were only for use for village residents. And we have discussed how to go about asking someone for an ID or whatever else. The problem gets to be back to how do we enforce it if someone is there and does not live there, whether they're a guest or whether they're part of a work crew that was there that day and decided that looks like a good fishing hole. I'm coming back after work. Um, unless it gets to be a nuisance, and then that gets reported to the sheriff's office. I don't know. There's nothing that we have the power to do. As President Clinton used to say, I, I feel your pain because I know, because I know that you've dealt with this in the past. And I know that there was a, you know, I read the minutes and I talked to a neighbor, and so that's why I'm here now, as opposed to then, because I wasn't here during all those meetings. And, uh, I respect all that you just said. I would say we agonized over. Yes, we did. So I guess the thing that I wanna differentiate before between is enforcement and being nice and just being neighborly. And I'm not really asking for enforcement. I'm, I'm, I'm not gonna change, it's not gonna change my life either way, to be quite honest. I'm gonna still be nice to those people down there. And I'm not looking for something like, gosh, I gotta have this, or I'm gonna go home and take my ball and go home. Uh, what I'm asking for is a consideration to say, you know what? It's really a point of potential conflict that can be avoided by just simply having a no fishing be beyond this sign, because that is in accordance with Florida statute. In Florida law. I'm not asking about enforcement because I respect what you're saying is that they're trespassing to call the police. I'll also tell you that there was, uh, on the other side of the pond, the other basin, there was a well-known YouTuber who was basically fishing there. The police had been called, the police were there, and that he wouldn't move. He just kept on doing it. And he said, well, the only recourse that I have is to arrest him. And interestingly enough, having known a little bit about the policy at that time, I asked the police officer about it, and I'll tell you that he got it absolutely wrong in every, every way. In a way he was explaining it. And so even the police officers don't really understand that. So I guess what I'm asking for is just a simple sign that says, no fishing beyond this point. Doesn't say no trespassing. They can still walk past there, uh, in accordance of, you know, village policy and village law and, uh, whatever rules and regulations there are. But I guess what I'm asking for is just a sign that says, Hey, you know, this is a simple thing that could potentially prevent conflict. I, I would like to just bring up that there is also a history here where there was a situation in which this district was taken to court over a sign. And because there was a sign that we could not enforce, we were required to take that sign down. We cannot put up signs that we cannot enforce. And respectfully, my understanding of that was a no, uh, trespassing sign that was taken down, that sign that said no trespassing, which is not, it is not technically, it's actually, it's, it went against it. The same situation. I can't put up a no fishing sign. If I can't enforce no fishing. I cannot put up any sign I cannot enforce, and I cannot enforce It. Okay. I, I understand, uh, with a proper venue for me to then go to the county and have them put up a sign because it is, or they go to, to the state or their state representative, because it is within that law for that to occur. How does that interact then with the villages? And again, I'm, I'm new, I'm not trying to rock the boat. I'm not trying to, I'm, I'm asking for informational purposes. I believe that most of the basins around here are owned by the various districts. The way that they are deeded, right. The county, they are not Public property in the sense that the county or whatever controls them. The village, various districts, control 'em, maintain 'em. Uh, I don't believe that the state of the county can do anything. I mean, you, you can talk to 'em, but I I, no, I'm, I'm just asking. I'm not trying to, I'm not trying to do anything except to understand. So you're saying that Florida state law would not apply in this situation then? Well, and I'll go back to what Ms. Bell said is whether we decide to put up a no trespassing, a no access, no public access, whatever it is, the first time someone walks past there and we don't do anything about it because we can't, we have no enforcement power whatsoever as a governing body here, then you've got somebody else standing back saying, well, you're not enforcing your rules and so we are gonna sue you for it. So Mr. B Down, I seem to recall there was an issue too, with the way that those basins were deeded that this hundred yard or whatever this law was that he's referring to, was not necessarily applicable to our situation. I, I don't remember that. I mean, but again, I think, you know, you're right on point with the conversation. And that is, we have been sued and, uh, for putting up a sign, and I don't even remember what it said, it wasn't a no trespassing, I think it was, um, No public access. Um, and people were accessing it. The district didn't do anything about it and got sued. And we were in litigation for a year and a half or two years. Um, certainly we were successful in, in the case, but, you know, you had to have insurance pay for your defense in that lawsuit. And it went through about four different attorneys, um, representing the property owners before. Um, we were successful in getting dismissed. So there is the potential for litigation, again, even with regard to the statute, I, I don't, I don't know it off the top of my head. I'd have to read it. But again, so what if it says that you can't do anything about it? The property owners can do something about it, but this district cannot. Yeah. The property owner is empowered if somebody is back there and they should not be back there to contact the Sumter County Sheriff's Department. Okay. If they're trespassing on your prop, trespassing on your property. But the problem Sumter County has, and we have actually a representative here who I may be willing to talk about this if, if he is, is so inclined. Yes. This is Sergeant Edon Dodge. No pressure sergeant. I would love the opportunity. I can tell you I was, uh, so pleased to hear the topic come up Again, Trying to sneak out. But I, so, um, I guess my first question, if I can, I can, I can inquire. Can you tell me what statute it is you're referring to? Because I'm not familiar with the statute, uh, restricting, uh, someone's use of private property within a distance of another persons. Do we have, uh, it was in the minutes of the meeting, I believe in the November minutes of the meeting. Uh, I don't know if I, after that, of course, we Would have to go back and research that. We don't have 'em in our fingertips right now. Okay. Uh, and I just, uh, so I do not have that, but I have read. Okay. And basically it just says it defines the activities specifically. It mentioned fishing, swimming, boating, jet skiing, are all activities back there now. The village property, you know, you're able to walk around there and people getting, find a terrible, not terrible slogan, alligators right there. Not encouraged. Anyway, as far as, you know, going down
Community Development District 10 Seat 1 - Mark Welzel, Supervisor Seat 2 - John Miller, Chair Seat 3 - Holly Bell, Supervisor Seat 4 - Steve Bova, Supervisor Seat 5 - Christine Bradshaw, Vice Chair April 17, 2025 at 3:00 PM SeaBreeze Recreation Center 2384 Buena Vista Blvd. The Villages, FL 32162 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA The District encourages citizen participation in the democratic process and recognizes and protects the right of freedom of speech afforded to all. As the Board conducts the business of the District, rules of civility shall apply. District Board Supervisors, Staff members, and members of the public are to communicate respectfully. It is preferred that persons speak only when recognized by the Board Chair and, at that time, refrain from engaging in personal attacks or derogatory or offensive language. Persons who are deemed to be disruptive and negatively impact the efficient operation of the meeting shall be subject to removal after two verbal warnings. Audience Comments on all issues will be received by the Board. 1. Call to Order 1.A. Roll Call 1.B. Pledge of Allegiance 1.C. Observation of Moment of Silence 1.D. Welcome Meeting Attendees 1.E. Audience Comments 2. Law Enforcement Quarterly Updates 3. New Business 3.A. Approval of Minutes 4. Public Hearings 4.A. Case No. D10-10-25 VCDD No. 10 vs. Karen S. Dubinski and Robert D. Dubinksi, as Trustee of the Karen S. Dubinski Living Trust dated January 14, 1994, 715 Congaree Loop A. District Counsel Overview of Public Hearing Process B. Swearing In of Those Providing Evidence or Testimony C. Open Public Hearing D. Staff Presentation of the Facts E. Owner/Interested Party Presentation F. Close Public Hearing G. Board Discussion/Determination 4.B. Case No. D10-11-25 VCDD No. 10 vs. Michael A. OIeszczak, Individually and as Trustee of the Michael A. Olesczcask Trust under Agreement dated August 20, 2014, 950 Pickering Path A. District Counsel Overview of Public Hearing Process B. Swearing In of Those Providing Evidence or Testimony C. Open Public Hearing
D. Staff Presentation of the Facts E. Owner/Interested Party Presentation F. Close Public Hearing G. Board Discussion/Determination 4.C. Case No. FHA-D10-12-25 - Frederick Montgomery Livingston III and Barbara Jeanne Livingston, as Co-Trustees of the Frederick Montgomery Livingston II and Barbara Jeanne Livingston Revocable Trust, Dated October 29, 2019, 3922 East Torch Lake Drive A. District Counsel Overview of Public Hearing Process B. Swearing In of Those Providing Evidence or Testimony C. Open Public Hearing D. Staff Presentation of the Facts E. Owner/Interested Party Presentation F. Close Public Hearing G. Board Discussion/Determination 5. Old Business 5.A. Old Business Status Update 5.B. Courtyard Villa Front Entry Widening Petition Request 6. Informational Items Only 6.A. DPM Monthly Report 6.B. Financial Statements 6.C. District Organizational Chart 6.D. Deed Compliance and Architectural Review Semi-Annual Fiscal Year 24-25 Statistics 6.E. Village Community Development District No. 10 Public Hearing Updates 7. District Manager Reports 7.A. 2024 District Annual Report 7.B. SECO Update 8. District Counsel Reports 9. Supervisor Comments 9.A. Supervisor Bova: Project Wide Advisory Committee After Agenda 10. Adjourn HOSPITALITY STEWARDSHIP INNOVATION & CREATIVITY HARD WORK NOTICE Each person who decides to appeal any action taken at these meetings is advised that person will need a record of the proceedings and that accordingly, the person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, incoming the testimony and evidence upon which such appeal is to be based. Audio recordings of Board meetings, workshops or public hearings are available for purchase per Florida Statute 119.07 through the District Clerk for $1.00 per CD requested. Any person requiring special accommodations at this meeting because of disability of physical impairment should contact the District Office at (352) 751-3939 at least five calendar days prior to the meetings.
Recording and media
Records considered
Not claimed by this page
No source correction or revision history is recorded for this meeting. A corrected artifact will appear here as a new version rather than replacing what is shown above.
Canonical record: 4d9cff2a99d4647b47348695b8a76737. This page changes as stronger artifacts are published; it never overwrites an agenda with minutes.
Publisher tools
