ah etown glad you are finally through spinning things

etown, in response to "see here s where part of the problem lies in those covenants , we ve owned other property that had association , rule s or were governed by someone , but it was listed in the deed to the property . so before you could even purchase it and get the deed you were required to sign the associations rules. here you have you buy and then please come to the office and sign these papers , so whos to say these property owners even saw the convenants before they purchased."

Part of the problem would not lie in the covenants. Doesn't matter that you owned other property that had an association that listed rules in the deed. Covenants, conditions and restrictions can be set forth in a declaration OR in a deed. Also, covenants run with the land.

As RecPark456 said, "....you can't live at RRLE!" no matter how you want spin things.

etown....you keep grabbing at straws here....you can't live at RRLE! Ka-peesh?

ah riverat see here s where part of the problem lies in those covenants , we ve owned other property that had association , rule s or were governed by someone , but it was listed in the deed to the property . so before you could even purchase it and get the deed you were required to sign the associations rules. here you have you buy and then please come to the office and sign these papers , so whos to say these property owners even saw the convenants before they purchased.

The comment about taxes based on mobile home is incorrect. The taxes are assesed the same as any other residense in Rock County.
I pay almost $1800. per year, as does several people I know for the homes on so called rv lots.

etown, what is there to interpret? Don't the Covenants say no permanent residence on a recreational vehicle lot? It has nothing to do older citizens or low income housing. It would apply to everyone. ANY purchase of ANY property that has a Homeowners Association with Covenants etc. automatically requires compliance with those Covenants etc. as a condition of purchasing the property. When people choose not to comply with Covenants, NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON, they are taking a risk that their decision may result in consequences. Didn't those who purchased these lots sign something that said they had read the Covenants etc. and understood them? Usually that is what is done, sometimes even at the closing.

so what your saying , is you dont want low income , or older citizens residing in your park , thats interesting . your problem still is and always will be it was misrepresented to some of these buyers by things your board put in writing. then what im going to interpret here is read the convenants and decide what they mean yourself because what the board may or may not be telling you , may or may not be true .

TO etown: ONCE AGAIN you seem to always ignore the basic backbone issue here, and now are confusing voting requirement issues too!

No 2/3 OR 3/4 vote was even necessary OR required by the current BOD on this Permanent Living compliance decision. If you had your facts straight in the 1st place, you'd already know that the BOD at RRLE didn't even have to offer any kind of vote to the members.

That decision was made in my opinion wisely, in the interest of allowing the membership of see 1st had what was going on with the Permanent Living issue & NOT getting incorrect BLOG or rumored information.

The vote merely added supported documentation that the majority membership clearly supports the upholding of the original and current long time Covenant and the BOD enforcing that rule!

TO REPEAT AGAIN:

You still continue to be missing the obvious point here. Whether it be 1976,1980,
1992,2003.....DOESN'T MATTER when they bought.

The fact still remains the same.....RULE FROM THE BEGINNING, IT WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO LIVE AT RRLE AS A YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE! It is & always was a recreational community. Not meant OR designed for year round living.

The fact that those people broke the rules and have got away with it this long, are in violation, and those who are not in violation, want it stopped and support the Covenant the shows that RRLE is a recreational vacation park.
RRLE is not a senior retirement village, or a place designed for low income living.

There are other communities out there designed specifically for those types of situations. That is where those people are allowed to reside year round.

RRLE IS NOT ONE OF THEM!

etowne, isn't a 3/4 vote required to add a NEW Covenant and a 2/3 vote required to CHANGE a Covenant? Don't the Covenants already prohibit permanent residence? So, you are saying it is required to follow the Covenants for a 3/4 vote when NOT adding a new Covenant and a 2/3 vote when NOT changing a Covenant but not a requirement to follow the Covenant that prohibits permanent residence? Pick and chose, pick and chose. Was there a 3/4 or 2/3 vote for the information you referenced in the 1998 letter that said "If one leaves their unit for 14 days within a 365 day period, it may be interpreted that they are not using the facility as a permanent residence."? And your comment about the letter said "did you not read the letter it states from the board, if one leaves their home for 14 days, it doesn't even say 14 consecutive days, just 14 days, on the bottom it states this is the opinion of the board, so to me that means the property is available for use, 351 days the rest of the year." Not a 3/4 or 2/3 vote but to you that meant the property was available 351 days. Pick and chose, pick and chose.

backed by the majority , since when , they didnt get 3/4 of the vote , and now they claim they dont have to . from the beginning not returning a ballot was an automatic no vote. did they count the ballots not returned as no votes. no they did not . if they had it would of failed . whos twisting the facts?

etown: you seem to keep clinging on this 1998 & 2006 statement....and when people bought with the intention of living there at some point in the future!

You still seem to be missing the point obvious point here. Whether it be 1976,1980,1992,2003.....DOESN'T MATTER when they bought.

The fact still remains the same.....RULE FROM THE BEGINNING, IT WAS NEVER ALLOWED TO LIVE AT RRLE AS A YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE! It is & always was a recreational community. Not meant OR designed for year round living.

People violated when they bought any year, and then ignored the Covenants. They knowing chose to violate & this where the problem has stemmed!

Not the fact that now in 2011 a board is enforcing the rules backed by the majority who voted & clearly supports that & agrees with it!

Stop trying to twist the words to make them suit the needs of those who are in the wrong!

voted an passed by the board in 2006 , not by the membership and 3/4 of the votes it needs to pass? and what about the people that bought between 1998 and 2006 who were being told two weeks , who may not of bought there if they knew it was two consecutive months. why are there exception to the rules i see no where where it say s a park employee doesnt have to leave for the two month period but they are allowed to stay . my point is this in that letter it states he attempted to get the previous board to answer and they didnt, then next board did. then in 2006 your now saying another board set new rules . so what happens the next time the board changes a new set a rules. and you people wonder why there is confusion? again if this is truly what they wanted then it should of been on the deed to the property i suspect it was never put there because then it would be harder to get a loan , it would be classified as recreational property , more money would be required down , a higher interest rate would be charged , and insurance rates would be higher, all these things would discourage the sale of these properties, not disclosing this when buying this property might also be considered fraud. an as for me answering your question since when does two week s make it not a permanent living , ask the board that put it in writing it was , you seem to want to quote what the board say s now is written in stone so why should it be any different for the other boards.

RecPark456 and etowne - just attempting to point out to etowne that a 1998 letter has no bearing on the issue. Very interesting that etowne references a 1998 letter but ignores a policy voted on and passed by the Board in 2006. If I was one of his supporters I would be asking a lot of questions.

Riverat: Over the years there have been many attempts from Boards to remind RRLE members of the basic rules to comply with in regards to usage of properties at RRLE. Most members complied from day 1 as they knew the Covenants & rules at the time of purchase and the stipulations of their property usage.

Sadly as seen over time, and as many boards have come & gone over the years & had tried to enforce these rules even if by making some small provisions like voted in 2006 for those who were already in violation & had already made RRLE their home, these very folks refuse to comply no matter what new options had come their way.

Even though technically NO PROVISIONS were NEVER required to be made for these people from any BOD past or present as they should NEVER have lived there in the 1st place as the Covenants state.

The bottom line is here, this minority in violation or 'The 32 Gang' simply refuse to accept that there has never been any rule ever that allowed them to live there as their permanent residence.

And it's been this behavior that's made the ability to close the permanent living issue and ongoing BOIL ON THE BUTT OF THE PARK & still goes on.

You can continue to post here the RRLE articles, rules, and the bylaw information stated in the RRLE documents to these people till you are blue in the face. But they will continue to believe they can still do what they want, and will continue to twist document & legal wording to fit their needs as had been ongoing for years.

Simply put, if you can't follow those rules, then leave! Go somewhere where you ARE allowed to live all year round. RRLE is not that community.

etowne, are you going to respond to "Since when does a 2 week vacation make a property not a PERMANENT residence?" After the letter you referenced, the following was voted and passed effective October 14, 2006:

PERMANENT RESIDENCE ON RV LOTS
A motion to adopt the following process and fines regarding Permanent Living on RV Lots was made and passed.

As stated in the Covenants Article V, Section 1, (b):
*Any lot less than nine thousand (9,000) square feet in size shall not be used for a permanent residence."

The Board has defined "Permanent Living" as:
PERMANENT LIVNG - definition: living unit must be unoccupied for at least two (2) consecutive months, each year, excluding week-ends (4:00pm Friday to l0:00pm Monday)

Procedure for non-compliance:
A. Written notice with l0 days to comply - to be sent to units in violation on March 1
B. Fine of $25 per day for a maximum of 45 days ($1,125.00).
C. Legal action

Owners of RV lots that appear to be used for Permanent Living, will be sent a letter, in October, asking them to notify the Park Office, in writing, those dates that they plan on not using their unit to comply with this Covenant. If the two (2) month period is outside the date range of October I through May l, this must be specified.

Lot owners that do not file their intentions with the Park Office, by November 1,2006, will be sent a Registered Letter, return receipt requested requesting that they comply with the request.

A weekly occupancy report for the October I to May I period will be created by the Park Manager for all RV Lots.

On March l, notice of violation will be sent via Registered Mail, to the property Owners that are not in compliance with this Covenant. If, after 10 days, they are not in compliance, the $25 per day fine will start.

MAY. To be permitted; to be at liberty; to have the power.
2. Whenever a statute directs the doing of a thing for the sake of justice or the public good, the word may is the same as shall. For example, the 23 H. VI. says, the sheriff may take bail, that is construed he shall, for he is compellable to do so. Carth. 293 Salk. 609; Skin. 370.
3. The words shall and may in general acts of the legislature or in private constitutions, are to be construed imperatively; 3. Atk. 166; but the construction of those words in a deed depends on circumstances. 3 Atk. 282. See 1 Vern. 152, case. 142 9 Porter, R. 390.

etowne, correction - a letter from 1998 that says MAY? Since when does a 2 week vacation make a property not a PERMANENT residence? What do you think MAY means in this sentence from the letter you referenced?

"If one leaves their unit for 14 days within a 365 day period, it MAY be interpreted that they are not using the facility as a permanent residence."

etowne, a letter from 1998 that says MAY? Since when does a 2 week vacation make a property not a residence? What do you think MAY means in this sentence from the letter you referenced?

"If one leaves their unit for 14 days within a 365 day period, it MAY be interpreted that they are not using the facility as a permanent residence."

It's time to let this topic die. The points have been made and it is not going anywhere.

etown: What personal attacks & name calling are you refering to? I see nothing written here to support that statement! So I'm not clear on where you are reading that. Having been an individual who's served on boards in the past though, I can assure you, that no board member in their right mind has the time or would bother to try and reason with unknown individuals here on these blogs to begin with.

It's already very time consuming when serving and aggravating enough to deal with numorous board issues & certain individuals in a membership during the time your are serving! So my condolences to the board.

to taxandspend: The rules had no holes. Rules were clear from the beginning aka 1970's. It is only those that BROKE the rules that bore wholes into the rules. Now, to be upset that after so many years of these people violating these rules (or for lack of a better term: 'getting away with it!') & now they have to comply....

Well seems to me that they should be thankful for all the years they got away with it, instead of pointing the finger of blame towards the membership that no longer wishes for this problem to go on!

did you not read the letter it states from the board , if one leave s their home for 14 days , it doesnt even say 14 consecutive days , just 14 days , on the bottom it states this is the opinion of the board, so to me that means the property is available for use , 351 days the rest of the year. i willing to bet almost everyone out their leave s for at least 14 days out of anyone given year. an i can see why the property owners get no where, with attitudes like some of the posters calling names , making comments as a personal attack when someones opinion doesnt agree with yours. wouldnt surprise if the people responding are on the board .

did you not read the letter it states from the board , if one leave s their home for 14 days , it doesnt even say 14 consecutive days , just 14 days , on the bottom it states this is the opinion of the board, so to me that means the property is available for use , 351 days the rest of the year. i willing to bet almost everyone out their leave s for at least 14 days out of anyone given year. an i can see why the property owners get no where, with attitudes like some of the posters calling names , making comments as a personal attack when someones opinion doesnt agree with yours. wouldnt surprise if the people responding are on the board .

P.S etown...and as far as your comment about " no one was planning on having to shut down their place for months at a time" Well of course it wasn't planned. They violated the rules when they bought at RRLE & and then chose to ignore the Covenants & decided to LIVE there when it has been a Recreational Vacation Park Community since it's inception in the 70's. AND NO ONE was EVER supposed to live there 24/7 in the 1st place. So then of course the remaining membership CLEARLY WOULD expect to shut down their places at some point for a period of time, when the go back to LIVE in their REAL residences off season!!! DUH!
This is not rocket science.

etown....the park IS open year round. No one said it wasn't. Well, except the same people who still don't have their facts straight & twist words & facts as usual! It's back to the same moved point! YOU still AREN'T supposed to LIVE THERE YEAR ROUND! People do go up in the winter, and enjoy ice fishing, skiing, snow mobiling. BUT, they do NOT reside in the 'RECREATIONAL PARK COMMUNITY' as their permanant residence AND HOME!

seriously you dont think your property value would decrease if you couldnt use it for 2.3, or 4 months out of a year versus just 14 days. and the other things your speaking of is what the real world deal s with all the time. so basically what i was saying in one of my first post rrle mainly wants the rules to keep the trash out . how can you have a board who first doesnt respond to clarification of what time period someone has to be gone , and then have a board that sets it at 14 days. and expect anyone to take the rules seriously . which year which day and which time did you ask the board for their opinion. and in the mean time you have people purchase these properties with the understanding its only 14 days , now years later after owning their properties you want to shut it down for the winter? just by reading the previous convenant s i dont think anyone every planned for it to be unoccupied at any given point during the year , that the park would remain open and accessable year round.

Not sure what etown's been smoking these days with the inacurate that property value info he's speaking of. Your property value does NOT decrease because you have not used it for more then 14 days! Where on earth do you get these ideas from? Your property value IS NOT based on the time occupied on it! The membership who follows the rules, and basically close up for the winter for instance, & reopens during the season & those who for 6 to 7 months of the season reside have the same property value as those who reside 24/7, and are in violation of the Permanent residency Covenant. It's value is the standard to what property value lies during a current market trend!The only potential visual cause that may in fact cause one's value to go down, is when you have a neighbor/neighbors with junk all over their property, broken down porches, delapadated sheds, overgrown landscape, parked cars used for storage & not driven, etc. Another cause is because there may be illegal activities taking place like selling drugs, or when concerned individuals report that their neighbors have rented out their properties to individuals that have had crimminal issues with Law Enforcement and allow them to live in their community! These types of eye sores & issues is precisely how & why the term "Trailer Park Trash" came to be!

i personally think the letter stating 14 days , is probably the most important thing. if they sent this to a property owner, you know this was also told to people buying into the park. 14 days wouldnt decrease someone property value, but 2, 3 , 4 months of not being able to use this property however would.

The homestead web site is Sarto's web site. It is biased in his favor. As is usual they (the 32) only tell half truths and only what they want you to hear.

http://hstrial-rrlefirst.homestead.com/ is where i found it thank you for the info. it does have some very interesting things ,

http://hstrial-rrlefirst.homestead.com/P... i find this letter interesting the board sent out a letter in 1998 stating that if you left your residence for 14 , it wouldnt be considered a permanent residence.

just gives a trial for homestead thats all i get .

To see the covenants from 1975, 1982 and 2005 go to website:
http://hstrial-rrle.homestead.com
there's also other interesting information there.

no etown has not been overwhelmed by facts , i do find it interesting that the only convenants anyone can provide are dated 2005 , i have yet to see anything dated before that, incidently isnt that when they turned the park over to the home owenrs association . actually what were checking into is the original request for this park . be interesting to see what were in these minutes .

Obviously etowne has been overwhelmed with facts. It would be beneficial if etowne shared these facts with the 32 people who filed the lawsuit, especially the Sartos and the Feldmans who were quoted in the article.

Granni62: apparently no matter what specific information you continue to provide to etown on this topic....he seems to revert to the usual standard of his own personal interpretation of what's clearly been stated in writing for at RRLE for years. Same thought process as thinking that the term 'sheds' plural means he can have 2 on his property, NOT as in 'sheds' plural speaking of the size stipulations of SHEDS meaning 'cumulative' in the entire park as in guidelines for ONE shed per property! Kinda like talking to a brick wall, no?

etowne; Where was "....it is in writing on their web site and stated several times it was approved for 500 lots with no permanent living." Who did you question? The size and use were listed as "Permanent Home Sites", "Vacation Cottage Sites" and "Recreational Vehicle Sites". The developer removed the category of "Permanent Home Sites" and it is "Recreational Vehicle Sites" only that are prohibited from being a permanent residence. You do not have to ask anyone. Just read the Covenants and Rules and you have your answer. ARTICLE IV, LOTS, SIZE AND USE, (a) "Permanent Home Sites" shall be lots consisting of a minimum of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, plus the rights to the common properties, and; (b) "Vacation Cottage Sites" shall be lots consisting of a minimum of nine thousand (9000) square feet and less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, plus the rights to the common properties, and; (c) "Recreational Vehicle Sites" shall be lots consisting of less than nine thousand (9000) square feet, plus the rights to the common properties. ARTICLE V, COVENANTS, Section 1. Covenants Relating to All Lots, (b) Any lot less than nine thousand (9000) square feet shall not be used as a permanent residence, and; Section 4. Covenants Relating to Recreational Vehicle Sites, (i) A recreational vehicle on a recreational vehicle lot shall not be used as a permanent residence. Do whatever research you want, the answer will be the same as above - permanent residence is prohibited on recreational vehicle lots and not an vacation cottage lots.

granni62, yes i see what it says and when i questioned them about it i was told those cottage lots were on the outside of rrle on indian lane . the rest were orginally listed as vacation lots and rv lot , all not meant for permanent living . except the lots on indian lane. later after it was turned over to the homeowners assoc is when the change was made. so i guess the only way for any one to really know the truth is get the minutes from the minute where this land was proposed to be split and find out what the real intentions were .

etowne: The RRLE website shows a picture from outside the gate and the sign is on the inside. Initially the sign was outside the gate but is was stolen twice. The sign was then moved inside the gate and has a security camera so if it is stolen the people involved can be prosecuted.

etowne: Why am I not surprised? There is nothing on the website about 500 lots. What is on the website is the "deed restriction" proposal that the RRLE BOD at that time voted not to submit to the membership. What is also on the website is "Sayre advised RRLE was never designed for full time living except those cottage lots." The other members of the BOD referred to no permanent residence but failed to specify it was prohibited on recreational vehicle lots only. Sayre cleared that issue with his statement. Other than the deed restriction, the standards that were voted on and passed by 100 votes offer the same opportunity.

the picture is of the main gate .

The "sign" has never been down by the main road, it was located by the main gate. There are no pictures on the website showing this sign. Under the "Park Info" tab it states "Permanent living on R.V. lots is not permitted."

etown-amazing what you came up with by doing a little research. You seem to know more than most of the people directly involved in this. Maybe you will motivate some people with your information. Kudos to you.

by the way for those claiming the sign has been by the gate , its hasnt been there that long even there website shows a picture without the sign just got to park picture s on the left http://www.rrle.org/

http://townoffulton.com/town-minutes/200...

etowne: Where on the website.

actually granni the info came from the part of the fulton twn board, and it is in writing on their web site and stated several time s it was approved for 500 lots with no permanent living

etowne: It IS the job of the BOD to enforce the Covenants, Rules, By-Laws and Regulations. There are, however, several issues that need additional input from the property owners. The more important the issue, the need for input from the membership increases. The BOD is not asking for everyone in the Park to enforce the Covenants, Rules, By-Laws and Regulations. They are asking for ideas of how best to enforce the specific problem of motor vehicle use in the Park. Why would those property owners complaining about this issue not want to participate in its' resolution?

etowne: Rock County, not Fulton Township, approved the original Articles of Incorporation which included the Covenants and Rules. Fulton Township did not have any zoning ordinances at that time. You are correct, no where does it mention that permanent residence is allowed on Vacation Cottage Sites. What the Covenants DO say is ARTICLE IV, LOTS, SIZE AND USE, (b) "Vacation Cottage Sites" shall be lots consisting of a minimum of nine thousand (9000) square feet and less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, plus the rights to the common properties, and; (c) "Recreational Vehicle Sites" shall be lots consisting of less than nine thousand (9000) square feet, plus the rights to the common properties. ARTICLE V, COVENANTS, Section 1. Covenants Relating to All Lots, (b) Any lot less than nine thousand (9000) square feet shall not be used as a permanent residence, and; Section 4. Covenants Relating to Recreational Vehicle Sites, (i) A recreational vehicle on a recreational vehicle lot shall not be used as a permanent residence.

Permanent residence IS prohibited on a recreational vehicle lot, a lot consisting of less than nine thousand (9000) square feet, and in a recreational vehicle on a recreational vehicle lot. Permanent residence IS NOT prohibited on a vacation cottage site, consisting of a minimum of nine thousand (9000) square feet.

You write these responses and never give any references to support your information.

The solution to the problem is for property owners to abide by the covenants.

after doing some checking here s is what ive found, when rrle put in their original covenants , there was no permanent living allowed this is what fulton township approved. no where does it mention cottage lots could then be permanent living. so somewhere in the covenants , rrle has changed this to include permanent living on cottage lots , or if your a rrle employee. at one point fulton township suggested that a deed restriction be put in on the property there , that would let the people living there now stay , but once the property sold it would no longer allow permanent living . ON ALL LOTS . this to me seems to be the best solution to your problem

no one appointed you to the board you ran for the position, since you accepted it then wouldnt it be your job to enforce the rules? or at the very least make sure the park manager is enforcing the rules. if you have everyone in the park trying to enforce rules you end up with different opinions on the rules. isnt that what created this to begin with

etowne: The BOD wants recommendations from the Committee and property owners' help in enforcing the rules. So, really, how would 7 people be able to do this without the membership helping? RRLE is a community and those that only get involved in a negative manner and do not step up to the plate to be part of the solution and not just part of the problem are not being responsible citizens. And don't forget, the members of the BOD don't want to be dictators.

etown: "picking & chosing?"....what are you exactly referring to? A Board has a number of issues to address simultaneously during the course of a time serving. You seem to suggest to have all the answers, please tell us, why not share just how you would address ALL the park concerns & fix all that needs attention at ALL times when on a BOD? Considering the thankless position to be on a BOD is in the 1st place, they are not paid for their time, it's voluntary, most have jobs & families & personal lives that take their time also! Isn't obvious to even you that just this 1 large issue of Permanent Living alone has taken so much the BOD's time alone? Especially with all the resistance from the "The 32 Gang" now. And still they have other park issues that are to be addressed at the same time? How do you think the bills, finances & budget is monitored, the repairs are addressed, prices are researched, etc? I suppose that you also think that when a new President of the United States is elected into office that you expect him to correct & fix and address all the problems left behind by the previous President & staff too then? In a perfect world perhaps, but we all know this ain't a perfect world. Maybe you should run for BOD, win of course & then donate ALL your time 24/7 and correct all the wrongs done that you feel are "picked & chosen" by the BOD as you say!

granni62, thats exactly my point , why should the property owner s enforce these rules, isnt that what the board is for , if they are enforcing rules then they should be enforcing ALL OF THE RULES. not picking and choosing which rule s they will enforce.

pat, was it an agreement when they bought the problem , if it was why wasnt this on the deed when the title company pulled the deeds. if it would of been no one out there would of gotten a reg mortgage on these properties either .

why should these people be allowed to break the rules they signed on for when they bought the property? did they not read the agreement? while I am all for people being able to live there year round, the rules of the campground do not allow for it-do any of the campgrounds in the area allow year round residency? maybe another park should open that is a year round campground...

etowne: Sign up for the Vehicle Enforcement Committee instead of complaining about the issue.

Kids driving golf carts have also been a long running source of contention and danger. That rule has also been overlooked for too long & many have complained about this over the years & at board meetings. Again, posted on signs & told otherwise at the time of purchase, it's a well known long standing rule that children under 16 are not permitted (never have been)to drive carts in RRLE. However, every year you will still see 8,9,10,11 year olds flying through the park, many can barely touch the petals. The most recent serious accidents in the park have ALL been by children & some hurt seriously & many have had damage to their property as a result. FYI, there have been no serious or otherwise accidents in recent years at all caused by adults with drinks on their carts. Only children under 16 driving! Yet people will still say that "their grand kids look forward to driving the carts when they come to visit Grama & Grampa at RRLE. And so they continue to allow them as well as their parents. When members have stopped them on occasion in the past & told them they aren't allowed to drive, they often are told "don't tell me what to do, & mind your own business!" And again the problem lies with those adults & owners who feel the rules don't simply don't apply to them and it continues on.

i do agree with some of your points but where was the board then or the rest of the residence for that matter. the are alot of things that go on out there that other places wouldnt get away with. golf carts on the road, people drinking alcohol while driving the golf carts , kids driving the golf carts. do you know on the private road s in mallwood they get tickets for this . just because theres a gate on the front of the property it doesnt make the law different then anywhere else.

etown, in regards to your comment about stick built being allowed to have been built. Yes some were approved in the past, but that was directly as a result of permits wrongly approved by whom ever presided on the architectural committee member at the time. No coincidence here, that many times that very person was a permanent liver already or in the process of becoming 1. And using that position to gain the ability to approve illegal construction on their own properties as well as friends/and or family of theirs. Which is also why 2 sheds were ignored, illegal additions to trailers for the purpose of permanent living & additional living space for a family w/children to reside in the park, illegal sized decks beyond the 800 sq. ft. allowed living space, some built w/no permits at times, and the infractions go on & on! Just because these happened in the past, does not mean that it should continue to go on.

what i m saying is if anyone out there is claiming for any reason this is their permanent residence to get lower fees, on anything the state of wisconsin requires permanent residency , they then to are in violation of your convenants.why they physically may not be in violation the intent is still there . so as long as they are ripping off the state of wisconsin and the tax payers of wisconsin thats ok , but if they are breaking the convenants then they should be reprimanded?

It seems this war has been waged for some time now. It also seems now finally after so many years of this issue gone by & many owners who knew the rules & FOLLOW the rules have just gotten fed up. Boards have come & gone & some made efforts to put this issue to rest & fell short. But it is now obvious that the majority have spoken & are no longer willing to pretend that there aren't owners in RRLE who live there year round & have chosen to ignore the Covenants & rules to satisfy their own personal wants/needs! Covenants & rules that have been in place since day 1. Everyone knew that by buying in RRLE you could not (NEVER) live is the park as a permanent year round home.UNLESS you have a cottage lot with a home NOT an RV on it which allows you to reside year round. It is only this same small group that chose to ignore the park standards of use & feel that the BOD's previous & current, should simply look the other way & be nice & leave them alone. Now after all the legal issues tied to this, we come to find that some 32 people are now forcing the park back into court & spending MORE money for legal issues & they are the very people accusing the BOD of excessive attorney fees. How interesting that if these same folks (or violators if you will)...followed the rules in the 1st place, there would be no need for more lawyers & more ongoing court dates. Yet somehow these folks continue to buck the system, blame others, tell half truths, and even go as far as this article. Which in many folks opinion, still spins the Sarto's continued inaccurate versions of facts & events! As a previous poster wrote "if you don't like the rules, then leave!" If want a year round home, RRLE is NOT where you can have one. It's a recreational community, and that's what the majority membership wants upheld and their vacation home property to be used as.

Say what you will, Mr. Johnson. I don't talk like that and I never made the last two comments you attribute to me in your article. I, unfortunately, did not check my email prior to 10/16, but apparently objecting wouldn't have made any difference anyway. I now understand why people are reluctant to speak to the press. Shame on you!

Because we were tired of the nasty whining and complaining of this full time living issue, after 15 enjoyable years at RRLE my wife and I sold our RV lot which included our (legal) 400sq ft park model trailer plus we also sold our cottage lot, which we had planned to legally build on for our retirement. We have however purchased property at a similar park in Illinois. This RV park has a very strict rule that limits residency to 180 days per year and this rule is carefully monitored by recording every vehicles access at the park entrance, which is manned 24/7. This may sound harsh, but it prevents the problem that is now a major concern at RRLE. We miss our many friends at RRLE, but not the nasty arguing and conflict created by those that choose to bend the rules.

It seems that those that are complaining the loudest are the ones that had a chance to make it right and quite possibly the ones that caused the problem in the first place. It’s really a shame that this wonderful park is being spoiled by a few people that want to make it into something that it was never intended to be. Also, please note that an RV park is not an appropriate place to raise a family. Following is a quote from the Oct 16th article. “Laura Feldman bought her RV lot and the 900-square –foot trailer sitting on it in 2009. Like the Sarto’s, she and her spouse, John Feldman, live at Leisure Estates full-time and have no other home. John, who is enlisted in the Army National Guard and is an Iraq War veteran, and Laura also are raising their 5-year-old son, Brendan, at Leisure Estates.” This is the dilemma that the current Board of Directors is trying to prevent. Though the Feldman’s sound like good people trying to make a nice life for themselves, living full time with a small child at an RV Park does not make much sense. When Brendan starts school will the school bus come into the park to pick him up?

Those people that built “cottages” (small houses) on their RV lots did so by misinterpreting and bending the stipulations of the original Covenants. Some of the people that are the offenders served on the “Board of Directors” just long enough to get their permits approved and often looked the other way when their friends decided to bend the rules allowing construction that clearly was not the intent for an RV park. Bending the rules seems to be a conquest for some people. My recollection is that Mr Sarto has two sheds on his property though only one is allowed. His interpretation is that the covenants talk about the size of the sheds, in his opinion since its plural more than one is therefore permitted (??). Also, a 900sq ft home on an RV lot should never have been allowed.

The plan from the beginning was to develop RRLE as an RV park, not a mobile home park nor a mini subdivision; it was never intended to be for full time living. Unfortunately the Covenants do not define a time limit; therefore several people have taken it upon themselves to interpret and/or to ignore this and other rules creating the conflict that the current Board of Directors is trying to rectify.

In their wisdom the original developers recognized that some people would like to live at RRLE full time and therefore designated a portion of the parks properties as “cottage lots” these lots are substantially larger and therefore can support stick built construction, so if someone wants to live at RRLE full time they can by purchasing one of these lots. Looking through the real estate ads there is always one or more of these for sale.

I just started reading the comments and not familiar with this place but can not believe that someone is suggesting that just because a person is a veteran that they should be over looked when breaking the rules. I'm a veteran and I follow rules because it is the right and proper thing to do. I'm sure most veterans feel the same way. Quit making excuses for these people. I think I will look into the rules of this place a little closer and find out what has been going on there. More comments to come.

Spettigrew: The Gazette removed your prior post that accused this reporter of "fabricating" quotes that Sharon Pettigrew made during a phone interview because the post was inaccurate, untrue, and potentially libelous. Readers should know that this reporter has reviewed an audio recording of the Oct. 13 phone conversation with Sharon Pettigrew, and the quote apparently in question was, in fact, reported accurately. Readers should be aware that on Oct. 13, prior to the story being published in print and online, this reporter emailed Ms. Pettigrew a note which included the direct quote in question as well as paragraphs showing the context in which the direct quote was being taken. Ms. Pettigrew did not respond to that email.

Neil Johnson

Etowne: Why would you question the Gazette about how many Board members are on RV lots but conveniently claim they are Wisconsin residents to save money, or better yet, how many property owners out there are claiming they are permanent Wisconsin residents for the sake of the property tax credit. Why would you single out the Board members? What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong and the question should be about all members. Also, is anyone living there permanently, illegally, in violation of the covenants, claiming the Lottery Credit? That should be questioned too.

Etowne: If you want to go by the rules permanent residence according to tax laws is where you reside for more than 6 months out of the year? How about going by the facts. HMMM, who is picking and choosing? You answered a question with questions but still avoid the facts. Obviously you assume since covenants, rules, by-laws, regulations, restrictions, laws are disregarded by some, everyone disregards them. You are mistaken - that is a minority. I suggest you read PUBLICATION 122, TAX INFORMATION FOR PART-YEAR RESIDENTS AND NONRESIDENTS OF WISCONSIN FOR 2010 and use facts. When you share facts it would be helpful to include your references so the information can be verified.

I'm a bit surprised to find that my comments about being misquoted were removed by the Gazette staff. What's the matter? Can't handle it being pointed out your mistakes, Mr. Johnson? "Staff"? Don't want anything written that contradicts your erroneous reporting? I think your actions in removing my comments speak very loudly for themselves.

i didnt ask if they were violating the covenants i asked if they were using these addresses to register boats , cars, purchase hunting and fishing license. and if their properties get the property tax credit .

There are seven boards members. Six of them are on RV lots. One is on a cottage lot. Of the six on RV lots 2 are WI Residents ( permanent residence outside the park), 3 are IL residents and 1 is a TX resident. So none are violating the covenants!!!!!

i guess now my question to the gazette is have you researched how many of these board members are on rv lots but convenience claim they are wisconsin residents to save money. or better yet how many property owners out there are claiming they are permanent wisconsin residents ,for the sake of the property tax credit

if you want to go by rules permanent residency according to tax laws is where you reside for more then 6 months out of the year, so i guess more then you think out there are violating the permanent residency requirement.or are you guys just picking and choosing which rules you follow? so it would be interesting to find out where these people vote? file their taxes at? show me in your where it state the length of time someone needs to be gone. it doesnt and it never has, more over if no one is a permanent resident out there are they paying the higher fees for fishing and hunting license, boat tags? or when all these fees come about are the all the sudden wisconsin residents?

Etowne. Cat got your tongue? Find it hard to respond to facts

In response to etown: First of all, not precedent setting: "ROCK RIVER LEISURE ESTATES RULES, ARTICLE VII, GENERAL PROVISIONS, Section 3. Enforcement
Enforcement of these covenants shall be by any proceeding at law or in the equity against any person or persons violating any covenant, either to restrain violation or to recover damages, and against the land to enforce any lien created by these covenants; and failure of the Association or any Owner to enforce any covenant herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter.
Also, as in the Fulton Township Planning and Zoning Committee meeting minutes: "Zimmerman read from the Property Tax Guide for WI Mobile Home Owners put out by the Dept. of Revenue – “A mobile home can be classified as real or personal property. The conditions required for a mobile home to be classified as an improvement to real property (70.043(1)) are: It is connected to utilities and, it is on a foundation upon land owned by the mobile home owner”. Zimmerman advised that is from the State." That is how the property is taxed. That has nothing to do with how the property is used. That is a zoning issue. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU WANT TO MAKE THEM THE SAME. The tax code will not change. That was already lost at the Wisconsin Supreme Court level. The people who support permanent residence can not get elected to the Board. The standard passed by 231 to 131. Clearly it is the permanent residents that do not have the support.

jhomer, let me ask you this do the other campgrounds have sewer and water hook up all year. are they renting the land or do they own the land, are there any permanent structures on these lots.if they didnt want these people there permanently then they shouldnt of been allowed to build something that couldnt be moved . its not like they can hook these places up to a truck and drive out of there . an these same home owners your trashing are the one s that also i see picking up the place during the week ,they are also the ones that seem to volunteer the most when something need s to be done , because god forbid should your weekend be interrupted by helping out the park . and as for looking at a car on a jack getting fixed get over yourself that s called life. things break people fix them . and how do you know its someone that lives there permanently , other s come in the spring and leave in the fall. their not just there on the weekend . and if the whole park truly feels the way you do then why cant they ever come up with 2/3 of the votes to change it . what really needs to happen is for the county to step in and make the roads public, fix the 911 issues the park has , these violations didnt happen over night. they were overlooked for year and years. i say the park set a precedent when they sold the building permits and allowed them to build permanent structures on what you call rv lots. collecting the money for a building permit and then later crying about what the park allowed to be built and how its used makes it seems like they just wanted the money , fulton twnshp too they also got money for building permits , then decided to tax them different , and now want to limit the use on these properties. fulton twnshp and the board need to make up there mind s is it a campground , if so then change the tax code, if not and it has water and sewer hook up year round then i dont see any reason they can t stay there yearly

Response to etown: No, YOU do not understand. Yes, the people at Rock River Leisure Estates own their own property. It does not matter what is built on an RV lot, permanent residency is not allowed. "ARTICLE V, COVENANTS, Section 1. Covenants Relating to All Lots, (b) Any lot less than nine thousand (9000) square feet in size shall not be used for a permanent residence." and "ARTICLE V, COVENANTS, Section 4. Covenants Relating to Recreational Vehicle Sites (i) A recreational vehicle on a recreational vehicle lot shall not be used as a permanent residence." IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT IS ON THE LOT. THERE IS NO PERMANENT RESIDENCE on a lot less than 9000 square feet and there is no permanent residence in a recreational vehicle on an RV lot. No, the Township and the Park did not know "they" were turning these places into permanent residences when they approved the permits. The Rock River Leisure Estates Building Permit Request reads "I have read and will comply with all Association Covenants, Rules, By-Laws and Architectural guidelines." The majority of the property owners have built on - but the rest of those that built on know they can not live there as a permanent resident, do not violate the covenants and when they signed the Permit Request abided by what they signed. Those that live there permanently and those that do not pay the SAME taxes. The State of Wisconsin has property taxes - not a land use tax. Why are you saying the permanent residents are not being grandfathered in? They definitely are. No one is trying to get 2/3 vote because it is not required. The covenant is already in place. Actually, no vote was required. The Board put it to a vote because they thought it was the right thing to do. 231 property owners voted YES to the standard and 131 voted NO. If you have a lot listed not as an RV lot, no you can NOT stay year round unless you are grandfathered or live on a Cottage lot. The President did not just build on his lot and he lives on a cottage lot not a recreational vehicle lot. It does not matter if the structure is permanent. It can NOT be removed from an RV listing without changing the zoning. If the zoning is changed it will require a new PUD. The existing PUD will not be grandfathered and current ordinance requirements will apply. The total land of Rock River Leisure Estates will have to be divided by 40,000 and the result is how many units will be allowed. The estimate is 250 units. Do you really want to eliminate that many sites? Please read the Fulton Township October Planning and Zoning Committee minutes available online and educate yourself. You think it is as easy as calling RV lots something else and then permanent residence will be allowed? You are wrong.

The article was kind of one sided. As far as the group of 32 homeowners filing the suit in Rock County Court most of them are permanent residents not SOME as stated. Laura Feldman stated they didn't learn of the residency restriction until after buying their place. There's a big sign at the front gate that states no permanent residency allowed. Our covanents spells it out and she has lived in the park with her parents who reside there full time as did her grandparents. I think that group put this together to get some sympathy for the child and vereran husband. Rock River Liesure Estates is an ownership campground and thats why we bought there. Most of the owners come from other campgounds in the area, because they were tired of paying the high seasonal camping rates with nothing to show for it. Also at those private campgrounds you can only use it six months a year not even on week-ends during Oct. thru April. It's for certain no campers would be buying here if it's a residential sub-division. It's kind of a class A campground and we do all the things that other campgrounds do. Most of the Full Time residents don't particapte in our park activities because its their home not a week-end getaway place like it was designed to be. Some of the things I've seen that comes with living there full time is cars up on jack stands being worked on. We've had a couple of people bringing their semi tractors in the park and leaving them sit in their driveways on their off time. This all comes along with living there full time. The park is a beautiful place and it stays that way because of our rules and covenants. All we need to do is READ them an FOLLOW them.

The park was formed in 1978 and Rock County negotiated the PUD. At that time Rock County did not want perminent living on lots less that 9,000 square feet. When the zoning was turned over to the township they grandfathered in the PUD. I was president of the RRLE board several years ago and we tried to get the perminent residents grandfathered in then. The board at that time was made up of three perminent residents and three others. The 3 perminent residents voted against the agreement and we were not allowed to take it to the rest of the people to agree to it. This is not a new issue but the few are trying to bully the rest of the owners into doing what they want. What the Sarto's failed to mention is that the Park Model trailers are by Wisconsin State statute defined as RV's of less than 400 square feet to be used for recreational and seasonal use only, not for perminent residency.

ok obiviously some of you dont understand the whole picture here , these people are not renting lots they OWN THESE LOTS, the lots set aside for rv lot s were not for permanent residency ,however this is what happened they allowed them to build around them , on them these are no longer mobile homes , or rv lots the structure on them are permanent, you cant put wheels on them and drive them down the road. fulton twnshp sold them a permit , rrle sold them a permit, they knew they were turning these places into permanent homes, then fulton twnshp comes back and said they are no longer rv lots they are permanent residence . so they tax them as such. so now your saying there not ? so does someone want to explain this to fulton twnshp. and its also not true they may be offering to grandfather these people in , it just there way of trying to get 2/3 of the vote .meanwhile if you have a lot listed not as an rv lot you can stay year round. matter of fact the park president just built on his lot. what they need to do is if the structure is permanent remove it from the rv lot listing and their problem would be solved. but its still there way of keeping out what they call trailer trash from buying in there .

Boo hoo. Read the rules and abide by them. It's not meant to be a permanent trailer...er, "manufactured home"...park. It's a resort. DEAL WITH IT!

Response to etown: Taxing is per the State of Wisconsin as a residence and zoning, or use, is per Fulton Township and the Planned Unit Development agreement. Rock River Leisure Estates is not zoned for permanent residence and it is against the covenants.

My family has vacationed at RRLE for 35 years. We have always known and itis stated in the covenants that permanent residency is not allowed. For years this has been an on going problem. Different RRLE boards have requested assistance from Fulton Township Bd to resolve this issue. The township advised the RRLE board to take the matter to court. The RRLE board did so and a judge rendered a decision. A decision that has yet to be enforced by the Fulton Township. The current RRLE board has tried to follow and enforce a Rock County Judge's decision. Permanent residents choose not to follow the ruling by this Judge nor does the township assist with this matter. As far as residents who follow this rule, like me, it is high time the Fulton Township Board enforce the Judge's ruling and put in place the restrictions as outlined in the Judge's decision. Shame on the township for not enforcing and honoring this Judge's decision. Start enforcing the ruling and assist the RRLE board members. Thank you

Response to etown: There is nothing in the Standards that says when you have to be gone - it is 3 months at any time. And that is only for those that bought after 1/1/2007. The other permanent residents are grandfathered.

Response to neonnate1002: That is exactly what they are doing - grandfathering the permanent residents but the permanent residents are still not satisfied because they have to pay $100 more a YEAR to do so.

In response to allisb: ROCK RIVER LEISURE ESTATES RULES, ARTICLE VII, GENERAL PROVISIONS, Section 3. Enforcement
Enforcement of these covenants shall be by any proceeding at law or in the equity against any person or persons violating any covenant, either to restrain violation or to recover damages, and against the land to enforce any lien created by these covenants; and failure of the Association or any Owner to enforce any covenant herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter.

I don't think well-run trailer parks are at risk (and anyway, the one by GM is in the city of Janesville, which as you may have noticed is A DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL BODY than the Town of Fulton).
.
I really have to agree here that the rules must have been clear from the beginning but maybe were not enforced strictly enough such that some people thought they could skate by. There was already a grandfathering in 2007; the point of that was to put the issue to bed, not keep it alive. So I can't work up too much sympathy here.
.
In general, from a planning standpoint, a development like this is considered "rural sprawl" (which is a bigger problem than urban sprawl, i.e. municipal annexations and fringe development). These people are living in remote areas where public services such as fire and police are stretched pretty thin, but they like the low property values and taxes. It would be much better for taxpayers and everyone else if people like this would buy into a planned unit development within a municipality where land-use is part of an open governmental process instead of "hey, I just turned my farm into a trailer park".

Easy...All the trailer park/campgrounds has to do is shut the power/water off like the other campgrounds do for the winter months.There is no way these people didn't know or realize what the bylaws were when they bought these trailers.

ooops - in response to unclesmoothie.

That's what I kind of wondered. .

"Rock County is hard up for money and if your low income or poor you’re not allowed to live anywhere in Rock County."
If you are poor you cannot clean up your crap?? That place was a dump and nobody took care of it from what I read. Soap and trash bags don't cost that much. Pride in where you live doesn't cost anything either.

Come on you people know what this issue is about MONEY they want the people out because they know they can’t bleed them dry for any more money because there low income that is why. This has nothing to do about the rules it’s about the money plain and simple because like every other Rock County is hard up for money and if your low income or poor you’re not allowed to live anywhere in Rock County. Let’s face it Rock County already shut down one trailer park for the same reason a while back I believe it was near Bradford Township and why they did not want low income people living there and they had owner problems now it’s the same thing all over again. I bet the next trailer park to go will be the one by GM so they can force those people out to.

"Sharon Pettigrew lives full-time on an RV lot at Leisure Estates. She considers herself to be in the wrong, and said she's willing to pay extra fees so the park will allow her to be a permanent resident. She wishes others violating the rules would do the same."

$30,000 a months?????

How about this..... the Sartos knew the rules, they signed a contract and decided to do whatever they wanted and now, they want to continue to do as they please regardless of what they agreed to legally..... I guess -- you should not have sold your home, or you should have gotten another mobile at another park, say in FL. Where you could spend the winter months, and the summer months could have been here..... That seems like a reasonable solution. You can use a PO box in each loaction. Satelite for TV. Be creative instead of playing a victim when you caused your own problem.

"The rule would allow the park to enforce its covenant—parts of which developers wrote when the park was founded and zoned as a planned-use development in the mid-1970s."
"Permanent residency at the park has been a fight for years, Prisk said. The park has posted signs explaining the restriction, and residents are required to sign the park's covenant when they move in."

Seems simple to me- you knew about this long ago. Get the rule changed and you can stay.
If people have health issues and aren't "snow birds" anymore then they need to sell and follow the rules.

As far as I know, year 'round residency was never allowed. I was going to buy a place there about 5 years ago until I found out I could not live there all year. Initially this place was to be a campground and it seems they are just now clarifying their rules. I saw this as a problem right away and decided not to buy there. I found an old cottage on lake Koshkonong and can do whatever, whenever I want there. Who in their right mind would buy a place KNOWING it is against the regulations to live there year round?

Rock County, you have some bigger problems to deal with. THis is not a low income development. THis is a nice park with people paying taxes. Turn your attention to the blighted properties in Janesville and Beloit.

I say grandfather in the current permanent residents. It sounds like there is a only a few of them. Then enforce the rules to new people and the ones who already do not stay full time. (sounds like a union contract) This may sound unfair but it also will eventually in time eliminate the permanent people as they move or pass on. Also tax the permanent residents at real home tax rates or slightly higher.

yada , thats the problem no where in the covenant does it say a length of time they have to be gone , they just recently said that they had to be gone 3 months , and can only reside there for 9. most of these people do leave for a month , it may not be in one stretch but they do leave . some in the summer , some in the winter now they want it all winter months .

If they signed a covenant / contract indicating they understood that they cannot live at Leisure Estates for more than nine months a year and the court said they cannot - then it is time for them to move out. That should be the end of story and if they do not leave - sad to say, the Rock Co. sheriff should post notices of eviction. You feel empathy for those living at the estates, but you have to look at how this park was first set up and respect its rukes of operation.

Just follow the rule's. Or leave.

Prisk said the park has, in the past, caught heat from the town of Fulton.
"They don't want this place to turn into a low-income development," he said.
You here that that is the sound of discrimination they don’t want low income people living there now we see what Fulton Township and Rock County are all about. No low income people living in Rock County and the Township is using the law to enforce it I see how it is makes me mad when people treat other people like dirt based on the income status in fact one of those residents enlisted in the Army National Guard and is an Iraq War veteran. How dare you treat a veteran that way! This how we treat our vets now makes me sick I hope these people can find some way to move. Makes me sick Rock County Fulton Township and the city of Edgerton treat people and veterans and low income people like that. I have no respect for Fulton Township the County or the city of Edgerton or the Park in the way they treat the Veteran or the low income people living there. Shame on the people of Rock County you all have no heart

Go west, go west to Wyoming it's there where you'll find a place where you can park your trailer and do with it what ever you want. In Wyoming is a state where the people there feel they can do what want with the property they own. Look into it.

"IN OTHER WORDS THEY DONT WANT THE TRAILER TRASH FROM THIS AREA BUYING IN THERE"

Sounds like they have a personal problem.

the problem came about when fulton township decided to tax these different,once they started taxing the residence as full time they should be able to use them full time . their bylaws are outdated, their problem is they cant get enough votes to change anything property owner s dont return their ballots. basically its just the board those people leave for the winter and therefore think everyone else should too. now when they enact their rule you have to be gone three months, they set the 3 months in the middle of winter. then told the owner s if they wanted to access their property to even come up for a weekend of snowmobiling or whatever they would need to get permission , really permission to use your own property. they claim it will save money? how they still have to plow the roads , in case the fire dept needs to get in . what they seem to forget this clause will also cause the property owner s more in insurance , a vacant park is a liability , more theft , more damage when things arent overseen . if youve been through this park , it s not even close to looking like a mobile home park . the people that are there year round, properties are well kept. in most cases much better then the one s who arent there . in these time s these people cant take the loss on selling. an with age, some need to cut back . alot of these people that bought out their were younger when they came as they got older sold their home s and then went south , alot of them renting when down south rather then purchasing as their health got bad they can no longer go back and forth and had to choose. they have water and sewer they can use all year long , if they didnt i said no dont let them , but they do and they have to pay for those services year round so i say let them stay . HERES THE BOARDS REAL PROBLEM ITS NOT WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE , IT S WHO MIGHT COME IF THEY ALLOW PERMANENT LIVING , IN OTHER WORDS THEY DONT WANT THE TRAILER TRASH FROM THIS AREA BUYING IN THERE

I would make sure that I was able to comply with all rules and regulations before selling my house and having no place to go if and when someone decides to enforce said rules. I am checking my sympathy meter at this time and it seems to be stuck on zero.

You want to live like that because your property taxes are much lower than a "permanent year round residence", now the piper is asking to be paid and I am supposed to be sorry for these people. Probably not.

I lived in a subdivision that had covenants that had been somewhat overlooked over the years. When an issue arose over a building(yard barn) being too close to the lot line, I heard that the association didn't have a chance in court because they hadn't enforced the policies for so long,they were null and void.I would check in to that before I sold and moved away