We finally received the long awaited deed restriction amendments and I am both amazed and appalled by them.  I am amazed that the Board would so obviously pander to certain homeowners and former board members and I am appalled at the amount of power that the Board is trying to reserve for itself.  I am convinced that the Board has NO authority to do anything EXCEPT collect $2/month for canal maintenance because there was no written transfer of the developer's rights to the Board in 1984, or after, as required by Florida law (State Statute 720.301 (5) (b); see Gatso's Letter).  By changing Deed Restriction #25, the Board admits to this.

After reading the proposed amendments, I am sure that very few will vote Yes for them.  However, if, by some chance, you are thinking of voting yes for some, OR you are confused by all the legal language, OR are just undecided, this page is for you.  Please read it carefully and read over the original, recorded Declaration of Restrictions to see how far away this Board is going from the original purpose and intent of the only restrictions that we must live under.

I will reference the number on the amendment page that was sent to us and then the number of the deed restriction.  Read over the amendments, since I will only be making editorial comments about the changes.

1.  Article One of the Declaration of Restrictions.  There is a recorded document in Tallahassee legally changing the name of the association from Holiday City at Boca Raton Homeowners' Association to Palmetto Pines Homeowners' Association.  This change makes no difference to anyone so my recommendation is to vote YES.

2.  Article Seven of the Declaration of Restrictions.  The Board has removed their only defense for taking down Domenic Muccicciaro's dock and has, in the last sentence, added something from the Rules and Regulations that are currently not binding on us.  The Bylaws run the day to day management of the Association.   There are two differences between Rules and Regulations and deed restrictions.  Rules and Regulations can be changed by a Board vote only AND apply ONLY to common areas and recreational facilities.  Deed Restrictions can be changed by an affirmative vote of 2/3's of the Homeowners (593 people) and apply to your own home and property.  My recommendation is to vote NO.

3.  Article Sixteen of the Declaration of Restrictions.  It would have been smarter to say "any permits required by any governmental agency", instead of "county, city (we're not in a city and I'm sure Boca Raton doesn't want to hear from us) or state" (at this point I don't think the state requires permits).  The Architectural Review Board has set itself up as the final decider of what the structure can look like and where it can be located, and the ARB can change its mind at any time.  Who is the ARB?  Right now it is  Mike Charloff, a Board member and Jack Knight supporter.  If there are any others on the committee, they haven't been mentioned at board meetings.  Read the Declaration of Restrictions, # 12, the third paragraph.  The ARB, or Architectural Control Committee as it is called in the deed restrictions, is to be made up of three members appointed by the Subdivider.  After Jan. 1, 1985, we, as homeowners, have the right through a vote and a duly recorded written document (in other words, a piece of paper giving the results of the election, which is then to be recorded in West Palm Beach) to change the members of this committee.  There has NEVER been a vote by the homeowners.  WE have NO control over the ARB, but the Board wants us to be subject to its whims.  This amendment gives one, or at most three board members, control over what you can do on your property.  My recommendation - vote NO.

4.  Article Nineteen of the Declaration of Restrictions.  Again, the ARB has set itself up as the final arbiter of what you can put on your property.  Moving the fences from the back to the front of the property protects several Board members, including the past president, Mr. Espineira, and the current president, Mr. Lee.  Frankly, I think six feet high is too high for chain link fences, but privacy fences are fine at that height.  However, I strongly object to having someone who never owned my property tell me what kind of fence I can have, therefore, I recommend a NO vote.

5.  Article Twenty-Three of the Declaration of Restrictions.  It's interesting to note that on this article only the name changes from Declaration of Deed Restrictions (used throughout the amendment proposal) to Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions.  It appears that the Board is trying to make the parking rules in their Rules and Regulations the same as deed restrictions.  They can NOT do that!  This section will follow the lettering of the amendment.

a.  The swale area is part of the County Right of Way.  Florida Statute 316.194 Stopping, standing or parking outside of municipalities - states:

(1) Upon any highway outside of a municipality, no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the paved or main-traveled part of the highway when it is practicable to stop , park, or so leave the vehicle off such part of the highway.

Florida Statute 316.003 (53) defines Street or Highway as (a) The entire width between the boundary lines of every way or place of whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular traffic.  

What are the boundary lines?  They could be between the paved section of the road and the swale, as stated above, or they could be between the homeowner's property line (inside the sidewalk) and the county right of way.  The Board has NO right to tell you where to park your cars.  This part of the amendment is limiting how many cars you are allowed to own.  As an example, a person in a one car garage house can have a maximum of three cars.  If that family has two teenage or older drivers, besides Mom and Dad, resulting in four cars, under this amendment, that family would have to get rid of one car.  What if you've moved into a house where the garage was converted to another room?  You have no place to put any of the offensive vehicles because you have no garage.  Do you want the Board to have this kind of power over you?

b.  If you own a recreational vehicle - which is whatever the BOARD decides is a recreational vehicle, you cannot have it out on your property for any reason, for any time at all.  Boat owners can't leave their boats out for an early morning departure or have it out to rinse it off after use.  Class A, B, and C motorhomes can't be parked for any time on your driveway in spite of the fact that both the county and the state say that is not illegal.

c.  If you have a pickup truck and the Board thinks you're using it as a recreational vehicle, you will have to keep it in the garage.  Whatever the Board determines you will have to go along with.  If I want to get custom chrome wheels on my pickup truck, the Board can tell me to put the truck in the garage.  This part of the amendment changes nothing (the Board, aka Jack Knight, still hates pickup trucks) except putting the word pickup in the restriction, where it never was.  Read the original restriction 23 and find the word pickup truck.  It's not there!

d.  If you have a pickup truck that has a tool box in the bed, it can't be parked outside your house because it will be considered a commercial vehicle.  Will Tom Galiotti, a Board member, have to put his car, with all the airport commercial licenses, in his garage instead of leaving it out all night, every night?  That car is a commercial vehicle according to this definition.  Twenty years ago, Walt's Window Repair was prominently displayed on trucks in Section 9 where he lived.  Not only was he not harassed, for the first ten years (before Jack Knight), but he got so much business from the homeowners here that he gave a good discount to them.  Who wouldn't want to know if a neighbor can repair air conditioners or has a pool service, or can lay rugs.  It is not a crime to be a worker.  Anyone who wants to make this community look like only the idle rich live here should move to Estancia.

e.  The Board has the sole right to determine what a nuisance vehicle is.  If they couldn't get you on the first four provisions of this amendment, they'll get you on this one.  Do you, or someone in your family, have a vehicle that is a little noisy, or a car that might be two toned because of an accident, or a car that's more that ten years old?  The Board can make  anything it wants a nuisance and you have no defense!

f.  If you're storing a car for a son who is in the armed services or you have a hobby of restoring cars, you can't ever have the car outside of the garage, not even with a fitted car cover over it.

g.  If you are handy enough to fix your car, or your car has a flat, it must be in the garage with the door closed.  There would be no more ability to work on your car outside and it is VERY unhealthy to work on a car inside a closed garage, but obviously this Board is not concerned with your safety.  Heaven help you if your car breaks down in your driveway (mine did once).  You could be sued if someone rats on you to the Board before you can get the car towed or repaired.  It's amazing how easily people can be offended by the sight of people going about their normal activities, trying to save money, or make do with what they have.

h.  Everybody should become part of a governmental agency.  Then you could have a boat, a trailer, a motorhome, a jet ski, a monster truck because, a through f doesn't apply as long as the vehicle is owned by the government.  What kind of discrimination is that?

i.  The Board is the final arbiter.  If they tell you to get rid of a vehicle or put it in your garage, you can't fight them and you can't win.  Do you REALLY want to give the Board this power over your life.  I strongly recommend a NO vote for this amendment!

6.  Article 24 of the Declaration of Restrictions.  Everywhere else in these amendments the Board underlined the new portion, crossed out the change, and left the old wording alone, except for this amendment.  They didn't underline "for sprinkler usage on the owner's lot" which is all new.  Currently, the only use of well water is for filling and refilling a swimming pool.  By not underlining "sprinkler usage" they are leading you to believe that that was always there, which gives legitimacy to Jack Knight's continual use of well water to water his lawn while he was on the Board and now - a clear deed restriction violation for which he was NEVER sued.  Jack never filtered his water so his well water usage stinks up the neighborhood and he has not been painting his home to get rid of the ugly rust stains.  Even if he painted the house, he can't disguise the stains on the trees, his air conditioning unit, and anything else left outside.  This amendment should be left as originally stated and enforced as vigorously against Jack Knight as it has been against others.  Wells stink up the neighborhood, do nothing to conserve water, and shouldn't be tolerated.  I recommend a NO vote.

7.  Article 25 of the Declaration of Restrictions.  The original purpose of the association is to maintain waterways and canals and we, as homeowners, are asked to contribute a small amount each month to pay for the maintenance of something that keeps our lots and roads dry and above water.  Homeowners have questioned the authority of the Association to assess for more than anything other than as originally stated in Article 25.  NOW, the Board has rewritten this simple paragraph to say that we, as homeowners, have to pay whatever the Board says, for whatever reason the  Board wants, without any direct vote by the homeowners, and, if we fail to pay whatever amount the Board demands, they can add all sorts of extra fees that could take years to repay or result in the foreclosure and loss of your home.  By taking this provision from the bylaws and putting it here, the Board recognizes the fact that they cannot enforce this now.  If this passes, no one can go to court to protest this forced and grossly unfair assessment.  The Board will have total control over what it does, with an unlimited money supply, since no one can protest this.  I strongly recommend a NO vote.

The Board has neglected to mention, in their long letter, that according to Florida Statue 720.306 (1) (b) Unless otherwise provided in the governing documents or required by law, and other than those matters set forth in paragraph (c), any governing document of an association may be amended by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the voting interests of the association.

(c) Unless otherwise provided in the governing documents as originally recorded, an amendment may not affect vested rights unless the record owner of the affected parcel and all record owners of liens on the affected parcels join in the execution of the amendment.

If any ONE of these amendments passes, it will be an administrative nightmare keeping track of who is covered by the passed amendment and who is not.  If you vote no for any amendments, you had better make copies so that you can prove to whoever asks, or tries to take you to court, that you are not covered by the amendment.

Last modified: June 13, 2001

Send in your comments! email webmaster@palmettopines.com

This website is for information only. Any information presented here will be accurate to the best of our abilities, but you should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The webmaster and hosting company disclaim any liability for the information contained herein, and will not be responsible for the use of said information. All Rights Reserved, Copyright 2001.