The Board of Directors held their special meeting last night, June 12, and it was an eye-opener!  This Board recognized that State Law takes precedence when they said that a quorum was 30% of the membership (See Florida Law 720.306(1)(a)).  Wonder of wonders, the quorum was met.  However, by the time the signing in and counting of proxies was accomplished to establish the quorum, it was clear how the people in the room felt.

Howard Solomon had the unenviable task of trying to answer questions about the amendments.  The change in the amendment from subdivider to Association when referring to who has the authority to enforce the deed restrictions was called "housekeeping, since the Association already had the authority to enforce".  Where the Association got this authority from was  a mystery to a lot of the people that were there, judging by their questions (see Elaine Gatso's letter).   Mr. Solomon and Tamar Shendell, the lawyer, just kept saying that "the Board already had the authority" when questioned by the homeowners. (If you read the deed restrictions carefully, you will see that this Board, and any other previous Board,  has never had ANY authority to do anything except collect $2/month for maintenance of the canals and waterways.) 

People questioned the inclusion of the parking rules in the Truck amendment.  One woman said that families have teenage children who have cars and where are they supposed to park?  The only concrete answer I heard from the Board, the lawyer, or Mr. Solomon was enlarge your driveway.  (County code has limits on how wide you can make your driveway.)  One lady said that she parked her car on the street and the police came and told her to get the car off the street because emergency vehicles couldn't get through.  A man said that he moved in here as a single man twenty years ago.  Now he has teenage children, getting ready for cars.  Where are they going to park?  I was appalled at the lack of caring about the homeowners' problems exhibited by the board and the attorney. 

When Mr. Solomon started talking about trucks, somehow SUV's were mentioned as a type of truck.  The Board and Ms. Shendell did nothing to correct Mr. Solomon's perception that SUV's are the same as commercial trucks.  One homeowner, a former board member, asked if he had a van without windows with a roof rack to hold his surf board, was that a commercial vehicle?  The answer was no.  Then the homeowner asked what if I put my plumbing supplies in the van.  Mike Charloff, a Board member, said if you have plumbing supplies in your van, then it's a commercial van and not allowed.  (Are we going to see the management company peering into the front windows of vans to check out what is being carried in them?  That sounds like trespassing to me!  And just where in our Deed Restrictions is commercial vehicle ever mentioned?  Let me tell you - NOWHERE!)

Sheds brought up another good round of questions.  According to Mr. Solomon, the amendment would allow a homeowner to erect a shed without getting an ARB because the ARB would set standards to follow.  One homeowner asked how we could vote for standards that haven't been set yet.  Mr. Solomon said that the amendment would allow the ARB to set the standards.  ( I don't know about you, but the way I read that amendment, you would still have to get ARB approval for any shed you wanted, AND the ARB could change the standards at any time and you would have to comply or remove your shed.)

He mentioned water wells and went off into the legality of having them, not the question of stinking up the neighborhood or staining your house by using them to water your lawn.  It was glossed over quickly.

He came to the change in amendment 25 where the Association would now be able to enforce the deed restrictions.  Again he called it "housekeeping".  Homeowners questioned whether the $2/month would be added to their assessment and were told that it was already included.  No mention was made that, legally, that was ALL the Board could assess.  

One homeowner asked what the definition of a waterway was.  Ms. Shendell said the high water mark.  The homeowner said that, according to engineering standards, the waterway went from the end of the homeowner's property across the canal to the end of the opposite homeowner's property.  He wanted to know why no one from any Board had ever done anything to maintain the land beyond his property line and said that he had to maintain what was common land.  Julie Anderson, a Board member, said that she lived on a canal and only she cut the grass and that it wasn't common land, but the responsibility of the homeowner.  

Finally, Mr. Solomon called for questions regarding the removal of Don Hulse from the board.  The room erupted with shouted questions as to why the Board wanted him removed.  When order was restored, Ms. Shendell said that Mr. Hulse had revealed things that were confidential.  Various board members said that Mr. Hulse refused to go along with the direction that the Board was taking.  (Since when did we elect a bunch of yes-men that never discuss any questions, but just give their rubber stamp approval to everything?).  

Mr. Hulse came from the back of the room and said that he was there and willing to answer any questions that anyone had.  The Board started to shout him down, but the homeowners were louder, demanding that he be allowed to speak.  Finally, Mr. Solomon told Mr. Hulse that he had his two minutes to speak.  Mr. Hulse then asked Ms. Shendell what he had revealed that was confidential.  Ms. Shendell said she couldn't mention it since it had to do with ongoing litigation.  Mr. Hulse then asked, "Was it Elaine Gatso's letter?"  Ms. Shendell said yes.  Mr. Hulse said that it wasn't confidential, it was printed in a newsletter.  Ms. Shendell said, "No, it wasn't."  (Since I have a copy of that particular newsletter, maybe Ms. Shendell should check her facts before making false statements about people.)  

At that point Tom Galiotti, the Board member with the commercial vehicle parked outside his house every night, stood up and said that Board members had to be in compliance with the deed restrictions and Mr. Hulse wasn't in compliance with ANY of them!  (How stupid does he think we are?)  

It was obvious to the Board that the vote for the amendments and for the removal of Mr. Hulse was not going to go their way and they called for a vote of the members present to continue this special meeting thirty days from now.  Between now and then some people volunteered to go door to door to try and get the people who didn't show up and didn't send in proxies to vote. (It seems to me that if they didn't show up and didn't send in proxies, their vote is a blanket NO.  Why is the Board unable to accept the homeowner's vote as of last night?  I was surprised at how out of touch with the community this Board really is.  One homeowner asked when any survey was done to get a feel for what the community wanted and was told by Tom Galiotti that it was done when the proxies were collected in the fall.  Since he did not go out to collect ONE proxy, how would he know what the community wanted?  However, he has spent a lot of time with Jack Knight and Joe Quattrachi and their friends, so he absolutely knows what THEY want.)

Before the meeting was adjourned, Mr. Solomon, understanding that the homeowners present did not want lawsuits to start up again, or to continue, gave an alternative remedy.  He said that the Board could, according to Florida State Law, assess fines against homeowners who don't comply with the deed restrictions.  Those fines would become a lien against the house.  (What he didn't say was that, in the past, homeowners were forced out when the Association foreclosed on the liens, causing the homeowner to lose his house.)  

Mr. Solomon again misquoted Florida Law - see Old Pages, under Property Manager's Report.  This time he was quoting 720.305(2)(a) "A fine or suspension may not be imposed without notice of at least 14 days to the person sought to be fined or suspended and an opportunity for a hearing before a committee of at least three members appointed by the board who are not officers, directors, or employees of the association, or the spouse, parent, child, brother, or sister of an officer, director, or employee. If the committee, by majority vote, does not approve a proposed fine or suspension, it may not be imposed."  This is what Mr. Solomon was proposing - a homeowner would come before a committee of other homeowners to defend himself and then the committee would decide whether or not to impose a fine.  

However, he neglected to refer to or mention the full Statute 720.305(2), which (a) is part of.  720.305 (2) says: "If the governing documents so provide, an association may suspend, for a reasonable period of time, the rights of a member or a member's tenants, guests, or invitees, or both, to use common areas and facilities and may levy reasonable fines, not to exceed $100 per violation, against any member or any tenant, guest, or invitee. A fine may be levied on the basis of each day of a continuing violation, with a single notice and opportunity for hearing, except that no such fine shall exceed $1,000 in the aggregate unless otherwise provided in the governing documents."  (All of 720.305 refers to homeowners and their guests or tenants using common areas and facilities.  This DOES NOT refer to your individual home or property.  

NO ONE has the right to tell you how you can live unless you have given that right to them!  Do we really want to give that kind of power to this or any other board?)

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.