SLohA 2016/2017 Standing Committees...

Dick Tracy wrote:

With the present situation in S-bag Lake Resort, this Standing Committee is not really needed at the present time. Or are we still pretending, Yes Santa Claus is Coming To Town, and Yes, Rudolph does have a "Red Nose" That Glows So Bright.

Repeat again:  There is NO provision in the Governing Documents--whether Dead or Alive--which authorizes SLohA to dictate any aspect of architectural choices on owners' private property.  SLohA learned this by losing a lawsuit and they know it well by now (one would hope).  Beyond border hedge height, the Covenants--Dead or Alive--are silent on homeowner architectural preferences and activities.  Homeowners must comply with Polk County Building Division only.  Polk County IS the Governing Entity and its guidelines ARE the Governing Documents.

The Rules and Regulations have been recently adjudicated to be partitioned from the CCR's, thanks to the Sodheads' lawsuit.  The Judge said that there was no enforcement of the "prevailing attorney fee" provision in the CCR's because the CCR's never legally bound owners to the subsequently adopted Rules & Regulations (upon which the lawsuit was based).  The Rules & Regulations--when and if they are ever re-presented to members and re-adopted under a revived CCR, are simply suggestions and do not have the force of law.  Does SLohA need this lesson repeated too?

The Committee above can state what it wants homeowners to believe and it can "advise" homeowners on its preferences, but it has no authority or mandate to "oversee" and "enforce".  It may "provide guidance" or, the homeowner can simply say "No, Thank You".

Further, SLohA cannot "amend" its revived documents (if revived) because architectural control is a material/substantive restriction on property rights.  Such a restriction can be achieved in two ways: 

1) if 100% homeowners approve the additional restriction and

2) if SLohA rewrites its CCR's to include such a restriction.  If #2 option is chosen, only those who agree to being bound by a new set of CCR's would be bound by the restriction. 

IMO, if #2 were selected, it would capture a supermajority approval, based upon the revitalization results of about 75%.  I believe that this is the course SLohA should have taken from the start back in 2012.  SLohA should have completely overhauled the CCR's according to the reality of today's culture/neighborhood demographics and gotten as many people to sign on as possible.  The stragglers could then be lobbied at the point of a future parcel turnover and encouraged to self-encumber. 

But, SLohA chose to rely on Management Company's attorneys that expiration of CCR's was a "gray area" and it FAILED to even get a second legal opinion on this important issue.

As of "Jan. 27, 2017" SLohA still has this Standing Committee listed on SLohA's Web Site:

Architectural Committee:

Mandate: To oversee and facilitate the installation of new manufactured homes within the resort. This committee will follow the direction of the SLohA Governing Documents in monitoring the dimensions and configuration of all new homes being proposed for entry into the resort. The committee will oversee the placement of all such structures on the proposed site. The committee may provide guidance to those proposing the installation and will report any apparent violations to the Board of Directors for their resolution.



leery listerine,

Just A Note.   Polk County Rules !

JA
16RC

Has anyone read the Rules that were submitted to Bartow in March of 2014?  The allowed square footage is 1,200.  Not the 48 X 24 = 1,152 sq. ft. that SLohA is holding owners to right now.  I want my additional 48 sq. ft.  That means a unit can have a bay window in addition or be 50' X 24'.