IH Declaration of Restriction and By-Laws were created in 1973 by the Developers, protecting the Developers’ interests and their vision for Indian Hammock.
Amenities that did not exist in 1973 are now essential and changed the way communities operate.
Since 1973 Indian Hammock transformed from a Hidden Weekend Retreat lots and cabins to mostly full-time and some part-time residences of an outdoor-oriented community.
The needs of Indian Hammock Owners changed, and the Governing Documents need to be revised and be updated to accommodate the technologies and demographic changes that took place since 1973.
Considerations for the Revised IH Governing Documents:
Demographic changes: Reduce interference of the BOD on owner Full-time and Part-time residences. Remove restrictions that suppress the Owners’ sustainability.
Let start a polite conversation. Suggestions, opinions, and ideas are more than welcome.
2020-10-19 Dear Board of Directors (BOD) The following is my response to your latest proposed version of the “Book of Rules.”
Page 4. General Rules: 1.1. You don’t have the “exclusive responsibility and authority in the management and maintenance” of my lot 246, which is part of “the property.” I have such responsibility and authority.
1.2. You are missing the main point; this is the place to make a statement: No rule shall apply if it contradicts or violates the Declaration of Restrictions.
1.6.10 “Rules and regulations adopted by the Board” does not regulate activities on my lot 246. Only the Declaration of Restrictions and the By-Laws do.
Page 7 7.3 Unattended Status: 7.3.1.3 Total nonsense. You can’t block my access to my Lot 246; I am entitled to free access 24 hours, seven days a week each day of the year.
Page 8 8. Driving Privileges. Driving is Owner’s Right, subject to Florida Laws. No BOD can take away my right, and replace it with a “privilege”, to drive from the gate to my lot 246.
Page 11 Property Use: 11.1 This is an admission and announcement by the BOD that they will continue to ignore and violate the Declaration of Restrictions when the BOD allows itself to do so.
The BODs are “struggling” to justify that in contradiction to currently existing rule 27, they violated the Declaration of Restrictions and entered into a contract for picking palmetto berries; they have done it in 2019 and again in 2020.
Adding the words “for the financial benefits of the club” has no meaning or weight, BOD, you govern within the power limitations instated by the Declaration of Restrictions, or you are a renegade BOD fabricating laws to amend the Declaration of Restriction without obtaining 2/3 of the owner votes.
11.2 The BOD states that the Declaration of Restrictions forbids Berries Picking but makes a rule that allows Berries Picking.
Page 11 13. Animal Restrictions 13.1 The BOD is adding a Restriction camouflaged as a Rule. This Restriction can’t be enforced without amending the Declaration of Restrictions with the required 2/3 owners’ votes
Page 12 15.1.7 If the Tenant is not allowed to use Indian Hammock amenities (see page 13 paragraph 15.3.1), why should the owner also give away his right to use Indian Hammock amenities?
Page 14 Paragraph 16. This issue is covered in The Declaration of Restrictions. It should not be rewritten here.
January 2019 election was determined by: Proxies Used and Unused – 115 of 299, being 38.5% of the voting power. In Attendance – 81 of 299, being 27.1% of the voting power. (103 Votes, being 34.4%, did not participate in any way.)
In the January 2019 election, a candidate needed 79 or more votes to win a board seat. The bigger three or so proxies’ holders can determine the outcome of the election, agreeing which candidates they will jointly support and put on the BOD.
Our documents allow this faulty Election System and should be changed to establish a much better-updated system that will incorporate computers, the internet, emails, video conference, etc. All were not in existence when Indian Hammock documents were written. It probably will take years to achieve these changes, as it requires 2/3 of the voting power
My goal and the reason for this posting is to achieve some transparency BEFORE the upcoming election. I call on the BOD to publish and advertise the names of the five biggest proxies’ holders in each of the last three elections and the number of proxies each had. I call on the BOD to make it a standard procedure to provide this information each year.
I understand this is not a “priority” for the BOD members who may enjoy the current system.
If you wish to bring a little transparency to the upcoming election, help put the pressure on the BOD and join me in demanding the list of names and the number of proxies each had.
Nextdoor is a hyper local social networking service for neighborhoods. The company was founded in 2008 and is based in San Francisco, California. Nextdoor launched in the United States in October 2011, and is currently available in 11 countries. Users of Nextdoor are required to submit their real names and addresses (or street without the exact number) to the website; posts made to the website are available only to other Nextdoor members living in the same neighborhood.
The Declaration of Restrictions is what its name implies, Restrictions, taking away some of the Individual Owner/Member’s Rights, in order to create a livable Community.
The Declaration of Restrictions contains all of the Deed Restrictions and it is the only document a Deed Restrictions can be placed. Deed Restrictions cannot be amended, added, or removed without being voted on by the Owners and getting a 2/3 majority vote of the Owners.
The Declaration of Restrictions also contains those Guidelines, Rules and Regulations which cannot be added to, removed from, or amended without being voted on by the Owners and getting a 2/3 majority vote of the Owners.
The Declaration of Restrictions protects the individual Owner/Member’s rights by establishing that any future restriction on individual Owner/Member’s rights can not be done without being voted on by the Owners and getting a 2/3 majority vote of the Owners.
The Declaration of Restrictions Article XII – General Provision; Section 3. says: “The Club, by two thirds (2/3) vote of approval of the membership, may modify, amend or add to this Declaration of Restrictions.”
The 2019 Florida Statutes 720.306; Section (b) says: “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.”
The Declaration of Restrictions only gave the Board of Directors the authority to create Rules and Regulations relating to administration and management, as long as those Rules and Regulations are not in conflict with the Declarations of Restrictions. Only such Rules and Regulations can be voted in by the majority of the Board of Directors.
This argument is NOT about if “25’ Buffer” is good or bad Idea. This argument is about is there is an enforceable “25 Buffer” in Indian Hammock or not.
The assumption of an enforceable “25’ Buffer” is based on Rule 11 in the Book of Rules. Rule number 11 says: 11.1 The Club’s Land Clearing, Landscaping and Building Guidelines, adopted as Rules regulating clearing and construction by the Board August 19, 2007, are incorporated herein by reference as a rule.
I was told that Rule 11 was voted on by the BOD and added to the Book of Rules in 2010. I was told that the current version of the Land-clearing/Landscaping packet is identical to the August 19, 2007 version.
Page one of the Land-clearing/Landscaping packet contains the following statement: “…The land-clearing/landscape packet was produced in accordance with the Declaration of Restrictions of Indian Hammock…” This statement is not true. Rule 11 and the Land-clearing/Landscaping packet are in violation to the Declaration of Restrictions.
The Land-clearing/Landscaping packet violates the Declaration of Restrictions in the following two paragraphs: On page 3 paragraph 8. – the land-clearing/landscape packet says: “A natural buffer of twenty-five feet must be left around all property lines. Property lines that have a utility easement in use should have a natural buffer of twenty-five feet beyond the easement.”
On page 4 paragraph 1. – the land-clearing/landscape packet says: “…A buffer of twenty-five feet must be left around all property lines. Property lines that have a utility easement in use should have a natural buffer of twenty-five feet beyond the easement. It is the responsibility of the land owner/Member to ensure these buffer zones are kept intact during clearing. Fines and/or the requirement to replace the vegetation can be imposed. Should this area be void of vegetation on your lot, additional landscaping material may be needed. It is preferable that this be the natural vegetation of Indian Hammock. If a fence is proposed, this buffer should work to complement the design of the fence.”
These two paragraphs must be rephrased to what they used to be, a guideline of what is desirable, not to be stated as if they are the “Law of the Land” The Declaration of Restrictions does not contain a Deed Restriction that takes away the Owner’s Rights, or controls the vegetation in the “25’ Buffer” and gives this control to the BOD.
The Declaration of Restrictions already has a Deed Restriction that covers the Owner’s land near the lot’s boundaries; it is the 50’ No Build Zone.
Article VIII Section 3 says: “No building shall be erected on any Residential lot closer than 50 feet to the front, side or rear lot line thereof…”
Nowhere in the Declaration of Restrictions is a “25’ Buffer” incorporated into the 50’ No Build Zone.
A 25’ Buffer Zone with vegetation restrictions can only be added to the Declaration of Restrictions by amending the Declaration of Restrictions, requiring a 2/3 majority vote of all Owners/Members
For more about Restrictions, Rules, and What is this fight about:
Restrictions – Individual Owner’s Rights that Owners agreed to sacrifice in order to create a livable community. Restrictions should be kept to the bare minimum; only 2/3 Majority of Owners’ vote can add, remove, or amend a restriction.
Restrictions are part of the Declaration of Restrictions. Example of a Restriction is the “50’ No Build Zone” in the Declaration of Restrictions, Article Viii Section 3: “No Building shall be erected on any Residential lot closer than 50’ to the front, side or rear lot lines…”
Rules – Managerial, Administrative and Operational Regulations that do not take away Individual Owner’s Rights.
Rules can’t be in conflict with the Declaration of Restrictions or the By-Laws. Rules are suggested by the BOD to the Owners for discussions and are voted in by the BOD. Rules are part of the BOD Book of Rules. An example of a Rule is the “Establishing of Committees” in the Book of Rules 1. General paragraph 2.1 “The Board shall at its first meeting of the New Year, establish by written resolution its committees for the coming year (“Committee or Committees”) and the role of each Committee”
What are we fighting for and why.
Over the years when the BODs did not believe they would get the required 2/3 Majority Owners vote, chose to pass Restrictions disguised as Rules, and incorporated them in the Book of Rules. This practice illegally shifted Power and Rights from the Owners to the BODs. The goal is to restore this power and rights back to the Owners by forcing the BOD to cancel those illegal Rules; alternatively, the BOD can try to get the required 2/3 majority vote of the Owners.
The goal is to Restore power and rights back from the BOD to the Owners.
It will require time, effort and perseverance as the BODs will fight back using all their assumed power to maintain the gain in power they have achieved. With time, using information channels that were not available when Indian Hammock started, we will be able to get transparency and information that is not easily available now, share it, and get enough Owners involved in order to shift the power and Rights back to where they belong.
Indian Hammock’s BOD, in violation of the Declaration of Restrictions, put a 25′ Buffer Deed Restriction into the Book of Rules.
The process was slow and took many years, and it was carried out in stages by a few BOD.
The following information was obtained from longtime residents of Indian hammock.
Sometime in 1998 the idea of a 15’ Buffer was put by the BOD, as a non-enforceable Guideline and recommendation to the Owners/Members.
Over the years from 1998 to 2007 this non-enforceable Guideline was extended from 15’ to 25’.
In 2010, the BOD chose to add these Guidelines as “Enforceable Instructions” to the Book of Rules via Rule 11; creating a “25′ Buffer Deed Restriction”.
One may suggest that this was an “Honest Mistake”. Others suggested that the BOD was aware of the fact that getting a 2/3 majority vote from the Owners/Members, in order to add a 25′ Buffer Deed Restriction to the Declaration of Restrictions would be a “mission impossible”. The BOD decided to change the 25’ Buffer idea from a non-enforceable guideline to something they might be able to enforce. The BOD put it to the Owners/Members “consideration” and then voted it into the Book of Rules, to become Rule number 11.
Rule number 11 in the Book of Rules says: 11. Building 11.1 The Club’s Land Clearing, Landscaping and Building Guidelines, adopted as Rules regulating clearing and construction by the Board August 19, 2007, are incorporated herein by reference as a rule.
This is all the information I received in my 2017 “welcome package”. This is all the information the new owners are receiving today. The details of the above mentioned “2007 Guidelines” do not appear in rule 11, or anywhere else in the Book of Rules.
Some Board Members tell me that they are the same Guidelines that are included in the current Land-clearing/Landscaping packet.
A 25′ Buffer Guidelines were just established in February 2020 by the Ad Hoc Buffer Committee and if they are going to become part of the Land-clearing/Landscaping packet they will be, according to the BOD, enforceable instructions, not just Guidelines.
A community of apathetic Owners/Members will breed Boards of Directors that will ignore their Fiduciary Duties to the Owners/Members and will overstep their authority, infringing on Owners/Members’ rights.
Unfortunately, that is what happened in the past, and is happening now in Indian Hammock.
In the January 19, 2020 Election of BOD, as per the Hammock Herald: Voting members in attendance: 81 Proxies voted: 109 Not Voting: 103 Unused proxy: 6 Total voting: 299
Let analyze these numbers:
Not voting at all – Zero interest, by 103 of 299 being 34.5% of voting power.
Proxies Used and Unused – Leaves to others to decide, 115 of 299 being 38.5% of voting power.
In Attendance – 81 of 299 27% of voting power.
These numbers mean:
73% of voting power don’t have a personal interest in choosing the BOD.
27% of voting power has a personal interest in choosing the BOD.
A few individuals, being the holders of a large number of Proxies, dictates who will be on the BOD.
This can, used to, and will be, exploited by the BOD, and not for the benefit of the Owners/Members.
Safeguarding and Restoring the Rights of Indian Hammock Owners/Members requires a major increase in Owners/Members participation and input.
The voting system can be updated to include early voting by Owners/Members, this may reduce the number of “Not Voting” and I believe will switch users of the Proxies, especially those who are not full time residents, to personally vote.
Your comments and opinion will be highly appreciated.
A Nation of Sheep Breeds a Government of wolves. It is unavoidable, It is simply the “Nature of the Beast”
Any governing body, be it as big as the USA Government or as small as Indian Hammock’s BOD, must be watched, or it will become renegade and will overstep its authority.
There will also be a power Struggle between “Government” (BOD) and “Citizens” (Owners/Members) where the BOD will try to gain more power and some Owners/Members will resist it.
Apathetic Owners/Members will eventually be ruled by Boards of Directors that will overstep their BOD authority, ignore their Fiduciary Duties to the Owners/Members, and infringe on Owners/Members’ rights.
Each Board Member is, first and always, an Owner/Member. They are, in most cases, friendly and trustworthy individuals, members of Indian Hammock’s community.
The “Nature of the Beast” comes into being only when these individuals put on their “Board Members’ Hats”. It is like an “automatic switch” was turned-on and “the beast” reveals itself.
The moment a Board Member is out of his/her seat on the board, in most cases, it is like the “plug was pulled out”, and the friendly trustworthy friend shows himself again.
It is essential for each of the Owners/Members to remember the above, and not to get involved in a personal “account settling” with a Board Member, as tomorrow, this Board Member may be a regular Owner/Member “brother to the cause”.
The same advice goes to any Board Member, as your BOD seat may be taken from you and given to the Owner/Member you are currently tormenting.
It all comes back to two golden rules:
Live and let Live.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
These rules are accepted by all, but unfortunately many times they are not followed.
