Category Archives: Buffer Ad-Hoc Committee

Is there an enforceable “25’ Buffer” in Indian Hammock?

Leave a reply

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:

What is this fight about?

The Notorious Buffer Restriction #4

Leave a reply

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.

The Notorious “Buffer Restriction” #3

Leave a reply

I ask the Chair of the Buffer Ad-Hoc Committee, the Committee Members and the Owners/Members to consider the following:

Declaration of Restrictions
Article VIII – Building Control
Section 1:
“Refusal of approval of plans and specifications, location and plot plan, by the club may be on any ground, including purely aesthetic grounds, in the sole and absolute discretion of the club.”

Section 2:
“The plans and specifications shall contain a plot plan with adequate provision for landscaping, including the planting of trees and shrubs and the preservation of uncleared, natural areas.”
“Landscaping as required shall be completed at the time of completion of the building, as evidenced by the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by Okeechobee County”

In this last paragraph, the Club granted the Policing and the Approval of the landscaping and “buffer” to the Okeechobee county.

The Certificate of Occupation issued by Okeechobee County is the Owner’s proof that the Owner fulfills all of his/her Obligations to the Club in regard to Landscaping and Buffers, as done by the certificate date.

As per Article VIII; The BOD has a lot of power and authority to enforce Landscaping Plans, but only in the early stage when the Owner/Member submits his/her Building application package for approval.

After the Building application package is approved by the club, with or without any of “the good stuff”, it is a “done deal”.

The BOD has no Authority to say: “We don’t like your Landscaping and Buffer, as done on the date of your Certificate of Occupation, and now you need you to redo it”.

The BOD can’t change Article VIII of the Declaration of Restrictions “on the fly” and “at-will” whenever it wishes to.

Having a discussion about “what plants should be included, how large they should be, how they should be placed, how many plants should be replaced, etc.” and submit “recommendations” to the BOD, is practically suggesting Rewriting/Amending the Declaration of Restrictions which describes in length how the Landscaping including the Buffer is handled.

The Notorious “Buffer Restriction” #2

Leave a reply

In my previous posting I asked the question:
When and how did this “Buffer Restriction” get voted on to become the law of the land?

In an exchange of opinions on our Facebook group Indian Hammock Owners’ Rights I directed this question to the President of our Board of Directors who is also the chair of the Buffer Ad-Hoc Committee.

I did this in advance of the first Buffer Ad-Hoc Committee meeting of February 2, 2020.

The Purpose of this Buffer Ad-Hoc Committee was described as follows:
“When a buffer is replaced, we do not have a good description of what plants should be included, how large they should be, how they should be placed, how many plants should be replaced, etc. The purpose of this committee is to create a proposal for the BOD, which defines what needs to be done to replace a buffer”

I believe that we have here two possible scenarios.

  • There is a legal, enforceable Buffer Restriction.
  • There is a guideline/suggestion of what is a desirable Buffer, one that will automatically be approved by the Architectural Review Committee.

These are two completely different scenarios, leading to two completely different sets of suggestions to be discussed.

The first scenario more than likely requires legal advice in order to make such definitions or suggestions enforceable in a court of law.

In the second scenario any suggestions must be extremely friendly to the Owner as they will be only suggestions, not enforceable by a court of law.

Instead of providing an answer to my question, the President of the Board of Directors responded “the assumption going into the meeting is that the 25’ buffer is a legitimate rule within the building restrictions”

This response is unacceptable to me for the following reasons:

  • Nowhere is a 25’ buffer mentioned in the Declaration of Restrictions or the By-Laws.
  • The only place a “Buffer” starts appearing is in the Building Application Package that the Owners are asked to submit to the Architectural Approval Committee before doing any work on their lot.

The “Buffer” issue caused in the past and is causing now a lot of animosity and mistrust between the Owners/Members and the Boards of Directors.

So here is my question again, mostly directed at our current Board of Directors and its President.

When and how did this “Buffer Restriction” get voted on to become the law of the land?

The Notorious “Buffer Restriction”

Leave a reply

There is a Buffer Ad-Hoc Committee meeting on February 2 at 3:00PM in the Lodge

This is a very important meeting, open to all of the Owners/Members and I plead with each of you to come and take part in the discussions, no matter if you agree with my personal opinion or not.

My Opinion:
Before getting into the “nitty-gritty” of the notorious “Buffer Restriction”, one must better step back and look at the big picture.

Indian Hammock Declaration of Restrictions is the Indian Hammock “Law of the Land”.

Each Owner/Member should respect and obey the Declaration of Restrictions, as much as each USA Citizens should respect and obey the Constitution of the United State.

In order to place my argument in a clear way, I need to start with another restriction, a valid one, legally taking away Owner/Member’s individual right to do what he wishes on a portion of his private lot.

I am referring to the “50’ no-build zone”. (which is even greater than what the Okeechobee Building code requires)

I am quoting from the Declaration of Restrictions Article VIII “Building Control” Section 3.

“No Building shall be erected on any Residential Lot closer than 50 feet to the front, side or rear lot lines thereof.”

This “50’ no-build zone” is a “Law of the Land” in Indian Hammock.

On the other hand, there is nothing in the Declaration of Restrictions about a “25’ Buffer”.

This “Buffer Restriction”, call it a rule, requirement, regulation whatever one wishes to; Is a Restriction that takes away the Owner/Member’s individual right in regards the vegetation on a big portion of his/her lot

There are other sections in the Declaration of Restrictions that will force an Owner/Member to maintain and keep the vegetation on his/her lot to a high standard, so it will be a pleasure to look at from the roads and the common areas, but there is nothing about a “25’ buffer”.

So, the question to ask is:

When and How did this “Buffer Restriction” get voted on to become “the Law of the Land”?

Is it legally the “Law of the Land” or is it only an unenforceable recommendation, no matter how good of a recommendation it is.

Only after, and depending on how, this question is answered, it makes sense to continue with the “nitty-gritty” or stop this discussion about a “Law of the Land” that may not exist.