Category Archives: Declaration of Restrictions

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.

Declaration of Restrictions

Leave a reply

The Declaration of Restrictions was created a long time before the smart phone, communication by email and the popular internet.

Yet, it is still the Supreme Law of the Land in Indian Hammock.

The Declaration of Restrictions is exactly what its name says, Restrictions; Taking away some of the Individual Owner/Member’s Rights, in order to create a livable Community.

The Originators and Developers of Indian Hammock put a lot of thought, time and legal minds into the creation of the Declaration of Restrictions.

While taking away some of the Individual Owner/Member Rights, the Declaration protects the Owner/Member by establishing that any future removal of Owner/Individual rights can only be done by a 2/3 majority vote of the club’s Members.

Simply put, no Restrictions, Laws, Rules, Procedures, or whatever someone choses to call them, which take away any of Owner/Member Individual Rights are legal or enforceable, unless they were put for a vote and accepted by 2/3 of the club’s members.

There is only one exception to the above.

There is only one place in the Declaration of Restrictions where the power to make additional restrictions was given to the Board of Directors, and this is only in regard to Motorized Vehicles.

As per Article VII Section 5. “No vehicle of any type may be operated on the property so as to create a nuisance, a hazard or do damage to the common areas. Because of their rapid proliferation and unforeseeable evolution, the board shall make rules regulating the use of, or prohibiting the use of, any type of motorized vehicle.

Nowhere else is there such power given to the Board to create anything that takes away from Owner/Member’s rights; it can only be done by the Club (being the Members) requiring a  2/3 majority vote.