Tricky wording in a HOA document

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

In central Florida we are a community that is not zoned for "Short Term" rentals through the county. The county states that each Phase or complete development needs to apply for a permit to do so. An individual cannot file for this alone. The total cost would be 4.7 Million. However the BY LAWS state:

:::::::::::Back information: This development is in Phase One complete of More phases to come. None that have been zoned with the county as of yet. The property can hold about 3 more phases. They are stuck in Limbo due to EPA restrictions and until that is lifted they must wait. This means the builder owns the land. No empty lots are built or zoned more than the one zone.:::::::::

Section 3: Short Term Rentals will be allowed within the development
Section 4: In accordance with county ordinance

If you look at it closely, they remove their responsibility of such rentals by placing back on the owners to ensure the development is in compliance.

There has to be some law that states you cannot use double terms like this.

Additionally they have stated on voting this:

Two types of voters, Voter A and Voter B:
Voter A is each Lot owner is allowed one vote per lot owned.
Voter B "Declarant" is allotted 5 votes per lot owned.

If you glance at this quickly you would interpret this as each owner has one vote to every five votes of the board.

Looking at it in detail: Voter B owns no lots since all of them are owned by individuals and not lots are unfinished in this phase. No ground has been broken in the next phase either.

So the owners contain all the votes.

Or you can look at it like this:
Voter A gets 5 votes per lot owned by "anyone" but then Voter B also gets 1 vote per lot owned.

Lets say there are 100 lots: Then Voter A get 500 votes and Voter B gets 100 x 100 votes, am I correct and is this something to pursue. Im sure the document can be amended but isn't this an accurate argument?

I have uploaded a copy for detailed viewing, protecting Names and organizations as that would be inappropriate in this forum to display.

📎 Attachments (1):

⏸ Downloads temporarily unavailable

📄11029332467871.pdf(82 KB)

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

Are you still developer controlled or owner owned? If you are owner owned the A/B voting goes away. It's back to 1 vote per owner. Developer still owns the HOA then they do what they want and have majority votes.

Former HOA President

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JohnP48 on 10/29/2020 2:33 PM
In central Florida we are a community that is not zoned for "Short Term" rentals through the county. The county states that each Phase or complete development needs to apply for a permit to do so. An individual cannot file for this alone. The total cost would be 4.7 Million. However the BY LAWS state:

:::::::::::Back information: This development is in Phase One complete of More phases to come. None that have been zoned with the county as of yet. The property can hold about 3 more phases. They are stuck in Limbo due to EPA restrictions and until that is lifted they must wait. This means the builder owns the land. No empty lots are built or zoned more than the one zone.:::::::::

Section 3: Short Term Rentals will be allowed within the development
Section 4: In accordance with county ordinance

Please quote the bylaws verbatim on the subject above.

I recommend starting a separate thread on the classes of voters. Briefly, I will say that it is not uncommon for the Declarant to be assigned more votes per lot.

Remember, covenants are a contract. You bought into this community with eyes wide open (say the courts).

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Ive attached the details that you are asking for, don't you see them? I can explain the details but that would be counterproductive since the document is right there. Please tell me if you cannot see it.

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MelissaP1 on 10/29/2020 3:35 PM
Are you still developer controlled or owner owned? If you are owner owned the A/B voting goes away. It's back to 1 vote per owner. Developer still owns the HOA then they do what they want and have majority votes.

They are a Builder Controlled HOA. They are only in Phase One. No owners on the Board.

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AugustinD on 10/29/2020 4:13 PM

Posted By JohnP48 on 10/29/2020 2:33 PM
In central Florida we are a community that is not zoned for "Short Term" rentals through the county. The county states that each Phase or complete development needs to apply for a permit to do so. An individual cannot file for this alone. The total cost would be 4.7 Million. However the BY LAWS state:

:::::::::::Back information: This development is in Phase One complete of More phases to come. None that have been zoned with the county as of yet. The property can hold about 3 more phases. They are stuck in Limbo due to EPA restrictions and until that is lifted they must wait. This means the builder owns the land. No empty lots are built or zoned more than the one zone.:::::::::

Section 3: Short Term Rentals will be allowed within the development
Section 4: In accordance with county ordinance

Please quote the bylaws verbatim on the subject above.

I recommend starting a separate thread on the classes of voters. Briefly, I will say that it is not uncommon for the Declarant to be assigned more votes per lot.

Remember, covenants are a contract. You bought into this community with eyes wide open (say the courts).

It doesnt matter, the direct question has nothing to do with whether I agree with them or not, the question is the wording and interpretation: What exactly are you saying about "You bought this with eyes wide open"? That has nothing to do with my question. You haven't addressed ANYTHING I have questioned. Jesus!

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JohnP48 on 10/29/2020 2:33 PM
In central Florida we are a community that is not zoned for "Short Term" rentals through the county. The county states that each Phase or complete development needs to apply for a permit to do so. An individual cannot file for this alone. The total cost would be 4.7 Million. However the BY LAWS state:

:::::::::::Back information: This development is in Phase One complete of More phases to come. None that have been zoned with the county as of yet. The property can hold about 3 more phases. They are stuck in Limbo due to EPA restrictions and until that is lifted they must wait. This means the builder owns the land. No empty lots are built or zoned more than the one zone.:::::::::

Section 3: Short Term Rentals will be allowed within the development
Section 4: In accordance with county ordinance

If you look at it closely, they remove their responsibility of such rentals by placing back on the owners to ensure the development is in compliance.

There has to be some law that states you cannot use double terms like this.

Additionally they have stated on voting this:

Two types of voters, Voter A and Voter B:
Voter A is each Lot owner is allowed one vote per lot owned.
Voter B "Declarant" is allotted 5 votes per lot owned.

If you glance at this quickly you would interpret this as each owner has one vote to every five votes of the board.

Looking at it in detail: Voter B owns no lots since all of them are owned by individuals and not lots are unfinished in this phase. No ground has been broken in the next phase either.

So the owners contain all the votes.

Or you can look at it like this:
Voter A gets 5 votes per lot owned by "anyone" but then Voter B also gets 1 vote per lot owned.

Lets say there are 100 lots: Then Voter A get 500 votes and Voter B gets 100 x 100 votes, am I correct and is this something to pursue. Im sure the document can be amended but isn't this an accurate argument?

I have uploaded a copy for detailed viewing, protecting Names and organizations as that would be inappropriate in this forum to display.

I DO NOT THINK PEOPLE ARE READING THIS CORRECTLY:::::Tricky wording in a HOA document:::::::::::

The questions asked here are: Number 1: Are the statements in the BY LAWS/COVENANTS confusing? (Please read attached document on initial post.
Number 2: Are the conflicting statements really a good idea to make? (You can rent "Short Term" in here, as long as you follow the counties codes) The county does not authorize Short Term rentals :

eriod::?

Bonus Round: Should these be changed to state more specifically 1: No Short Terms are allowed and 2: The builders are the controlling vote.

Thats it no tricks, no special work around just two simple questions, oh um yea and a Bonus Round.

Please try again and if you are going to reply, try to read and understand the entire Discussion.

Thank you

JenniferG11 (Texas)
Posts: 667

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JohnP48 on 10/29/2020 2:33 PM
In central Florida we are a community that is not zoned for "Short Term" rentals through the county. The county states that each Phase or complete development needs to apply for a permit to do so. An individual cannot file for this alone. The total cost would be 4.7 Million. However the BY LAWS state:

:::::::::::Back information: This development is in Phase One complete of More phases to come. None that have been zoned with the county as of yet. The property can hold about 3 more phases. They are stuck in Limbo due to EPA restrictions and until that is lifted they must wait. This means the builder owns the land. No empty lots are built or zoned more than the one zone.:::::::::

Section 3: Short Term Rentals will be allowed within the development
Section 4: In accordance with county ordinance

If you look at it closely, they remove their responsibility of such rentals by placing back on the owners to ensure the development is in compliance.

There has to be some law that states you cannot use double terms like this.

Additionally they have stated on voting this:

Two types of voters, Voter A and Voter B:
Voter A is each Lot owner is allowed one vote per lot owned.
Voter B "Declarant" is allotted 5 votes per lot owned.

If you glance at this quickly you would interpret this as each owner has one vote to every five votes of the board.

Looking at it in detail: Voter B owns no lots since all of them are owned by individuals and not lots are unfinished in this phase. No ground has been broken in the next phase either.

So the owners contain all the votes.

Or you can look at it like this:
Voter A gets 5 votes per lot owned by "anyone" but then Voter B also gets 1 vote per lot owned.

Lets say there are 100 lots: Then Voter A get 500 votes and Voter B gets 100 x 100 votes, am I correct and is this something to pursue. Im sure the document can be amended but isn't this an accurate argument?

I have uploaded a copy for detailed viewing, protecting Names and organizations as that would be inappropriate in this forum to display.

In accordance with the county would mean that the development has a permit and whatever else is required, so at this time, short term rentals are actually not 'allowed'.

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JenniferG11 on 10/29/2020 5:25 PM

Posted By JohnP48 on 10/29/2020 2:33 PM
In central Florida we are a community that is not zoned for "Short Term" rentals through the county. The county states that each Phase or complete development needs to apply for a permit to do so. An individual cannot file for this alone. The total cost would be 4.7 Million. However the BY LAWS state:

:::::::::::Back information: This development is in Phase One complete of More phases to come. None that have been zoned with the county as of yet. The property can hold about 3 more phases. They are stuck in Limbo due to EPA restrictions and until that is lifted they must wait. This means the builder owns the land. No empty lots are built or zoned more than the one zone.:::::::::

Section 3: Short Term Rentals will be allowed within the development
Section 4: In accordance with county ordinance

If you look at it closely, they remove their responsibility of such rentals by placing back on the owners to ensure the development is in compliance.

There has to be some law that states you cannot use double terms like this.

Additionally they have stated on voting this:

Two types of voters, Voter A and Voter B:
Voter A is each Lot owner is allowed one vote per lot owned.
Voter B "Declarant" is allotted 5 votes per lot owned.

If you glance at this quickly you would interpret this as each owner has one vote to every five votes of the board.

Looking at it in detail: Voter B owns no lots since all of them are owned by individuals and not lots are unfinished in this phase. No ground has been broken in the next phase either.

So the owners contain all the votes.

Or you can look at it like this:
Voter A gets 5 votes per lot owned by "anyone" but then Voter B also gets 1 vote per lot owned.

Lets say there are 100 lots: Then Voter A get 500 votes and Voter B gets 100 x 100 votes, am I correct and is this something to pursue. Im sure the document can be amended but isn't this an accurate argument?

I have uploaded a copy for detailed viewing, protecting Names and organizations as that would be inappropriate in this forum to display.

In accordance with the county would mean that the development has a permit and whatever else is required, so at this time, short term rentals are actually not 'allowed'.

THANK YOU JENNIFER :::::WINNER::::: of question 1 !!!

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JohnP48 on 10/29/2020 5:12 PM
Ive attached the details that you are asking for, don't you see them? I can explain the details but that would be counterproductive since the document is right there. Please tell me if you cannot see it.

The pdf file you attached contains only Sections 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03.

JenniferG11 (Texas)
Posts: 667

Posted:

I don't like the wording, no. If it can be changed, it should be. the wording says it's okie dokie with the HOA as long as it's okie dokie with the county. Which leaves enforcement in the hands of the county alone. If the HOA wants to be able to enforce, it needs to say that no rentals will be allowed for terms less than 'whatever'. Ours say 6 months.

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AugustinD on 10/29/2020 5:30 PM

Posted By JohnP48 on 10/29/2020 5:12 PM
Ive attached the details that you are asking for, don't you see them? I can explain the details but that would be counterproductive since the document is right there. Please tell me if you cannot see it.

The pdf file you attached contains only Sections 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03.

And they were the specific wording details that were in question. The other question didn't need proof of the Paragraghs as it is a simple question of allowing or not allowing "Short Term" rentals, misleading current owners, Jenefer answered it correctly. That one definitely will be amended.

Just asking the question in general to see if it made sense.

The only question left is the A:B conversation. You see a confusing document can lead to misunderstandings and headaches in the long run. The Verbage is EXTREMELY important in a legally binding document as such. And having to pay the cost over and over again is a waste. So when you state the homeowners have one vote per lot and the builders (Board) have 5 votes per lot, the owners will always come out with a higher number. What it should state is that the Builders have the FINAL word over any votes cast. Its very simple and now we are on our third amendment within one year.

The last cost incurred was a "Shall" taken out to put in "May". So they can chose to do something if they want to.

Thought this would be the website that savvy, experienced HOA Experienced people forage through.

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JenniferG11 on 10/29/2020 5:35 PM
I don't like the wording, no. If it can be changed, it should be. the wording says it's okie dokie with the HOA as long as it's okie dokie with the county. Which leaves enforcement in the hands of the county alone. If the HOA wants to be able to enforce, it needs to say that no rentals will be allowed for terms less than 'whatever'. Ours say 6 months.

EXACTLY:::Its the cost of Amending these documents over and over that is ridiculous. It should be a one and done after proper review. I know the Amendment process is there for a reason but just being lazy about it is pathetic. We have a 1 Million dollar budget and you would think that it would be better managed with documents that are in order. Frustrating to say the least.

Thanks Jennifer you are all over this.

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By JohnP48 on 10/29/2020 5:41 PM
The other question didn't need proof of the Paragraghs as it is a simple question of allowing or not allowing "Short Term" rentals,

Respectfully, the veterans here who serve on boards generally ask for the exact wording of the covenants. Why? Because too often what new people here often as a summary of what the covenants say is quite different from the actual wording in the covenants. This will make a difference in what suggestions people offer.

The subject of short-term rentals comes up a lot here. What is and is not allowed will depend on the actual wording of the covenants. A competent attorney, whom you hired, would never accept your summary of what the docs say and then give advice. He or she would want the entire set of covenants.

But whatever. You got an answer you hoped you would get. Good luck.

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AugustinD on 10/29/2020 5:50 PM
Because too often what new people here often as a summary

Post-o. Change "often" to "offer."

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Remember, the Declarant sold all the LOTS to individuals. No additional lots are zoned yet. Sooo does the Declarant have ANY vote, the way this is worded.

Declarant= 5 votes per each lot owned (zero)
Owners = 1 vote per each lot owned (several)

Justification for correction would be;

Declarant has 5 votes per lot period.
Owners have one vote per that individually owned lot.

So if you own 3 lots you have 3 votes to the builders 15. Simple verbiage.

Its my intention to suggest the document be amended for future misconceptions. I am not trying to fight this I am only trying to ensure other owners don't get confused. Eventually this will turn over to us, so we need to make it correct, to avoid future confusion. This is a one and done process, but only after the document has been thoroughly reviewed properly as this one obviously wasn't. (Agree/Disagree)??

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By AugustinD on 10/29/2020 5:50 PM

Posted By JohnP48 on 10/29/2020 5:41 PM
The other question didn't need proof of the Paragraghs as it is a simple question of allowing or not allowing "Short Term" rentals,

Respectfully, the veterans here who serve on boards generally ask for the exact wording of the covenants. Why? Because too often what new people here often as a summary of what the covenants say is quite different from the actual wording in the covenants. This will make a difference in what suggestions people offer.

The subject of short-term rentals comes up a lot here. What is and is not allowed will depend on the actual wording of the covenants. A competent attorney, whom you hired, would never accept your summary of what the docs say and then give advice. He or she would want the entire set of covenants.

But whatever. You got an answer you hoped you would get. Good luck.

Got it thanks. I wasn't thinking this was such an issue as to confuse anyone, and I wasn't looking for my answer, just a competent answer. Lawyers aren't perfect as our document plainly proves. If the county says no, its no, not hard. And for full disclosure I have attached the copy for your reading pleasure. See file 2.

📎 Attachments (1):

⏸ Downloads temporarily unavailable

📄1102915351171.pdf(37 KB)

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Article VI states when or under what circumstances "turnover" to the Owners occurs. When is that?

Does this document say who may serve on the board until turnover?

With you, JohnP, how can the declarant vote at all if they own no lots?

Your rather rude frustration with previous replies probably won't see you getting many further useful ones.

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

Wow - one comes to a forum to ask for advice, then rips into those being added for advice.

Not a recipe for success.

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GeorgeS21 on 10/29/2020 7:18 PM
Wow - one comes to a forum to ask for advice, then rips into those being added for advice.

Not a recipe for success.

You'll be alright, I promise.

JohnP48 (Florida)
Posts: 13

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 10/29/2020 6:43 PM
Article VI states when or under what circumstances "turnover" to the Owners occurs. When is that?

Does this document say who may serve on the board until turnover?

With you, JohnP, how can the declarant vote at all if they own no lots?

Your rather rude frustration with previous replies probably won't see you getting many further useful ones.

No worries this is me leaving :: Stay safe and keep making it more difficult than it needs to be ::

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

It’s usually what happens when one is unpleasant.

Bye.

AugustinD
Posts: 5,144

Posted:

The OP is gone, but for the archives, and as I bet Floridians GeorgeS21 and GenoS know: What Florida counties have to say about short term rentals varies a lot and is subject to regulation by Florida Statute. Notably, counties cannot flatly prohibit STRs, but they can regulate STRs some. From an April 2019 article on the net:

"Section 509.032(7)(b), Fla. Stat., restricts local laws, ordinances, and regulations from prohibiting vacation rentals or regulation the duration or frequency of the rentals."

I wish I knew the county where the OP is. Knowing the County and reviewing the County law on STRs might clarify or elaborate on his concerns as given in his first few sentences in his first post.

GeorgeS21 (Florida)
Posts: 3,808

Posted:

More info is always better!

However, the OP fits in to a special category for me.

GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276

Posted:

OP was gone before I even saw the thread.

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By GenoS on 10/30/2020 3:31 PM
OP was gone before I even saw the thread.

This is common when one goes looking for answers they want and do get them. They want to blame the messenger for the message.