BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING, MONDAY, DEC. 5, 2005, 7 PM

Hammock Community Center, Malacompra Road, The Hammock

The Board meeting commenced at 7 PM. The following Board members were present: President, Paul Zacharias, Vice president, Sara Clarke, Secretary, Peggy Steele, Treasurer, Dorothy Drexler and Operations Coordinator, Joe Bowen. The following homeowners, all invited by an e mail message and a notice posted on the community bulletin board, were present: John & Renate Sherwin, Lou Ciasulli, Frank Carelli, Bob Singleton John Bonner, Robin Cotie and Jean Mattson.

The Board agreed to have a special board meeting on December 5, 2005, to address the Sherwin’s issue and certain other C&R questions and to amend the election procedures to include more detailed ballot counting instructions. Mr. Sherwin was invited to attend to provide his views directly to the board as well as to address some questions that had been raised as to whether he was breeding his dogs for commercial purposes.

1. INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE III- GENERAL COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS, SECTION E, PERTAINING TO PET OWNERSHIP

“E. No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any lot for commercial purposes. A maximum of two (2) dogs, cats, or other household pets may be kept, provided that they are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose. No animals are permitted to roam at large.”

Paul read and submitted for the record the following background information and summary of the Sherwin’s position as we understood it

Background

On October 30, 2005, the Board’s Liaison Officer for C&R Violations, Sara Clarke, issued a letter on behalf of the Board to “Douglas and Jean Sherwin” the believed to be named owners of the newly built home that sits on lots 68 and 69 at 51-53 Armand Beach Drive. The letter stated it has been brought to the attention of the Board that “you have many more dogs in number per household than the C&R’s allow. Just because you own two or more lots doesn’t allow for more than two pets. You are allowed two pet’s one cat one dog or two dogs or two cats. Only two pets per household.” The letter included a copy of the C&Rs.

The letter’s statement of the C&R requirement was consistent with discussions that Board members had a May 8, 2003 in response to a question raised in a letter.

6. Sara Clarke referred to the letter received from J. Sawyer requesting information about the number of pets permitted for each lot owner. Sara referred the board to the C&Rs, Article III E and stated that each homeowner may have two household pets. Susan Fairley raised the question about whether this referred to lot owners or homeowners. Sara Clarke stated and Mike Joyce agreed that the C&Rs clearly state two pets per household. Susan Fairley will write a letter to Mr. Sawyer referring him to Article III E. (BOD meeting minutes for May 8, 2003.)

The May 8, 2003 meeting was attended by four Board members, Sara Clarke, Mike Joyce, Susan Fairley, and Joe Bowen. President, Robert Thomason, was absent. The record shows agreement by two Board members but does not state that the Board adopted a motion on the question.

Meeting minutes from July 17, 2003, state that the Secretary had not yet written the letter to Mr. Sawyer and was continuing search for an address. Meeting minutes from September 11, 2003, indicate that a letter was not sent.

“-since the mysterious Mr. Sawyer, who attended an earlier board meeting to ask if a lot owner could have no more than two pets, was apparently not a lot owner himself, this action item was deleted. “

Position of Lot Owner

Jean Douglas Sherwin and his wife, Renata, who have now completed construction of their home and moved-in, have stated to Board members that they disagree with the interpretation of the C&Rs contained in the Board’s October 30, 2005. Based on these conversations, the Sherwin’s position, in a nutshell, is that the C&Rs presume that each developed lot will contain one single-family home (Article III, Section A). Their single-family home is unique in HBE because it is built in the middle of two adjoining lots. Section E, pertaining to pet ownership refers in the first sentence as to what can be done on a lot: “No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any lot for commercial purposes” The next sentence does not state the that the limitation applies “per lot” or “per household”: “A maximum of two (2) dogs, cats, or other household pets may be kept,” They believe that they are not in violation of the C&Rs if they are allowed to have four dogs, cats, or other household pets because there will still be a density of no more than two pets per lot area even though the pets will be in one larger house instead of two separate houses. They are asking that the Board issue an interpretation consistent with their position.

The Board agreed to convene a special Board meeting on December 5, 2005, to address the Sherwin’s issue and certain other C&R questions. Mr. Sherwin was invited to attend to provide his views directly to the Board as well as to address some questions that had been raised as to whether he was breeding his dogs for commercial purposes.

This completed Paul’s summary of the issue and discussion followed.

Mr. Sherwin stated that Paul had accurately summarized his position. He said he is not a commercial breeder. He feels that because his house straddles 2 lots that he should be allowed to have 4 dogs, 2 dogs per lot. He now has 3 dogs, two females and a male. One of the females is only capable of one more litter but she will continue to remain as all three dogs are family pets.

In response to questions from the Board members, Mr. Sherwin stated when his pets have a litter, he keeps the pups for about nine weeks before they are ready to be adopted by others.

Joe questioned Mr. Sherwin about getting permission to build his house on 2 lots. Mr. Sherwin said he got a variance from the county for the 2 lots on Armand Beach Drive. He said he pays his homeowners dues for each separate lot, as all homeowners do, regardless of how many lots the homeowner owns.

Paul said he researched the topic of a commercial breeder and casual breeder and posed the question to Mr. Sherwin about being a commercial breeder. Mr. Sherwin assured the board that he is a casual breeder and not a commercial breeder. Joe asked Mr. Sherwin how many pups are usually born in a litter. Mr. Sherwin said they usually had 2 to 4 pups.

Mrs. Sherwin said that the current C&Rs appear to be written for condos, not single family homes. Paul said that several people have remarked about this and the board agrees that the C&Rs should be examined and written appropriately for single family dwellings. Paul said that there is no clear intent in this particular C&R that governs why the pet limitations exist.

The Board thanked Mr. Sherwin for his input and then proceeded to discuss the question.

Paul asked if there was any negative consequence if we grant permission to the Sherwins to keep up to 4 pets as this is a unique situation with the house spanning 2 lots. All homeowners with their houses built on one lot will still abide by the 2 pet per lot rule.

Paul said the board has the authority to interpret and the responsibility to enforce any restriction but we do not have the ability to change any article in the C&Rs.

Sara made the motion that the board allow only 2 pets per household. Paul asked if there was a second to that motion. There was no second, so the motion was not accepted. Peggy said that she interprets the C&R as saying a maximum of 2 household pets, not 2 pets per household or per lot. Paul asked for another motion as there was no second to the first motion. Joe made the motion that we approve the Sherwin’s request to allow 4 pets as their house spans 2 lots. Dorothy seconded that motion. Discussion of this motion followed. Peggy asked if the C&Rs were going to be amended in the near future. Paul said that that is a project for the 2006 board. Paul asked for specific wording for the motion--If the house is situated on two lots, the owners would have permission to have four pets. The existing C&Rs section III, Item E does not cover the circumstance that the house occupies 2 lots. Paul said that because he feels that the C&R is not clear, enforcement of the 2 pet restriction should not be upheld, that it would not be in the best interest of the association to enforce this issue. This situation was not anticipated when the C&Rs were written. Paul asked if the board would be comfortable issuing fines, etc. on the Sherwins for having more than 2 dogs. Sara said she is following the instructions that the board has given her and feels that the current C&Rs should be followed. She said that an attorney should be contacted before issuing any fines. Peggy said she feels that an attorney should be contacted regarding this particular C&R.  Dorothy also indicated that an attorney should be contacted regarding this particular C&R. Paul said that if any Board member believes that an attorney should be consulted before the motion is approved, then he/she should vote against the motion.    (Amended Jan. 19. 2006)

At the conclusion of the discussion, the Board voted on Joe’s motion to approve the Sherwin’s request to allow up to 4 dogs because their house is spanning 2 lots. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 to 2.

(Paul, Joe, and Dorothy voted yes; Sara and Peggy voted no.)

2. Enforcement issue of 14 Mahoe Dr. S. Paul contacted Dennis Bayer, Atty. In Flagler Beach who said he would work with us to write a letter to the owner of 14 Mahoe Dr. S. about the roof that has been in disrepair for over a year. Mr. Bayer said that right now he is too busy but will meet with a representative from the homeowners association after the first of the year. Mr. Bayer said that as much leg work as we could do before hand would save time and money. He thought that a half hour meeting (hourly rate is $225/hour) would be enough to initiate work on this issue and he would estimate the amount of time needed to complete his work. Paul asked Sara for all the information that she has regarding the roof issue which started after the hurricanes in 2004. Paul will put together a chronology of letters, etc. to take with him when he makes an appointment with Mr. Bayer.

Paul said that the C&Rs seem to have two paths for enforcement. One is the issuance of a certified letter giving the owner a 15 day time period to correct the problem.. Failure of the owner to correct the situation within 15 days shall give the association the right but not the obligation to enter the premises to correct the violations. All costs related to the corrections and repair shall become a special assessment upon the lot and secured by a lien in favor of the Assoc. ( Article IV, section 1). The other path is using Article C, section 1-Rules for the imposition of suspensions and fines by fining committee. Paul said it is not clear to him whether the fining committee approach supercedes the other path or, if both approaches are valid, which one is appropriate in this case. Paul will prepare a packet of information to take with him when he talks to Mr. Bayer. Paul noted that Board is on new ground here because, thus far, Sara has been able to have violations corrected with calls and letters, and has not had to impose fines or legal action against any property owner or take action to correct an owner‘s deficiency..

3. Screened porch proposal for 6 Laurel Drive. Larry Amuso submitted plans to the ARC for approval for a porch addition to the back of his house. The ARC did not approve the plans because of the roof line was not in compliance with the standards as given in the C&Rs. (See Board meeting minutes for 11/17/05). Prior to the meeting Larry submitted revised plans to Bill Jamison of the ARC. The plans adjusted the roof line and make the color compatible with his existing roof. Bill provided Paul the plans and said that he saw no basis for not approving the revised plan. Paul presented Larry’s revised plan documents for the board members to review. Peggy said that she talked to Larry and he said the pitch has been improved from 3 inches to 8 inches. Paul recommended that the board grant approval to Mr. Amuso. The board unanimously approved the revised design of the roof and Paul will write Larry giving him notice of approval.

4. Enforcement issues: Sara said she had complaints that another home owner has 3 dogs. Sara said she has not written a letter yet. Paul suggested that we write a letter asking the members if this is a temporary situation or a permanent situation. If no clarification is provided, that the Board would have to issue a letter providing for a 15 day time period to resolve the issue or the board would have to decide to impose a fine or suspension subject to a review hearing and decision by the fining committee. Bob Singleton said that he knows the owner and that this is a temporary situation and he is sure it will be taken care of. Sara will call the lot owner to have the violation resolved.

5. Lessons learned from experience in enforcing C&Rs.: Paul said that it is important that the Board have a process that is viewed as even-handed and fair when judgments are made regarding whether a homeowners are maintaining their properties “in a manner and with such frequency as is consistent with good property management” as required by the C&Rs. Specifically, the Association may be better served by the board doing a “walk through” of the entire community every 2 or 3 months to determine if any reminder letters need to be issued. This approach might be perceived as fairer than actions that are prompted by the observations or complaints of one or two members.. The 2006 Board of Directors will discuss this and decide upon the path to be taken.

6. Staffing of ARC: Paul discussed the duties of the ARC and fining committee. We will need volunteers for the ARC in 2006. The fining committee has never had to fine anyone, but volunteers are also needed.

7. Revisions to items 11-12 of the approved election proceedures: Paul passed out information about the revised procedure to be followed for the election at the annual meeting. (The amendment to the procedures approved by the Board is attached.) Paul summarized that the ballots showed the lot owners’ names to identify those members who own more than one lot and to eliminate double voting--by absentee and in person. However some members wanted the information on how they voted to be held confidential . To address this concern, the ballots will be counted by 4 volunteers who will promise not to reveal any contents of any ballot. The two volunteers who validate each ballot will see the lot owners’ name but will remove them before handing the ballot to those who are recording the vote. At the end of the process no record will be kept showing how a member voted. Paul asked for a motion to approve the amendment to the election procedures and with no objections, the procedures were approved.

8, Paul said that the lawn maintenance contract might be extended for a couple of months to give the new board time to write a new contract being more explicit about what is expected.. Joe made the motion to extend the present company’s contract for 2 months, until the new board is in place, and then a contract will be sent out for bidding. The motion was seconded by Dorothy and approved unanimously,

Paul said that our insurance agent has not been able to locate a company who will write a fire and extended loss policy on the restroom building at the pool because the value is not high enough to meet the insurer’s minimum standards of $10,000. The C&Rs require that the Association maintain such coverage unless 2/3rds of the lot owners waive the requirement. If a pavilion is added to the recreation area, then we would have enough value to get insurance coverage. The new Board will have to address this issue in early 2006.

Paul asked for help to get the room set up for the annual meeting and he will purchase some refreshments for the meeting.

With no other business on the agenda, the meeting was adjourned at 9 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Peggy Steele, Sec.

specialmeetdec505R2