Short report of this mornings (3-4-2000) "SPL" Boardmeeting.
The meeting was called to order shortly after 11 a.m. by Billy Sanchez. Present: Billy Sanchez, Earl Kratzer, Lori Held and Jan Bergemann. Robert T.Held obviously couldn't make it! The Meeting was very informal. No official printed invitation or agenda, no approval of the minutes of the last Board-Meeting! 
Kathy Sanchez presented the so-called 7.Amendment to the Deed-Restriction in the name of the declarant Darcy Partnership, which means a change of our Deed-Restrictions 4.03 as follows:

NOW, THEREFORE, the Declarant hereby amends the Declaration as follows:
I. Article II, Section 4.03 is hereby amended as follows:

4.03 No sign of any kind shall be displayed on any Lot, except one plate bearing the owner's name and number of residence and up to two signs advertising that the premises are protected by a
                            security-system. Specifications and approval as to 
                            the size, location, design, and type of material of 
                            each such residence plate and security sign shall 
                            be at the sole discretion of the Committee.
3.   In all other respects, the Declaration remains unmodified and in full force and effect.
4    Capitalized terms not defined in this amendment shall have the meanings set forth in the Declaration.

According to Earl, a discussion about this change was not allowed - "not on the agenda!". This amendment clearly changes the "No signs" policy of Oakbrook, and doesn't solve the problem of the "For Sale" signs. My opinion: if you already change an existing section of the deed-restrictions, than bring the whole section up to par. The vote on the motion ended 3:1 as expected!
It was interesting to see that Earl Kratzer, who is personally involved in this argument, voted "YES", having his own security-sign in his front-yard. Meaning: I got what I wanted, who cares about the others! 
Even our politicians in Washington, who are definitely not famous for their ethics, abstain from voting, if they have a personal interest in an issue.
But - What's new?
The meeting was postponed at 11.12 a.m.
Because they were not willing to discuss the still open issues about signs, I have to take my complaints to other places in order to get answers. If the other members of the Board are unwilling to discuss problems in open Board-Meetings, I don't think that they can complain in the future it being my fault, if discussions are taking place in other places than the Clubhouse.

P.S.: The whole issue about changing amendment leaves me definitely confused. First we were told by Bob Held (Darcy Partnership), that he as the declarant can change amendments without anybody's approval. Now, it's the Board which has to approve the amendments, the developer wants to push down our throat. Florida Statutes 617.306 Section 1 clearly calls for a membership-vote to change amendments.
Our Oakbrook Deed-Restrictions state:
. No modifications, amendments or additions will be made to the restrictions without the prior written approval of the Association.(Article 7 Section 1.01).
The legal definition of the word "Association" is membership, not Board or anything else!
Then it would have to read: "written approval of the Board of the Association!" 
It sure does not!

Earl Kratzer seems to be taking it upon himself  to involve the association in a very high-risk expensive law-suit. His front-yard is featuring one of the security-company signs mentioned by the association's attorney in his letter, as you can see yourself.
Did he write himself one of these violation-letters?
In Germany there is a saying, which I think fits perfectly for this situation (translation): Clean up your own house, before you accuse other people of being untidy!
Or is he just a loose cannon, who is willing to waste the association-funds for useless gain? When he was serving on the Board of the OHG, the other board-members and the OHG-attorney had a hard time preventing him from writing a letter of complaint directly to the court-appointed mediator, which would have endangered the whole law-suit. 

As a Director of the Board, appointed by the developer, he has the fiduciary duty to the members of the Association to protect their welfare and money. 
I personally don't see my money spend wisely by risking a possible very expensive law-suit for a "For Sale" sign, especially if this problem could easily be resolved in a nice, inexpensive way, which as well would help other home-owners, who for any reason want to sell their homes one day.
Because we're talking here about your - the due-paying homeowners - money  I would like to get your answers to the following questions:
1.) Do you think that the OPA should risk an expensive law-suit under the described circumstances (considering the association-attorneys comments) ?
2.)Should the issue be solved by purchasing uniformed "For Sale" signs?
3.) Should the Association work out all the legal flaws in their paperwork, before risking any expensive law-suits?
Please e-mail your answers to janberg@aug.com , with possible comments,
so I know how the community feels about this issue and I can act accordingly?
Thank you for your interest !
Jan Bergemann

Date: 12-6-99_____________________

3324 Cedar Glen Way St.Augustine, Fl. 32086

Type of Violation: Sign - For sale by Owner- deed restriction 4.03

As an Oakbrook Deed Restricted Community Homeowner you should be well aware of the conditions we must live within. Therefore, since you choose not to correct your violation after having been notified, this Code Enforcement Committee must send this final single notice to you. The Committee will allow 14 days for you to correct the violations, or for the appeal. After that time a fine will be imposed according to the Fifth Amendment of the Covenants. If unpaid this fine could result in a lien against your property and would therefore, be recorded as such with the county. 
As an Oakbrook Homeowner you will also lose the privilege of the use of the Clubhouse for a period of time. 
The Code Enforcement Committee hopes that you use this 14 day period wisely to address this situation. 
The Code Enforcement Committee meets on the third Tuesday of the month at 6 p.m. for appeals, at the Clubhouse. If you have difficulty with this, please call a Code Enforcement Committee member. 

Dear Committee-Member
I don't want to tell you how to run your committee or what you want to enforce.
I just would like to give you some food for thought in order to prevent any unreasonable expenses for the Association by the actions of the Committee.

1.) You can not only go strictly by the deed-restrictions, because State- and Federal-Law override these (Ethnic Satellite Dishes, For sale Signs etc.). Make sure that this is not the case, before you send out your Violation-Letters.

2.)The amendments, your letters are based on, are, to say the least, very shaky, because they are not membership-approved. Minimum some of the violations have taken place, before these amendments were even enacted (legal or not!).

3.)Before you write these letters, you should make sure, that not the same cases have already been acted upon by association-attorneys and have been dropped because of lack of legalities. Please check the existing attorney correspondence. It could be considered harassment.

As you all know there have been high legal costs to the Association (estimated at about $ 10.000.00) in the past for trying to prosecute so-called violations. To my knowledge all ended in favor of the home-owners or have been dropped, before they went to court. Even in these cases the association was stuck with their own legal expenses. There have even recently been cases, where the judges issued verdicts, where Directors and Committee-Members were charged with the legal cost, because of obvious violations of their duty and Florida Statutes.

We all moved and invested here to live in a nice neighborhood. I personally don't think that anyone here purposely wants to violate any restrictions, which causes any grievances for the neighbors.

Your committee has taken on a very critical task, which could be very expensive to the association, if not handled right. Do not act upon information given to you by people, who in the end are not paying for the cost of possible law-suits. It's the paying home-owners, who will be stuck with them.

Suggestions to prevent problems like this have been made, but have never been acted upon by the Board.

I hereby repeat these suggestions to you:

Ethnic Satellite-Dishes: Part of ADC! Make permit necessary for placement (Federal Law prohibits the total disallowance). Have whoever wants to place one on his/her lot ask the ADC, where he/she can place it. The Satellite-Dish companies will furnish a lot-plan with suggested and possible locations, which don't interfere with the reception. The ADC can then decide, which location they'll prefer. 

"For Sale" Signs : Same thing. The ADC can decide size and look of sign and placement (in reasonable location). This is the way it's handled in lots of other deed-restricted communities with great success and the people would definitely then be willing to follow the rules. 

Note: I know that Joe + Marianne Schemenauer received a violation-letter. This is as well a case, which was long and far discussed by attorneys (at the time together with Jim Holland). It was finally dropped by the association attorney. If the above suggestions would come into place, this problem would as well be immediately solved without any further cost to Association. You will anyway have a hard time to enforce sign-regulations, as long as the Avalon-signs, which clearly are against the deed-restrictions (f.ex.7.01 and use of common areas etc.) are in place. There is one straight rule: either it counts for all or nobody! 

Amendments: See December Newsletter: Open Letter to Directors of Board. 

These are just suggestions, which I feel would solve a lot of problems before they really start. I don't think we need any more expensive legal cases. The money could be brought to much better use for the community. Before this committee gets the Association involved in anything, proper research should be done.
With best regards
Jan Bergemann
 

LETTERHEAD Upchurch, Bailey & Upchurch
VIA FACSIMILE

Mr. Billy J. Sanchez
Oakbrook Property Owners' Association, Inc.
3290 Kings Road South
St. Augustine, Florida 32086

Re: Oakbrook Property Owners' Association 
Our File No.4-96-238

Dear Billy:

This letter is a follow up to my correspondence to you
dated December 21, 1999. As I wrote previously, I am aware 
of no binding precedent which would prohibit the Association
from enforcing the "no sign" restriction. As with all restrictions, 
the "no sign" restriction cannot be enforced in a manner that is
unreasonable or arbitrary. If the matter went to court, whether
the restriction can be enforced depends in large part on whether 
owners have a reasonable alternative for advertising their lots,
and whether the restriction has been uniformly enforced. If those
conditions do not apply, then owners may have a legitimate basis
for challenging the restriction.

Also, we advised you some time ago that owners are evidently
being permitted to maintain signs provided by home security
companies. This is an example of non-uniform enforcement of the 
"no-sign" restriction that should be remedied by an amendment
to the Declaration.

A specific issue has arisen regarding two Avalon signs posted
in the community. One of the signs is apparently near the entrance
and the other is near a model home. 
Article II, Section 4.14 of the Declaration provides that:
Nothing contained in these covenants and restrictions shall prevent
the Declarant, or any person designated by the Declarant, from erecting
or maintaining such commercial and display signs... as the Declarant
may deem advisable for development purposes for Wellington
Oaks. [Emphasis added]. Keep in mind, however, that the sign
restriction at Article II, Section 4.03, applies only to lots. While
the Association, as the beneficial owner of the common property
could allow Avalon to put signs on that property, lot owners could
contend that they too should be entitled to place signs on common
property. As such, I do not recommend that any signs be permitted
on common property, including the Avalon signs.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if  I can be
of further assistance.

Sincerely yours,
    (signed)
Stephen A. Faustini 

SAF/jgs

Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Schemenauer
P.O. Box 2022
Washington, N. C., 27889

Subject: For Sale by Owner Sign

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Schemenauer,

The Code Enforcement Committee has advised me of the information gathered regarding the "For Sale by Owner" sign on your property at 3324 Cedar Glen Way, St. Augustine, Fl. 32086. The committee has been advised that the "For Sale By Owner" sign be removed. We are, therefore, sending you this notice and will allow you 30 days from the date of this letter to remove the sign before a fine of $25.00 a day will be imposed. This fine could total as much as $1000, according to the Florida Statues. This committee understands that you are not living at this residence, and as such, are giving you a reasonable amount of time to assign the task of removing the sign.

We hope that this resolves this matter. If you should have any further need to contact us for any reason, please send your concerns to The Code Enforcement Committee, at 3290 Kings Rd. South, St. Augustine, Fl., 32086.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Regards
(signed) 
Earl Kratzer
Earl Kratzer, V.P. Board of Directors of the Oakbrook Property Owner's Association, & The Code Enforcement Committee
cc: Richard Waler

 In response to this e-mail I received on Friday, 1-28-2000, the following letter:

Dear Jan,
As requested I am enclosing the information requested. The decision to act was reached by the Code Enforcement Committee members.
I hope that this information is helpful. Please contact us if there is anything further that you need.
Regards,
The Code Enforcement Committee

Barbara Castellano
Cassandra Meyers
George Nagy
Lenore Straus
Explanation: enclosed was the attorney's letter (s.a.)