[LARC-CQ] Florida Statute 720.3045

[Randy Michael]

Thanks, Russ for posting, does this mean someone could put up a
vertical ham antenna in a dead-restricted area or maybe a mobile home park
?



   Randy Michael
        KE 4 CRC
   DMR  ID # 3112283
Sky warn # POL 309A
South cars # E 0729


On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 4:38 PM Russ Delaney via CQ <
cq at lists.lakelandarc.org> wrote:

> At the meeting on Monday, I was asked to forward this information to the
> LARC  mailing list.
> This statute is a move in the right direction, and may only help some.
> Link to the actual Statute:
> https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2023/720.3045 *Changes to a
> Homeowners’ Association’s Restriction Rights Under HB 437*
>
> HB 437 appears to answer the question of why an HOA should be able to
> restrict property use that cannot be viewed from another property with they
> should not. HB 437 adds Section 720.3045 to the Florida Statutes, stating
> that “regardless of any covenants, restrictions, bylaws, rules, or
> requirements of an association . . . an association may not restrict parcel
> owners or their tenants from installing, displaying, or storing any items
> which are not visible from the parcel’s frontage or an adjacent parcel,
> including, but not limited to, artificial turf, boats, flags, and
> recreational vehicles.” In other words, if it cannot be seen from another
> parcel, an HOA cannot restrict it. This change to the Homeowners’
> Association Act provides homeowners with substantially more flexibility to
> use their property than they may have previously had.
>
> However, it should be noted that Section 720.3045 is likely to give rise
> to litigation as it leaves room for a grey area. Though in a broad stroke,
> HB 437 through this statutory change, substantially increases homeowners’
> property use rights, it leaves open the door to substantial litigation. The
> statute effectively puts the proverbial ball in the homeowner’s court to
> test the limits of what is or is not permissible under the statute. One key
> grey area is that the restricted item must not be visible from an adjacent
> parcel to be protected under the statute. This creates a question around
> what visible from an adjacent parcel operationally means. Does this mean
> that if the item can be seen through a neighbor’s second story window, but
> it cannot be viewed from the same neighbor’s yard or the front of the home,
> it is impermissible? Additionally, the statute does not clarify whether the
> adjacent parcel must be part of the same association or if visibility from
> an adjacent parcel that is not a part of the association would make
> placement of the item impermissible. These are questions that the courts or
> legislature will likely have to answer before the full impact of HB 437 on
> homeowners’ rights is known.
> *Conclusion*
>
> Homeowners now have broader rights to make use of their property,
> including storing a boat or installing artificial turf, so long as it is
> not visible from the frontage or an adjacent parcel. HB 437 has the
> potential to impose substantial limitations on a homeowners’ association’s
> ability to restrict property owner’s usage of their property. However,
> there will likely be litigation over this restriction due to vagueness
> around the visibility requirements of the statute. Before attempting to
> exercise the new rights under HB 437, homeowners should carefully consider
> whether an item or change to their property can be viewed from adjacent
> parcels.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ mailing list
> CQ at lists.lakelandarc.org
> http://lists.lakelandarc.org/listinfo.cgi/cq-lakelandarc.org
> Unsubscribe: <mailto:cq-lakelandarc.org-unsubscribe at lists.lakelandarc.org>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lakelandarc.org/pipermail/cq-lakelandarc.org/attachments/20250116/1c2855db/attachment-0001.htm>