[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by JCMSr

In reviewing the ARC application form here a few things the OP failed to mention.
- The following paragraph entitled ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, INDEMNIFICATION, AND HOLD HARMLESS states as follows:

Property owner acknowledges ARC approvals and denials are made in accordance with the District’s adopted Rules, Standards and the information supplied by the property owner. It is the property owners’ responsibility to obtain all necessary permits, government approvals and maintain compliance with all governmental laws, water management district plans, and private restrictions, including but not limited to: building regulations, zoning regulations, plat requirements, permitting, and declaration of restrictions (collectively, the “Laws”).

- ARC applications are either (1) Approved with stipulations or (2) Denied for specific reason(s). One of these stipulations clearly states that “IMPROVEMENTS MADE WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT AREAS ARE MADE AT THE OWNER’S OWN RISK. THE DISTRICT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE, LOSS, OR INJIURY RESULTING TO OR FROM PERSONS, PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS, REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS, OR COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF MAINTENANCE OR USE OF THESE AREAS.” Furthermore, said applications include the following statement: “Approval does not waive the property owner’s responsibility/liability for compliance with the Laws as identified herein and otherwise.”

As part of the original application process did the homeowner submit a site plan or boundary survey showing all easements with clear dimensions from the improvements to said easements or property lines? If not, how can it be said that they (the ARC) “missed” that the palm would be too close to the road? I’m sure the OP was paraphrasing when he stated “So even WITH approval, if someone complains the tree or landscape border is too close to the road, you have to move it”. Even though that is not the exact wording in the ARC application, his interpretation is essentially correct. Too bad he only paid attention to this after the fact. What part of “Approval does not waive the property owner’s responsibility/liability for compliance……” did he not understand.

I seriously doubt that the ARC has “waffled on their decision” as some posts have insinuated. It is far more likely that the application submitted for approval either did not contain sufficient information or contained erroneous information supplied by the property owner or his contractor. Too often property owners leave it up to their contractor to complete and submit the applications on their behalf without considering that it is solely the property owner’s signature that is legally binding.

Complaints about selective enforcement are a waste of time. Like it or not the system in most Districts is a complaint driven system. If a complaint is filed, it is investigated, and a violation is either confirmed or dismissed. Unless the process allowed some complaints to be investigated and others to be ignored, there is nothing selective in this process.

Every property owner owes it to himself and his neighbors to read and understand the rules and regulations and abide by them. Pleading ignorance is not now nor has it ever been a valid legal defense. Every property owner signed an agreement to abide by these rules and until they are legally modified, they are, as defined above, “The Law(s).

Stop whining and trying to blame everyone else and look into the mirror. There is a process to make changes but, until then, the current rules are what we agreed to abide by.

So ARC is just bunch of Bs jumping through hoops and in the end the approval means nothing.