Young v. Tortoise Island Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-721,86-721 |
| Citation | 511 So.2d 381,12 Fla. L. Weekly 1793 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1793 Stephen YOUNG and Cynthia Young, his wife, Appellants, v. TORTOISE ISLAND HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James R. Dressler, Cocoa Beach, for appellants.
T.M. Barlow of Gleason, Barlow & Dyer, P.A., Indialantic, for appellee.
Stephen and Cynthia Young appeal from a mandatory injunction requiring them to modify the flat roof of their residence by replacing it with a peaked roof like the one shown in their construction plans which were approved by the Tortoise Island Architectural Control Board. The primary reason the Youngs' original building plans with a flat roof were not approved by the Board was because the architect retained by the Tortoise Island Home Owner's Association to serve on the Control Board, did not like flat roofs, and the residences in close proximity to the Youngs' lot were two stories with sloped or pitched roofs. The Board determined that the Youngs' proposed one-story residence with a flat roof was not in conformity or harmony with the other residences in the Tortoise Island subdivision. We reverse.
The record in this case established that the Youngs purchased a lot in Tortoise Island, a platted P.U.D. in Brevard County, Florida, in June of 1984. The Recorded Declaration of Restrictions imposes extensive building requirements, including () limitations to single-family residential units; maximum two-story heights; only three-car garages; no separate guest house or out-buildings; 2,000 minimum square feet floor area; garage doors not to face the adjacent street; setback restrictions; limitations on swimming pools, decks, patios and screens; height and location of fences; regulations of boathouses and docks; and prohibitions against filling or subdividing, signs, certain animals and clotheslines. Regarding roofs, the restriction provides:
All roofs shall be of a permanent construction and shall be constructed of clay tile, heavy split cedar shake, or other materials approved by the Board aforesaid at their uncontrolled discretion.
Paragraph two of the Restrictions provides that prior to the construction of any residence in Tortoise Island, the owner must submit to the Architectural Control Board two sets of building plans, two sets of specifications and two copies of a plot plan. The Board's function is to ensure that the proposed residence complies in all respects with the Deed Restrictions, and to determine:
[T]hat said building or other structure is in conformity and harmony not only with respect to the topography and finished ground elevations, but also with the architectural design of completed or proposed other structures located on said property.
The Board's approval was required before any construction could be commenced. The method to demonstrate approval as set forth in the Deed Restrictions was for the Board to sign and return to the owner a set of plans, specifications or plat plans.
In the event the Board fails to approve or disapprove such design or location within thirty (30) days after the same have been submitted to said Board such approval will not be required and this covenant will be deemed to have been fully complied with.
Prior to purchasing a lot in Tortoise Island, the Youngs drove around the subdivision and looked carefully at the residences already built there. The testimony at trial established that there were approximately 250 lots in the development, and about one-half have been developed. There is no one common architectural style employed by the owners. There are Spanish style, oriental, contemporary, ranch-style, traditional one-story and two-stories, and a variety of roof styles from hipped and gabled to some flat roofs on homes built before the current members of the Architectural Control Board took office.
Cynthia had seen a French Provencial, one-story home in Palm Beach, with a flat roof, as is indigenous to that style, which she wanted to copy for their Tortoise Island house. Stephen submitted all of the plans and documents required by the Restrictions for such a house to the Architectural Control Board on July 26, 1984.
Ted Ostavich, chairman of the Control Board, wrote the Youngs a letter dated July 31, 1984, in which he said the Board needed more information to process the plans. He enclosed a copy of the Board's Guidelines and Checklist, which repeated some of the building restrictions in the Recorded Declaration, added additional restrictions and requirements, and required additional information. The Guidelines also required the owner to agree to all of the additional requirements in the Guidelines, and to so indicate by signing a copy and returning it to the Board. Nothing in the Guidelines, however, mentioned a prohibition against flat roofs on an otherwise acceptable structure.
Ostavich testified that without the Youngs' signature agreeing to the additional building restrictions imposed by the Guidelines, his plans would not be processed. In the letter dated July 31, Ostavich said:
The Board made a preliminary review of your plans and there was a very strong feeling the proposed structure would not be architecturally compatible with the other homes. You may also want to reconsider the 15' width of your driveway....
He concluded that Stephen should feel free to call him if he had any questions.
In a similar letter dated August 1, 1984, Ostavich related the Board's "concerns" about the Youngs' plans, after another "preliminary review." The Board again suggested the driveway was too narrow, and said, "... there is concern about a flat roof fitting into the development aesthetically...." It concluded, as had the prior letter, that they wanted to talk to Young further on this subject, and they were awaiting further information requested by the Guidelines.
The Youngs were out of town, but Stephen's father contacted Ostavich to reassure him that the quality of the proposed structure was high and enclosed photographs of a house in Lake Worth, advertised at $1,850,000, which was similar in style to the one the Youngs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ACEMA v. Turner
...a requirement of formal approval when approval has been arbitrarily and unreasonably withheld. See Young v. Tortoise Island Homeowner's Association, 511 So.2d 381, 384 (Fla.App.1987) (mandatory injunction should not issue to enforce the arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of approval authori......
-
Lathan v. Hanover Woods Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
...favored in the law. Kies v. Hollub, 450 So.2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 453 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1984). In Young v. Tortoise Island Homeowners, Inc., 511 So.2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 518 So.2d 1278 (Fla.1987), we held that restrictive covenants are strictly construed against thos......
-
Sweeney v. Mack
...Ass'n v. Murphy, 554 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA1989); James v. Smith, 537 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA1989); Young v. Tortoise Island Homeowner's Ass'n, 511 So.2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA1987). The general rule, nevertheless, applies. Even if a developer or an architectural review committee is given the ......
-
Robertson v. Countryside PUD Residential Homeowners
...the use of land should be construed against those claiming the right to enforce the restrictions. Young v. Tortoise Island Homeowner's Association, Inc., 511 So.2d 381 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). See also Moore v. Stevens, 90 Fla. 879, 106 So. 901 (1925); Lathan v. Hanover Woods Homeowners Associa......