20-001703 Edwin Kravitz, Jr. vs. Venetian Isles Homeowners Association, Inc., And State Of Florida, Department Of Economic Opportunity Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, August 17, 2020.

Summary: Respondent HOA failed to include required information in revitalization package to owners and DEO. Recommended disapproval of revitalization of expired covenants.

For Respondent State of Florida , Department of Economic Opportunity :

Valerie A. Wright, Esquire

Jon F. Morris, Esquire

Department of Economic O pportunity

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 6508

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

Whether Respondent , Venetian Isles Homeowners Association , Inc.

(Association), properly revived it s expired Declaration of Restrictions and

Covenants in accordance with sections 720 .403 through 720. 407, Florida

Statutes (2019).

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On February 21, 2020, Respondent Department of Economic Opportunity

(Department) approved the revitali zation of the Association ' s p roposed

" Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions " and " other governing

documents. " On March 18, 2020, Petitioner Edwin Kravitz, J r. (Petitioner)

submitted a Petition Challenging Agency Action and for A dministrative

Proceedin g to the D epartment objecting to its approval o f the proposed

revitalization. On April 1, 2020, the Department forwarded the P etition to

DOAH , where it was assigned to the undersigned Administrative Law Judg e

to conduct the final hearing.

A pre - hearing c onference was held on June 1, 2020, in which the parties

discussed the technical procedures for the Zoom hearing, the presentation of witnesses, and issues related to the exhibits.

The final hearing was held as noticed on June 8, 2020, by Zoom. Petitione r

testified on his own behalf and Petitioner ' s Exhibits A through D, D - 1, E

through H, H - 1, and M were admitted into evidence. The undersigned took

official recognition of Petitioner ' s Exhibit I for the purpose of establishing

Petitioner ' s standing to brin g this action . The Association presented the

testimony of Anne Hathorn and offered no exhibits. The Department

presented no witnesses, but the parties agreed to have the documents

submitted to the Department by the Association, admitted as Joint

Composite Exhibits 1 and 2. The undersigned also takes official recognition of

an Order dated March 18, 2020, in the matter of Venetian Isles Homeowners

Association, Inc. v. Edwin Kravitz, Jr. (Case No. 19 - 001734 - CI), a circuit

court proceeding involving Petitioner and the Association. 1

Petitioner filed two Motions for Official Recognition on June 15, 2020,

both of which were denied on July 17, 2020.

The final hearing was recorded by a court reporter, but a transcript was

not ordered. The parties requested and wer e allowed additional time to file

their proposed recommended orders (PROs). The parties timely filed PROs on

July 16, 2020, which were considered in the preparation of this

Recommended Order.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to the Florida Statutes a re to the

2019 version .

F INDINGS OF F ACT

Based on the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the

following Findings of Fact are made:

1 During the final hearing there was testimony about the circuit court case. At the

undersigned ' s request and per the parties ' agreement, the circuit court order was filed post -

hearing on June 11, 2020.

P ARTIES

1. Petitioner is a parcel owner within the Venetian Isles community. 2

Petitioner ' s real prope rty was included in the Association ' s request for

revitalization submitted to the Department for approval. Although Petitioner

is not a member of the Association, Petitioner ' s property would be subject to

the Declaration of Restrictions and Protective Cove nants ( R estrictive

C ovenants) that the Association wishes to revitalize.

2. Respondent Association is a not - for - profit corporation f ormed pursuant

to c hapter 617 , Florida Statutes . It is a voluntary homeowners association

and is not governe d by c hapter 72 0 . All parties agree, however, that the

procedures set forth in sections 720.403 through 720.407 can be used to

revitalize the Association ' s expired restrictive covenants which it seeks to

enforce. See § 712.11, Fla. Stat. ( " Covenant revitalization. A prop erty

owners ' association not otherwise subject to chapter 720 may use the

procedures set forth in ss. 720.403 - 720.407 to R evive C ovenants that have

lapsed under the terms of this chapter " ).

3. The Department is the state agency responsible for reviewing a nd

approving submissions from associations seeking to revive declarations of

covenants that have expired or otherwise have lapsed. Chapter 720, Part III,

contains the requirements for revitalization and also contains the specific responsibilities of the De partment.

R ESTRICTIVE C OVENANTS AND OTHER G OVERNING D OCUMENTS

4. The original developer of Venetian Isles placed conditions and

restrictions on the parcels by recording separate restriction s for each Unit .

The first restrictions were recorded i n 1967 for U nit 1 and the last were

recorded in 1972 for Unit 9 (developer ' s restrictions). 3

2 Venetian Isles is a residentia l subdivision in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida

comprised of Units 1 through 10, with 525 single family homes .

3 The Restrictive Covenants for Unit 9 were later amended in 1973.

5. T he Association was incorporated in 1971 after the development of

Unit 9. Although it is unclear from the record, at some point responsibility for

administering and enforc ing the developer ' s restrictions may have been

assigned to the Association.

6 . The Restrictive Covenant s the Association seeks to reviv e were

recorded on January 24, 1978. At that time , the developer ' s restrictions were

superseded because Venetian Isles wa s fully developed and authority for

enforcement of the restrictions was transferred from the developer to the

Association. As reflected in the " Whereas " clause in the 1978 Restrictive

Covenants, the homeowners in Units 1 through 9 approved the new

restrict ions; the homeowners in Unit 10 did not. The u ndersigned finds that

the 1978 R estrictive C ovenants were validly enacted and recorded, and that

they extinguished the restrictions previously recorded by the developer for

Units 1 through 9.

7. Pursuant to c ha pter 712 , Florida Statutes (also known as the

Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA)), the Restrictive Covenants recorded in

1978 expired 30 years later, on January 24, 2008. They are no longer effective

or enforceable, absent revitalization.

8. Prior to thei r expiration, the Restrictive Covenants were amende d four

times: November 10, 1999; August 18, 2005 ; November 27, 2006 ; and July 17,

2007 .

9. A f ifth Amendment was recorded on April 7, 2015, after the expiration

of the Restrictive Covenants.

10 . The Asso ci ation was incorporated as a not - for - profit corporation under

c hapter 617 , and its Articles of Incorporation were recorded on August 11,

1971.

11. The Association ' s original bylaws were not presented at the he aring or

submitted to the Department . The Asso ciation revised its bylaws numerous

times incl uding in 2004, 2007, and 2013. Only the 2007 bylaws were

recorded, and that was not done until January 2010.

12 . The As sociation argues that the 2013 r evised byl aws were not official

because they were not recor ded. As explained below, neither c hapter 617 nor

the statutory procedures for revitalization require that the Association

b ylaws be recorded. These 2013 bylaws were duly adopted by the Association

on January 28, 2013, as indicated through the Association n ewsletter . The

2013 bylaws are also posted on the Association ' s website as the current set of

b ylaws . See Venetian Isles Homeowners Association website at

http://www.ourvi.org/deed - restrictions.htm l (last visited on June 8, 2020). As

such , the undersigned finds that t he 2 0 13 bylaws are the official bylaws of

the Association.

R EVITALIZATION C OMMUNICATIONS , P ACKAGES , AND P ROCESS

13 . In an effort to revitalize the expired Restrictive Covenants, pursua nt

to the requ irements of sections 720.403 , the Association formed an organizing

committee made up of the following people: Randy Havey, Mark Brenman,

and Thomas Testa.

14 . The Association prepared a packet of documents (Owners ' Packet)

consisting of the following documents:

Cover letter with instructions dated October 28, 2019;

Document titled " Written Consent Approving Revived

Declaration of Declaration of Restrictions and Protective

Covenants for Venetian Isles Under Florida Statute

720.405(6) " (Consen t Form);

Copy of the Declaration of Restrictions and Protective

Covenants for Venetian Isles, r ecorded January 24, 1978,

with five amendments recorded in 1999, 2005, 2006, 2007,

and 2015;

Certificate of Incorporation and the Articles of

Incorporation for the Association recorded in 1971;

Revised bylaws for the Ass ociation dated January 25,

2007, and recorded in 2010; and

Plats ( graphic depictions) for Units 1 through 9 of

Venetian Isles.

15 . The committee either hand - delivered or sent via regular U.S. ma il an

Owners ' Packet to each parcel owner , not just to voluntary Association

members.

16 . As a parcel owner, Petitioner received the Owners ' Packet.

17 . The Association received 321 Consent Forms in favor of revitalization.

Therefore, a majority of the 525 parcel owners (263 constituting a majority)

elected to proceed with the revitalization process.

18 . The c over letter in the Owners ' Packet contained the names,

addresses , and phone numbers of all three of the organizing committee

members.

19 . Petitioner a lleges numerous additional communications were made by

the Association regarding the revitalization to its members, but not to him.

He also alleges these communications did not have the necessary contact

information for the organizing committee members. Th e Association counters

that it is a voluntary Homeowners association and the additional

communications were sent only to those member s who had paid the

Association dues. Again, Petitioner was not a member of the Association at

that time.

20 . Many of the c ommunications were on the Association website or on a

social media site for neighborhoods known as " Nextdoor. " The undersigned

finds these communications were not from the organizing committee.

21 . However, on November 5, 2019, Anne Hathorn, the Associatio n ' s

attorney who was handling the revitalization process, sent out an

informational letter directed to " Venetian Isles Homeowners " (Hathorn

Letter). In the letter, Ms. Hathorn specifically state d she was asked by the

Association ' s Board to address question s raised about the revitalization of the

Restrictive Covenants. At the conclusion of the letter she instructed , " If you

have questions, please contact a member of the Organizing Committee, whose

contact information is contained in the package you received. "

2 2 . The Hathorn Letter did not state that it was addressed onl y to

Association members, nor did it specifically include the organizing committee

members ' contact information. Based on the substance of the Hathorn Letter

and on Ms. Hathorn's testimony, t he undersigned finds this letter was an

official communication authorized by the organizing committee.

2 3 . On January 16, 2020, the Association submitted a package to the

Department seeking approval of the revitalization of the Restrictive

Covenant s and a mendments (DEO Package). The DEO Package contained

the following items:

Affidavit of Mr. Brenman, one of the organizing committee members,

verifying the copies of the Written Consents returned to the

Association;

Verified Copies of the Written Consents agr eeing to revitalization of

the Restrictive Covenants;

Affidavit of Ms. Hathorn, the Association ' s attorney, verifying the

Restrictive Covenants and a mendments for Venetian Isles , and the

Articles of Incorporation and the bylaws for the Association;

Copy of the Restrictive Covenants for Venetian Isles, recorded

January 24, 1978, and the five amendments recorded in 1999, 2005,

2006, 2007, and 2015;

Certificate of Incorporation and the Articles of Incorporation for the Association recorded in 1971;

Revised b ylaws for the Association dated January 25, 2007, and

recorded in 2010;

Legal Descriptions of each parcel and graphic depictions of the parcels by Unit; and

List of all the parcel owne rs for Units 1 through 9 .

2 4 . On February 7, 2020, per the Department ' s request, the Association

submitted the following additional items in support of its revitalization

efforts:

Affidavit of Mr. Testa, one of the organizing committee members,

verifying copies of the Owners ' P ackage were sent to all affected parcel

owners of Venetian Isles;

Copy of the Owners ' Packet;

Affidavit of James Pelletier, dated March 15, 2010, and recorded on

March 18, 2010, certifying that the 2007 set of bylaws for the

Association were the set of by laws in effect at that time, along with a

copy o f the 2007 bylaws ; and

Affidavit of Mr. Testa verifying a copy of the Association ' s bylaws

( undated and unrecorded ) titled " 2004 bylaws of Venetian Isles

Homeowners Association, Inc., " and attesting that this copy is the

earliest set of by laws in the Assoc iation ' s Official Records.

2 5 . On February 21, 2020, the Department approved the revitalization of

the Restrictive Covenants and " other governing documents. "

2 6 . On March 11, 2020, the C ircuit C ourt for the Sixth Judicial Circuit for

Pinellas County held an evidentiary hearing in the matter of Venetian Isles

Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Edwin Kravitz, Jr. (Case No. 19 - 001734 - CI).

The circuit court ordered that the Association was allowed to record the

revised Restrictive Covenants as approved by the maj ority of the parcel

owners and the Department, but the Association was barred from enforcing the Restrictive Covenants against Petitioner until further ruling from this

administrative proceeding.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

27 . DOAH has j urisdiction over the par ties and subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fl orida Statutes.

28 . Petitioner has the burden of proving its claims by a preponderance of

the evidence. Fla. Dep ' t of Transp. v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So . 2d 778 (Fla. 1s t

DCA 1981).

29 . The Florida Legislature enacted MRTA over 50 years ago in order to

simplify and facilitate land transactions. Matissek v. Waller , 51 So. 3d 625,

628 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). In essence, restrictive covenants cease to be

effective as to land pa rcels governed by the restrictive covenants 30 years

after said restrictive covenants have been referenced in a deed that burdens

each lot. § 7 12.02 , Fla. Stat.

30 . The Association concedes that its Restrictive C ovenants expired by

operation of MRTA and w ere not time ly preserved pursuant to MRTA.

31 . If MRTA extinguishes a communit y ' s restrictive covenants, an

a ssociation can utilize the procedures set forth in chapter 720, part III

(sections 720.403 - 407), to revive the expired restrictive covenants.

32 . S ection 720.405 describes the procedure and documents required to be

provided to the parcel owners in order to obtain parcel owner approval with

respect to the revival of expired restrictive covenants. Section 720.405

provides as follows:

720.405 Organizin g committee; parcel owner

approval.

(1) The proposal to revive a declaration of

covenants and an association for a community

under the terms of this act shall be initiated by an

organizing committee consisting of not less than three parcel owners located in the community that

is proposed to be governed by the revived

declaration. The name, address, and telephone

number of each member of the organizing committee must be included in any notice or other document provided by the committee to parcel

owners to b e affected by the proposed revived

declaration.

(2) The organizing committee shall prepare or

cause to be prepared the complete text of the

proposed revised declaration of covenants to be

submitted to t he parcel owners for approval. The

proposed revived documents must identify each

parcel that is to be subject to the governing documents by its legal description, and by the name

of the parcel owner or the person in whose name

the parcel is assessed on the last completed tax assessment roll of the county a t the time when the

proposed revived declaration is submitted for approval by the parcel owners.

(3) The organizing committee shall prepare the full

text of the proposed articles of incorporation and bylaws of the revived association to be submitted to

t he parcel owners for approval, unless the

association is then an existing corporation, in which case the organizing committee shall prepare the existing articles of incorporation and bylaws to be submitted to the parcel owners.

(4) The proposed revived d eclaration and other

governing documents for the community shall:

(a) Provide that the voting interest of each parcel

owner shall be the same as the voting interest of the parcel owner under the previous governing documents;

(b) Provide that the propor tional - assessment

obligations of each parcel owner shall be the same as proportional - assessment obligations of the parcel

owner under the previous governing documents;

(c) Contain the same respective amendment

provisions as the previous governing documen ts or,

if there were no amendment provisions in the

previous governing document, amendment provisions that require approval of not less than

two - thirds of the affected parcel owners;

(d) Contain no covenants that are more restrictive

on the affected parc el owners than the covenants

contained in the previous governing documents,

except as permitted under s. 720.404(3); and

(e) Comply with the other requirements for a

declaration of covenants and other governing

documents as specified in this chapter.

( 5) A copy of the complete text of the proposed

revived declaration of covenants, the proposed new

or existing articles of incorporatio n and bylaws of

the association, and a graphic depiction of the

property to be governed by the revived declaration

shall b e presented to all of the affected parcel

owners by mail or hand delivery not less than 14

days before the time that the consent of the affected parcel owners to the proposed governing documents is sought by the organizing committee.

(6) A majority of th e affected parcel owners must

agree in writing to the revived declaration of covenants and governing documents of the

association or approve the revived declaration and

governing documents by a vote at a meeting of the affected parcel owners noticed and co nducted in the

ma nner prescribed by s. 720.306. Proof of notice of

the meeting to all affected owners of the meeting

and the minutes of the meeting recording the votes

of the property owners shall be certified by a court reporter or an attorney licensed to practice in this

state.

33 . Section 720.406 describes the procedure and documents required to be

submitted to the Department in order to revive expired restrictive covenants.

Section 720.406 provides as follows:

720.406 Department of Economic

Opportunity; submission; review and

determination.

(1) No later than 60 days after the date the

proposed revived declaration and other governing

documents are approved by the affected parcel

owners, the organizing committee or its designee

must submit the proposed revived governing

documents and supporting materials to the

Department of Economic Opportunity to review and

determine whether to approve or disapprove of the

proposal to preserve the residential community.

The submission to the department must include:

(a) The full text of the proposed revived declaration

of covenants and articles of incorporation and

bylaws of the homeowners ' association;

(b) A verified copy of the previous declaration of

covenants and other previous g overning documents

for the community, including any amendments

thereto;

(c) The legal description of each parcel to be subject

to the revived declaration and other governing

documents and a plat or other graphic depiction of

the affected properties in the community;

(d) A verified copy of the written consents of the

requisite number of the affected parcel owners

approving the revived declaration and other

governing documents or, if approval was obtained

by a vote at a meeting of affected parcel owners,

ve rified copies of the notice of the meeting,

attendance, and voting results;

(e) An affidavit by a current or former officer of the

association or by a member of the organizing

committee verifying that the requirements for the

revived declaration set forth in s. 720.404 have been

satisfied; and

(f) Such other documentation that the organizing

committee believes is s upportive of the policy of

preserving the residential community and

operating, managing, and maintaining the

infrastructure, aesthetic character, and common

areas serving the residential community.

(2) No later than 60 days after receiving the

submission, the department must determine

whether the proposed revived declaration of

covenants and other governing documents comply

with the requirements of this act.

(a) If the department determines that the proposed

revived declaration and other governing documen ts

comply with the act and have been approved by the

parcel owners as required by this act, the

department shall notify the organizing committee

in writing of its approval.

(b) If the department determines that the proposed

revived declaration and other g overning documents

do not comply with this act or have not been

approved as required by this act, the department

shall notify the organizing committee in writing

that it does not approve the governing documents

and shall state the reasons for the disapprov al.

34 . In this case, t he statutes are unambiguous and, therefore, not subject

to interpretation . Moreover, neither the Department nor the undersigned has

flexibility in enforcing the statutory requirements . Wright v. City of Miami

Gardens , 200 So . 3d 765 , 773 - 74 (Fla. 2016). As ultimately determined and

explained below, the Association did not comply with all the necessary

statutory requirements for revitalization. To excuse the Association ' s actions

in this case in failing to submit all of the required d ocuments and information

in the Owners ' Packet and DEO P ackage would amount to an impermissible

administrative waiver of the statutory requirements. See Dep ' t of Educ. v.

Educ. Charter Found. of Fla. Inc. , 177 So. 3d 1 036, 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).

35 . Pet itioner alleges the Association did not fulfill the requirements of

the revitalization procedure set forth in section s 720.403 through 720.406.

Each alleged violation is addressed below.

36 . First, Petitioner argues the organizing committee was non - complia nt

because it issued communications without including the necessary contact

informa tion of each committee member: s ection 720.405(1) states in relevant

part:

The name, address, and telephone number of each

member of the organizing committee must be include d in any notice or other document provided

by the committee to parcel owners to be affected by

the proposed revived declaration . (emphasis added).

37 . As found above, although the Hathorn L etter urged any questions be

directed to the organizing committee members, it failed to specifically include

the name, address, and telephone number of any of those organizing

committee members. As such, the Association failed to comply with section 720 .405(1).

38 . Second, Petitioner claims the Owners ' Packet failed to i nclude a proper

list of owners or necessary legal descriptions pursuant to s ection 720.405(2),

which states in relevant part:

The organizing committee shall prepare or cause to

be prepared the complete text of the proposed

revised declaration of covenants to be submitted to

the parcel owners for approval. The proposed

revived documents must identify each parcel that is

to be subject to the governing documents by its legal description, and by the name of the parcel owner or

the person in whose name the parc el is assessed on

the last completed tax assessment roll of the county

at the time when the proposed revived declaration is

submitted for approval by the parcel owners.

(emphasis added).

39 . Although the DEO P ackage did include legal descriptions of each

parcel and contain a list of parcel owners, the organizing committee did not

submit this information in the Owners ' Packet, the materials sent to t he

parcel owners for approval. Accordingly, the Association did not satisfy the

requirements of section 720.0 5(2).

4 0 . Third, Petitioner alleges that the Owners ' Packet failed to include all

of the " governing documents " required by statute because it did not include

the original bylaws and the 2013 bylaws . In its defense, the Association

claims only recorded do cuments were required to be provided to the parcel

owners and it is not subject to this requirement because it is a c hapter 617

corporation, not a homeowners association.

41 . Section 720.405(3) states in relevant part:

[If] the association is [ ] an exi sting corporation …

the organizing committee shall prepare the existing

articles of incorporation and bylaws to be submitted

to the parcel owners.

42 . As an initial matter, the Association claims its bylaws and corporate

governing documents are not subjec t to the requirement s of chapter 720,

because it is not a mandatory homeowners association. Rather, it is a not - for -

profit corporation governed by chapter 617.

4 3 . T he term " governing documents " is not defined in chapter 617 . In the

context of revitalizat ion, however, the term is defined as:

(8) " Governing documents " means:

(a) The recorded declaration of covenants for a community and all duly adopted and recorded

amendments, supplements, and recorded exhibits

thereto;

(b) The articles of incorporation and bylaws of the homeowners ' association and any duly adopted

amendments thereto; and

(c) Rules and regulations adopted under the authority of the recorded declaration, articles of incorporation, or bylaws and duly adopted

amendments thereto.

§ 720.301, Fla. Stat.

4 4 . No thing in chapter s 617, 712 , or 720 require bylaws to be recorded f or

purposes of revitalization. Although the Association's original bylaws were

not required to be submitted , th e Association was required to provide its

existing bylaws to parcel owners. Here, the Association failed to submit the

2013 r evised bylaws to the parcel owners. As such, it failed to comply with

the requirements of section 720.405(3).

4 5 . Petitioner next claims that the proposed revived Restrictive Covenants

are mor e restrictive than the previous governing documents. Section

720.405(4)(d) states:

(4) The proposed revived declaration and other

governing documents for the community shall:

* * *

(d) Contain no covenants that are more restrictive on the affected parce l owners than the covenants

contained in the previous governing documents, except as permitted under s. 720.404(3 ).

4 6 . The proposed revitalized Restrictive Covenants are identical to the

1978 version and all the amendments. Whether the proposed revived

R estrictive Covenants are more restrictive depends on what is considered a

" previous governing document. " The first four amendments to the Restrictive

Covenants in 1999, 2005, 2006, and 2007 amended the Restrictive Covenant s

before they expired in 2008. Pet itioner ' s argument that these amendments

are invalid because they were enacted more than 30 years after the 1967

developer ' s restrictions is rejected. As found above, the Restrictive Covenants

at issue did not expire until 2008.

4 7 . The Fifth Amendment ena cted in 2015, however, essentially

attempted to amended a dead set of restr ictions, and thus is invalid. If

revitalized and " brought back to life , " this amendment would require a

property owner to obtain and submit an approved City permit with plans to

the Association ' s Review Committee before putti ng up a fence on the

property. Because this requirement is not in the 1978 Restrictive Covenants

or any of the properly enacted and recorded amendments , it is more

restrictive and violates section 720.405(4)(d).

4 8 . Fifth, Petitioner argues the Association ' s bylaws are inconsistent with

the Articles of Incorporation . Further, he complains the "governing

documents" are inconsistent with secti on 720.405(4)(c), which require s the

proposed revised covenants to " (c) ont ain the same respective amendment

provisions as the previous governing documents or, if there were no

amendment provisions in the previous governing document, amendment

provisions that require approval of not less than two - thirds of the affected

pa rcel own ers. " The undersigned lacks authority to invalidate the bylaws of

the Association, and declines to invalidate the proposed revitalization efforts

based on terms of the Association ' s bylaws or Articles of Incorporation . T he

validity and enforcement of these documents are governed by chapter 617,

and are not within the scope of these administrative proceedings.

49 . Sixth, Petitioner argues the Association failed to provide the

Department with all previous governing documents. Sections 720.406(1)(b)

requires t hat with in 60 days after the majority of affected parcel owners have

approved the proposed restrictions , the organizing committee or its designee

(Ms. Hathorn) submit to the D epartment certain documentation and

information including a " verified copy of the previous declaration of

covenants and other previous governing documents for the community,

including any amendments . "

50 . As noted above, the Association need not have provided the

restrictions placed individually on Units 1 through 9 by the developer b ecause those were superseded by the 1978 Restrictive Covenants. However,

the Association ' s 2013 bylaws were not submitted to the Department.

Therefore, the DEO P ackage was incomplete and did not comply with section

720.406(1)(b).

5 1 . Seventh, Petitioner ma kes numerous arguments about the validity of

amendments to the Association's bylaws and the Articles of Incorporation

in cluded in the Owner ' s Packet and the DEO Package. Again, only the

revitalization of the Restrictive Covenants is at issue, not the valid ity of any

other governing documents.

5 2 . Finally, Petitioner argues the Association failed to comply with section

712.03(2), because it did not record a " notice of preservation " for the

developer ' s restrict ions recorded in 1967 to 1972. Again, those rest rictions are

not at issue in these proceedings. Rather, the Association seeks to revitalize

the 1978 Restrictions so that it can enforce them against the parcel owners.

As such, the Association did not violation section 712.03(2).

5 3 . As detailed above, t he Association failed to comply with several

requirements of the revitalization process found in sections 720.405 and

720.406. T hese deficiencies could not have been known to the Department at

the time of its initial evaluation of the DEO Package. 4

R ECOMM ENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Economic Opportunity enter a

f inal o rder disapproving the revitalization of the Venetian Isles Homeowners

Association, Inc. ' s expired restrict ive covenants .

4 The undersigned is cognizant of the fact that the Association has recorded the revitalized

Restrictive Covenants at issue, but makes no finding o r conclusion regarding the appropriate

action in the circuit court case.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 17th day of August, 2020 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

H ETAL D ESAI

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 17th day of August , 2020 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Connie Davies, Esquire

The Law Office of Connie Davies, P.A.

2158 Montana Avenue Northeast

St. Petersburg, Florida 33703

(eServed)

Anne Hathorn, Esquire

Anne Hathorn Legal Services, LLC

Suite 1270

150 2nd Avenue North

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

Janay Lovett, Agency Clerk

Department of Economic Opportunity

Mail Stop 110

10 7 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Valerie A. Wright, Esquire

Department of Economic Opportunity

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 6508

(eServed)

Keith G. Shevenell, Esquire

Groelle & Salmon, P.A.

Suite 320

1715 North Westshore Boulevard

Tampa, Florida 33607

(eServed)

Jon F. Morris, Esquire

Department of Economic Opportunity

Mail Station 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Ken Lawson, Executive Director

Department of Economic Oppo rtunity

Caldwell Building

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eServed)

Mark Buckles, Interim General Counsel

Department of Economic Opportunity

Caldwell B ui ld in g., MSC 110

107 East Madison Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 4128

(eSe rved)

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.