|
Article
Courtesy of The Orlando Sentinel By
Kevin Spear
Published
November 18, 2014
State law for Florida-friendly landscaping is criticized as ambiguous.
An Orange County family sued in 2012 by a neighborhood association for planting environmentally friendly landscaping is still fighting the civil action.
"It's ridiculous that it has been going on for two years," said the family's lawyer, Barbara Billiot Stage.
She isn't alone in her frustration. There is no formal tracking of such lawsuits in Florida, but it isn't difficult to find associations on the offensive to protect a neighborhood look and embattled homeowners willing to fight to lessen their use of water and fertilizer. The legal actions typically play out for years.
The Orange lawsuit was filed against Jeffrey and Renee Parker by Summerport Residential Property Owners' Association Inc. for replacing St. Augustine lawn with drought-tolerant grass and plants. The Summerport community is near Windermere.
The snail's pace of the case underscores ambiguity in Florida law enacted in 2009 to promote yards that conserve water and lessen harm to the environment.
So far, there has been little clarity arising from court actions over whether association rules that favor thirsty grass can be overruled by a homeowner citing the Florida-friendly landscaping law.
The suit against the Parkers seeks a judge's order for the Parkers to "permanently cease" violating the association rules for landscaping.
Paul Hinckley, the lawyer who filed the suit, said a ruling in favor of the Parkers could "gut" the association's ability to maintain Summerport's manicured look.
"If you can submit a plan that has Florida-friendly elements in it, whatever those might be, and an association can't deny that application because of the law, then you are essentially saying to a homeowner you can install anything you want because an association can't prohibit it," Hinckley said.
A Gainesville couple, Dale DeFord and Suzy Saraceno, were sued in 2010 by their neighborhood association for an environmentally friendly redo of landscaping at their former residence near Tampa, which they still own.
Dismayed by legal inertia, they set up the website sanctuaryatoakcreek.com that explains how in May 2007 they planted drought-resistant perennial peanut to replace dead and dying grass.
"Total legal fees paid since 2009 are up to $60,000," states the website, which provides links to court documents.
Claire Lewis, a coordinator for Florida-friendly landscaping at the state's Institute for Food and Agricultural Services, said her agency is considering tapping the University of Florida's law school to survey lawsuits over landscaping.
The institute maintains a Web page with information about landscaping, including some of the legalities, at
www.fyn.ifas.ufl.edu
And a loose network of homeowners contributes regularly to www.facebook.com/groups/HomeownersForFFL
Charles Lee of Audubon Florida said the Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences worsens matters by defining certain plants and grasses as friendly to Florida when they are not. That gives association lawyers opportunity to argue in court that some thirsty landscapes and lawns comply with the state law, he said.
Next year's legislative session may be a prime opportunity to clarify Florida's law, said Lee Constantine, a state senator for a decade until 2010 and now a Seminole County commissioner.
Passage of Amendment 1 this month, dedicating hundreds of millions of dollars annually to protect water and land, showed strong public support for Florida's environment, Constantine said.
"Next year would be a very good year to address landscaping in a comprehensive water bill," he said.
|