The Architectural Control Committee (ACC or ARC) is an important part of maintaining consistent architectural standards in Grand Landings. When structured correctly, it provides predictability, transparency, and fairness for all homeowners.

At present, the ARC process is not clearly defined for homeowners, and the roles of the Declarant and the Association are not easily understood. This page explains the legal framework, the historical sequence of events, and the areas where the current process may benefit from clarification and formalization.

Florida Statutes provide the regulatory structure that all HOAs must follow regarding architectural decisions.

Committees that have the authority to approve or disapprove architectural changes are generally expected to comply with the open meeting requirements of FS 720.303(2).
This includes:

• Notice of meetings at least 48 hours in advance
• Meetings being open to all members
• Maintenance of minutes and records

This applies when a committee is appointed by the Association and exercises decision making authority on behalf of the Association.

FS 720.3035 governs how architectural decisions must be made.
Key provisions include:

• Requests must be evaluated based on written, published, and consistently applied standards (FS 720.3035(1))
• Architectural restrictions not properly published may not be enforceable (FS 720.3035(1) and (2))
• Decisions should be reasonable, not arbitrary, and applied uniformly (FS 720.3035(3))

FS 720.307 outlines when control transfers from the Declarant to the Association.
Architectural control may remain with the Declarant if:

• The Declaration provides for such retention, or
• The Declarant does not formally transfer that authority

The Association may not assume control of the ARC unless the Declaration authorizes it or the Declarant formally grants that authority.

Understanding the development of the ARC in Grand Landings helps clarify why the current process may feel confusing to many homeowners.

According to the Declaration of Covenants:

• The Declarant established the Architectural Review process as part of the initial development plan
• The Declarant retained authority over architectural decisions during the development period (Declaration, Article VIII)
• Initial Architectural Guidelines were filed with Flagler County
• The Declarant or its representative administered review processes

When the Association gained majority control of the Board:

• The Board reasonably understood that architectural authority might transfer as part of turnover
• The Board formed an ARC Committee and volunteers served between 2019 and 2023
• The committee reviewed homeowner applications during that period

The Declaration requires that architectural control remains with the Declarant until formally transferred (Declaration, Article VIII, Section 1).

• No written authorization transferring ARC authority to the Association was issued
• Legal guidance later clarified that the Association could not exercise ARC authority without such a transfer
• As a result, decisions issued during this period may not have carried the level of enforceability the Board intended

To align both with the Declaration and with legal guidance:

• The Board discontinued the Association operated ARC
• Architectural authority returned to the Declarant as outlined in the Declaration
• Douglas Property and Development resumed responsibility as the Declarant’s representative

Once ARC authority reverted to the Declarant:

• Homeowners were not provided updated architectural standards or guidelines
• No written criteria were issued for how requests would be reviewed
• Applications were reviewed privately through the Declarant’s representative
• ARC meetings were not publicly noticed or held under FS 720.303, since the ARC was no longer an Association committee
• Minutes were not distributed to the Association
• Homeowners did not have visibility into how decisions were reached

This lack of clear documentation contributed to uncertainty about the process.

Currently:

• ARC applications are submitted by email to Walker Douglas
• A Declarant (assumed) representative reviews the requests
• ARC meetings are not conducted as open Association meetings because the ARC is not operating as an Association committee
• Some ARC notices have been posted by the Association, which may unintentionally suggest that the HOA administers the ARC
• Records of decisions are not published to the community
• No updated written standards have been circulated
• Homeowners may not understand the basis for approvals or denials

This process may create uncertainty because it does not provide visibility or published criteria for architectural decisions.

Without updated written standards, homeowners may not know what criteria are being applied.

A lack of clearly published standards can make it harder to ensure that all requests are treated uniformly, which is a requirement under FS 720.3035.

If a decision is unclear or lacks a published basis, it may be more vulnerable to dispute or review.

FS 617.0830 requires Directors to act in accordance with the governing documents and applicable law.
Clear delineation of ARC authority helps ensure compliance.

A stable and transparent process helps owners plan improvements with confidence and reduces misunderstandings.

Homeowners experience uncertainty when:

• No updated standards are published
• No formal meetings occur
• No accessible record of decisions exists
• No appeal process is documented
• Decisions appear inconsistent
• Owners cannot anticipate what will be approved

This appears inconsistent with the transparency and fairness principles reflected in FS 720.3035.

The Board should request written clarification from the Declarant regarding when architectural authority will be transferred, as anticipated under the Declaration and FS 720.307.

Once ARC authority transfers, the Board will need to adopt written guidelines and distribute them to all owners, as required by FS 720.3035.

Once operated as an Association committee, ARC meetings must be properly noticed, open to members, and documented.

Every approval or denial should cite the specific guideline used in the decision.

Owners should have a clear and consistent method for requesting reconsideration.

• Clear and accessible architectural standards
• Transparent and open ARC meetings once the Association has authority
• Published agendas and minutes
• Consistent and fair decision making
• Reduced administrative and legal uncertainty
• A predictable process that benefits both owners and the community

Architectural review functions best when the process is documented, transparent, and aligned with both the governing documents and Florida law. By clarifying authority and updating procedures, Grand Landings can strengthen fairness, consistency, and confidence in the ARC process.