6. The Hidden Harbour development was back before the Florida District Court of Appeal six years later over a different dispute involving a resident's private well. In Hidden Harbour Estates, Inc. v. Basso, 393 So.2d 637 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981), the court opined: There are essentially two categories of cases in which a condominium association attempts to enforce rules of restrictive uses. The rst category is that dealing with the validity of restrictions found in the declaration of condominium itself. The second category of cases involves the validity of rules promulgated by the association's board of directors or the refusal of the board of directors to allow a particular use when the board is invested with the power to grant or deny a particular use. In the rst category, the restrictions are clothed with a very strong presumption of validity which arises from the fact that each individual unit owner purchases his unit knowing of and accepting the restrictions to be imposed. Such restrictions are very much in the nature of covenants running with the land and they will not be invalidated absent a showing that they are wholly arbitrary in their application, in violation of public policy, or that they abrogate some fundamental constitutional right. Thus, although case law has applied the word \"reasonable\" to determine whether such restrictions are valid, this is not the appropriate test... The rule to be applied in the second category of cases, however, is different. In those cases where a use restriction is not mandated by the