No ARC Approval makes $4,000 mistake
 

According to the online Villages News a homeowner of a villa in Edgewater Bungalows must remove within 45 days her newly installed artificial grass lawn. The CDD 6 board voted 5-0 to have it removed or face $150 a day fine until it is brought back into compliance.

The home is in Edgewater Bungalows, her unit is two doors from the Waterfront Hotel overlooking Lake Sumter. She purchased the home in 2015 for $615,000. The owner Shirely Schwartz has appeared once before the District 6 board of Supervisors public hearing, and she said she is attempting one more issue before giving in. She said she's had over 100 cars and carts drive by the home and tell her how beautiful it looks. Unfortunately she never received ARC (Architectural Review Committee) approval before the installation.

https://scontent-mia3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...26&oe=5F2108A9

Why would they object to it as it would save huge amounts of water?

It looks good now, but what will it look like in 5 years? Did she provide the names of the 100 people who said it was beautiful? I doubt it.

I priced it out 4 years ago for my house. I called ARC and they said no. Why should someone who broke the rules be treated differently?

Thanks.
 

Thanks for sharing this. I had often thought about doing something like this. We spend so much on irrigation to water the crumby grass. We, the community, spend a ton of money on trying to fight bugs, fungus and other things that kill or damage our lawns. We dump tons of toxic chemicals into the sewers and ground water to try to keep the lawns alive. And any attempt by home owners like this one, to promote a landscape that could save water, reduce chemical pollution or save money and improve curb appeal with less required maintenance get squashed. In the cyv's like the picture shows, I wonder what the reason is for not allowing it. Does it interfere with something? Or is it just the rule?
When we purchased our home we didn't know there was a grate covering a sewer/runoff drain in our yard. Since we bought new, it must have been cleared with the developer to cover it with old carpet and cover that with sod. After some time (well over a year) trying to deal with flooding in the low spot, I discovered what had been done to try and disguise this sewer to make the home more sellable. Still love our home, but.? I think that unless there is a real and demonstrable reason this artificial grass actually hurts in some real way, why not allow it or some viable option for making a landscape that looks good while saving water, eliminating the need for chemicals and reducing or eliminating constant maintenance. Just asking.

.
.
.
By the photo - I think it looks great.

No mowing, no fertilizing, no irrigation, stays green, and dog poop would be readily pick-up-a-ble. A win-win-win-win-win. But no ARC OK...? shame. For you folks in the know - what are the current 'rules' re fake turf?

My son in Rendondo Beach CA, put in astroturf in place of his lawn in his backyard. a Win for him, and after 5 years - looks like new.
.
.
.

I think it looks beautiful and would be a great water saver. BUT, it is not approved by ARC and that' the bottom line. Everyone who has it should be made to remove it and the company selling it should know better than to sell it in The Villages and probably should be fined.

I agree with raynan. It does look good. HOWEVER, is this homeowner “special” in some way that means they do not have to get ARC approval? You’re now living somewhere that has restrictions. Period. Get approval, or don’t do it.

Welll... it looks artificial to me. I know the real stuff comes with a lot of problems but still it is real. I mean why not just pour concrete and paint it green?

Also, not allowed.

Yes I know, I was just sarcastic. It would also get hot and ugly and no drainage.

Which reminds me, Massey looked after my native palm tree on the front lawn and it has died after only 3 years. Every similar palm on my street is thriving. Should I buy an artificial one (someone is selling at this site) in its place and then not worry about Massey looking after it?

It will probably look the same, if not can easily be replaced.

I think you’re totally correct, fdpaq. It is a cost-effective and aesthetically pleasing upgrade. The grass around here is horrible.

It looks beautiful from the picture. I feel we should all have the option of doing that considering the price of watering. I find the bills to be outrageous considering what we used to pay in NJ. We are looking into doing the same thing as well as some of our neighbors. The type of grass here is very harsh so to have a lawn look like the one in the picture would be wonderful. They should allow her to keep it. For heavens sake, what is the problem.

Some of these homeowners associations have too much power and control over people and their homes. If I were her, I would fight this. I will not live where there is a homeowners association because of the control that they have. Too much time on their hands.

We drove by - Its only the front section of the villa and looks very nice. That's more cosmetic. Not sure how it would look to have a full lawn of it.
Unfortunately we have rules here and it's part of living in TV.

The Villages = Restrictive Covenants = Consistency = A beautiful place to live.


I'm thankful.

Why not fight the ARC to get more environmentally friendly instead of just accepting the decision because “it’s the rules”?

Fined by who? ARC are not the police. It’s not the installers job to enforce rules, Especially since they’re different everywhere

She should have gotten approval, just like everyone else and , if she is not in accord with the rules, dealt with. That being said, some rules have been changed and it looks like this one should be looked at again, especially for, or maybe exclusively for small properties. Why is a whole bunch of rock more attractive than great Looking astroturf?

Sort of like wearing a toupée or an elaborate comb-over, right? They could play football on it!

seriously, I do not see the problem

Agree.
 

Lived in a development with covenants before. The rules helped keep the place looking nice. Plus, if a neighbor decided to break the rules and do something that was not in the best interest of the community, that made the neighborhood look trashy, they could deal with it legally if just neighbor to neighbor conversation failed.
My earlier post was not written to mean "break the rules", but was intended to show that we should have rules that allow for design options that include water saving, reduce the chemical reliance, etc, that still look good. And, before just jumping on the home owner, the committee should consider if the design has some merit that might be allowed and a newer, perhaps better and more environmentally friendly option could be added to the list of rules. If the home owner knowingly broke the rule, shame on them. If they didn't, is there room to consider if this might become acceptable in the future and, if so, let it pass until the rule can be written in?
Just a thought.

SERIOUSLY?
What person in their right mind would spend all that money on something that had to be submitted for approval first, and probably never would be ??

Everyone breaks the rules... even with a 6 inch garden flag. Sometimes bylaws can be changed after an appeal for the flag or (frog, or flowerpot, etc.) that was probably reported (by a disgruntled neighbor not invited to a party or you had words with! Vindictive? Of course.

The the rules are in place to set limits. Whatever is determined in an appeal is on an issue by issue basis, and between the committee members and homeowners. If there’s a decision to change that rule, all homeowners should receive a copy of the addendum. Then if someone pushes the limit by putting up a 6 foot flag(statue, flowerpot, etc), they would be fined.

The ARTIFICIAL turf looks a hell of a lot better than some lawns, and definitely would help solve a lot of other problems mentioned here. It looks like it needs a LEGO house now. Not everyone can afford to put the turf down, so use your imagination- and think about what the road would look like with houses with a mixture of some with artificial turf and others with ugly grass!

Apparently she didn’t fork over enough cash to the ARC committee.

Why are you so jealous? Or are you just the person who reported her. In five years she can change it out just as you cut yours every week because it grows and looks unruly. You are just a Villages busy body!

There’s lots of homes with it installed some have mini golf and putting greens complete with holes and flags. What’s the problem.

It can easily be replaced, but not cheaply. Astro turf is much more expensive than a traditional sod lawn.

Then why do you live in TV?

Change the rule
 

The turf looks great. It is designed to let the water soak through the turf into the soil. It needs no watering, does not attract bugs, stays green, as for the expense, if one can afford it God Bless them. As for the comments about what happens 5 years down the line, well if it needs replacing or maintenance well the owner will need to be responsible for it just like any other piece of there property. All rules had good intentions when they first came out. But all rules and laws can easily be amended and in this case I believe it should be amended.

You signed papers to accept the rules , right or wrong there still the rules . Remember one persons expensive AstroTurf is another persons cheap version , just like with ornaments one person puts up something tasteful , but he next person puts up a theme park

We've studied up on the need to get ARC approval for just about everything, but surely there is room for some kind of compromise?

I think the artificial turf looks fantastic in this case and while they didn't get permission ahead of time, why not some kind of fine for not getting prior approval instead of making them tear it up?

I'm certainly not saying that this process should be applied in every case, because I can imagine some pretty ugly things being done by homeowners and then asking for forgiveness later, but shouldn't the ARC have some flexibility (by vote maybe?) on these types of relatively small changes on a case by case basis? I did see where the CDD voted unanimously on its removal, but is that a function of each member's personal opinion, or based solely on the way the rules are currently written?

Is there a flat restriction on artificial turf? We've seen a number of homes that have putting greens made of the stuff, which I assume they received prior approval, so I can't imagine there is a blanket NO in every case.

You just stated the reason. Less water means less money for the Morse family.

Seems like I've seen your screen name someplace before over the last ten years.

Thanks for the info about drainage. I thought maybe it was because of it being an impervious surface that it wasn't allowed but if it is not then I see no reason the ARC should not consider it.

Wonder if it would be hard to clean if needed. i.e. dog poop that is mushy can't be picked up all the way. It smears on the grass. Wonder too if eventually enough dirt would build up between the blades that weeds would take root.

My opinion is its beautiful and common sense should prevail. Leave it alone. What it looks like in 5 years can be dealt with down the line when and if it looks worse than a regular lawn in the same neighborhood.

On the other hand, rules are rules and people seem to like to see others squirm. If in the end, if they end up having to remove the quality work they did it would be a true shame. Get a life! Wow!

I'm not surprised that they covered the runoff drain with carpet and then sod. Many times we saw landscaping and sod being put in after dark by the lights of the landscaper's trucks.

Because TV makes money on the irrigation water you are forced to buy to keep your grass alive.

Give it a year the homeowner will regret. Why isn't the contractor being held responsible its not the first time they've done this without approval. Why did the contractor disregard obvious rules? Contractor should be held accountable for blatant disregard for covenants. A honest contractor would not have done this.

ARC Abilities
 

We need to remember, the ARC cannot change or deviate from the rules. They are "the court". They only determine if a rule was or is broken. They do not have the ability or authority to change the rules. The rules are spelled by district and available to download or read anytime you desire.
I am not condoning the ARC, merely reminding folks they have no authority to bend the rules.