They are extremely busy documenting Virus Safety Rule Violators around the Villages and in the stores and then posting updates about them on FB , the V-N , NextDoor etc . And reports are that they are getting very exhausted from the workload .

I usually turn off St. Charles onto Bailey Trail, so I don't go down by Allamanda, I guess it's down there toward Buena Vista. Anyway, have you seen the backyard on Odell Circle near the Duval Pool? It's all rocks and cactus, I think it looks great. The most recent google map image is from 2013, it's has been expanded to almost the whole yard now.

Google Maps

It's not down there; it's the other direction, down by the St. James gate. There is no landscaping, just an expanse of pebbles like people use around their plantings and in place of grass in the CYV's.

I believe VT nailed it. The stone is OK, according to code, because it's not "permanent." If excavating is necessary in the right of way, the homeowner would be repairing/replacing stone, as opposed to repairing/replacing sod. Stone or sod -- neither is permanent.

It looks better than weeds however they should plant some colorful flowers to brighten up the space.

Unfortunately I believe that there is a Florida Statute that prohibits local restrictions on yardscapes that preserve water .
My bet is this treatments is protected by those statutes.

It goes beyond what is considered "permanent". ARC is very restrictive about a large area of stone without plantings of any type.

I'm going that way in a few minutes, getting a Jersey Mike's sub made without a mask. I'll take a look.

Oh I understand now. I misunderstood "15-20 feet of stone" to be a border instead of ground cover.

I saw it this afternoon, heck I've driven by there numerous times and never paid attention. It's only about 12 to 15 feet wide, it's strip between the curb and their big hedge. I was thinking it was the whole back yard the way this was being mentioned. I don't have problem with their yard.

y don't we just live outher pople be it is their home

I’m sure they submitted a request to Architectural Review. Are you going to complain because YOU don’t like how it looks? Don’t you have more important things to worry about right now? This is another reason why I love Southern Oaks. Very different restrictions.

Landscaping stone backing to St. Charles Place
 

UGH! We drive by there often - it is pretty ugly for sure. I can't even look at it. I guess because it is in the back yard that makes it okay. Only good thing is that the woman does keep it up.

To each his own...

Did you check with Community Standards to see if this landscaping change was completed per plans approved by the ARC?

If not, you should.

Based on your described location for this house, it should be in CDD#5.

The CDD#5 Architectural Review Manual for the ARC, as approved by the District #5 Board of Supervisors, states, in part, under the section on new/additional landscaping, "Existing sod or other plant material shall only be replaced with sod or other plant material. Rock is not an acceptable replacement for sod or other plant material(s) except as an accent material in approved landscaping beds".

Based on this it seems unlikely that the owners of the house obtained ARC approval for the stone ground cover that you have described.

Edit: someone says the offending house is in CDD#8. The Architectural Review Manuals for both CDD#5 and CDD#8 have exactly the same wording about rock not being an acceptable replacement for sod.

St. James should be in District 8, the same as my village, Tamarind Grove. Here's district 8, and the backyard is on St. Charles, which is the curved circle through the middle.

https://districtgov.org/yourdistrict...ages/dist8.gif