Because the rule is stupid! Vindictive is the ARC. If everyone in The Villages who has violated covenants was reported there would be an uprising of all residents. Common sense would be something to think about - tell her OK to leave but if she sells must be put back to original? What happens if you repaint your house, the same color, without ARC approval? What are they going to do - have you scrape it off to original? Power-hungry people without an ounce of common sense is the problem.

I am wondering about the rules at TOTV - in some ways this is shaming the property, I would hate it if my home was publicly displayed like this. I suppose if the owner posted it, it would be alright.

I suggest we all write ARC about this. I'm all for artificial turf that looks good, saves water, saves use of chemicals and saves maintenance woes. Rules are for our good. They can and should be changed when it makes sense. Onward and upward!

Here is the response I received from ARC regarding artificial turf and my wish for them to reconsider the rules that don't allow it:


Thank you for your email. The deed restrictions and the District’s adopted Rule for the area you are referring to provides: All Homesites shall remain finished with the same quantity and style of water-conservative, drought-tolerant sod and landscape as originally provided by the Declarant. Notwithstanding, Owners are encouraged to and may add landscape that is more water-conservative and drought tolerant than originally provided; however, any such alterations to areas visible from roadways or golf courses must receive prior written approval. The deed restrictions are a legal contract between the Developer and the Owner and cannot be changed by the District. Therefore, artificial turf is prohibited in this area.



If you can think of another way to go to have this rule rethought please do!

I think it looks great too, and with many benefits as preciously noted. However, having artificial turf would put many landscapers out of business. Maybe the developer is trying to protect the landscapers and the bug companies?? Just a thought....

Depends ...
 

......on who is making money on the recycled (brown) water that we are all paying for. If too many folks put in astro-turf the system used for the recycled stuff might start to actually cost money to own? I do not claim to be an expert - just thinking here. Besides those lawn guys have a tight union :1rotfl:

:what: Maybe the developer is trying to protect the landscapers and the bug companies??

How about this? The purpose/ reason for the Community Standards Dept of the District Government - All taken from the District Web Site..... that few seem to read.

MISSION
To assist residents in upholding the aesthetic value of their property in The Villages.

The Community Standards Department is committed to upholding the high standards of our community’s residential architectural design, landscaping and aesthetics. The department has two divisions: Deed Compliance and Architectural Review.

You have chosen to live in a community protected by Restrictive Covenants. The Declaration of Restrictions was issued to you at the closing on your home. It was at that time you signed a covenant with the Developer to comply with the Restrictive Covenants. We urge all homeowners to read their Restrictive Covenants.

Why a lot of us moved here! :ho:

it sounds like it must be more of an ego thing...i.e, if she would have /known to apply for arc/cdd/whatever approval, it may have been approved, but, because she either didn't know she needed to, for whatever reason, the committees want to punish her or anyone, just because she didn't follow their rules. Per the picture, it looks MUCH better than SO MUCH rock, with only the 'required' 2 or 3 small plants sprinkled around. If it's really as pretty as it looks in the picture, I'd say just give her some sort of fine for not following protocol, then maybe thank her for coming up with a beautiful idea. Of course, I guess one would need to wonder/worry/consider if/how long it will stay that nice looking..

Just curious, is the owner living there, or renting it out most of the time?

Consistancy
 

The problem I see is that if they allow this artificial turf to be allowed, some old “Hippie” is going to put down ORANGE turf or RAINBOW turf Or something else that wouldn’t fit in.

no painted concrete ? interesting as MANY driveways are coated - NOT original concrete

The problem is that she did not get ARC approval to do it. I contacted ARC about 4 years ago about doing the same thing, but they told me that it is not allowed, so I did another type of landscaping. Do you want to have a consistent standard and approval process for landscaping in The Villages? Or, do you want to just allow homeowners to do whatever they want, post a photo on a TOTV thread, and have posters weigh in on whether or not it meets their approval? If that works, then we could eliminate the ARC.

Anyone who works in TV knows that they need to have ARC approval. Unless you hire people who want your money and don't care about getting it.

Not a natural system
 

Perhaps the reason for the regulation is that by definition "artificial" turf is not a natural biological system. Rain falling on it will not percolate, but must run off into the street and storm drainage system. It acts like concrete and asphalt, which washes excess water loads and pollutants into these systems. From a larger environmental point of view, it does not support a biological community of microorganisms, nor does it engage in photosynthesis, which removes carbon dioxide and returns oxygen to the atmosphere. If you want to live in a biological desert, move to a large city, where the air temperature is significantly higher than areas with greenery. It is called the urban greenhouse effect. Heaven knows, our summer is hot enough as it is.

Posts 65&68
 

I stated in an earlier post that I lived in another community with restrictions before moving here. In the other community, we had an opportunity to and a method to suggest changes or additions to the original rules if it was shown to be a benefit to the community. Property owners were able to request a variance for certain things that could enhance the property and would not negatively impact their neighbors (neighbors approval). Posts 65 and 68 show that, apparently, only the developer has the ability to make changes to the covenants. If this is true, than an appeal to the developer is the only hope of providing an avenue for updating or improving the covenants. If this is also true, and, as has been suggested or inferred from time to time, the developer has a financial interest in some of the companies that supply products and services to our community, than there is little, if any hope of any changes that might impact their bottom line.
So, tow the line or leave. Many of us, me included, turned our lives upside down to move here. This is home now. And, I love living here, but it would be nice if the ARC or CDDs had the ability to make a judgement call instead of just leveling fines.