Probably not, in the more expensive upgraded CYV communities such as hers, Alden Bungalows, Atwood Bungalows, Haciendas of Mission Hills and Atrium Dells to name a few. They generally add stone trim and metal roofs along with some other upgrades including a 2 car garage. Normally villas in those communities sell for double what other villa communities will sell for. However, the floorplans are generally the same.

Here's a villa in Atrium Dells with a metal roof, that at Buena Vista across from Brownwood. This is actually a rental for $109 a night. That to me, is more disturbing that a villa can be used as essentially a one night motel. I cannot link that website, it is blocked, I guess they are not an advertiser.

https://odis.homeaway.com/odis/listi...5a3398.f10.jpg

Nope

Not the First Time...?
 

A vendor from the Square was involved in installing artificial turf at a designer home in 2011 in the Village of Duval. That had to be removed, also.

It would seem that even in The Villages, a petition to update ARC regulations is a possibility. I think however that Villa areas remain under the developers control, so this might not be possible. It would be interesting to find out if issues like this could be addressed at a higher authority than the ARC.

Why are those your only choices? How about a neighbor that did not want Brady Bunch artificial grass in their neighborhood.

I would not want it on my street.

I think we should all have this and save water and chemicals win win

Good point. There is always a complaint that we use too.much water and that all the chemicals are poisoning our waterways. What a great solution. Someone asked what will it look.like in 5 years. Cannot look any worse than some of the lawns that are not taken care of. It is something the lawns in Arizona use because they have watering restrictions . let them keep it.

As to whether a rule change has every been attempted the answer is quite often. Does the ARC have the authority to change the rules? Absolutely not. The agreement everyone signs with regards to the restrictive covenants is between the property owner and the Developer (or his agent). He is the only one able to amend, change, add or delete anything regarding these rules. Has anyone ever been successful in securing a change or modification to the existing rules? I cannot say with confidence yes or no. Many owners come before the ARC expecting a waiver for their particular case. Fewer take their issues up with their district board. I cannot think of anyone who has actually stated that they have taken the final step in submitting their case to the developer. Most likely there have been at least a few but I have not read anywhere on this forum or elsewhere that they did so which makes me wonder why.

Whether it is a single property owner or "a group" as noted in the prior post makes no difference in the process. I have lived in other places where there were similar rules and regulations and the only way to change them was to get 100% of the property owners to agree. When is the last time you saw 100% agreement on anything (except maybe free beer or wine).

"free beer and wine". Where? When?

tomorrow

Hey Irishman, I'm half Irish myself. Do you paint houses? :1rotfl::1rotfl:

The Vendor is just trying to make a living but if this lawn ends up getting ripped up I wonder if the homeowner has any recourse against the Vendor? What a Clown Operation that must be. Imagine if they've been busted for the same infraction.

Where is the person who knows everything about everything when you need dat person? :1rotfl: :mademyday:

Pretty much says all there can be said or done. It is what it is and all of us knew what the "is" was when we signed the sales contract.

It would save me thousands of dollars if I had fake grass instead of the real thing, every year, so my thinking is that if one can’t afford the expenditures that go along with the properties in TV, or resent them, why buy here in the first place?

Pardon me, Counselors. I have one other small question. Not trying to be cute or disrespectful just trying to understand. Why other than it being against the rules is this improvement not permitted. I understand the approval was needed but why is such a beautiful effort kicked to the curb? What is the specific reason its no goodski? Is it a cancer-causing agent? Is it against some regional or state law or is it just that it needs to go because of the rules?

I don't have a problem with allowing it, if she followed the approval rules. But, I think the answer to your question would be uniformity. It's the same reason that CYV sections only allow two paint colors for the driveways, selected by polling the neighbors.