[dewilson58]

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


I'm thankful.

[villageuser]

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

[Leadbone1]

Originally Posted by raynan

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.

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

[merrymini]

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?

[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by Velvet

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?

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

[greenflash245]

seriously, I do not see the problem

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

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


I'm thankful.

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.

[TooColdNJ]

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!

[cwhitecat]

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

[Sanford Epstein]

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!

[mcfirkle]

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

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

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

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

[Rodneysblue]

Then why do you live in TV?

Originally Posted by Slapnut

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.

[Chitown]

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.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

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