[tvbound]

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.

[Bill1701]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

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

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

[Chi-Town]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[dennisgavin]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[kendi]

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.

[Nucky]

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!

[big guy]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

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.

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.

[ribil]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

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

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

[Irishmen]

Originally Posted by terenceanne

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.

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.

[Mikee1]

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.

[17362]

I have a question after reading all the posts.
Can a district (a group of homes in The Villages) go before the ARC and get a “rule” changed? Has this ever been attempted?

[Irishmen]

Originally Posted by kendi

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.

Trillions of grass and weed spores will take root.

[newgirl]

I wonder what it takes to change the rules? After all, new options keep coming on the market and most do not want a new house with 1950 landscaping. What if you got a few hundred signatures asking to remove this rule, or go back and see if any similar issues had come before the board since development that have had different outcomes.
I would think that all rules are subjective of those in power at the moment.

[ffresh]

Originally Posted by terenceanne

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.

Rules are amendable … the world (and even TV) is not a static thing

Fred

[big guy]

Originally Posted by 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!

We owned a rental CYV in the Village of Rio Grande. No one had grass, most had no shrubs, many had weeds knee high, most were just rock and it was ugly and stark. I went to our unit once a month to pull weeds but all the heat reflected by the walls, house and rock got to be more than I could tolerate. The artificial turf would have been a HUGE improvement over the rock if it was installed professionally. That is what is so attractive about Ms Schwartz's turf; it appears to have been put in profesionally. It's not lumpy and the edges are sharp. At first glance it looks real. I think it should stay unless they can give her a good reason that it should go (other than the fact that she is not in compliance).