harley
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
We're having an issue with the HOA in our townhouse development. We own the townhouse, but rent it to DD and family. So we're in town for a month or two helping out with the new baby while SiL is deployed, and DW, who is an avid gardener (and retired certified landscape designer) decides to rip out the old nasty looking plants out front and put in some that might actually thrive and look nice. The old ones were typical townhouse plants - Golden Euonymus right under the windows, with white azaleas in front of them.
The euonymous were healthy enough, but they had 5 of them planted in a 15' area, and they had overgrown the space. Plus, they're just not very attractive, as evidenced by this article from Southern Living - Five Awful Plants for the Front of Your House | Southern Living Blog. We actually like azaleas, but the location was just not right for them. Dry clay soil in full sunlight. They had lacebugs and were mostly dead.
We are replacing them with a few Soft Touch Hollies in the back and drift roses up front, and adding a few day lilies. Nice, simple to maintain, and appropriate for the microclimate.
Anyway, the HOA has decided that we can only replace dead plants with the exact same plant. It does say so in the covenants. They also say we needed to get approval before doing anything.
However, it also says earlier in the covenants that
So basically there are conflicting rules within the covenants, and when reading them you come to the part giving permission first. To me that means we can do it, and they can't stop us. DW is fighting with them trying to get permission. She put in a professionally drawn and designed (by her) plan, for review, and they denied it saying things like "removing healthy and successful plantings" and "replacing them with unattractive and unaesthetic plants". How dwarf hollies and drift roses (which stay fairly small and produce lots of flowers) can be unattractive and unaesthetic they don't explain. Anyway, my thought is to put the plants in and let them try to fine us. If they do we can turn it over to a lawyer and they can explain why they can choose which part of the covenants to enforce and why we should be able to read their mind about it.
I'm curious what y'all think about this. By the way, here are some pictures of the "healthy and successful" plants we replaced.
The euonymous were healthy enough, but they had 5 of them planted in a 15' area, and they had overgrown the space. Plus, they're just not very attractive, as evidenced by this article from Southern Living - Five Awful Plants for the Front of Your House | Southern Living Blog. We actually like azaleas, but the location was just not right for them. Dry clay soil in full sunlight. They had lacebugs and were mostly dead.
We are replacing them with a few Soft Touch Hollies in the back and drift roses up front, and adding a few day lilies. Nice, simple to maintain, and appropriate for the microclimate.
Anyway, the HOA has decided that we can only replace dead plants with the exact same plant. It does say so in the covenants. They also say we needed to get approval before doing anything.
However, it also says earlier in the covenants that
Reading that part of the covenants makes it very clear that the review/approval process is for making changes to the lay of the land, the actual building, or things like building a patio, or putting in a tree or low voltage lighting. The exceptions to the review process above makes it clear to me that landscape plants are not part of it.There are a number of exceptions to this otherwise inclusive review requirement."... "Minor landscape improvements will also not require an application. This includes foundation plantings, or single specimen plantings. In general landscape improvements of a small scale which do not materially alter the appearance of the Lot, involve a change in topography or ground and which are not of sufficient scale to constitute a natural structure will be exempt from the design review process.
So basically there are conflicting rules within the covenants, and when reading them you come to the part giving permission first. To me that means we can do it, and they can't stop us. DW is fighting with them trying to get permission. She put in a professionally drawn and designed (by her) plan, for review, and they denied it saying things like "removing healthy and successful plantings" and "replacing them with unattractive and unaesthetic plants". How dwarf hollies and drift roses (which stay fairly small and produce lots of flowers) can be unattractive and unaesthetic they don't explain. Anyway, my thought is to put the plants in and let them try to fine us. If they do we can turn it over to a lawyer and they can explain why they can choose which part of the covenants to enforce and why we should be able to read their mind about it.
I'm curious what y'all think about this. By the way, here are some pictures of the "healthy and successful" plants we replaced.