Friday, May 14, 2004 | 5:16 a.m.
May 15 - 16, 2004
By Hal Bloch
Hal Bloch, president of the Summerlin North Community Association's Board of Directors, has been a member of its board for nearly eight years. The views in the following commentary are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the board.
At its regular monthly meeting in April, the Summerlin North Community Association voted not to allow artificial turf to be placed in front yards within Summerlin North.
One of the Summerlin North Community Association requirements, within its governing documents, is that homeowners wanting to make externally visible changes to their property must submit for permission to do so. Landscaping is one of the areas of change specifically addressed.
While there are only four homeowners (out of approximately 15,000 in Summerlin North) who followed a perilous path and neglected to submit for permission prior to installing artificial turf, the issue has attained a significant emotional level. This is understandable as these are homeowners who now have an unapproved landscaping change in place that is in danger of being removed. Their concern is obvious.
These homeowners, predominantly through one spokesperson, are adopting the proactive defense based on the issue of artificial turf's contribution to water conservation. Certainly this is a theme guaranteed to resonate throughout the Las Vegas Valley under the severe conditions that currently prevail. Incidentally, it is indisputable that removing real grass and installing artificial turf is a water saver -- plastic does not need to be watered. It should be borne in mind, however, that there are other alternatives to saving water.
If artificial turf is one of the water saving alternatives, why then did the Summerlin North Community Association's Board of Directors vote as they did? It is clear to me that the vote went the way that it did for two very important reasons.
First, when the board interviewed four credible local vendors of artificial turf in an attempt to ascertain what constituted a "good looking, high quality" product, it came up with the following facts:
Second, the board, prior to making a decision and faced with the above facts, sought guidance from the Summerlin North Community Association's Delegates (an elected body of homeowner representatives that annually elects the board members). The Delegates' nonbinding straw vote was overwhelming to ban artificial turf in front yards.
At this point, should anyone be tempted to come to the conclusion that the residents of Summerlin North are simply not in tune with the seriousness of the water situation, let me point out that in the same meeting of the Delegates that overwhelmingly voted down approving artificial turf in front yards, those same Delegates overwhelmingly reaffirmed their support of a plan to convert our South Roundabout (currently all grass) to a striking and expensive water conserving design at a cost of over $400,000.
That project will be a joint effort of Summerlin North, the Howard Hughes Corp. and the Southern Nevada Water Authority and will involve Summerlin North contributing approximately $170,000 of its money, without which the project would not have gone forward.
This, then, is far from a simple water conservation issue. It is an issue of how a community that prides itself on high standards can maintain those standards when it is currently impossible to write a definitive quantifiable specification for what constitutes "good looking, high quality and durable" artificial turf.
If this is purely a subjective judgment on the part of the Summerlin North Community Association compliance people, the design review committee and/or the board, we will have spawned a nightmare.
How can we stop the installation of "substandard" turf or "substandard installation" of turf? How, too, can it be determined when any turf has deteriorated to the point that it needs to be completely replaced? Neither of these can be left to pure subjectivity.
I can only surmise that if tight specifications could be written by an impartial and knowledgeable third party, the feelings of the Delegates and the decision of the board might well have been different, particularly if the area to be covered was to be limited in size. The aim here should be to come up with workable solutions that benefit everyone.
Efforts should be ongoing to have artificial turf specifications developed that meet the standards that Summerlin residents have the right to expect, without being so restrictive as to run afoul of "restraint of trade" issues. At that point, the issue should be revisited by the Summerlin North Community Association board.
By Kevin Peltier
Kevin Peltier is a Summerlin resident who is at odds with his homeowners association because he removed his front-yard natural grass and replaced it with artificial grass.
The Summerlin North Community Association board recently voted to prohibit residents within its jurisdiction from installing synthetic turf in their front yards. The board members fear that some residents might install synthetic turf that does not meet the quality standards they feel a Summerlin home should have.
The board's decision to outlaw synthetic turf is nothing more than a scare tactic. The board wants to persuade residents that fake grass will destroy their property values, and that allowing its use will suddenly turn Summerlin into a "plastic paradise." Both arguments are untrue.
I have synthetic turf in the front yard of my Summerlin home and so far, aside from the board's decision, my experience has been overwhelmingly positive. I enjoy looking at a perfectly manicured lawn every day that never needs mowing, watering, or chemical fertilization.
My maintenance for this product consists of using a broom to sweep off any leaves that may have collected. The amount of high-grade, lifelike synthetic turf that I had professionally installed is less than 250 square feet. It consists of three small patches, with the rest of my yard filled with surrounding hedges, bushes, flowers, and trees.
Since installing the synthetic turf in my front yard, and removing the sod in my back yard, I am experiencing a water savings of more than 2,000 gallons a month compared to the previous year. At a time when the entire Southwest is experiencing a severe drought, and Lake Powell and Lake Mead are at record low levels and still dropping, the decision by the Summerlin North Community Association board to prohibit this very sensible means of water conservation sets a dangerous precedent. This board must not be allowed to let aesthetic considerations override the very pressing water needs of the entire Southern Nevada community.
I have been instructed by the Summerlin North Community Association board to immediately remove my synthetic turf. I have been appealing this decision since January. I have presented to the board photos of my front yard and evidence of my water savings.
I have never suggested that Summerlin adopt a blanket policy that allows any type of turf to be installed, but instead have suggested standards that conform with already written regulations. I have proposed that residents planning to install artificial turf be required to submit samples to the Summerlin Design Review Committee prior to installation. This would ensure compliance with aesthetic standards.
Artificial grass should be treated like any other currently allowed landscape item -- meaning that during its lifetime it would be subject to the same discretionary scrutiny that the Summerlin North Community Association board imposes on natural turf. The board would have the power to cite and fine homeowners, and to order them to replace the artificial turf if it has deteriorated below acceptable standards.
The Summerlin North Community Association board's response has been that this type of action requires the board to make a subjective judgment. But isn't making subjective judgments one of the purposes of an homeowners association board? Why is it that this board finds it impossible to come up with a design standard for artificial turf, when other communities have had no such problem?
In board meetings I have attended, representatives of the turf companies who install these products have given presentations and have offered to write the design guidelines for Summerlin, and the Summerlin North Community Association board has refused these offers.
I have been cited on three separate occasions by the Summerlin North Community Association board over the last 10 years for having brown spots in my front yard, and in each case I was required to replace my natural sod. Now I am being cited for having a yard that will never turn brown. Where is the logic?
The current Summerlin North Community Association board consists of seven members. Two of these board members, David Dean and Steve Greco, have been supportive of my efforts. The remaining board members, Patty Rosia, Jerry Russo, Bob Sidell, Don Brizzolara and President Hal Bloch, have been steadfast in their opposition.
At the board meeting during which the vote was taken to outlaw synthetic turf for front yards, I asked the board members if they had taken the time to come out and see my yard. They all acknowledged that they had. Brizzolara stated that he had to drive up and down my street twice before he could locate the house with the fake lawn. Which was my point exactly -- you cannot tell from the street that my yard is anything other than real grass.
My postman did not realize that I had artificial turf until I told him four months after it was installed, and he drives past my house five days a week.
Today's synthetic turf product is not "Astroturf" or indoor/outdoor carpeting. It is a technically advanced, very realistic, high quality product that will only continue to improve. It has a soft feel, a natural look and offers a sensible alternative to water-guzzling natural turf.
The Summerlin North Community Association board would be wise to embrace this aesthetically appealing application of water-saving technology. Instead it has chosen to ban it out of fear. This senseless action goes against the efforts of all Southern Nevada residents who have tried to do their part to help conserve our threatened water supply.
archive
