The Hunter's Green homeowners association says a family cannot move a play set to a side yard where it could be seen.
By MICHAEL VAN SICKLER
Published November 16, 2003
HUNTER'S GREEN - As Joshua Gomes makes his way down the slide his parents bought him in April, one thing is missing.
Gravity.
The 2-year-old shuffles, kicks and wiggles his legs so that the rest of his 25-pound body is pulled along the slide, which is perched at a moderate angle.
It's more scoot than slide.
It's also a reminder to Joshua's parents, Arlene and Daniel Gomes, that they have little say in how they use their property on Hunter's Pond Drive, even when it comes to installing playground equipment for Joshua and their 8-year-old daughter, Ayesha.
The Gomeses live in the Hunter's Green neighborhood of Lakeside, which, like other neighborhoods in Hunter's Green and most communities in New Tampa, is deed restricted.
Home buyers agree to maintain their homes by following a long list of rules meant to preserve high aesthetic standards. Homeowner associations have the power to fine and place liens on homes that break these rules.
One of those rules in Lakeside is that all recreation equipment must be located in the "rear of a residence" and out of sight from the street.
The back yard at the Gomes' house slopes steeply to wetlands, making the surface too uneven for the swing set. A flatter foundation would be the side of the back yard.
"Right now, it's on an impossible slope," Arlene Gomes said. "The swing set shifts and creaks because it's so unstable. We just want to move it."
But they're not allowed to.
Passers-by along Hunter's Pond Drive would be able to see the swing set if they placed it to the side of the rear yard, a no-no in Lakeside.
Since April, the couple have been stymied in their efforts to shift the swing set onto flatter ground by the Hunter's Green Community Association, which says it would violate the community's deed restrictions.
When the couple toured the neighborhood, however, they noted that at least 16 other homes had swing sets on the side yards, or equipment that could be seen from the street.
"If we can see these violations so clearly, why can't the association see it?" Daniel Gomes said. "It's almost as if they're only enforcing it against us."
To bolster their case, they photographed the offending swing sets when they appealed to the board. They gathered 52 signatures from neighbors who said they wouldn't mind the swing set in the rear side yard.
The couple were still denied, even though they wanted the swing set placed well behind their home.
Arlene Gomes was incensed.
"If they're not going to allow us to put one here, they better be sure to take down those other swing sets," she said.
Ann Johnson, the community association manager, said that the association has begun to take action on those violations that the Gomeses photographed.
The association's five-member Design Review Board, which is made up of landscape and architectural professionals, the clubhouse manager and two homeowners, ruled that the swing set could move to the side rear only if the Gomeses installed 6-foot-tall shrubs along the property line to shield it from view. That would mean ripping out the 4-foot-tall shrubs they have now.
It's also expensive. The Gomeses paid $1,000 for the swing set. They estimate it would cost more to pay for the shrubs. Johnson acknowledged that 6-foot high shrubs can be costly. The Home Depot on Bruce B. Downs Boulevard said it does not carry shrubs more than 4 feet tall.
Could they move the swing set and just wait for their shrubs to grow to 6 feet?
No, the association told them on July 15.
"The playscape cannot be installed until the shrubs are at least 6 feet in height," Johnson wrote. "A new solid row of Viburnum shrubs which are at least 6 feet in height at time of installation must be installed in accordance with the plan submitted."
On the same day, however, the association allowed another house to shield its play set by allowing its ligustrum shrub to grow to 6 feet.
"That's not fair," Arlene Gomes said. "Why are they treating houses differently?"
Johnson said all homes are treated equally, but community covenants allow the Design Review Board to approve variances. For instance, in December, the board approved a 14-foot-tall play set near the Gomeses, even though it can be seen from the street.
"They have a fence that moves your eye away from the play equipment," Johnson said. "And the road in front of that house is straighter. The road in front of the Gomeses' house curves, so the play set is visible much sooner."
More recently, the association offered to plant the necessary shrubs for the Gomeses. They have not yet given the board an answer. If the matter is not resolved, they could have to pay fines up to $100 a day.
"I think this whole thing is a shame," Johnson said. "It's distressing to me to have any homeowner who is not happy living here. . . . I don't know what they want."
What Daniel Gomes wants at this point is to be left alone.
"They've walked this lawn so many times, and now they notice that they can see the swing set from the front?" Gomes said. "It's a deliberate attempt not to get this over with. They're harassing us."
The couple feel so unwelcome, they have filed a discrimination complaint with the Tampa Office of Human Rights.
"At this point, it's a matter of standing up for what you think is right," Daniel Gomes said.
