Neighborhood pools offer a range of benefits beyond just cooling off on a hot day. Six homes in our neighborhood enjoy the benefits of a swimming pool (including one under construction). Three of these pools can be seen from the street. The other three pools are not viewable from the street. All our Harris Estates pools are well maintained. There are never been a noise complaint regarding pool activities.
However, all Harris Estates pools are in-ground pools. Jeff Lindsay included a prohibition on “above ground pools” 18 years ago in our aging Declaration. The Board believes it is time to revisit this restriction. The Board does not feel it is appropriate to place unreasonable limitations on the types of pools homeowners can have in their backyards. All homeowners need to comply with all applicable local ordinances and state laws (local ordinances required fences and other code requirements). All homeowners should maintain their property to include any pools on their property.
Whether it is a small plastic pool for a toddler, a medium sized above ground pool, an in-ground pool, or a hot-tub, all pools bring happiness and positive health benefits to kids and adults alike. What are your thoughts? Feel free to comment below.
Next week, we will be discussing recommended changes to the Declaration and ACC Guidelines on tree removal. Take care.
18 responses to “Proposed Pool Revisions: Part 1”
I absolutely agree on the change! Obviously there needs to be some perimeters to ensure the look of the above ground pools go with the standard of Harris Estates!
I absolutely disagree with the proposed change. The board was very strict at the time we were putting in a pool in regards to fencing and we were told the restrictions could not be changed and if we were to proceed with the more attractive style of fence the board would proceed with a lawsuit. If we could not consider a fencing change I would think allowing an above ground pool would be out of the question.
We also disagree with the purposed change. I believe that adding another option to a yard would require additional maintenance that in some cases won’t happen-hence, becoming an eyesore to the neighborhood.
I’m not in favor of allowing above ground pools. Stay with the higher standard set in our original bylaws. I would however like to consider a change in the fencing requirements. It seems odd that it would restrict the more attractive metal fences.
I also disagree with allowing above ground pools.
I completely disagree with this for many of the reasons mentioned by others.
Above-ground pools, while popular in some settings, often do not align with the aesthetic standards or long-term property values our HOA was designed to protect. Allowing them would significantly alter the visual landscape of Harris Estates and potentially diminish the uniform, mostly well-maintained appearance that attracted many of us to this community in the first place.
It is also worth highlighting a concerning inconsistency: homeowners who have advocated for reasonable, durable alternatives to traditional wood fencing—such as vinyl or decorative metal—have been told that the HOA is unwilling to consider amendments for these materials, even when they are more sustainable, lower-maintenance, and visually appealing. If the board will not entertain modern, high-quality fencing options, it raises serious questions about why we are now considering amendments that would introduce structures widely known to be temporary, difficult to maintain, and often unsightly.
This proposed change not only undermines the standards set forth in our original covenants, but it also risks setting a precedent that opens the door to further erosion of community guidelines.
I urge the board and my fellow homeowners to reject this amendment and prioritize preserving the appearance, property values, and long-term integrity of Harris Estates.
In addition to the above comments. We had requested to have the bylaws updated to allow for better options for more attractive fencing that would add more value to our homes. We were informed that due to the bylaws being a “legal document” it would have to go through an attorney and incur extensive legal fees that the HOA didn’t feel warranted spending the neighbor’s dues on. I don’t see how this situation is any different and therefore should follow the same decision making process as the fencing request therefore not allowing bylaws to be changed.
Over the past 17 years that we have lived in Harris Estates, there have been multiple discussions regarding potential amendments to the ACC guidelines and community covenants. During this time, several homeowners have submitted requests that were denied based on the existing covenant provisions.
Additionally, we have conducted several surveys and questionnaires over the years to gauge community interest in making changes to the covenants. Each time, the proposed changes have failed to receive the necessary support from homeowners to move forward. Given this consistent outcome, it’s unclear why this issue is being brought up again.
Establishing a precedent of selectively amending these rules would be unfair to those residents whose requests were previously declined. In addition, it risks undermining the integrity of the covenants and the trust homeowners place in a fair and consistent application of the rules. It is essential that we maintain consistency and fairness in how the covenants are applied and amended, ensuring equal treatment for all members of our community.
I am for allowing our Harris Estates neighbors to have a temporary above ground pool in the privacy of their backyards. The current restriction is overreaching what our neighbors and their kids can do in their own backyards. No plastic, inflatable, or small pool (or hot tub) is going to significantly impact the neighborhood aesthetics and home values. Our home values are impacted by the upkeep of the house inside (cabinets, bathroom, walls, floors, paint) and outside (paint, roof, yard, fence).
The neighborhood should develop new guidance in the ACC Guidelines to address concerns about pool aesthetics. Although if you can’t see the pool from the street, who cares? (¯\_(ツ)_/¯)
To be honest the HOA is not consistent on following the ACC guidelines. There are neighbors who have cut down trees who haven’t gotten approval and do not get the punishment due. In this neighborhood for some, it seems it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission.
The problem with our HOA is the enforcement is heavy handed or disregarded. The neighbors who aren’t complying because they are hidden either by fence or street have no way of being fined. It shouldn’t be one way or the other. If covenants are not enforced, then what’s the point of an HOA?
I do agree on changing the fence requirements.
We respectfully but emphatically disagree with any proposal to amend the current covenants and ACC guidelines in a way that would lower the standards of our neighborhood or compromise its aesthetic appeal. If enforcement of existing guidelines has been inconsistent—as noted in a previous comment—that reflects a shortcoming in oversight, not a justification for lowering the bar. That issue should be addressed directly with the board, not used as an excuse to dilute the standards that help preserve the value and visual integrity of our community.
More importantly, according to the very covenants that a couple of people now seem eager to disregard, any such change would require 75% approval—that means at least 21 homes would need to be in favor. Based on the responses so far, it doesn’t appear that threshold is even remotely within reach. This discussion seems poised to become another moot point, much like the long-winded (and ultimately failed) campaign for unapproved speed bumps.
As for the idea of above-ground pools—if we could be assured they’d look like the AI-generated image from the newsletter, perhaps there’d be room for a reasonable conversation. But let’s be honest: we all know we’d end up with a $200 Walmart clearance pool, sun-bleached and sagging long after its prime, becoming yet another permanent fixture that drags down the appearance of the neighborhood.
My comment about the inconsistencies wasn’t a justification to lower the bar.
I agree that if above ground pools looked exactly like the AI — great, but agree that’s not gonna happen.
Thanks for the comments! Love to see the engagement on this topic by our neighbors!
I agree restrictions should be applied and enforced in the ACC Guidelines to maintain aesthetic concerns of our current homeowners.
The vast majority of folks are taking care of their homes and accessory structures. If one can see it from the street and it fails to adhere to the ACC Guidelines, someone normally files a complaint and the issue is addressed.
I personally believe that is better than bans on all pools. Some neighbors can’t afford an in-ground pool. Some neighbors are unlucky because their septic system is in the backyard. Some don’t have a backyard because their yards are on the edge of a cliff (Harris Court). I don’t think it is fair to those homeowners because the Developer made some choices that limit the enjoyment of their backyards.
Appreciate the reply, and it’s great to see continued engagement—though let’s not confuse “engagement” with consensus.
It’s interesting that while you say you support enforcing restrictions to maintain neighborhood aesthetics, you immediately pivot to advocating for exceptions that would, in fact, undermine those very standards. That’s not consistency—that’s contradiction.
Also, let’s clear something up: there is no “ban on all pools.” That kind of language is misleading. There are guidelines—guidelines that are in place to preserve the integrity, appearance, and value of the neighborhood we all knowingly bought into. These aren’t arbitrary rules; they are part of the foundational agreement that came with homeownership here. Pretending otherwise undermines the very concept of shared community standards.
Trust me, I completely understand the constraints some homeowners face. We had to pay to relocate our septic system. We paid extra for a gunite pool instead of a vinyl-lined one due to the water table and proximity to a creek bed. These were choices we made—costly ones, yes, but they were in service of complying with the existing guidelines that we all agreed to when we bought here. No one was forced to buy a home on a lot that restricted certain additions. The covenants were in place from day one, and every homeowner purchased their property with those rules in full view.
More importantly, rumor has it that some homeowners have already gone ahead and installed pool structures that do not comply with the covenants. Now, instead of addressing those violations appropriately, the push is to change the rules retroactively and expect the neighborhood to fall in line—and, of course, to help subsidize the legal costs required to make those changes official. That’s not about fairness or equity; that’s about asking the community to normalize noncompliance.
This is precisely why we have covenants: to prevent individual choices from spiraling into neighborhood-wide consequences. Personal inconvenience, geographic challenges, or regret shouldn’t become the basis for lowering standards that benefit us all.
We (the Board) are advocating appropriate adjustments to the Declaration, and making nuisanced changes/additions to the ACC Guidelines for the current 28 homeowners, not those that are no longer here or under every single rule of our Developer long ago. It’s easier to work with the ACC Guidelines over some of the problematic language of the Declaration on other issues to be discussed.
We are starting a discussion about these proposed changes, along with tree removal, and more. HOA lawyer said he would review our changes and file them at no cost to the HOA.
Nothing will likely get changed unless a 75% agreement among the homeowners.
PS.. Sorry to hear about all the challenges y’all had with the pool. I think the Developer made some poor decisions about septic location and lack of gas services in the neighborhood.
Thank you for the clarification, though, the intent seems increasingly clear: a selective reinterpretation of long-standing expectations based on convenience, not community consensus.
Let’s address the heart of this. The Declaration is not just an outdated artifact from a forgotten developer—it is a legally binding document that defines the character and expectations of this neighborhood. The suggestion that we should casually “adjust” them for the benefit of the current 28 homeowners, while disregarding the legacy and integrity of the standards everyone agreed to upon purchase, is both short-sighted and self-serving. What exactly is meant by “not those that are no longer here”? The covenants are not selectively retroactive. They were written to apply to all homeowners—those who have lived here since the beginning and those who just moved in last week. That’s the point of a covenant: consistency and enforceability over time. This document wasn’t written for temporary interpretation; it was created to protect the long-term value and aesthetic of the community—something many of us still take seriously.
Framing these changes as “nuisanced adjustments” is a nice euphemism, but what’s really being proposed are fundamental shifts—ones that open the door to lowered standards under the guise of flexibility. Let’s not pretend this is minor. And while it’s convenient to cite that the HOA lawyer will file changes “at no cost to the HOA,” let’s remember: the cost isn’t purely financial. The cost is in eroding the visual and structural expectations that many of us factored into one of the largest purchases of our lives.
You referenced the homes on Harris Court that are unable to place a pool in their backyard — is the proposed solution to allow above-ground pools in their front yards instead? If so, how exactly would that align with the aesthetic and standards this neighborhood was built on?
I appreciate the sympathy regarding our pool challenges, but that’s precisely the point. We made deliberate, sometimes expensive decisions to comply with the standards in place. We didn’t lobby to change the rules because they were inconvenient—we adapted. That’s what you do when you choose to live in a covenant-controlled community. The lot conditions and associated rules weren’t oversights—they were deliberate, put in place to preserve home values and maintain a cohesive neighborhood aesthetic. The answer isn’t to unravel that framework simply because a few homeowners now find it restrictive after the fact.
Lastly, while I understand this is “just a discussion,” the direction it’s heading in feels alarmingly dismissive of those of us who still value the covenants as they stand. Garnering 75% approval is a high bar for good reason—and the more this conversation unfolds, the more it becomes clear that reaching that threshold will be extremely unlikely.
I look forward to the next HOA meeting and will absolutely be in attendance — it’s clear these conversations require far more scrutiny than they’ve been given so far.
I think it really depends on the situation. If the above ground pool is visible from the street then it should be attractive and surrounded by a deck so the sides of the pool are not visible. If it is not visible from the street/neighbor’s yard then I have no problem with the pool as long as there is a fence for safety. The look should still maintain the standards of the neighborhood.
I do think we should absolutely be open to revision proposals going forward. The neighborhood has evolved and we should be willing to make some changes in the future as long as the majority can agree.