The Hortons bought a home in a development that was subject to a set of CC&Rs, which included a restriction requiring homeowners to submit plans for changing their front landscaping for approval by...

The Hortons bought a home in a development that was subject to a set of CC&Rs, which included a restriction requiring homeowners to submit plans for changing their front landscaping for approval by the architectural control committee before any changes were made. Among the items included in a list of prohibited landscaping materials was artificial grass. The state was encouraging residents to save water by offering to pay residents $60 for every square foot of grass they replaced with either rock or artificial grass. The Hortons wished to take advantage of this option and submitted plans to replace their grass with artificial grass. When the architectural review committee refused to approve their plans, the Hortons decided to change their landscaping anyway. Are they within their legal rights to do so? What do you believe are the strongest arguments on each side?