Quote:
Originally Posted by brostholder
I'm afraid I'm not getting it. If Pooters has a booth at the squares on market night, it is hard to imagine that they do not know that their product requires arc approval. If they do know their product requires arc approval then they should tell prospective customers. If the arc has approved their product in the past, then why couldn't the homeowners been granted a "post-installation" approval and perhaps pay a small fine for not having it pre-approved. The only reason I could think of for not allowing a post approval is that the product is approvable in some settings but not in others.
|
Good point. Another thing to do is to look at the exact wording of the deed restriction for that neighborhood to see if there is any ambiguity or room for interpretation that might give the homeowner any chance of keeping the artificial turf; or, if the language is clearcut, check on whether a variance has been granted in other similar situations, or even if not, they could try to get a variance approved (probably doubtful that such a variance would be approved if it is disallowed in the restrictions). Plus, if the appearance of how the turf was laid is bad, as described above, it would probably still have to be fixed somehow, if that is even possible to do; and would be another reason, irrespective of the restriction, that the homeowner may be able to get a refund plus the cost of restoring the lawn. Also, if the language
is clearcut that artificial turf is not allowed, then that would help in the homeowner's claim against the vendor, if it is shown that the vendor knew of the restriction, as was stated above. Either way, knowing the exact language of the restriction for that specific neighborhood, since some restrictions vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, is important.
I just hope something works out for these people; after all, they are Villagers. Even given that, as all of us recognize,
they should have, without question, read the restrictions or checked before having this work done, that's such a large loss; not to mention what it will cost to remove it and resod. Since they were dealing with a vendor at the square, that they may have seen as being under some degree of endorsement of The Villages, I can see how such a misjudgment on some people's part could have occurred in not checking it out further themselves. Not everyone acts the same way, or with the same level of sophistication, in situations like this; and in The Villages, right or wrong, people sometimes are trusting and don't apply the same 'real world' practices because of the atmosphere of friendliness here. (I'm not saying that that is always excusable; but in some situations it is more understandable than in others). Even though it was their 'fault', technically, I just hate to see people have to pay such a huge price for this 'lesson', especially given that the circumstances do create some equities in their favor, and that I hope will result in the vendor working something out with these people.
As mentioned on here, what an eyeopener for me and for others.