Pooters Ponds & Pressure-Crete LLC is actually a member of the Better Business Bureau with an A+ rating and only one complaint on file. Perhaps a complaint to the BBB would be in order also.

Do we even know for sure that Pooters hasn't offered to make it right? I know that Pooters was mentioned by the poster, in negative manner, a few times prior to this post so this was not news to them. As always, it's nice to be informed but this forum is information only don't take what any of us say as gospel until you check it out yourselves.

Maybe the solution is to put a few putting green cups around the yard. Pooters told me that their putting greens are Villages approved. Guaranteed that any neighbor that thought that an astro turf lawn was unsightly would reconsider with an open invitation.

Larry, did you mean CYV neighborhoods, not patio villas?

Bill :)

I drove by that house this AM didn't think it looked that bad. I would hire a good lawyer and fight it
drd

This is why reading and posting on TOTV is so valuable for TV wannabees, new owners and long-time owners. Not knowing the rules can cost you $$.

I was talking about a patio villa"s neighborhood that has been around since 2004. It is just south of 466 and I can't think of the name right now. We have friends there. Like I said, maybe patio villas have different rules but they have EVERYTHING for their front lawns.
You would think CYV villas would be even more lenient because you really don't see their lawns.
Maybe someone complained.
It seems the Villages pretty much leave the settled neighborhoods alone unless someone complains. At least that has been our experience.

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.

There is no ambiguity in this matter and the deed restrictions are clear on how much natural sod a homeowner must keep. We looked into it a while back because we had rentals that were not being being maintained by a lawn service while we were back up North. We had 3 companies come out and give us quotes. 2 out of 3 advised us to seek arch approval first because they understood it was not allowed. The 3rd was Pooters and his attitude was like Let the villages try to stop me. The other 2 companies are corporately structured and practices good business while Pooters works off the back of truck with no means of accountability. We were told putting greens are allowed but we couldn't put them in the front. We have seen artificial lawns in AZ and Nevada and even Australia and they are beautifully done. This yard is a disaster. The Villages have been consistent in this enforcement. Don't you think if this product was approved, you would see more of it? You can bet after thus incident, approval has been sent back 10 years. Do you think T&D concrete would put a pool in a front yard? You bet they wouldn't. They work in this community and care about the residents. We are the accountability in this case. Deed restrictions are for good reason even if we don't always agree with them.

According to my deed restrictions:

2.7 Each home and homestead must contain a concrete driveway, the lawn must be sodded, and a lamppost erected in the front yard of each Homesite. To qualify as sodded, at least 51% of the yard visible from all adjacent roadways and golf courses mist be sodded.

That means to me grass and not artificial turf.

I agree that Pooter should have known but it is the ultimate responsibility to check with the Architectural Review Board or be guaranteed from the installer that they will contact the Architectural Review Board with the necessary paperwork.

I always do my own paperwork with the Architectural Review Board to make sure that it is done properly. It does not take that much time.

Yea. Welcome to the Posse!

:boxing2:

I know Pooter as a friend. He has treated his customers very well. This so called posse, should get all the facts, before jumping the gun. Sounds like a lynch mob to me. That is his last name, so the idiot on this board that is taking jabs at a persons name, better have a perfect name like what? Smith?

Do we (The Villagers) lynch someone prior to hearing both sides of the story? Your talking about destroying someones business, that has served hundreds of villagers well! Who really is at fault? I've tried to contact Pooter and invite him to this forum, but being a young, family orientated business person, he is probably with his kids and wife, not knowing this lynch mob is brewing!

Whoa there. It is me you are calling an idiot and making jabs at his name as you call it was in fun...as the girls posse is a just a silly fabrication too. I apologize for kidding about someone's name. But if you read carefully, most of these posts were reacting to the information supplied. When things are reported sometimes errors are made.

There is no lynch mob and people here were responding to what they THOUGHT from the information presented... was an injustice. I think it would be wise for your friend to tell his side of what happened.

Eeek. I hope nobody thought we actually went around beating the crap out of people. :faint: