Resident pays $8500 and loses it to vendor on The Square
 

A homeowner on Little Mountain Loop in The Village of Duvall paid thousands to have natural grass removed and artificial grass and rock installed in front yard and now The Villages are making them take it out. They have lost thousands of dollars to Pooters. Company called Pooters who has a tent on The Square on Market nights deceived them that this was OK. Homeowner didn't verify Pooters was telling them the truth and collected money knowing it was against deed restrictions. How can The Villages allow this vendor to continue to operate on the Square in this manner? Taking advantage of Senior Citizens no matter should not be permitted. Yes it is ultimately the homeowners responsibility but How many other homeowners are being deceived by Pooters? Pooters operates on directly managed property by the Entertainment Division under the umbrella of The Villages Community District. According to a friend of the homeowner Pooters even had some official looking document from the State stating artificial grass is OK so I don't blame the homeowner I blame Pooters. It's a shame The Villages continue 100% blaming the homeowner. How can The Villages let this continue. Pooters was well
aware of the deed restrictions. It's up to us Villagers to watch our own backs. Any credible landscape company will advise the homeowner to get approval from Architectual Review.

They taught this to us in grade school....You can do anything with permission.

Here in The Villages it means..... Ask the Architectural Review Board first.

I feel for this homeowner and I do blame this company, but all this stress could have been averted if the homeowner had cleared it first.

Always wondered if this had ever been done and if The Villages would approve it. For $8500.00 I bet it looked better than many of the weed infested yards that seem to be allowed. I saw one the other that had not been cut all year.

Yes, it is the homeowner's responsibility. But shame on the company. Has the homeowner sought any relief from the company? If so and did not get satisfaction, Irishman, please ask the homeowner to report this to Seniors Against Crime, and to the Florida Attorney General- Consumer Protection Division.

It wouldn't hurt to share the info with the Sumter County Commissioners and inquire whether an investigation might be done with the possibly of not to renew the offending company's business license. At least make them aware. If nothing else, if they hear from more ripped off consumers, they might be compelled to run the company out of dodge.

Predator contractors do so much damage to so many people. We need to push back hard. We need to stop letting them get away with it.

Hey Irishman, get the homeowner to do this, and we'll make you an honorary member of the Girl's Posse.

What kinda name is Pooters anyway? Sounds nasty to me. I think we should round up the girls and make a little visit.

I feel bad for these folks being taken. I couldn't imagine losing $8500 so that's why I would have done alot of research before getting something like this done. Jees I put up a $300 flagpole but before I did I went thru the approval by the arc . Doesn't everyone know that anytime you're going to change the outside appearance of your house or property there are cahnnels you have to go through.Expensive lesson.

I'd join your posse on that visit to Pooters.

I hold The Villages somewhat responsible because they are leasing the space to Pooters which, in my opinion, would condone what Pooters markets...Architectural Review Board or not. IMHO, if The Villages okays Pooters to sell their goods on The Square then that would be an endorsement of approval. At least that is what I'd think.

Patio Villas may have different rules.
 

In a patio villa neighborhood I know, every kind of yard is being allowed. Ever since the water restrictions, they have allowed all kinds of maintenance free yards. Designer stones, cement, artificial turf and one guy I know even has shredded tires.
The Villages hasn't said anything about any of them. Course no one has complained either.

Actually drive by and see yourself. It's a disaster. Looks like it was rolled out and left. There are ridges where the pieces were just laid on top of each other causing ridges. Pooters told the homeowner the lines would eventually go away. What a scam!

Peaceful Protest
 

Maybe a peaceful protest in front of the pooters tent is in order. I'm sure that would get the point across and the word out!!

another thought
 

Could this be taken to a local television station and posted there....or Seniors against Crime. It isn't exactly a crime, I guess. in terms of the law, but it sure is a crime morally!!!!

Good morning Irishmen. I've seen the display and talked to the people at the booth on Market Night at the square. I am curious if the homeowner was told to take up the artificial turf because of what you describe above or if it isn't allowed under any circumstance?

Regardless, it is a shame that someone is going to lose money on something they thought was going to benefit them and their property.

what a mess. I would sure be horified to see my neighbor put in artificial grass, pink birds, purple shutters etc. etc. as I like the fact that we all blend into one similar look.

On the other hand, what a shame for a vendor to do what I am sure he knows gos against the rules of the villages.

I vote for taking it out and reinstalling grass or even weeds rather than artificial grass.

:spoken:

One thing is for sure. If that homeowner had been a member of TOTV they would have saved themselves a lot of headaches and money. Even before I lived there I knew EVERYTHING has to be approved by the ARC ahead of time.

It is very sad to hear someone having such a loss as this. I suggest that the homeowner file a dispute with their bank or credit card company (since there may be time limits on making a claim), however the payment was made, and also with the vendor, if they haven't already (the first post made me think that talking with the seller had already been tried, but if not this should of course be done) asking for a refund based on the poor result as described above; plus the vendor's knowledge, if it can be proven, that the artificial turf would violate deed restrictions at the buyer's location. Even though the buyer should have checked and would have learned of the deed restriction, if the vendor actually had knowledge of it, they would have also realized that the buyer was acting without this knowledge, and under general contract law a contract can be void or voidable under a theory along the lines of 'impossibility (of the intended benefit, I.e., the artificial turf) for intended use', particularly where one of the parties was acting with knowledge of the 'impossibility'; or possibly under some type of a 'mistake' theory. I didn't specialize in contract law nor did I practice in Florida, but these general theories probably would apply in some form in most if not all states; and so lastly, I would also find an attorney if the dispute isn't resolved quickly. And take photos.

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:

No... But it is a funny visual!!!! :a040::boxing2::a040:

HOWEVER......some folks are gettin' on my nerves............

Pooters is not his first or last name. It's a business entity. This is all about business. This is all about putting a unsuspecting Village resident in harms way. We invite any response from Pooters. However I doubt we"ll here from him because the facts stated throughout this thread are correct.
1. He knows the deed restrictions but chose to do the project anyway for a huge amount of money in the thousands. Even if the homeowner said, hey Pooters we got approval, he still should have known and requested to see said approval. Credible business do not do something that they know is not right no matter how much money is at stake.
2. He is on Village managed property under supervision of the Entertainment Division who are managed by the VCDD. By participating in Market Nights available to Village residents and others from outside the community he is purposefully misrepresenting a recent legislative act regarding Florida Friendly landscapes. Artificial grass is not listed. The list is
available at arch review.
3. Having said the above, you don't overlap pieces of carpet on top of each other and tell the homeowner this ridge will eventually go away. If this was done in your home you would have a fit. He seems trustworthy but this is disarming to a homeowner. I understand there is a home on Whispering way who did a putting green and it looks the same as Little Mountain Loop.
4. Once again it's nothing personal. It's business and we are protecting others from this
happening to them at great expense. Heck, I think Pooters is hilarious when I've seen him stand one one leg with his eyes closed and try to make a putt.
We wish Pooters the best of luck in all he does as long as he abides by all rules, restrictions and the like. Thus is strictly business.

3.
3

Is the problem with the appearance of the artificial turf or that the turf must be taken up because of restrictions in TV?

It is both....somebody posted the deed restriction above. However, lets say that years down the road artificial grass eventually gets approved in place of natural sod, I'm 100% sure in this instance of a horrible job, The Villages would make the homeowner either take it out or have it installed professionally. You see selling houses is King for the Developer and others. How hard would it be to sell a home in that area with that yard looking like it does. It aint gonna happen. The neighbothood is in a uproar as it is. It's a moot point though. Its coming out either the homwowner pays thousands again or The Villages will do it for them imposing fines and liens on the property.

Now I'm real curious to see who's lying!

Is it his last name as REGOR says or a business entity and not his last name as Irishmen says? Someone is right and someone is lying. Who shall it be!

This should be interesting. And you guys wonder why we say we don't trust some of the info here on TOTV?

His name is on his business card and like somebody said above, look at the Better Busines Bureau and his real name is listed. Apparently he is known for ponds and concrete stained driveways. The BBB site has no mention of artificial grass at this time. They say do a good job and the customer will tell 3 people about you however do a horrible job and that number goes to 10.

The "Pooter" Name
 

If you look at their website http://www.pooters.net/, it states they are a family owned and operated business named with their child's nickname.

I also see on their website they accept MC and Visa. If the homeowners in question used a credit card as their method of payment they may have some recourse through the credit card company.

It's too bad this happened but it's ultimately the homeowner's responsibility to make sure anything done to the outside of their home complies with all the covanents and restrictions they agreed to abide by when they purchased the home. Unfortunately there are too many homeowners who don't have a clue as to what is in their deed restrictions or think it doesn't apply to them.

Also, if the installation job was as bad as has been stated, why did they pay for it?

they were duped by Pooters saying that the ridges and gaps would go away. It is a blatant deception by Pooters which really focuses on his character. Its common sense How can one overlap pieces of carpet causing unsightly ridges and humps and then tell the homeowner these would go away. Remember, most of us have been successful in life surrounding and working with and for honorable people. We move to our retirement home and have to be aware we are like sheep ready to be singled out by the lions. The lions get a few of us but if we stick together, we can be a awesome force to deal with.

Irishmen. May I ask, Is this happening to YOU or to a friend of yours?

There is no question in my mind that it is an infringement on deed restrictions and will have to be removed. No one gets around that here.