Transparency for Winchester Landing Homeowners
I’ve formally notified the Winchester Landing HOA Board via certified mail about the serious liability risks from ignoring covenant restrictions on fences in property maintenance easements (including stormwater easements).
At the recent HOA meeting, Coventry Group Community Management representative Mark Schloemer spoke on the board’s behalf about the picket fence situation. His statements omitted key facts about the board’s approvals and presented a picture that obscures their legal consequences and the risks now shared by the entire community.
The covenants are unambiguous: picket fences are not permitted in Winchester Landing.
Picket fences are not privacy fencing, and every homeowner bought subject to this restriction.
The “unless…recorded to the contrary” clause accounts for one homeowner waiver via recorded instrument.
Despite this, four homeowners have picket fences, each following one of two distinct approval tracks.
According to a former Winchester Landing Architecture Review Committee (ARC) member:
The full video and transcript are available at the end of this post. The excerpts below focus on one narrow issue: what happens when a board approves fences that violate recorded restrictive covenants, and whether those approvals erase the underlying violations or the HOA’s exposure.
The Board has approved fences it never had authority to approve under the covenants, in some cases before construction and in others after installation. Because of those approvals, it is difficult, as a practical and equitable matter, to demand that individual owners now remove or remediate fences the Board itself signed off on.
But an approval issued in violation of the restrictive covenants does not amend those covenants or legalize the non‑compliant structure; the violation still exists in the land records, and the picket fences remain out of compliance with the governing documents. At most, the improper approvals may limit direct enforcement against individual owners who relied on them, but they do not insulate the Association itself from claims of failure to enforce, selective enforcement, or breach of its own governing documents.
In other words, the Board did not resolve the problem; it shifted and expanded it. Instead of a discrete dispute with a few owners, the Association now faces community‑wide risk that a court could invalidate improper approvals, restrict future enforcement, or place financial responsibility on the HOA for correcting violations it authorized. That is not prudent risk management or acting in the best interests of the Association; it is self‑inflicted liability.
The management representative states, “Whether that was done improperly or not, they have an approval from the HOA.”
These assertions gloss over the most important fact: when it comes to architectural approvals and covenant enforcement, the Board is the HOA. The same decision‑makers who granted these improper approvals are now talking about “the HOA” as if it were some separate, abstract entity that just happens to have issued them.
But there is no ghost organization. The approvals came from this Board, acting as the Association, and it cannot distance itself from those decisions by treating “the HOA” as a shield or a bystander. If you are the body that issued the approvals, you do not get to hide behind the label “HOA” to avoid responsibility for the consequences of those approvals. That is not transparent governance; it is an attempt to launder the narrative about who made the call and who now bears the risk.
The management rep also claims that, “If it went to a court, no judge would tell the HOA that they have to or that the homeowner has to tear that down…so those have to be grandfathered in.” That is presented as a certainty that simply does not exist.
Courts do not deal in absolute predictions like “no judge would ever order removal.” They look to authority, process, and compliance with the recorded declaration. Retroactive approvals—or approvals issued in error or beyond the Board’s authority—do not amend the declaration, do not override restrictions, and do not bind a court.
A judge could decline to order individual owners to remove fences they installed in reliance on HOA approvals, but still require the Association to bear the cost of curing violations it approved or to accept limits on future enforcement because of inconsistent or arbitrary enforcement. A court could impose remedies that shift liability to the HOA, restrict future enforcement, invalidate improper approvals, or allocate responsibility based on how the approvals were issued and whether the Board had authority to grant them.
Framing this as if the fences “have to be grandfathered in” is not a neutral description of the law; it is a litigation‑risk judgment call being presented as legal inevitability.
The representative also frames remediation as a matter of pure Board discretion: “Now what the board could do is spend the money and say, ‘we’ll tear it down and make it right for you,’ but that means the HOA has to pay for that, and I don’t think the board is going to do that.”
That framing is incomplete. If owners challenge improper approvals or uneven enforcement, a court could order exactly that type of remedy—requiring the Association to correct or pay to correct non‑compliant structures it approved as part of enforcing the covenants uniformly. In that context, the question is not what the Board is inclined to do, but what it may ultimately be required to do if its approval and enforcement decisions are found to violate the governing documents.
Homeowners should not have to take the Board’s or my analysis on faith. If you are unsure whose description of the law is more accurate, take the Association’s governing documents, the facts described here, and the key statements from the video and ask any attorney who regularly handles HOA and restrictive covenant matters—or even a neutral legal research tool—to identify the likely risks, remedies, and enforcement options.
Even basic legal‑analysis tools are useful as a first‑pass check on whether an explanation of HOA enforcement is grounded in typical covenant and remedies principles. The point is simple: sound governance should withstand outside scrutiny, and confident legal positions should not depend on residents never questioning them.
At minimum, owners are entitled to clear, accurate explanations of how their covenants work, what the Board has authority to approve, and who bears the risk when that authority is exceeded. Responsible enforcement begins with acknowledging past decisions honestly and evaluating the legal options, not with insisting that the issues are already resolved.
For a period, the pattern was clear: picket fences were approved despite clear covenant restrictions, violations were normalized through retroactive approvals, and the trajectory drifted from enforcement toward quiet accommodation of non-conforming structures.
That changed with objections, leaving the Board with limited options. By then, four picket fences had already been approved. Their first response was an attempt to grandfather them via changes to the architectural guidelines—but that approach failed, as architectural guidelines cannot override recorded restrictive covenants. A board member resigned rather than support it.
The Board then pivoted to amending the covenants themselves, starting with a community survey. That, too, was rejected by homeowners. With those paths closed, the Board returned to enforcement: no more picket fences approved going forward. The existing ones remain quietly grandfathered based on the same approvals now cited as a reason not to address the underlying violations.
The result is not a proactive enforcement policy. It is enforcement by necessity.
Homeowners might reasonably ask why the Board didn’t simply require the two unapproved picket fences—installed during developer control—to be brought into compliance. That would have been a straightforward, legally defensible path under the covenants.
The obstacle was structural: uniform enforcement would have reached all non-conforming fences from that period, including one located in an easement and owned by a sitting board member. Consistent application thus triggered a clear conflict of interest.
At that point, remediation ceased to be a neutral governance decision. Incentives shifted toward selective accommodation, making uniform enforcement institutionally challenging. The outcome was not outright forgiveness, but protection of all similar violations.
That’s how governance erodes: not through overt chaos, but through unaddressed conflicts and selective enforcement.
The picket fences still violate the covenants, creating ongoing selective enforcement exposure. The HOA can issue violations to other owners, but those owners can now raise the approved picket fences as evidence of inconsistent enforcement and sue.
Courts facing selective enforcement claims do not simply pick winners—they can order remedies on both sides, including remediation of the contesting owner’s violation and the prior unaddressed ones (like picket fences). The HOA could end up bearing those costs, since the board created the inconsistency by approving non-compliant structures in the first place.
Beyond selective enforcement, approving fences that violate recorded covenants exposes the board to breach of fiduciary duty claims. Failing to enforce governing documents uniformly is not acting in the association’s best interests—it’s a textbook governance lapse.
Two picket fences sit in easements: one installed without approval during developer control (by a current board member), the other approved by this board during homeowner control. These violate both the covenants and Frederick County guidance, which prohibits fences in stormwater easements.
Obstructing drainage creates flooding risk to surrounding properties. When damage occurs, private insurers pursue the HOA via subrogation—shifting potentially large costs to the association for knowingly allowing the hazard.
These risks—inconsistent enforcement, fiduciary lapses, and easement obstructions—do not stay contained. They weaken overall covenant enforcement and expose every homeowner to financial liability the board’s decisions created. Uniform compliance protects the community; selective accommodation dilutes it
Instead of scrutinizing the board’s decisions and their consequences—like the liability risks outlined above—many choose comfort and are content to be led rather than actively engage. Most aren’t closely following these issues, which lets governance drift unchecked.
The simple truth is that the board has not met one of its core responsibilities: equal enforcement of the covenants. Minor questionable violations like portable dog fences get cited while obvious major violations like picket fences and fences in easements do not.
When residents raise valid concerns, the board’s response is community-wide emails urging reliance on “official” channels only, while leadership frames scrutiny as “drama” or “attacks on the board“. Competent leadership can withstand scrutiny—they wouldn’t need to turn the community against those seeking accountability. That typically signals a weak or indefensible position.
That dynamic benefits no one. Apathy shields decisions from review; dismissing questions as “drama” avoids addressing them. Informed homeowners are the check on governance—the alternative is decisions made without pushback.
Some have said picket fences “add character” to the community. The developer clearly prioritized visual consistency by limiting fencing to one type—that vision is embedded in the recorded covenants every homeowner bought into.
If the community wants variety, there’s a formal process: amending the restrictive covenants. The recent fencing survey showed homeowners rejecting that path—the majority want existing rules upheld.
Others ask, “What’s the harm? Picket fences aren’t hurting anything.” This post explains the liability risks those violations create—selective enforcement claims that weaken covenant protection for everyone.
Finally, this analysis explains my lawsuit against the HOA and board member Mike Guevremont. I identified the conflict of interest and easement/subrogation risks early. Though the case didn’t proceed, it didn’t legalize covenant violations—they remain violations.
Don’t sit on the sidelines. If property values, liability risks, and covenant strength matter to you, act where it counts:
Private complaints disappear into black holes. Public, documented action shifts the dynamic: boards lose narrative control when accountability is visible and shared. Uniform enforcement starts with informed homeowners.
I invite the board or Coventry to correct any inaccuracies. I’ll gladly update the post—consider this an open invitation.
This post reflects my personal opinions and interpretations based on publicly available records and my experience as a homeowner. It is not legal advice.
The board is asking homeowners to vote on whether to change the restrictive covenants to allow fencing styles and heights that are currently prohibited. Specifically, the vote asks whether homeowners support adding picket-style fencing as an option, including varying fence heights, in certain areas of the community. While this may seem like a routine update, its intended effect is to bring a small number of existing non-conforming fences into compliance. Notably, the vote does not address the non-conforming fence owned by board member Mike Guevremont.
In short, this proposal didn’t start as a general policy review — it exists solely because a set of fences was already in place that did not comply with the existing rules. Homeowners can decide whether they want picket fences and different heights — but it’s important to know that this vote is designed to retroactively fix existing rule violations, with consequences beyond individual fencing preferences.
When homeowners took control of the association, the board inherited a small number of fences that did not comply with the restrictive covenants — including one belonging to a board member that was installed in a recorded easement.
How or when those fences were built is not the central issue. Under the covenants, they were violations. What mattered was how the new homeowner-controlled board chose to address them.
Rather than enforcing the covenants as written, the board took a different approach.
According to a former ARC member, the board retroactively approved multiple non-conforming fences that had never been approved at all and did not meet the covenant requirements. These were affirmative approvals, not simply older conditions being tolerated.
When that created a direct conflict between what had been approved and what the covenants allowed, the board attempted to resolve it by changing the Architectural Guidelines to “grandfather” those fences and permit similar designs going forward. But Architectural Guidelines cannot override recorded covenants, so the underlying conflict remained.
Only after those steps did the board move to propose a covenant amendment to make the non-conforming fences legal.
In practical terms, the board addressed inherited covenant violations by approving them, modifying internal guidelines to justify them, and only then asking homeowners to vote on whether those changes should be made permanent.
That sequence is why this vote exists — and why it matters.
The proposal does not address fences installed in recorded easements. Those areas exist to preserve access for drainage and maintenance, and fencing in them remains prohibited regardless of style or height.
This vote is not just about fencing preferences.
It is a vote on whether to retroactively bring a small number of approved but non-conforming fences into compliance with the restrictive covenants — and to prevent those approvals from ever being challenged.
Some people may prefer these fences. Others may not. That is for the community to decide. But everyone should understand what they are being asked to ratify before they vote.
If the amendment passes, those fences become legal.
If it fails, the covenants remain in effect — but enforcement remains in the hands of a three-member board where one board member owns a non-conforming fence, and two of the three have two years left in their terms.
What’s being presented as a simple vote functions more like a measure designed to create the appearance of resolution, with an escape plan built in if the amendment fails — shifting the issue to enforcement while leaving the legal risks of known covenant violations unresolved.
In practical terms, this process seeks to change recorded restrictive covenants—using HOA funds and legal counsel—for the benefit of four owners out of 169 (roughly 2.5% of the community).
By contrast, the proposed amendment attempts to resolve covenant violations through a process that is neither clean nor comprehensive. It also ignores the principle the developer established: uniform fencing styles and heights help maintain curb appeal and support property values throughout the community. For some homeowners, those reasons alone may be enough to reject it.
This isn’t about the future.
It’s about what already happened.
On January 2, 2026, I sent the following letter to the Winchester Landing HOA Board requesting clarification regarding enforcement of the fencing restrictions. My intent remains to resolve this issue without litigation and in a manner consistent with the governing documents.
Update: As of September 17, 2026, I have not received a response from the Board to this letter.
Former board member David Noordhoff resigned from the board in protest in June of 2025. Approximately 7 months later, he posted this statement to the management company portal and distributed to residents. It is reproduced here verbatim for reference.
The Board recently distributed a homeowner survey regarding potential revisions to the community’s fencing rules.
The survey acknowledges that any change to permitted fencing styles would require a formal amendment to the governing covenants, approved by a supermajority of homeowners and recorded before taking effect.
The survey is forward-looking. It asks homeowners whether they support adding picket-style fencing as a future option for certain areas of the community—including options for different fence heights—contingent on adoption of a formal amendment approved and recorded in accordance with the governing covenants.
As written, it does not determine how existing fencing installations that do not comply with the governing covenants would be addressed if an amendment is not adopted.
With respect to what “may have been permissible in the past”, it is common for developers to establish an initial set of architectural standards and later refine those standards through recorded amendments as a community is built out. Once adopted and recorded, those amendments govern going forward, regardless of earlier allowances.
In this case, the privacy style only fencing restriction reflected in the governing covenants were adopted and recorded before homes were sold, and purchasers received the updated covenants as part of their required disclosure materials.
Note: The survey materials quote fencing language from a prior amendment. The currently governing fencing restrictions are those adopted in the amendment recorded in February 2025.
At the September 23, 2025 meeting, Coventry Group Community Management representative Mark Schloemer addressed questions about picket fences. In doing so, he acknowledged that the situation was “muddy” and said he was “not real clear” on how the documents should be interpreted.
That alone should concern homeowners.
The community manager is responsible for advising the board on compliance with the governing documents. Uncertainty at that level creates real risk for the association.
No.
The first amended deed for Winchester Landing Section 1 was recorded on March 10, 2023. That amendment allows only privacy-style fencing and removed picket fencing as a permitted style.
Every homeowner purchased subject to that recorded amendment. Ryan Homes did not accept contracts until after it was recorded, and the amended deed was included in HOA disclosure packages.
The documents are not conflicting.
They are not ambiguous.
They are recorded, controlling, and clear.
During the same meeting, a homeowner asked why picket fences were being allowed for single-family homes but not for villas.
The response given was:
“That’s a board decision.”
That statement is incorrect.
The board does not have the authority to change permitted fence types. Only a formal amendment to the restrictive covenants — approved by 66⅔% of homeowners — can do that.
Architectural guidelines and board resolutions cannot override recorded covenants.
Board president Tom Denney then described a process by which the board supposedly approved variations and decided that “what’s in is in,” while allowing future picket fences for single-family homes.
None of that is legally possible without a covenant amendment.
This is exactly why clarity and transparency matter. When board members and management describe powers they don’t actually have, homeowners are misled — even if unintentionally.
The issue isn’t confusion in the documents.
The issue is that:
That disconnect puts the association at risk.
Homeowners deserve accurate information about what the board can — and cannot — do.
If the board believes picket fences should be allowed, there is a lawful process to make that happen. It requires transparency, homeowner participation, and a formal vote.
Anything else invites confusion, selective enforcement, and legal exposure — exactly the situation we are in now.
There are currently multiple fences in Winchester Landing that do not comply with the recorded restrictive covenants and have not been issued violations. This document identifies the specific nonconforming fences, explains the governing covenant requirements, summarizes the actions taken by the board, and outlines the legal and governance risks created by selective enforcement.
One of the fencing violations documented below involves a lot owned by a current member of the Board of Directors.
The facts below are drawn from governing documents, board actions, management statements, and firsthand accounts.
The following excerpt reflects the current fencing provisions that govern all lots in Winchester Landing, as confirmed by the February 2025 corrective amendment.
Under the governing covenants, fencing is limited to privacy-style fencing (no picket or lattice) and is prohibited within designated property maintenance easements.
The fencing covenant establishes a uniform baseline during development. If the community later wishes to allow different fencing styles, the covenants provide a clear, recorded amendment process for making that change.
This structure ensures consistency at the outset while allowing future change through an orderly, community-wide decision — not informal, lot-by-lot exceptions.
No.
Recorded restrictive covenants control unless they are formally amended. Individual approvals—whether mistaken, informal, or unauthorized—do not override them.
That principle is not theoretical. In at least one instance, a homeowner later learned that a nonconforming fence violated the covenants and, rather than relying on any alleged approval, obtained a lot-specific, recorded deed amendment from the developer to make the fence lawful.
That distinction matters for one reason only:
Mistaken approvals don’t create exceptions.
Recorded amendments do.
As the governing covenants now stand, several categories of nonconforming fencing continue without recorded authorization, including picket fencing, lattice-style fencing, and fencing located within easements.
At the same time, other fencing covenant violations have been enforced.
No recorded amendment authorizing these nonconforming fences has been adopted.
The result is an uneven enforcement pattern that affects the enforceability of the covenants as a whole.
According to a former Architectural Review Committee (ARC) member, the ARC and/or the Board approved multiple existing fencing installations that did not comply with the recorded restrictive covenants and had never received prior approval.
At the July 22 meeting, the Board voted to amend the architectural guidelines to allow fencing types and configurations that conflicted with the recorded restrictive covenants. The guideline changes effectively legalized the recently approved non-conforming fences.
The changes were adopted with little documented discussion, which prompted homeowner concerns about the lack of community transparency.
Architectural guidelines cannot override recorded restrictive covenants.
In the November 18 meeting, the board voted to reduce the number of board seats from 5 to 3.
At the time, the stated justification for the reduction was related to efficiency and workload. Opponents of the change argued that reducing the number of directors also reduces representation and limits the number of voices involved in governance decisions.
Among the three remaining board members, one owns a non-conforming fence and two will remain in office for two more years.
Under the governing documents, there are only two procedurally valid ways to address known covenant violations:
When known violations are left unaddressed while other provisions are enforced, the association assumes legal risk. That enforcement pattern is commonly cited in selective-enforcement claims and has resulted in litigation in other associations.
Addressing known fencing violations is not about punishment. It is about the consequences of selective enforcement and the legal exposure it creates for the association.
Rule-based governance depends on written covenants, consistent enforcement, and defined procedures for change. Control-based governance reaches outcomes through discretion — by tolerating violations, creating informal exceptions, reducing independent oversight, and consolidating decision-making authority rather than enforcing or amending the rules themselves.
When governance shifts from rules to control, legal risk increases. Selective enforcement becomes visible to homeowners and courts alike, and the resulting exposure belongs to the association — not individual homeowners.