Fencing Enforcement and Covenant Compliance in Winchester Landing
This post examines how fencing restrictions in Winchester Landing are being enforced, identifies multiple unresolved covenant violations, and explains why uneven enforcement undermines covenant enforceability and exposes the association to legal risk. Click here for more details.
Management Company Statement on Picket Fences: Flatly Misleading
The management company’s recent statement on picket fence approvals and enforcement glosses over critical facts and fails to address how covenants have been inconsistently applied. This post breaks down what the statement omitted, why that matters legally and for community fairness, and how it affects ongoing compliance issues in Winchester Landing. Click here for more details.
Board on Notice: Fences in Easements Liability Risks
I’ve formally notified the Board about the serious legal and liability risks the community faces if it continues to ignore covenant restrictions on fences in easements—including stormwater easements. Click here for more details.
Delayed Snow Removal: Why Is the Board Defending the Vendor Instead of Advocating For Homeowners?
Examines the HOA board’s response to delayed snow removal, questioning why the board appears to defend the existing vendor rather than prioritizing homeowner interests, including performance concerns and communication issues. Click here for details.
Recent Snowfall and Cleanup Efforts
Recap of the recent snowfall and the HOA’s cleanup efforts, including performance issues with the contracted snow removal vendor, timing of service, and communication with homeowners. Click here for details.
Board Obstruction in Producing Snow Removal Contracts
The board delayed producing snow removal contracts, resisted lawful record requests by labeling them “proprietary,” and routed the request through legal counsel rather than complying as required under Virginia law, prompting a final demand letter. Click here for details.
How We Got Here: The Fence Vote Explained
Explains the context and purpose of the HOA’s upcoming fence vote, detailing how past architectural approvals and guideline changes led to the proposed covenant amendment, what the vote would actually change, and why homeowners should understand the implications before voting. Click here for details.
What the Board and Management Company Said About Picket Fences — and Why It Matters
At the September 23, 2025 board meeting, the management company and board members offered explanations for the lack of picket fence enforcement and referenced recent guideline changes. This post looks at whether those explanations align with the governing covenants. See the post here.
Letter to the Board Requesting Clarification on Fencing Enforcement
A written request sent to the Board seeking clarification on whether the Association intends to enforce existing fencing restrictions uniformly, including with respect to non-conforming picket fences, or pursue a formal amendment to the recorded covenants. See the post here.
What the Fencing Survey Does — and Does Not — Address
A summary of the Board’s fencing survey explaining its scope, the amendment requirements involved, and the matters left unresolved. Click here to read the post.
Former Board Member Commentary on Covenant Enforcement
A verbatim statement circulated by a former board member addressing covenant enforcement, proposed fencing changes, and the board’s responsibility to uphold the governing documents. Click here to see the post.
Community Comment (Former Architectural Review Committee Member)
A former Architectural Review Committee member describes the ARC’s position on fencing, noting that the recorded covenants require white solid privacy fencing and that deviations from those standards risk continued disputes and litigation. See the post here.
Why Cutting the Number of Board Seats Deserves a Closer Look
On November 18, 2025, the board reduced the number of seats from five back to three—just nine months after expanding it. This post looks at the timing, context, and unanswered questions surrounding that decision, including its implications for unresolved fencing violations. Get the full story here.
Board Member Resigns In Protest
A board member publicly explained the reasons for his resignation at the September 23, 2025 meeting. This post examines the guideline changes he objected to, why he viewed them as improper, and what his resignation reveals about broader governance concerns. Click here for more details.
Concerns About Transparency Under the Current Board
Board President Denney addressed homeowner concerns about transparency. This post looks at the gap between those assurances and how board decisions have actually been handled. See the post here.
Owner Lawsuit Against the HOA and a Board Member: A Post-Mortem
This post explains why a homeowner lawsuit was filed, what the court decided, and why the underlying covenant-enforcement issue remains unresolved. It also examines the broader governance and transparency questions raised by the case. Click here for detailed explanation.
The HOA’s New Cost Schedule for Records Requests Raises Transparency Questions
The board approved a new records-access policy and fee schedule for homeowner requests. This post looks at the timing, cost structure, and transparency implications of that decision. See the post here.
Unanswered Questions About Recusal and Representation
Board member Guevremont was questioned at the September 23, 2025 meeting about the lawsuit in which he is personally named. This post looks at the responses provided and the transparency issues that followed. See the full post here.
I AM A THIRD PARTY SENDING THIS NOTE AS A FAVOR FOR A NEIGHBOR THAT DOES NOT HAVE A COMPUTER…
Responding to post cards sent out to Winchester Landing Homeowners.
The issue with the fences started back with the Developer and first management company. When the first 4ft. picket fence was started my husband and I were so happy we called to inquire about the fence. Mind you, the fence had been started (with only 2 sections). We were told by the management company they were going to check into the fencing.
Two weeks later, fence went up. So my husband and I inquired again and were told that a special waiver had been given to that person. We asked for that special waiver. The developer said no more waivers.
For two weeks 2 sections of fence had been up. Plenty of time to correct. Developer and the management company chose not to.
We all bought into the same development. The information I have received, special waiver to one homeowner, can cause conflict between the development, which that has most certainly been done.
The new management company and HOA Board inherited this old problem. The new HOA Board is trying their best. We should try to work together with the HOA on these old inherited problems.
Thank you for sharing that perspective. I don’t doubt that the way this was handled early on felt unfair, especially if different homeowners received different answers from the developer or management company at the time.
That said, unequal treatment in the past doesn’t resolve the issue going forward. The covenants apply equally to all owners, and informal waivers or inconsistent decisions don’t change what is written in the governing documents.
I think the covenant was intended to create a uniform baseline during development, and that if the community later wanted something different, the covenants provide a clear amendment process for making that change. That structure ensures consistency at the outset while allowing change later through an orderly, community-wide decision rather than informal exceptions.
The current board does have clear options: enforce the covenants as written, or pursue a formal amendment to the restrictive covenants, a process that requires approval from 66⅔% of homeowners.
Working together is important — but it starts with following the same rules and process for everyone.