Mike Guevremont is moving out of 113 Wertland Place
Mike Guevremont at 113 Wertland Place has indicated that he is moving out of Winchester Landing. His house is on the market. Prospective buyers should be aware that the property is the subject of an ongoing fence compliance dispute.
As discussed in earlier posts, the fence is located in an easement area where fencing is prohibited under the restrictive covenants, and the issue has not been resolved in a way that eliminates the underlying covenant concern.
The fence is an ongoing liability concern because it is placed in a stormwater easement, which is intended to carry water away from properties during heavy rain. If the fence blocks or interferes with that function, it could contribute to flooding damage or drainage problems and create liability issues for the new owner of 113 Wertland Place or the HOA.
I requested the approval documents for his fence, as is my right under Virginia Code § 55.1-1815, but the board on which Mr. Guevremont sits refused to provide them, which makes it difficult to confirm when the fence was approved and by whom.
It should be noted that the HOA may still retain the authority to require the fence to be moved out of the easement, even if an approval was issued in conflict with the recorded restrictive covenant, because an approval does not by itself override the covenant.
For the record, Frederick County states that fences cannot placed in stormwater easements.
For these reasons, I sent a certified letter to the listing agent for the property advising her of the fence issue and requesting that it be disclosed to any prospective buyers. Buyers should review the HOA records, governing documents, and resale disclosure materials carefully before proceeding.
At the first board meeting after the snowstorm last January, Board president Tom Denney addressed the numerous homeowner complaints about snow removal.
Board President Tom Denney
Glaring Omission
His response essentially boils down to the board giving the vendor a stern talking-to. That’s nice—but notice what he didn’t say. He never addressed the most common complaint raised by a large number of homeowners: the late start of snow removal on sidewalks and driveways. Under the contract, work was supposed to begin after the snow event ended, yet it didn’t actually start until nearly 12 hours later.
Board Ignores Contract Breach
On the surface, his response sounds reasonable. The Board “heard” the complaints, spoke with the contractor, and identified areas for improvement. Case closed, right?
Not exactly.
What’s missing from this response is the most important issue: the contract.
As outlined in a prior post, the vendor failed to meet clear contractual obligations. This wasn’t just a matter of “missing a few things” — it was a failure to perform under the terms the HOA is paying for. That’s not a communication issue. That’s a breach of contract.
And yet, there was no mention of it.
No acknowledgment that the vendor didn’t meet contractual standards. No indication that the Board evaluated the situation through that lens. And most importantly, no mention of whether the HOA pursued any credits or financial remedies on behalf of homeowners.
Instead, the focus was on having a conversation with the vendor and hoping for better results next time.
That raises a simple question:
If a vendor fails to deliver what they were contractually obligated to provide, and the Board doesn’t enforce the contract or seek compensation — who exactly are they advocating for?
It’s perfectly reasonable for the Board to address performance issues and expect improvement going forward. But that’s only half the job. The other half is holding vendors accountable when they don’t meet their obligations.
Because if the HOA isn’t enforcing its contracts, then what exactly are homeowners paying for?
Here’s what’s really ironic: the board engaged lawyers to try to prevent me from obtaining the snow removal contract, as I documented here, yet there’s no indication they’ve engaged counsel to determine whether that contract was actually breached. Make this make sense.
The board doesn’t seem to realize they have leverage over the vendor—and could use it to secure a monetary concession. That’s exactly what the board, as agents for the homeowners, should be doing.
The Complaints
For the record, here are some of the complaints from the community Facebook group. Many more complaints were submitted directly to the management company.
Just like the board, a few homeowners clearly don’t understand how contracts work. “Meta John” is a good example. He states “sidewalks and driveways are typically cleared after the storm has concluded”—which is precisely how the contract is written. The contract doesn’t say anything about “standard procedures being adjusted,” “reasonable effort,” or any kind of vague “pre-set expectations.” It sets specific obligations. Had “Meta John” bothered to request a copy of the snow removal contract, this would have been obvious. It’s not about what feels reasonable; it’s about what was actually agreed to.
What’s interesting about people who hold this position is that they almost certainly wouldn’t tolerate it in their own lives. If they hired a contractor for landscaping and the work didn’t meet the contract’s terms, they’d either have the contractor return until it was done right or demand a partial refund.
What Changed Between 2025 and 2026?
What changed between January 2025, when snow removal went smoothly during a similar storm, and January 2026? The answer: different vendors. January 2025 was handled by Greatscapes; January 2026 by Ruppert. Most likely, Ruppert was overbooked, while Greatscapes was not.
I recently sent a postcard to the community outlining several concerns about how the covenants are being handled — including issues involving board member Mike Guevremont. And yet again Mr. Guevremont responded by attacking the messenger and dodging the real issues.
Board Member Mike Guevremont
Postcard Delivered First Week of March 2026Mike Guevremont Comment on Postcard Delivered First Week of March 2026
Mr. Guevremont’s post calls the postcard “propaganda” and emphasizes that it is “not official HOA business.” Of course it isn’t. That should be obvious to anyone reading it. Homeowners are free to discuss HOA matters among themselves. Discouraging that raises serious accountability concerns.
What’s notable is that his response never actually addresses the issues raised in the postcard.
Instead, he talks about enjoying the spring weather, walking with grandkids, and having friendly chats by the mailbox. Sure — that all sounds great. But let’s call it what it is: a dodge. Mr. Guevremont just wants this whole matter swept under the rug instead of closely examined.
When legitimate questions about covenant enforcement come up, the responsible move is to deal with the facts—not label the discussion as ‘division’ or ‘drama’ and hope it goes away. Personal attacks usually signal a weak, indefensible position.
Homeowners deserve clarity about how the covenants are being interpreted and enforced. That’s the issue. Everything else is just a distraction.
It’s worth noting that Mike Guevremont is a community leader and serves on the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. In that role, you’d expect a response grounded in substance—something like, “I hear Mr. Gillette’s concerns, and here’s where I disagree, and why.”
Instead, the response was personal rather than substantive. That raises a fair question: is that the standard of leadership the community should expect?
An Anonymous Comment Suggests Ignoring the Issue
The following anonymous comment was submitted in response to this post:
“Can’t we all play nicely together in the playground? Drop the fence is issues (sic). We will loose (sic) many more neighbors with all this nonsense. Please put your efforts toward planting trees and flowers even throwing some grass seeds, not words and useless mail. Thank you.”
I think everyone would prefer a peaceful community. No argument there.
But the commenter is ill‑informed. Ignoring covenant violations doesn’t create harmony — it does the opposite. When rules are ignored or selectively enforced, homeowners eventually begin asking why the covenants apply to some people but not others. That’s what leads to resentment, division, and conflict in a community.
What’s truly nonsense—and frankly ignorant—is dismissing this issue as “drama,” “division,” or an “attack on the board.” That kind of thinking simply follows the board off the cliff. When clear covenant violations are ignored and enforcement becomes selective, the rules stop meaning anything at all.
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.
Fact: Picket Fences Are Not Allowed
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.
Approval History
According to a former Winchester Landing Architecture Review Committee (ARC) member:
Two picket fences were approved in error by the current board—an overreach contradicting the covenants.
The other two, installed during developer control without prior approval (confirmed by the former management company), later received retroactive approval from the current board.
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.
Core Facts and Legal Framework
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 HOA” vs The Actual Decision‑Makers
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.
Courts, Approvals, and Remedies
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.
Discretion Versus Obligation
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.
Inviting Scrutiny Instead of Avoiding It
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.
Cornered Into Enforcement
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.
Why the Board Didn’t Require Remediation
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.
How the Board Created Association-Wide Liability
Selective Enforcement Risk
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.
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Risk
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.
Easement and Subrogation Risk
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.
The Shared Consequences
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
The Apathy Barrier
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.
Addressing Common Objections
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.
What Can You Do?
Don’t sit on the sidelines. If property values, liability risks, and covenant strength matter to you, act where it counts:
Contact Coventry Group directly and state your position in writing—management responds to documented homeowner input.
Sign up for board meeting public comment to place concerns on the official record.
Comment publicly on this site for a visible, permanent trail—unlike emails that vanish into inboxes.
Request formal records (approval docs, surveys, communications) and submit written questions requiring responses.
Talk to neighbors—collective awareness counters fragmented apathy.
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.
Once again, the board has engaged lawyers—on our dime—this time to stop me from publishing meeting minutes and recorded board meetings here. Lawyers send what clients direct—and bill accordingly. But access to open meeting minutes and recordings is a member right under Virginia law.
Let’s be real: these are mundane materials. No one cares beyond us. This site discourages search indexing—try Googling “Winchester Landing HOA”; it won’t appear. I designed it low-profile intentionally.
Let’s be honest: the Board wants recorded meetings to dissolve into fog so non-attendees miss the full picture, their words and actions get buried, and open forum stays tightly controlled. Notice the 11-18-25 minutes‘ vagueness. This isn’t good governance—it’s narrative control.
Here’s where it gets really interesting: The Board signed a retainer agreement with Chadwick back in July—the same meeting where seven motions passed with zero explanation or input from homeowners, sparking transparency complaints. It’s almost like they anticipated scrutiny. Our HOA isn’t complex—legal needs should be rare. Pay-as-you-go is more fiscally sound than a standing retainer. These standing retainers rarely save money long-term—they’re just marketing bait for law firms.
What we’re seeing isn’t unique. It’s the pattern in other HOAs: a small group gains control, circles the wagons, and wields legal shields against oversight. You didn’t like it elsewhere—don’t accept it here.
This website champions open governance, putting board actions in sunlight, not shadows. Far from undermining our HOA, it equips homeowners with facts for smart decisions and true accountability. Strong communities thrive on visible trust—the board legitimizes this site with every overreach.
It appears the Board has quietly backed away from its attempt to restrict publication of meeting minutes and recordings.
No follow-through. No enforcement. No legal action. Just silence.
That’s not surprising.
The original effort was never about protecting sensitive information—it was about controlling visibility. Once that effort was met with resistance and exposed for what it was, it became harder to justify spending HOA funds to pursue it.
So the issue faded.
That leaves a simple takeaway: access to HOA records isn’t optional, and it isn’t something the Board gets to dial up or down based on convenience. It’s a legal obligation.
If anything, this episode reinforces the point of this site. Transparency only becomes a “problem” when it conflicts with how decisions are being made.
After initially resisting my request for copies of the snow removal contracts for this year and last, the board finally provided them. That likely cost the HOA at least $300 in attorney fees, since I was told they consulted legal counsel. Their main hangup seemed to be my potential posting of the contracts to this website. While Virginia law does not prevent me from doing so, I informed the board I would refrain as a gesture of goodwill. It’s unclear why they are so concerned—these are standard contracts with no trade secrets or proprietary information.
Comparing this year’s contract to last year’s highlights two differences regarding when plowing begins:
Streets:
Current contract: plowing begins at 2 inches.
Last year’s contract: plowing begins at 1 inch.
Driveways and sidewalks:
Current contract: plowing begins after the event ends.
Last year’s contract: no separate delay—plowing begins at 1 inch.
The differences are minor. Starting street plowing at 2 inches instead of 1 is reasonable, as is beginning sidewalk and driveway clearing after the storm ends rather than during accumulation.
Did the vendor fulfill their contractual obligation for the recent storm?
No.
The storm event ended between approximately 7–11 p.m. on January 25 which means snow removal on driveways and sidewalks should have commenced no later than 11 p.m. Instead, plowing did not begin until approximately 10 a.m. on January 26—a delay of nearly half a day.
That is a clear breach of contract.
When homeowners raised legitimate concerns in the Winchester Landing Facebook group, Board President Tom Denney berated residents and defended the vendor.
Here is what Mr. Denney stated in his Facebook post.
“I’ve seen a lot of negativity on this page and in emails sent to Coventry regarding snow removal in our community. Some emails are accusatory of lying, threaten litigation and quote false rules googled on the WWW. Frankly, it is disheartening
Snow removal is hard, period. Unless you’ve done it for a living, it’s difficult to understand what it truly takes. The crews are out in the cold at all hours, away from their families, many of whom are likely snowed in themselves, just to keep our community moving.
As of 5:00 p.m. today, less than 24 hours after the last precipitation, snow removal on roads, sidewalks, and driveways is approximately 75% complete. That is a strong benchmark, especially considering the Commonwealth remains under a state of emergency.
We’re all inconvenienced by what Mother Nature handed us, and that frustration is understandable. But we’re also just one of many affected communities, and expecting to be completely un-inconvenienced under these conditions isn’t realistic.”
Mr. Denney misunderstands the contract terms. The benchmark he cited isn’t in the contract, and the Commonwealth’s state of emergency is completely irrelevant.
Furthermore, Mr. Denney’s role is to represent the HOA—not the vendor. Even if the vendor acted in good faith, his fiduciary responsibility is to enforce the contract in the HOA’s favor. On behalf of the association, he should place the vendor on notice that the contract terms were not met and pursue appropriate compensation.
Mr. Denney may argue that “after the event ends” doesn’t mean immediately. It does. From a legal standpoint, the phrase is plain language and reasonably means the obligation triggers as soon as the storm ends—not hours later at the vendor’s convenience. The purpose of the contract is timely snow removal to protect homeowners’ access, and a multi-hour delay defeats that purpose.
Board member Mike Guevremont asserted—without evidence—that the same conditions existed everywhere. Whether that’s true or not is irrelevant. Contractual performance isn’t excused because others experienced the same conditions. What matters is the specific contract between the HOA and its vendor, and whether the vendor performed according to its terms.
“Thank you Tom, as I said before this issue was County wide, almost every neighborhood is in the same boat. This could have been much worse in terms of accumulation and should we get a larger storm we must be aware it could take even longer to get buried out.”
Thanks to the board recently reducing seats from 5 to 3, Mr. Denney and Mr. Guevremont now have practical control of the HOA for two more years.
Lastly, I’ll leave you with something Mr. Denney said behind the scenes—he inadvertently copied me on an email intended only for Coventry community manager Mark Schloemer. I hope he actually addresses the communication issues.
For the record, this year’s storm wasn’t much different from last year’s on Jan. 5–6. It certainly wasn’t a once-in-a-lifetime apocalypse. While snow removal companies across the region may have been strained, that isn’t the HOA’s problem. The vendor is responsible for being prepared. What matters is the contract.
“He can compare all he wants. I am over this snow stuff this week. This was the biggest storm we have had in 10 years and a hard one at that to remove. I bet Mike can attest to areas of the county that have not been addressed yet. It is what it is. Minus a few miscommunication issues which we can fix and the unrealistic expectations of folks in WL, we are in pretty good shape.”
Subscribe to get important updates like this delivered straight to your inbox.
As mentioned in the post “Recent Snowfall and Cleanup Efforts,” I requested copies of the association’s snow removal contracts for 2025 and 2026 to better understand why this year’s snow removal was slower and generated more complaints than last year’s comparable storm. The purpose was straightforward: to determine whether there are any material differences between the Greatscape and Ruppert contracts and whether Ruppert met its contractual obligations.
Under the Virginia Property Owners’ Association Act, association members are entitled to inspect and receive copies of association records, and those records must be produced within five business days. The statute exists to promote transparency.
Rather than simply providing the contracts electronically, I was told the contracts are “proprietary,” asked to provide a reason for my request, and instructed to travel to Coventry’s office to view the contracts in person—with the additional restriction that I could not obtain copies of the contracts. None of those conditions appear in, or are supported by, the Act’s plain language.
This is not how transparent governance works.
I have sent the board a final demand letter. The letter addresses the legal requirements in detail and explains why the board’s position is inconsistent with Virginia law.
At this point, the issue is no longer just about snow removal. It is about whether the board believes it can place obstacles in the way of lawful record requests and disregard the statute when compliance becomes inconvenient.
The board now has the opportunity to correct course.
Update: I heard back from community manager Mark Schloemer. Rather than producing the requested records as required by Virginia law, the board has chosen to route the request through legal counsel. This is a document that could have been emailed in minutes. Choosing a legal detour over straightforward compliance speaks volumes about priorities—and it’s hard to see how this promotes transparency or serves homeowners’ financial interests.
There have been a fair number of complaints from homeowners about snow removal after the first snowfall of 2026.
For clarity: snowfall totals in Winchester Landing for this storm were not markedly different from last year’s storm on January 5–6, when cleanup was faster and there were few or no complaints.
Snow removal last year was handled by Greatscapes, who subcontracted the work to Wilson’s. This year, snow removal is being handled by Ruppert Landscaping, a different vendor. It appears Ruppert is subcontracting the work as well; I observed one of the snow plows with a Pondview Landscaping sign, a vendor based in Manassas, roughly 60 miles away.
The issue may have been overcommitted vendor(s) and/or a vendor not based locally, which made it difficult to get crews to our neighborhood. As a result, driveways and sidewalks were not cleared immediately after the bulk of the snow tapered off on Sunday night (Jan. 25) and work began the following day.
To be clear, this is not a criticism of the workers on the ground, who show up and do the work they’re assigned. This is about whether the service levels the community expects were delivered, and whether the vendor fulfilled the contract the Board agreed to.
For review purposes, I have requested a copy of the snow removal contract from Coventry to better understand the scope, timing, and expectations of this year’s service. I’ve also requested a copy of last year’s snow removal contract to compare it with this year’s and determine if there are any material differences between the two. Check back periodically for updates or subscribe to this site.
What homeowners should not accept is the Board’s reflexive defense of the vendor. In a group Facebook post, the Board President immediately defended the vendor rather than first acknowledging homeowner complaints.
A competent board would acknowledge residents’ concerns, review performance against the contract, and then explain the outcome—rather than responding defensively to frustrated homeowners.
Boards exist to represent owners—not to run PR for vendors.
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.
What the Board Inherited
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.
What The Vote Does Not Cover
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.
What Your Vote Really Means
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.
