Toggle navigation
Southwind Shores II (POA)
Home
Residents
Residents (Active)
Residents (Interested)
Residents (Inactive)
Residents (All)
Add a New Resident
POA Board
Events
Events (All)
Add a new Event
Action Items
Action Items (Ongoing)
Action Items (Completed)
Action Items (All)
Add a new Action
Documents
Documents Listing
Add a new Documents
Email
TBD - Email Compose
TBD - Email Log
Reports
Residents(Active)
Residents(Inactive)
Residents(All)
Residents(EMAIL distro)
Event Listing
TBD - Action Items
Document Report (All)
POA Packet Report
Miscelaneous
Create POA-Packet (Zip)
Create Archive of Documents (Zip)
Logout
UPDATE Action Item details
(Click only once)
ID Number
4
status
Title
Category
By-Laws
Financial
Meetings
POA
Resident_Specific
Date Start
(
MM/DD/YYYY)
Date End
(
MM/DD/YYYY)
Date Active
(
MM/DD/YYYY)
Fiscal Year
(
YYYY)
Location (Lot)
Location Address
Location City
Location State
Location Zip
Description
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 8:35 AM Tom Ronksley
wrote: Hi Don My neighbor Tim Coleman asked me if the POA would permit a "garden structure" that he saw at an Expo show. Attached is a flyer on what he's asking about. He says there are better pictures at the website shown on the flyer. The structure is basically a cedar-constructed greenhouse with nylon netting instead of plastic or glass. Inside he'd have raised beds also made of cedar. The netting has large enough openings to allow bees and insects in but keep critters out. The structure would replace his current garden in his yard between the house and lake. Per the following paragraph from our Bylaws it looks to me like this would NOT be an allowed structure. But maybe something I don't see would allow it. 5.6: All structures must be of substantial construction and all exterior walls, facia, trim and rail materials must be of a natural wood siding, stucco, stone, brick, or vinyl-siding of no less than .038 mil. Under no circumstance shall T1-11 or aluminum siding be approved for any structure. What do you think? - Tom
Final Disposition
Resident removed application request.
Comments
Ok, thanks for the update. On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 1:51 PM Tom Ronksley
wrote: Just talked to Coach. He half-expected our answer so no problem. He said the guy selling the structures warned Coach that he's had customer whose HOAs would not allow his structure, so we're not alone. - Tom On Friday, August 15, 2025 at 01:24:37 PM EDT, Gary Easton
wrote: Sounds good, thanks! On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 1:22 PM Tom Ronksley
wrote: I doubt that Coach will want to submit the Application just to get it Disapproved. Let me share with him that we would deny the Application based on Section 5.6 and see where it goes. Never know with Coach. Tom On Friday, August 15, 2025 at 12:35:55 PM EDT, Gary Easton
wrote: All, The best course of action for denial would be to reference Section 5.6 as everyone agrees that plastic netting does not fit the meaning of "substantial construction". Tim will need to submit a signed Construction Application and Agreement form to start the disapproval process. Don F., can you please take care of getting Tim that form? Thanks. B/R, Gary On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 11:33 PM Don Fronczak
wrote: Would need to confirm with Spotzy which would be on Tim. But I don't believe "zoning approval" means re-zoning from residential to agricultural. I suspect it's a review to ensure placement location meets county requirements. If we are to deny it, we need to be able definitively point to specific paragraphs as the reason The challenge is that there is ambiguity in interpretation of the two paragraphs in question. (5.6 and shed paragraphs). County is vague on whether a netted garden is considered a shed, something Tim should be determining. 5.6 calls for "substantial" construction, whatever that means and goes on to describe the types of materials allowed on exterior walls, which this structure, in reality, does not have. So we have a conundrum. Don F Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love. Ephesians 4:2 (NLT) > On Aug 14, 2025, at 7:33 PM, Gary Easton
wrote: > > > Maybe if the greenhouse is large enough to warrant having the land re-zoned from residential to agricultural????? Just a guess The folks at Spotsy would have to explain that. > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 5:16 PM Tom Ronksley
wrote: > > I don't see any issues with the cedar raised planters by themselves. We have some that are plastic for flowers. Coach would not want those by themselves, though, it's the netted structure around them that he wants. > > How does the need for "zoning approval" apply in this case? > > Tom > > On Thursday, August 14, 2025 at 11:53:19 AM EDT, Don Fronczak
wrote: > > > https://www.spotsylvania.va.us/FAQ.aspx?QID=499 > >
>
>
> > Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love. > > Ephesians 4:2 (NLT) > >> On Aug 14, 2025, at 10:53 AM, Gary Easton
wrote: >> >> >> No >> >> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:52 AM Don Fronczak
wrote: >> >> LOL, I guess concrete makes it a "substantial" structure. >> >> Does Teresa have netting? >> >> Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love. >> >> Ephesians 4:2 (NLT) >> >>> On Aug 14, 2025, at 10:19 AM, Gary Easton
wrote: >>> >>> >>> I did a little digging on the Internet, and discovered that greenhouses may fall under the auspices of being classified as a shed, and sheds aren’t allowed. And, being classified as a shed, Virginia, may require a building permit. It would be best if coach reached out to that company and see what they say. >>> >>> As far as the raised cedar beds, they exist in our development already in another form, but they’re not cedar, they are concrete block. Our neighbor Teresa has at least one of these concrete block raised beds at their home. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:06 AM Don Fronczak
wrote: >>> >>> I guess it could also be denied under 5.6 because it doesn't meet the "must be of substantial construction" clause >>> >>> What are everyone's thoughts on Gary's suggestion of cedar boxes only? >>> >>> >>> R, >>> Don >>> >>> Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love. >>> >>> Ephesians 4:2 (NLT) >>> >>>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 9:29 PM, Don Fronczak
wrote: >>>> >>>> Oops, accidentally hit send. One other item. I seriously doubt a temporary structure like this would require a county permit unless it's in the RPA >>>> >>>> Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love. >>>> >>>> Ephesians 4:2 (NLT) >>>> >>>>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 9:24 PM, Don Fronczak
wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Here are some of my thoughts. >>>>> >>>>> I could see an interpretation of paragraph 5.6 that could be interpreted in a way to deny the request. Specifically, the walls are a netting material which is not one of the materials listed in Para 5.6. >>>>> >>>>> However, I think 5.6 was meant more for permanent structures. Not sure I'd consider this a permanent structure. It's a couple of wooden boxes, wooden posts and some netting. Easily removable. However, even if we consider it permanent, there are several permanent structures within the community that don't meet paragraph 5.6 specifications. I.e., gazebos. >>>>> >>>>> Always be humble and gentle. Be patient with each other, making allowance for each other’s faults because of your love. >>>>> >>>>> Ephesians 4:2 (NLT) >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 13, 2025, at 11:32 AM, Tom Ronksley
wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Gary - >>>>>> >>>>>> Size would be about the same as a one-car garage >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, would abide by the setback distances. >>>>>> >>>>>> In my opinion, there's a good reason for that paragraph 5.6 in the bylaws. A temporary type of structure like a greenhouse or what Coach is asking about can more easily turn shabby looking than a permanent structure that someone has more invested in. So as his neighbor I would not be in favor of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know if it would require a County building permit or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> Coach was just asking informally before getting more serious about pricing and doing the Application so I can just pass on to him our opinions once Don weighs in. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Tom >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, August 13, 2025 at 09:45:15 AM EDT, Gary Easton
wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>>> How big is this greenhouse? Would it's location bide by the property setback distances? What's your feeling on this because you are his direct neighbor? And the Gilbert's on the other side, they would have to be contacted for their opinion. Will he need a Spotsylvania County building permit? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, Coach would have to submit a Construction Application & Agreement >>>>>> >>>>>> 1.6: Upon receipt of the Construction Application and Agreement, including all required attachments, the Committee shall review the Application and report its finding to the Applicant within twenty-one (21) calendar days it is in receipt thereof. The proposed construction or improvement shall be reviewed for full compliance of these Protective Restrictions and Covenants. In the event approval is denied, the Committee shall state the reasons for denial and shall offer its recommendations for compliance and subsequent approval. Following written approval of an Application by the Committee, the Committee shall return one set of the attachments to the Applicant and shall deliver a copy of such written approval to the Spotsylvania County Building Department. Following issuance of an official Building Permit, as issued by the County Building Department, Applicant shall provide the Committee with a copy thereof for the association files. >>>>>> >>>>>> My opinion is Tom is correct in his thinking regarding the POA rules. If it was just a few elevated cedar beds, I would be ok with that But, being a greenhouse, I'd vote NO. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom, do you want to pose these questions to Coach informally to see if he wants to pursue this, or do you want Don C. to assemble and send these documents to him via USPS? For an approval or denial, it has to be in writing......... >>>>>> >>>>>> Don F., your comments?
(Click only once)
Action Attachments
Title
Date
Active
2025_American_Flag(USA), 10/07/2025
2021_Financial_Review_Audit, 09/22/2025
2023_Financial_Review_Audit, 09/22/2025
2024-2025_Action_Items, 09/22/2025
2018_Financial_Review_Audit, 09/22/2025
2025_Board_Meeting_Feb_27, 02/27/2025
2023_Annual_Meeting_Minutes, 06/10/2023
2022_Board_Meeting_October_22(Special-invite), 10/22/2022
2021_Board_Meeting_December_16, 12/16/2021
2021_Annual_Meeting_Income_and_Expense_Report, 06/12/2021
2021_Annual_Meeting_Balance_Sheet, 06/12/2021
2019_Board_Meeting_April_12th, 04/12/2019
2017_Annual_Meeting_Income_and_Expenses, 06/17/2017
2014_Annual_Meeting_Notice, 06/14/2014
2012_Annual_Meeting_Minutes, 06/23/2012
2006_Board_Meeting_May_20th, 05/20/2006
2005_Board_Meeting_February_5th, 02/05/2005
Covenants_&_By-Laws(20030621), 06/21/2003
2002_Board_Meeting_July_20, 07/20/2002
2002_Board_Meeting_July_7, 07/07/2002
2002_Board_Meeting_June_29, 06/29/2002
2002_Board_Meeting_May_5, 05/05/2002
2001_Annual_Meeting_Agenda, 07/21/2001
2000_Board_Meeting_October_7th, 10/07/2000
1995_Initial_Newsletter_and_Financial_Report, 02/01/1995
Articles_of_Incorporation, 07/12/1994
To add a new Attacment:
ADD
BOD Members associated with this action
Name
Phone
Email
Active
Clarke, Don (Current)
Easton, Gary (Current)
Fennessy, Mike
Fronczak, Don (Current)
Jescovitch, Teresa
Mycko, Linda
Ptasznik, Maryann
Ronksley, Tom (Current)
Shick, Scott (Current)
To add a new HOA Board member:
ADD