The residents of Westlake Hills sue the developer Stanley Martin Homes and two other organizations affiliated with Riverbend Development. They are filing a civil suit over who controls a parcel of land at the neighborhood’s southern boundary.
Westlake Hills Homeowners Association
The Westlake Hills Homeowners Association (HOA) has a small parcel of land in its southern boundary called 56L-F in the county land records system. It is a 0.8-acre narrow Westhall Drive property strip between Jonna Street and Eastern Avenue. The land is part of the HOA and hosts signage and plantings paid for by the residents’ HOA assessments.
However, Riverbend Development proposed a project called “Oak Bluff” that will include 134 residential units on 22 acres north of Cory Farm. It spans Lickinghole Creek and is planned to include 56L-F. Stanley Martin Homes and Riverbend Development claimed they have the right to take the parcel away from the HOA and give it to the Oak Bluff project to access the new development.
Residents Sue the Developer
After proposing the project, the residents sued the developer to stop them. According to Bill O’Malley, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the residents have asked when they would take control of the HOA since he moved into his unit in 2017. The HOA told them it would happen when 80% of lots were sold. However, they sold all the lots by 2021, and then HOA meetings stopped altogether.
The lawsuit centers around whether the developer had the right to take 56L-F away from the Westlake Hills HOA without a membership vote, as mandated by the community’s governing documents. According to the governing documents, the control period stops when the developer no longer owns additional property or a lot. However, the period may recommence if the developer’s successors reacquire a lot. This could refer to 56L-F transferred between two subsidiaries of Riverbend Development.
The developers rely on the language of the governing documents to assert their control over the HOA. With that control, they aim to amend the covenants to obtain 56L-F and build Oak Bluff.
The Residents’ Claim
After the Westlake HOA residents decided to sue the developer, they offered two points to argue against the developer’s recommencement of control. Firstly, the rules state that the developer must acquire a developable lot to recommence control. Developable here may mean land wherein a dwelling unit may be constructed. According to the residents, lots cannot be built on 56L-F because of its shape and size.
In addition, the rules state that the developer may amend the covenants only during the first 5 years of developer control, which has lapsed. The residents assert that the right to vote on future amendments rests with the homeowners after that period.
Furthermore, the residents assert that the developer’s timing of actions was telling. In the Brownsville Elementary cafeteria, they held a standing-room-only public meeting about the Oak Bluff project on June 8, 2023. O’Malley and the other residents questioned whether Stanley Martin had the right to build on 56L-F. After a week, on June 15, 2023, Stanley Martin assigned its controlling rights to Oak Bluff, and Riverbend transferred 56L-F to Oak Bluff.
Following these events, the residents asserted that Stanley Martin unilaterally withdrew the property from their HOA without their consent. This came across as disrespectful and unethical, as the residents had been paying to maintain and upgrade 56L-F since 2016. They also paid for the trees and the stone monument on it.
The Future of the HOA
The choice to sue the developer and builder, Riverbend Development (in the form of its subsidiary, Oak Bluff LLC), and Stanley Martin was time-consuming and expensive. Dozens of HOA residents donated money to help fund the suit. Homeowners thought it was vital not to let the developer and builder’s actions set a precedent.
According to resident Luke Fairborn, nobody told them it was happening. A lawyer who lived in the community happened to stumble upon the documents while reviewing some files. They never would have known until the developers started building. Fairborn says they see that as an abuse of their position.
The lawsuit has not yet a hearing date and Oak Bluff’s response to the complaint denies the allegations. According to Attorney Andrew Matthews of the Williams Mullen law firm, a single-family home could be built on the development parcel. However, he did not address the claim that Oak Bluff did not have the unilateral right to amend the covenants.
Oak Bluff’s current design needs 56L-F. The development includes 7-8 detached dwellings plus the main entrance from Westhall Drive. Its entrance would be sited on the parcel. The residents say the lawsuit is a separate issue from potential development disagreements.
