Re: Oak Bluff. There are no restrictive covenants on the Oak Bluff property. There is an HOA, which was established by the developer of Westlake Hills, which also is involved in developing Oak Bluff. The suit is about whether the HOA rules where violated by the very people who helped establish them. I know you have a large territory and a lot of action to cover, but "restrictive covenants"? Seriously? I'm sure there are those who appreciate the spin. Please also note the irony in covering stream health in the same edition as Oak Bluff which is bisected by impaired Lickinghole Creek. I'm pretty sure pet waste, lawn fertilizer, snow melt chemicals and other typical pollutants will flow down hill from Oak Bluff in greater quantity at maximum density than at lower density.
The HOA rules are related to the restrictive covenants and I was not able to go into full detail on this. I'm sure I'll be at the trial when it happens. I'll note as well that the staff report doesn't mention the suit, nor is there a link to the public comments. One item missing from the story is a link to the petition that I found after the fact.
Here now is a link to the initial pleading in the case as well as a response:
I'm not able to post an image here, but I direct your attention to the language used in the general allegations section beginning with #7. When there's a trial date, I'll do a full preview.
I can only conclude that you object to HOAs, which is reasonable. I'm not thrilled to live in one, but it is difficult to find housing in the Development Area that doesn't have an HOA. I suspect that all HOAs have convenants which restrict, to one degree or another, the property owners' ability to modify their property without going through an approval process. Given the history behind the term "restrictive covenants", application of that terminology to HOAs in 2024 seems to be right out of a PR/damage control playbook.
Legal terms in land use issues are what they are and I assign no value to them beside their legal definition and in this particular case, the plaintiffs are arguing that Stanley Martin/Riverbend are breaking rules. The brief clearly points out the mechanisms.
I am a reporter seeking to explain why there is opposition to a specific proposal, as I have done for a very long time.
For instance, here's coverage of opposition from Forest Lakes to the RST Residences back in March 2021. This may be behind a paywall as I wasn't archiving over to infocville.com at that time.
People have a right to express their opinion and Albemarle still has a public process for this to take place unlike Charlottesville which stripped the role the public plays in the land use process. As a journalist who has covered land use for over 17 years, I have written many stories over the years about this dynamic. I am not here to pick sides, but to document what happens.
Re: Oak Bluff. There are no restrictive covenants on the Oak Bluff property. There is an HOA, which was established by the developer of Westlake Hills, which also is involved in developing Oak Bluff. The suit is about whether the HOA rules where violated by the very people who helped establish them. I know you have a large territory and a lot of action to cover, but "restrictive covenants"? Seriously? I'm sure there are those who appreciate the spin. Please also note the irony in covering stream health in the same edition as Oak Bluff which is bisected by impaired Lickinghole Creek. I'm pretty sure pet waste, lawn fertilizer, snow melt chemicals and other typical pollutants will flow down hill from Oak Bluff in greater quantity at maximum density than at lower density.
The HOA rules are related to the restrictive covenants and I was not able to go into full detail on this. I'm sure I'll be at the trial when it happens. I'll note as well that the staff report doesn't mention the suit, nor is there a link to the public comments. One item missing from the story is a link to the petition that I found after the fact.
Here now is a link to the initial pleading in the case as well as a response:
https://cvillepedia.org/images/Oak_Bluff_-_Complaint_and_Answers.pdf
I'm not able to post an image here, but I direct your attention to the language used in the general allegations section beginning with #7. When there's a trial date, I'll do a full preview.
I can only conclude that you object to HOAs, which is reasonable. I'm not thrilled to live in one, but it is difficult to find housing in the Development Area that doesn't have an HOA. I suspect that all HOAs have convenants which restrict, to one degree or another, the property owners' ability to modify their property without going through an approval process. Given the history behind the term "restrictive covenants", application of that terminology to HOAs in 2024 seems to be right out of a PR/damage control playbook.
Legal terms in land use issues are what they are and I assign no value to them beside their legal definition and in this particular case, the plaintiffs are arguing that Stanley Martin/Riverbend are breaking rules. The brief clearly points out the mechanisms.
I am a reporter seeking to explain why there is opposition to a specific proposal, as I have done for a very long time.
For instance, here's coverage of opposition from Forest Lakes to the RST Residences back in March 2021. This may be behind a paywall as I wasn't archiving over to infocville.com at that time.
https://communityengagement.substack.com/p/albemarle-planning-commission-pans
People have a right to express their opinion and Albemarle still has a public process for this to take place unlike Charlottesville which stripped the role the public plays in the land use process. As a journalist who has covered land use for over 17 years, I have written many stories over the years about this dynamic. I am not here to pick sides, but to document what happens.