Clashing agreements have Ridgefield homeowner feeling stuck

But Zachary Stoumbos, attorney for the developer, has a different take on the case.

“I think this case is about protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority,” he said.

In August, the Helen’s View Homeowner’s Association filed a lawsuit against the Holt Opportunity Fund, which is seeking to build housing on a vacant stretch of land in the subdivision where the homeowner’s association is located.

The land is part of a subdivision covered by covenants, conditions and restrictions. Typically called CCRs, they’re sets of rules that are often established by developers or homeowners associations that govern how a property can be used. They often include things such as what color a house can be painted, noise levels, pets and, in this case, building density.

According to the lawsuit, the association amended its CCRs in June 2008 to require a minimum lot size of 31,798 square feet in the subdivision. However, the suit states that later that month, the owner of the 103-acre lot (that would later be purchased by Holt) entered into an annexation agreement with the city of Ridgefield that included a density requirement of six residential units per acre.

No word from city

Ridgefield city officials either didn’t respond to inquiries from The Columbian or declined to comment. But Rasmussen and others in the neighborhood argue that the existing CCR takes precedent. The annexation agreement states that the lot can be developed once Ridgefield determines adequate water, sewer and transportation are available. But Rasmussen worries how the development will change the area.

“We want to maintain the rural character of our neighborhood,” Rasmussen said. She argues that annexation does not make CCRs go away, and that “they run with the land.”

In response to the litigation, the lawyers for Holt filed “lis pendens” actions against all of 31 homeowners in the subdivision. The action clouds the title to a property it’s filed on and is meant to alert potential buyers that there is a lawsuit concerning the land.

Smith said that she was days away from selling her home, but the deal fell through after title companies were spooked by the lis pendens. She said she had to cancel a move to another house and has lost thousands of dollars.

“It definitely seems like they’re just trying to burden the neighborhood,” Smith said.

Stoumbos said that filing lis pendens is a standard action that alerts potential homebuyers or what they might be getting into.

He also said he expects to prevail at the Dec. 16 court hearing on the case. He argues that under state law, a new restrictive CCR needs to be approved by all of the property owners in the affected subdivision. He said that the CCR setting lot sizes at 31,798 square feet had the support of only 31 out of 32 property owners in the subdivision. The owner of the lot in question never signed off, he said, which he said means the CCR is void.

“Our position is quite simple, that’s the beginning and the end of the case,” Stoumbos said.

He said the law protects individual property owners from neighbors in a subdivision wanting new restrictions, and he said that state Supreme Court cases back him up.

Mark Erickson, the attorney for the HOA, has a different reading of the law, arguing that the CCRs takes legal precedent over the annexation agreement. He’s also arguing that the development would violate a conservation easement intended to protect a wetland.

The outcome of the case could have repercussions as growing counties annex territory and attempt to rezone areas subject to CCRs, he said.

But for now, Smith said, “It’s a waiting game now to see what’s going to happen.”