Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br /> :t <br /> ,j <br /> ~ i <br /> .! <br /> II <br />() ,1 <br />., <br />l :, II <br /> ! <br /> :i <br /> I; <br /> ,I <br /> i\ <br /> !, <br /> 1\ <br /> Ii <br /> il <br /> II <br /> II <br /> :1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! "\ <br /> I <br /> II <br /> \1 <br /> \] <br /> II <br /> I <br /> I <br />(j <br /> <br />tutional rights did not implicate "important state interests" but, rather, <br />the interests of an individual property owner. <br />Because the case did not fall under the procedural guidelines for ab- <br />stention, the federal court refused to close the case. Whittaker's claims <br />were allowed to proceed in federal court, with the court noting that the <br />county could raise jurisdictional or other procedural arguments such as <br />collateral estoppel-whicl). barred a court from hearing a duplicative <br />case-at a later stage in the proceedings. <br /> <br />Restrictive Covenants-Association passes amendl11ent <br />barring further subdivisions <br /> <br />New lot owner claims amendment invalid <br /> <br />Citation: Hazelbaker v. County of St. Charles, 2007 WL 2990636 (Mo. <br />Ct. App. B.D. 2007) <br /> <br />MISSOURI (10/16/07)-Hazelbaker owned Lot 41 in the Highland <br />Trails Subdivision located in St. Charles County. Highland Trails was <br />a subdivision made up of two plats of land containing 66 lots. Im- <br />portantly, one of the two plats contained lots that were all more than <br />three acres in size; Hazelbaker's lot was part of that plat. Hazelbaker <br />acquired the lot in 2005. <br />Highland Trails was governed by a community association that con- <br />sisted of the owners of the lots. The association was overseen by three <br />elected trustees who administered and enforced the "Declaration of <br />Covenants and Restrictions of Highland Trails." <br />Restrictions relevant to this case included provisions stating that <br />"[n]one of said Lots may be improved, used[,] or occupied for other <br />than private residence purposes"; "Any residence erected or maintained <br />on any of said Lots shall be designed for occupancy by a single family"; <br />and "members shall be entitled to one vote for each Lot in which they <br />hold [an] interest .., but in no event shall more than one vote be cast <br />with respect to any such Lot." <br />Further, the restrictions stated that they remained in force "unless an <br />instrument signed by the then Owners of 51 % of the Lots ha[d] been <br />recorded, agreeing to change said covenants and restrictions in whole or <br />in part." <br />In 2000, the owners of two lots in Highland Trails divided their re- <br />spective lots into two new lots. The new lots were more than one acre in <br />size, as required by the county ordinance. In response to these subdivi- <br />sions, the community association drafted an "Amendment To Declara- <br />tion Of Covenants And Restrictions" that stated, in pertinent part, that: <br />"No Lot located within Highland Trails Plats One and Two shall be ) <br />split or subdivided, with the exception of Lot 65 which has previously <br />been split by its owner with the approval of the Board of Directors." <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />56 <br />