Colorado Law · Architectural Review

Architectural Review in Colorado: Documented Standards, Protected Uses, and the 60-Day Deemed-Approval Rules

Q: How long does a Colorado HOA have to decide a solar application?

Aesthetic rules on renewable energy generation devices may not require a review and approval period longer than 60 days after the application. An application not denied or returned for modifications within 60 days is deemed approved. The review must be transparent, a denial must not be arbitrary or capricious, and the basis for a denial must be described in reasonable detail (C.R.S. § 38-30-168(2)(a)(I)(C)). A parallel 60-day rule applies to fire-hardened fencing standards under § 38-33.3-106.5(3)(c). Whether a specific application was timely handled is a question for association counsel.

Q: How does Colorado law treat artificial turf and xeriscape in HOAs?

C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5 limits association authority while allowing design rules. For single-family homes that share a wall, § 106.5(1)(i) generally bars prohibiting xeriscape, nonvegetative turf, or drought-tolerant landscapes on owner-maintained property and lets the association restrict turf to rear yards. For single-family detached homes, § 106.5(1)(i.5) generally requires that rules not ban artificial turf in back yards or vegetable gardens, allow an option of at least 80% drought-tolerant plantings, and preapprove at least three water-wise front-yard designs; it preserves bona fide safety, defensible-space, and grading rules. How these provisions apply to a particular community and guideline is a question for association counsel.

Q: What did Woodmoor v. Brenner hold about architectural approvals?

In Woodmoor Improvement Ass'n v. Brenner, 919 P.2d 928 (Colo. App. 1996), the architectural committee had formally approved plans that clearly showed a satellite dish, the owners relied on the approval, and the court held the association was equitably estopped from enforcing its antenna covenant. It rejected the argument that an association, like a city, is immune from estoppel. That was the court's decision on its record; how estoppel would apply to another approval is a question for counsel.

Texas wrote an architectural-committee procedure statute. Colorado did not. Colorado instead requires every approval and denial to follow written standards, forbids arbitrary decisions, and carves a growing list of owner improvements out of the committee’s discretion. For solar and fire-hardened fencing, an application not denied or returned for modifications within 60 days is deemed approved.

By the CIC-SC Editorial Team Updated November 8, 2026 Reading time: ~11 minutes Audience: Colorado Boards, ARC Members, Managers

Educational notice. This information is educational in nature and should not be construed as legal advice. Statutory language is quoted from the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act and C.R.S. § 38-30-168 as published by the Office of Legislative Legal Services at the time of writing. Consult qualified association counsel regarding legal interpretation specific to your jurisdiction.

Verified against the Colorado Revised Statutes 2024 (OLLS uncertified printout) and HB 26-1007 (association provisions operative January 1, 2027). Later amendments are possible.

The Bottom Line

No stand-alone procedure statute. The 2024 CCIOA text has no Colorado counterpart to Texas Property Code § 209.00505 setting committee eligibility, denial-letter content, and an appeal timeline. The procedure comes from the declaration and the association’s adopted rules.
The core rule. Approval or denial of an owner’s architectural or landscaping application “shall be made in accordance with standards and procedures set forth in the declaration or in duly adopted rules and regulations or bylaws of the association, and shall not be made arbitrarily or capriciously” (C.R.S. § 38-33.3-302(3)(b)).
Protected uses. CCIOA and § 38-30-168 bar associations from prohibiting a list of owner improvements, including renewable energy devices, xeriscape and water-wise landscaping, fire-hardened materials, energy-efficiency measures, and EV chargers, while generally allowing reasonable design rules.
Deemed approval. Solar and other renewable energy applications, and fire-hardened fencing applications, are deemed approved if not denied or returned for modifications within 60 days.
Committees are open. All regular and special board and committee meetings are open to owners (§ 38-33.3-308(2)(a)).
Approvals can matter later. On its record, Woodmoor Improvement Ass’n v. Brenner (Colo. App. 1996) applied equitable estoppel against an association that had formally approved the plans it later tried to enforce against.

Why the Texas article does not translate. The Texas guide is built around a specific procedure statute. Colorado’s framework is a standard of decision (documented standards, not arbitrary or capricious) plus subject-matter limits. A Colorado committee’s procedure is whatever its declaration and adopted rules say, measured against that standard.

Which Communities the Rules Reach

Section 302(3) applies to communities created on or after July 1, 1992, and to pre-1992 communities for events on or after January 1, 2006 (§ 38-33.3-117(1.5)(g)).
The protected-use sections fall within §§ 38-33.3-104 to -111, which § 117(1)(c) lists as applying to pre-1992 communities. Section 38-30-168 applies by its terms to covenants in any instrument affecting real property.
Small communities exempted under § 38-33.3-116 are subject only to a narrow set of sections unless they opt in. Which protected-use rules reach a § 116 community is a question for counsel.

The Standard of Decision: § 38-33.3-302(3)(b)

Section 302(3)(b) has two parts. Each decision must be made:

“[I]n accordance with standards and procedures set forth in the declaration or in duly adopted rules and regulations or bylaws.” An unwritten preference, a committee member’s taste, or a standard the committee applies but has never adopted is not within those words.
Not “arbitrarily or capriciously.” The statute does not define the phrase, and CICSC has not located a verified Colorado appellate decision construing it in § 302(3)(b). Boards commonly document consistency with prior decisions and a stated reason tied to an adopted standard; the statute does not say what record suffices, and that is a question for counsel.

Section 302(3)(a) adds that any managing agent, employee, independent contractor, or other person acting on behalf of the association is subject to CCIOA to the same extent as the association. By its words, that reaches a manager who screens applications on the association’s behalf.

In a related setting, Colorado Homes, Ltd. v. Loerch-Wilson, 43 P.3d 718 (Colo. App. 2001), the court said covenant-enforcement decisions “must be made in good faith and must not be arbitrary.” See Director Liability in Colorado.

Committees: Who Serves and How They Meet

Appointment. Committees are appointed under the governing documents, or, if they are silent, under Nonprofit Act § 7-128-206 (§ 38-33.3-303(3)(b)).
Chair qualifications. A person appointed after August 15, 2009 to preside over a committee must meet the qualifications the governing documents require for the board (§ 303(3)(b)).
Open meetings. Committee meetings are open to owners, agendas must be reasonably available, and executive session is limited to the topics listed in § 308(4) (§ 308(2)–(7)). Owners must be permitted to speak before the board votes (§ 308(2.5)).
Conflicts. The association’s required conflict policy governs a committee member reviewing a neighbor’s or relative’s application. See Director Conflicts of Interest in Colorado.

The committee-eligibility rules described in the Texas guide have no Colorado statutory counterpart in the 2024 CCIOA text. Any such limit in Colorado comes from the association’s documents or policy.

What the Committee May Not Refuse

Colorado narrows architectural discretion by subject. The table lists the provisions most often in front of an architectural committee. Each generally permits reasonable rules; the details vary by item.

Improvement	Citation	What the statute says
Renewable energy devices (solar, wind, geothermal, heat pumps)	§ 38-33.3-106.5(1.5); § 38-30-168	An association “shall not effectively prohibit” them. Reasonable aesthetic rules are allowed if they do not raise cost or cut performance or efficiency by more than 10%, or require review longer than 60 days; an application not denied or returned for modifications within 60 days is deemed approved; review must be transparent, a denial not arbitrary or capricious, and the basis described in reasonable detail. Bona fide safety requirements are allowed. No right to place a device on another’s property or on a limited or general common element (§ 38-30-168(2)–(3)). The 60-day provision does not apply to associations that include time-share units.
Fire-hardened building materials	§ 106.5(3)	Prohibitions in effect on March 12, 2024 are void, and new ones are barred. Reasonable fencing standards are allowed if they do not raise cost more than 10% compared to other fire-hardened fencing or require review longer than 60 days; an application not denied or returned for modifications within 60 days is deemed approved; a denial must be in writing with reasons in reasonable detail and not arbitrary or capricious. Bona fide safety requirements are allowed; no right to build on common elements (HB 24-1091).
Xeriscape and drought-tolerant landscaping (single-family homes sharing a wall)	§ 106.5(1)(i)	Applies to single-family homes that share a wall. May not prohibit xeriscape, nonvegetative turf, or drought-tolerant landscapes on owner-maintained property; design and aesthetic rules allowed; nonvegetative turf may be restricted to rear yards.
Water-wise landscaping (single-family detached)	§ 106.5(1)(i.5)	May not ban artificial turf in back yards, unreasonably require hardscape on more than 20% of the landscaped area, or ban vegetable gardens; must allow an option of at least 80% drought-tolerant plantings; must preapprove at least three water-wise front-yard designs and post them on the association’s website if it has one. Design rules, bona fide safety requirements, defensible-space limits, and grading and drainage limits are preserved. Single-family detached homes only, not condominiums. A civil action is available after written notice and a 45-day cure period (SB 23-178).
Watering fines	§ 302(1)(k)(II)	No fines for failing to adequately water while local water restrictions are in place and the owner is watering in compliance with them; the association may require proof.
Energy-efficiency measures	§ 106.7	May not “effectively prohibit” listed measures: shade structures, attic fans, evaporative coolers, efficient outdoor lighting, retractable clotheslines, heat pumps. Reasonable aesthetic and bona fide safety rules allowed; no right to place them on common elements. Portable-scale solar devices are added on and after January 1, 2027 (HB 26-1007).
EV charging	§ 106.8	May not prohibit an owner from using, or installing at the owner’s expense for the owner’s use, a level 1 or level 2 charger in the unit, an assigned or deeded space, or a space accessible to the owner and others. Bona fide safety rules, registration within 30 days of installation, and reasonable aesthetic rules allowed; separate conditions apply to limited common elements; residential units only, not time-share units.
Flags and signs	§ 106.5(1)(a), (c)	May not prohibit noncommercial flags or signs or regulate their content; content-neutral rules on number, size, placement allowed; may not prohibit installing a flag or flagpole (HB 21-1310).
Disability modifications	§ 106.5(1)(g)	Reasonable modifications as provided by the federal Fair Housing Act.
Defensible-space vegetation removal	§ 106.5(1)(e)	If it complies with a written defensible-space plan from a listed source, is no more extensive than the plan requires, and the plan is registered with the association before work begins; association standards on slash removal, stump height, revegetation, and contractors apply.
Accessory dwelling units, middle housing	§ 106.5(4), (6)	In subject and ADU-supportive jurisdictions, ADU restrictions of a kind § 29-35-403 prohibits are void, but reasonable restrictions are allowed. For declarations recorded or rules adopted or amended on or after July 1, 2024 (unless the restriction existed May 30, 2024), may not prohibit or restrict ADUs or middle housing where zoning allows.

This matters when an architectural guideline written in 2005 still bans artificial turf, requires cedar shakes, or makes no provision for solar panels. Section 106.5(2) separately bars requiring cedar shakes or other flammable roofing. A guideline that conflicts with these sections is the kind of provision boards typically ask counsel to review before the next application arrives.

The 60-day clocks run from the application. For renewable energy devices and fire-hardened fencing, the statute deems an application approved if it is not denied or returned for modifications within 60 days. A committee that meets quarterly, or that requests more information informally, is the setting where boards most often ask counsel how the clock runs.

Enforcement After a Denial

If an owner proceeds after a denial, enforcement runs through CCIOA’s fine framework: a written enforcement policy with notice and hearing procedures (§ 209.5(1)(b)(IV)), fines only after notice and an opportunity to be heard before an impartial decision maker (§§ 302(1)(k)(I), 209.5(2)), the cure periods and fine limits of § 209.5(1.7)(b) added by HB 22-1137 (effective August 10, 2022), and a one-year limit on actions to enforce a building restriction, measured from when the violation was or reasonably should have been known (§ 38-33.3-123(2)). How these apply to a particular violation is a question for counsel. See Fines in Colorado: The Enforcement Policy, Cure Periods, and the Limits After HB 22-1137.

When an Approval Binds the Association

In Woodmoor Improvement Ass’n v. Brenner, 919 P.2d 928 (Colo. App. 1996), the architectural control committee formally approved plans that clearly showed a satellite dish, and the owners relied on the approval. The court held the association was equitably estopped from enforcing its “no outside aerials or antennas” covenant, rejected the argument that an association is immune from estoppel the way a city may be, and held that an owner-director who did not take part in the approval did not breach a fiduciary duty. That was the court’s decision on its record; how estoppel would apply to a different approval is a question for counsel.

Records: What Owners Can See

Records of board or committee actions approving or denying design or architectural requests are association records (§ 38-33.3-317(1)(m)).
The association may withhold “[a]rchitectural drawings, plans, and designs, unless released upon the written consent of the legal owner of the drawings, plans, or designs” (§ 317(3)(a)).
Adopted rules and policies are records (§ 317(1)(f)), and the responsible governance policies and rules are among the annual disclosures (§ 209.4(2)).

Why This Matters

The usual setting is a committee that has worked by consensus for years without written guidelines, until a single denial becomes a dispute. The useful question is which adopted standard the decision applied, and whether the committee has applied it the same way before.

Best-Practice Guidance

These are practices boards commonly use. None is a legal requirement beyond what the statute says, and none is advice about a particular application.

1. Standards in writing, properly adopted.

Section 302(3)(b) measures decisions against standards in the declaration or duly adopted rules. The association’s policy on adopting and amending rules (§ 209.5(1)(b)(VII)) governs how guidelines are adopted.

2. Guidelines checked against the protected-use list.

Boards commonly have counsel review guidelines for provisions affected by §§ 106.5, 106.7, 106.8, and 38-30-168, including the January 1, 2027 portable-solar provision.

3. Every 60-day clock calendared.

Many committees log the filing date of every renewable energy and fire-hardened fencing application and the date 60 days later.

4. Decisions written with reasons.

A written decision naming the standard applied is common practice; for solar and fire-hardened fencing, the statute requires the basis for a denial to be described in reasonable detail.

5. Approvals that match the submission.

After Woodmoor, committees commonly state any conditions in the approval itself and confirm the approved plans match the conditions.

6. Preapproved water-wise designs published.

For single-family detached homes, § 106.5(1)(i.5)(II) requires associations to preapprove at least three water-wise front-yard designs and post them on the website, if any.

Common Mistakes & Pitfalls

Unwritten standards. A decision based on a standard that was never adopted is outside the words of § 302(3)(b).

Missing the 60-day window. For renewable energy and fire-hardened fencing, an application not denied or returned for modifications within 60 days is deemed approved.

Enforcing outdated bans. Turf, xeriscape, flag, sign, solar, and roofing provisions in older guidelines may conflict with current law.

Closed committee meetings. Committee meetings are open under § 308(2)(a), with executive session limited to listed topics.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Colorado have a statute governing HOA architectural review committees?

Not a stand-alone procedure statute of the Texas § 209.00505 kind in the 2024 CCIOA text. The core rule is § 38-33.3-302(3)(b): decisions must follow standards and procedures in the declaration or duly adopted rules, regulations, or bylaws, and must not be arbitrary or capricious. How it applies to a particular association is a question for its counsel.

How long does a Colorado HOA have to decide a solar application?

Aesthetic rules may not require a review longer than 60 days after the application. An application not denied or returned for modifications within 60 days is deemed approved (§ 38-30-168(2)(a)(I)(C)). Whether a specific application was timely handled is a question for association counsel.

How does Colorado law treat artificial turf and xeriscape in HOAs?

Section 106.5(1)(i) (single-family homes that share a wall) and § 106.5(1)(i.5) (single-family detached homes) limit association authority while allowing design rules and, for detached homes, safety, defensible-space, and grading rules. Application to a particular guideline is a question for counsel.

What did Woodmoor v. Brenner hold about architectural approvals?

On its record, the court applied equitable estoppel against an association that had formally approved plans clearly showing the feature it later challenged. How estoppel would apply to another approval is a question for counsel.

Can owners see architectural records?

Records of approval and denial actions are association records; the association may withhold architectural drawings, plans, and designs absent their legal owner’s written consent (§ 317(1)(m), (3)(a)). Specific requests are handled under the records policy, with counsel as needed.

References & Sources

C.R.S. §§ 38-33.3-106.5, -106.7, -106.8, -117, -123(2), -209.4(2), -209.5(1)(b)(IV), (VII), (1.7)(b), (2), -302(1)(k), (3), -303(3)(b), -308(2)–(7), -317(1), (3). Colorado Revised Statutes 2024, Title 38. content.leg.colorado.gov — crs2024-title-38.pdf
C.R.S. § 38-30-168 — Unreasonable restrictions on renewable energy generation devices or fire-hardened building materials.
HB 24-1091 (fire-hardened building materials), effective March 12, 2024. leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb24-1091
SB 23-178 (water-wise landscaping), effective August 7, 2023. leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb23-178
HB 21-1229 (renewable energy review timing), effective September 7, 2021. leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1229
HB 21-1310 (flags and signs), effective September 7, 2021. leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb21-1310
HB 22-1137 (fines and cure periods), effective August 10, 2022. leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb22-1137
HB 26-1007 (portable solar; association provisions operative January 1, 2027). leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb26-1007
Woodmoor Improvement Ass’n v. Brenner, 919 P.2d 928 (Colo. App. 1996). Caselaw Access Project
Colorado Homes, Ltd. v. Loerch-Wilson, 43 P.3d 718 (Colo. App. 2001). Caselaw Access Project

Related CIC-SC Resources

Establishing and Running an Architectural Review Committee — the national framework.
What a Colorado HOA Cannot Prohibit Under § 38-33.3-106.5
Fines in Colorado: The Enforcement Policy and Cure Periods
Texas HOA Architectural Review Under § 209.00505 — for comparison.

Tags: Colorado architectural review · C.R.S. 38-33.3-302(3)(b) · arbitrary or capricious · architectural committee · solar 60-day deemed approval · C.R.S. 38-30-168 · xeriscape · fire-hardened materials · Woodmoor v. Brenner · CCIOA · Colorado HOA governance

Disclaimer. This article is published by the Common Interest Community Standards Council for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Statutory references and procedural frameworks are intended to support informed governance, not to substitute for advice from qualified Colorado legal counsel. Boards and managers should consult their association’s attorney about the application of any statute, governing-document provision, or governance decision to their specific circumstances. CIC-SC, its authors, and its members assume no liability for actions taken in reliance on this content.