Architectural review is where most owners first feel the HOA's grip: you want to add solar, install an EV charger, or replace your lawn with xeriscape, and a committee says no. The committee's power is real, if your declaration requires approval for exterior changes, you generally need it. But that power is bounded. Standards must come from your recorded documents, be applied evenhandedly, and not override rights CCIOA specifically protects.
Colorado is strong here. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.7 bars unreasonable restrictions on energy-efficiency measures, which covers solar generation devices and similar improvements; the association may impose only reasonable, non-defeating restrictions. Section 38-33.3-106.8 does the same for electric-vehicle charging systems and EV parking. And § 38-33.3-106.5 voids a list of covenants and rules contrary to public policy, which has historically reached bans on certain flags, signs, and water-wise landscaping.
Public-policy carve-outs and evenhandedness
Because § 38-33.3-106.5 strikes covenants contrary to public policy, a 'no visible modifications' rule can't be used to ban an improvement the legislature has protected. Beyond the carve-outs, the committee's main vulnerability is inconsistency: if it approved your neighbor's identical project and denied yours, that's selective enforcement (see that guide). Approvals also can't be withheld in bad faith or on standards that appear nowhere in the recorded documents.
The authority
The statutes behind this
Cited by name as authority, for your own reading. Informational only, not legal advice.
C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.7
Bars unreasonable restrictions on energy-efficiency measures, including solar; only reasonable, non-defeating restrictions are allowed.
C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.8
Bars unreasonable restrictions on electric-vehicle charging systems and EV parking.
C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.5
Voids covenants and rules contrary to public policy, which has reached bans on certain flags, signs, and water-wise landscaping.
Step by step
How to appeal an architectural denial in Colorado
Steps to challenge a design-review denial, including invoking Colorado's solar, EV-charging, and public-policy protections.
- 01
Pin the denial to a recorded standard
Ask the committee, in writing, exactly which recorded covenant or guideline your request violated. A denial that can't point to a recorded standard is weak.
- 02
Check for a protected category
If your project is solar/energy efficiency (§ 38-33.3-106.7), EV charging (§ 38-33.3-106.8), or something a public-policy covenant can't bar (§ 38-33.3-106.5), the board can impose only reasonable restrictions.
- 03
Gather comparables
Photograph similar approved projects in the community. Inconsistent approvals support a selective-enforcement argument.
- 04
Submit a written appeal
Resubmit citing the protected-category statute and your comparables, and request the appeal go before the full board with minutes taken under § 38-33.3-308.
- 05
Use dispute resolution
Invoke the association's required dispute-resolution policy (§ 38-33.3-209.5) in writing if the board still refuses a protected improvement.
Straight answers
Common questions
Can a Colorado HOA ban solar panels?
Not unreasonably. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.7 bars unreasonable restrictions on energy-efficiency measures, including solar. The board may impose reasonable, non-defeating restrictions but can't flatly ban rooftop solar.
Can the HOA block an EV charging station?
Generally no. C.R.S. § 38-33.3-106.8 bars unreasonable restrictions on electric-vehicle charging systems and EV parking, so a flat ban is unenforceable, though reasonable conditions may apply.
Can they force me to keep a thirsty lawn?
Colorado's public-policy statute (§ 38-33.3-106.5) has historically voided covenants barring water-wise (xeriscape) landscaping. Confirm the current scope, but a blanket ban on drought-tolerant landscaping is suspect.
The committee denied my project but approved my neighbor's identical one. Now what?
That's the classic selective-enforcement fact pattern. Document the approved comparables and raise inconsistent application of the standards on appeal (see the selective-enforcement guide).