Questions about due process and equitable treatment in architectural decisions
CVHOA does have published Exterior Minimum Standards (two versions exist, pre- and post-October 1, 2012). However, questions remain about how consistently these standards are applied and whether all homeowners receive equal treatment in the architectural review process.
The Eric Hunter case (2016 minutes) illustrates procedural concerns: he attended a board meeting to understand the architectural review process. Homeowners deserve clear, accessible information about procedures without needing to attend board meetings for basic process information.
The Klaholz/Williamson geodome case shows enforcement overreach in action. The board threatened litigation over a temporary structure, using enforcement power far beyond what the Bylaws authorize. This wasn't about protecting community standards — it was about control.
Homeowners should verify whether a formal appeals process exists. Colorado law requires due process under CRS §38-33.3-209.5 and §38-33.3-315(6), including written notice, identification of the specific rule violated, and a hearing before penalties take effect.
Questions have been raised about whether common area improvements benefit all homeowners equitably. For example, one property at 6520 White Falcon Ct received drainage improvements from common area modifications to address water runoff issues. Homeowners should ask: Are common area improvements distributed fairly throughout the community?