HOA Exemption from CRS 38-33.3 ??

Skuddle, Colorado statutes control over your HOA's Declaration. With regard to political signs CCIOA 38-33.3- 106.5 states:
"(c) (I) THE DISPLAY OF A POLITICAL SIGN BY A UNIT OWNER ON THAT
UNIT OWNER'S PROPERTY OR IN A WINDOW OF THE UNIT OWNER'S RESIDENCE;
EXCEPT THAT AN ASSOCIATION MAY PROHIBIT THE DISPLAY OF POLITICAL
SIGNS EARLIER THAN FORTY-FIVE DAYS BEFORE THE DAY OF AN ELECTION
AND LATER THAN SEVEN DAYS AFTER AN ELECTION DAY. AN ASSOCIATION
MAY REGULATE THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF POLITICAL SIGNS THAT MAY BE
PLACED ON A UNIT OWNER'S PROPERTY IF THE ASSOCIATION'S REGULATION
IS NO MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN ANY APPLICABLE CITY, TOWN, OR COUNTY
ORDINANCE THAT REGULATES THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF POLITICAL SIGNS ON
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IF THE CITY, TOWN, OR COUNTY IN WHICH THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED DOES NOT REGULATE THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF
POLITICAL SIGNS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE ASSOCIATION SHALL
PERMIT AT LEAST ONE POLITICAL SIGN PER POLITICAL OFFICE OR BALLOT
ISSUE THAT IS CONTESTED IN A PENDING ELECTION, WITH THE MAXIMUM
DIMENSIONS OF THIRTY-SIX INCHES BY FORTY-EIGHT INCHES, ON A UNIT
OWNER'S PROPERTY.
(II) AS USED IN THIS PARAGRAPH (c), "POLITICAL SIGN" MEANS A SIGN
THAT CARRIES A MESSAGE INTENDED TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF AN
ELECTION, INCLUDING SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING THE ELECTION OF A
CANDIDATE, THE RECALL OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, OR THE PASSAGE OF A
BALLOT ISSUE."

Roger:

Do HOAs in Colorado get to self-exempt? In other words, Skuddle said something about the association's documents claim an exemption from certain sections of the code, and they also claim that because their assessments are less than $300 per lot, or something to that effect.

Does Colordao law or statute allow for that? Or is it simply the NUMBER of lots in an HOA that exempts them?

Michele,
Just speaking from memory without doing any research I do not think so. This would need to be confirmed by the association's attorney. Perhaps this CC&R is applicable if it was in effect before the law but I don't think so.

SkuddleM,
I may have jumped in the middle here, but it appears it doesn't make a difference to change your CCR's to reflect state law, not that you shouldn't given the chance. But I believe State Law trumps CCR's.
I wonder if you need to amend the CCR's through the membership. Shouldn't the Board make the change by virtue of meeting state requirements.

Our CCRs state they can be amended only by approval of 75% of the membership.

That's another case where CRS 38-33.3 says otherwise. It states that only a 2/3rds approval is required.

I'm probably not stating this correctly, but CRS 38-33.3 has language to the effect that when a c,c, or r conflicts with the CRS, that specific CCR is simply rendered unenforceable.

What ever your CCR's state is correct.

However, that only applies to rules that do not conflict with higher authority. State law trumps CCR's here in SC. A State Statute is a preety hefty piece of Law. A CCR simply regards the association.

In any event Skuddle, I am not a lawyer and that is just an opinion.

Reference your explanation of the requirements in the CRS stuff. I think you will find that anything the association wants to do that is more astringent than the CRS stuff, that is ok, they can not make it less astringent.

I knew I recognised the name "Skuddle", at least the sound.

scuttle: A pail or bucket for hauling coal. You may remember the old coal buckets that were galvinized and had a large pouring spout on one side or end.

Skuddle,

It's what is commonly referred to as "notwithstanding" language, i.e., "Notwithstanding any provision in the declaration, bylaws or other documents to the contrary. . ." This means no matter what the CCRs say, state law prevails. On the flip side, if the statutes says, "Unless otherwise provided in the community documents" it means the community docs prevail. THen there are the statutes that do not contain either clause in which case we err on the side of caution and go with the state statute.

Um, I did and the first hit that I got was from the "Urban Dictionary". I really don't think that was what you were after.