The purpose of this page is to capture all comments submitted regarding the Proposed Consolidated Covenants during the comment period including comments made at the June 15, 2022 Town Hall.
| # | Section | Comment | Response |
| 1 | GLOBAL | Because there are many references to Common Areas, I wonder where we have Common Areas. Are there any other than at the various entrances to our community? |
The Common Areas in the Creekside HOA consist of the entrances to the community and the grassy knoll located in the Ridgeview Drive cul-de-sac. |
| 2 | GLOBAL | Six ballots, one per filing. What is actually required to pass? What happens if it’s mixed? | Those filings that pass will adopt. |
| 3 | GLOBAL | There seems to be a lot of language about managing agent in the proposed consolidated covenants. | That permits the HOA to hire a management company if needed. |
| 4 | GLOBAL | Instead of saying the Board, the proposed consolidated covenants refer to “the association”. Why is this? | The association acts through the board. This is defined earlier in the covenants. |
| 5 | GLOBAL | Has newly passed legislation HB 22-1137 been incorporated? | Not effective until August 9th, but does provide some restrictions that will require policy changes. No revisions to the proposed consolidated covenants are required. |
| 6 | GLOBAL | When is the timing on the vote on the covenants? We want to make sure if folks are out of town we have time to respond. | Homeowners will be notified by standard post regarding the timeline for receiving and returning ballots. At present, September 1st is the most likely date on which ballots will be mailed with homeowners provided 14 days to vote and return. |
| 7 | Recital F P Recital G P Exhibits P |
I also think I see on the Replat map that what are now two lots (“Outlet A”) were at one time Open Space. Is that correct? Was this space a Common Area at one time? What is the history of this space? When the space became two building lots, did someone make money on the land? | Those lots were at no time property of the Creekside HOA. |
| 8 | Recitals I P | On p. 2, section I, it states, “The Design Guidelines may be amended with the two-thirds approval of the Architectural Control Committee.”
While this may be language from the most recent four of the six filings, I feel that this places too much control in too few people. We should be wary of allowing two people to modify our design guidelines. I suggest we allow the two-thirds approval of the Architectural Control Committee to propose amendments to the Board, who would need to approve the amendments by a 2/3 vote of the Board. |
The homeowner is quoting from the Recitals which is highlighting the differences between the original Filings.
The proposed covenants change the Design Guidelines to needing an approval by the HOA Board, the members of which are elected. The Board needs a majority of the 5 members (60%) as opposed to the 67% proposed by the homeowner. |
| 9 | 4.5 P | On p. 10, section 4.5 seems too strong, especially the last bullet (d). Let us not give the Board too strong a hand, just enough to handle our collective interests in the neighborhood and its management and finances. | Supplemental assessments are similar to special assessments except that supplemental assessments can be levied on less than all lots. The authority of the Board in 4.5 is no different than in 4.4. |
| 10 | 4.5 P | Supplemental assessments, how are these decided and approved? It doesn’t feel transparent.
|
Currently, there are no plans for supplemental or special assessments. Supplemental could be levied on less than all lots typically to remediate a specific issue (i.e., damage caused by a specific homeowner to HOA common property). Supplemental assessment would be, for example, a major maintenance/ repair item where the reserve fund is insufficient. |
| 11 | 4.7(a) P | On p. 10, section 4.7 (a), I feel the Board should have limits within which it can set an interest rate on overdue unpaid assessments. Perhaps we can state herein the interest rate to be 20%, which is comparable to many credit card interest rates, which I consider to be outrageous, but at least in common use. | The interest rate is capped by Colorado law (HB 22-1137) at 8%. |
| 12 | 4.9 P | Is this boilerplate language or does the HOA have a plan to borrow against the assets? | No plans to borrow. This is a check on the powers of the board. This section is stricter than Colorado law. Colorado law allows the board to take a loan against the common area without an approval of the members. |
| 13 | 5.1 P | On p. 12, section 5.1, I would suggest we modify the parenthetical (“subject to review by the Board of Directors”) to read “subject to approval by a majority of the Board of Directors”. | Approval by the Board is defined in the Bylaws of the Association and does not require further clarification. |
| 14 | 5.3 P | What other Rules and Regulations exist at this time to guide the Board? I have checked our website and I see only the Sept policies that the Board adopted. | Although the Bylaws (Section 7.1) empower the Board to adopt and amend Rules and Regulations, there are no Rules and Regulations currently in force. |
| 15 | 5.3 P | On p. 12, section 5.3, this section should be changed to be clear that any changes to these Rules and Regulations require 2/3 approval of the Board. Further, any new Rules and Regulations must be communicated within two months to Owners with an explanation stating the reason and purpose for the new Rules and Regulations. | Given that the Board consists of not more than 5 members and that a majority must approve changes, this is 2/3 approval. The policy for the notification of Rules and Regulations is established elsewhere. |
| 16 | 5.3 P | Covenants speak to Rules and Regulations. The board has the power to write rules and regulations without a vote. Seems like we are writing a blank check. | Rules and Regulations always have to be consistent with covenants but gives board power to clarify when there is ambiguity. This also allows the board to be flexible so they can update requirements to be consistent with the community needs. |
| 17 | 5.5 P | Section 5.5. Re: no airbnb, I have a right to use my house without restriction. There may be legitimate reasons to sublet part of your home. What if there are families need the income from subletting the home? | Board’s position is no short-term rentals. A hardship clause may be appropriate. |
| 18 | 5.5 P | Section 5.5 would preclude having a roommate. It could force homeowners out of the house. | Actually, subsection (a) allows for a ‘roommate’ (singular). |
| 19 | 5.5 P | Commenting homeowner owns a vacation property in an area designed for vacation properties and there are still problems with short term rentals. Our neighborhood is not designed for this so commenting homeowner supports prohibition. Homeowner has personally experienced subletting with neighbors in Creekside and found it to be problematic. Opposes changing language. | The language as proposed has been retained. |
| 20 | 5.5 P | Commenting homeowner is a long term owner fought hard to prevent group home from coming to the neighborhood. Was trying to maintain integrity of the neighborhood by prohibiting the business of a group home. We don’t want the neighborhood to become short-term rental centric. Very opposed to any commercial enterprise. | The language as proposed has been retained. |
| 21 | 5.6 P | On p. 14, section 5.6, I feel strongly that 30 days written notice is inadequate. I would prefer to see the HOA give 90 days, during which there is a process of communication between the Owner and the HOA to clarify the concern, plan the remediation, retain qualified professionals to do the work, and enable the HOA to verify the work is satisfactory. | Existing policies related to enforcement of the covenants set forth the process for notification of the homeowner and the opportunity for the homeowner to meet with the Board. This provision is a last resort to provide remedy to the HOA to remediate situations that impact the quality of the neighborhood and may negatively impact property values. |
| 22 | 5.7 P 5.6 E |
The proposed language appears to be missing some important language from section 5.6 of the existing covenants regarding maintenance of fence and sign easement in the fourth filing. | Section 5.7 of the consolidated covenants includes language specific to the maintenance of fence and sign easement in the fourth filing. |
| 23 | 5.8 P | What is the process for getting approval for xeriscaping? | The law prohibits the association from banning xeriscaping and requiring turf. It specifies seven principles of landscaping. The specific guidelines for xeriscaping within the Creekside HOA have not yet been developed and this is out of scope for tonight. Until new guidelines are adopted, homeowners should submit landscape plans (including those for xeriscaping) as per the existing process. |
| 24 | 5.10 P | On p. 14 and 15, section 5.10, should we at least make reference to any Longmont or Boulder County language on noisy or dangerous pets? | No. The covenants need not recapitulate city or county ordinance. |
| 25 | 5.10 P | Pet owner can’t have a cat off leash off their property? | Correct. |
| 26 | 5.14(b) P | We need 72 hours to load/unload/clean our RV when preparing for a camping trip. We have been using this standard since we moved here in 1998. Please retain this standard. | Comment acknowledged. A written response to the homeowner is pending. The Board is currently reviewing language in Section 5.14(b) specifically to accommodate temporary overnight RV parking. |
| 27 | 5.14b P | Looking for some kind of detail regarding RV owners and reasonable access to their driveway for the purposes of loading and unloading. Owner interprets that to mean that she can never park her RV in her driveway. She doesn’t agree with the board interpretation of the verbiage. | The language has been updated to permit a temporary expedience of 72 hours not more than twice in a four week period. This would permit homeowners to load/unload/clean recreational vehicles prior to and following any trip. |
| 28 | 5.14b P | Although the Board has expressed at the Town Hall no desire to enforce covenants with respect to overnight RV parking in private driveways, Push comes to shove, enforceability of rules requires consistency. So if the language says no RV parking, then it should be enforced. The language as written does not permit overnight RV parking. | The language has been updated to clarify the temporary expedience. |
| 29 | 5.14 P | Common parking in cul-de-sac open to everyone? | Yes, the common parking is open to everyone. The HOA does not have the authority to restrict parking on the public right of way. |
| 30 | 5.16 P | On p. 17, section 5.16, the language seems vague and subjective. To provide the flexibility we need for the various situations in our neighborhood, why not replace this paragraph with language that says that outdoor lighting is a subject controlled by the Architectural Design Review Committee, and any and all unresolved issues with outdoor lighting will be addressed by the Board? | The Covenants are intended to provide high level guidance while policies can provide further interpretation and granularity. It is important to use standard published guidelines rather than addressing lighting issues as a one-off. This language provides sufficient coverage for a future policy that spells out in greater detail the lighting guidelines. |
| 31 | 5.20 P | In the consolidated covenants, I have some concerns about Section 5.20 (which I include at the bottom).
According to the current language of Section 5.20, it would prohibit any of the following: 1) Usage of a temporary tent to shade me when I am working in my yard 2) A temporary shade my family and friends when I have a family party 3) A summer shade or umbrella over my unshaded deck 4) An ability to test out a new camping tent in my back yard overnight to test out a new tent for water fastness, and setup ability. I can understand the HOA wanting to restrict the addition of permanent outbuildings, this is in the current covenants. However, I would like to see a written exception for temporary usage like the above. I would not want to have to request an exemption from the HOA every weekend so that I have the ability to work in my yard. As it is now written I would have to, and I don’t think we can just say ‘those uses above would not trigger that section’. As it is written it would, and I do not want to worry that I would be technically violating the covenants. I would prefer to know that I can do these things. Please consider a modification to this section before passing the revised covenants. |
Comment acknowledged. The language was rewritten to clarify that temporary and seasonal shade structures are not prohibited. |
| 32 | 5.24 P | On p. 18-19, section 5.24, the language seems arbitrary and overly specific. As immediately above, to provide the flexibility we need for the various situations in our neighborhood, why not replace this paragraph with language that says that Rain Barrels is a subject controlled by the Architectural Design Review Committee, and any and all unresolved issues with outdoor lighting will be addressed by the Board? | This language is in accordance with Colorado law. |
| 33 | 6.1 P | Question: Didn’t see anything for accessory dwelling buildings (ADUs). City of Longmont is considering allowing ADUs. Is the HOA considering absolute prohibition of ADUs? | Refer to section 5.20 “Further, no outbuilding or temporary structure shall be used on any Lot at any time for residential purposes, either temporarily or permanently.” As written, this provision would prohibit ADUs. |
| 34 | 6.1 P | In the old covenants under architectural design it said that for certain types of improvements you had to go get approval from your neighbor. Suggest that new guidelines require neighborhood approval. | Section 3 of the Design Guidelines for Filing 4 (“Protection of Neighbors”) specifies that “Owners of adjacent lots are encouraged to work together to determine reasonable view corridors”. But the existing covenants do not contain provisions requiring approvals from adjacent properties. The HOA is required to enforce the design guidelines and a complaining neighbor does not have veto authority. |
| 35 | 6.5 P | What Architectural Committee Guidelines exist at this time? Are there different guidelines for the six filings? Are these accessible for review? | Existing Architectural Guidelines are posted on the website. The design guidelines for the 5th filing (applicable to the address of the homeowner submitting the question) begin on page 15 of 44 of the existing covenants. https://creeksideneighborhood.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Covenants-5thfiling.pdf |
| 36 | 6.5 P | On p. 21, section 6.5, is a great place to be clear that amended architectural guidelines need the 2/3 approval of the Board (see my first point above). I would think we would want to say, “Such guidelines will apply to all Lots and the Community and/or be specific to all filings within the Community.” | Approval of the Board is defined in the Bylaws. With respect to the proposed revision, “Such guidelines may apply to all Lots in the Community and/or be specific to certain filings within the Community” is the intended meaning. |
| 37 | 6.6 P | On p. 22, section 6.6, 45 days seems way too long for a reply from the Committee. I would think 21 days would be plenty long. In addition, if the Committee fails to respond in that time, I would expect that the request would receive tacit approval, not denial. | As discussed at the Town Hall, the HOA is given 45 days for reply to allow for sufficient time for approval. At present, the ADC responds within mere days, so this is not a practical issue, but should there be a shortage of volunteers and/or a large volume of requests, the 45 day timeline provides the HOA sufficient time to adequately review. Tacit approval is untenable as it can create a situation in which mere miscommunication (e.g., a lost email) could lead a homeowner to assert that they have been authorized to make changes that are inconsistent with the covenants. |
| 38 | 6.6 P | 45 days to hear back on anything submitted to the committee and if no reply, consider denied. This seems really long. | Internally, the protocol would still be to be timely. |
| 39 | 6.9 P | Variance application, — can we publish this to get comment from the neighborhood? If you want a waiver do your neighbors have to approve? | Per Colorado law, we can’t disclose applications. Our philosophy has been to ask if the owner has approached the neighbor. The variance section simply gives the Board the flexibility to make adjustments. |
| 40 | 6.10 P | Right to appeal, why would the board of directors act as the architectural committee? Is there sometimes not a committee? | It can happen that there is no committee. The Creekside HOA is dependent upon volunteers. In the absence of sufficient community participation, the business of the HOA must be conducted by the resources available. |
| 41 | 6.10 P | Right to appeal is for homeowner only? What if the neighbor doesn’t like what’s been approved? | Only to owner whose plans have been rejected have the right to appeal. Neighbors have no right to appeal an approved modification. The committee has to approve and reject based on criteria in Article 6 and design guidelines. The committee approval is not based on whether or not the neighbors are amenable to the changes. Where a homeowner believes the committee is not enforcing the design guidelines, they can complain to board and ask for a new ADC. There is a legal restriction on disclosure of the submissions (i.e. the Board does not have the right to share the submissions with neighbors) although the final decisions can be disclosed. |
| 42 | 8.1(b)(iv) P | On p. 27, section 8.1, paragraph (b) (iv) seems incredibly dangerous. I wonder if there needs to be more of a process of negotiation (not merely delay!) before the Board is authorized to “… enter the property, remove the violation, …” etc. | This is a remedy of last resort. There are policies in place regarding covenant violations that would define the necessary notifications and provide the homeowner an opportunity for a board hearing to address the issue. |
| 43 | 8.5 P | on p. 29, section 8.5, I believe that if 50% of Members vote to amend these documents, that is enough to approve and effect the change. I would strike language about “… with the written consent of the Association.” | The vote of the members constitutes written consent. |
E = Existing, P = Proposed. Comments in italics have been edited for length and clarity. The entirety of the original comment has been archived.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about the Proposed Consolidated Covenants can be found here.
Last update: 2022-07-26 3:43pm