Protecting Our Home Valuations

Every homeowner in Chatfield Bluffs has a financial stake in preserving property values — and that begins with responsible, transparent, and well-informed Board decisions about how our community is managed.

The Preamble and Article IX, Section 1 of the CC&Rs clearly state the document's purpose:

“...for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of said property...”
“...to enhance the value, desirability, and attractiveness of the Lots and subserve and promote the sale thereof.”

Any Board action or decision that reduces — or even has the potential to reduce — property valuations is in direct violation of these covenantal clauses.

Why There’s a Recall Vote

You may have noticed recall signs throughout the neighborhood or received a Special Recall Meeting proxy in the mail. This recall vote centers primarily around your home valuation — an issue you may not have been aware of that we are about to fully explain.

For months, concerned homeowners have been fighting on your behalf to the current Board members to maintain property valuations, address safety concerns, and resolve legal issues now at our doorstep.

What the Board Did

When the HOA Board voted to remove legal restrictions on access to a community’s common area, namely Tract A (bluff), they did so without performing a valuation impact study — a developer's equivalent of an environmental or traffic impact analysis.

Such a study would have independently measured how this change would affect property values, buyer perception, and future sales — all of which are imperative to fully understand when evaluating the impact it will have on your real estate investment.

None of the Board members are "experts" in property valuations and were asked months ago to perform such a study before making any decision, which they ignored as this report currently does not exist. Due to their actions, the current Board has now exposed the entire community to potential negative valuations moving forward. This should be very concerning to you and your real estate investment here in Chatfield Bluffs South.

Why This Matters for Your Property Value

In real estate, lot adjacency determines value — a home adjacent to a busy highway is simply valued differently than the exact same home adjacent to a park. This is the most basic of all real estate investment criteria that the current Board members completely ignored.

By opening previously restricted sensitive wildlife areas, the current Board has altered the neighborhood's long-standing adjacencies without soliciting any independent professional guidance, or legal development process that we'll get to in the Original Development Plan in a moment, which now impacts valuations across the entire community.

Currently, the 223 homes of Chatfield Bluffs South have a combined valuation of over $171 million. Due to the Board's actions in altering the neighborhood adjacency, even a couple percent reduction in valuation from their policy change equates to several million dollars collectively, or approximately $23,000 on average per home, which the CC&Rs explicitly restrict.

If you think that your home is not affected, you would be wrong. When Ryland developed Chatfield Bluffs South, they did so with about 15 different floor plan designs. Each of those floor plans is utilized around 15 times (15 x 15 = 225) throughout the 223 lots. While certain lots will be impacted more than others, every home's valuation will be affected due to the "tract" floor plan duplication. Put simply, any valuation reduction in one floor plan reverberates throughout the entire community in exact-same and similar floor plan designs, also called comps.

Improper Application of State Law

The Board’s sole claim is that their decision was made in response to Colorado Revised Statute §38-33.3-302.5 (HB 22-1040) — a law passed in 2022 to stop associations from restricting access to amenities the community previously enjoyed.

However, clarification directly from State Representative Tammy Story’s office — who co-authored this exact legislation — revealed that the current Board has completely misinterpreted the statute’s purpose. She wrote the bill and clarified its meaning, yet the current Board is willfully ignoring her direct explanation.

The law was written to prevent HOAs from unreasonably restricting access to amenities that were already accessible to community members — such as pools, gyms, tennis courts, and parks — not to require HOAs to “open access” to areas that were “restricted” in the first place.

It was designed to stop associations from locking owners out of facilities and amenities due to maintenance costs or management decisions — for example, closing a pool for the summer to avoid paying expenses, or shutting a gym down for a month because one machine breaks. People were complaining that community amenities they previously enjoyed were being taken away for prolonged periods of time.

In 2022, the Colorado House of Representatives passed HB 22-1040, which was adopted into CCIOA under C.R.S. §38-33.3-302.5, to require HOAs to fix any previously "accessible" common-element maintenance issue within 72 hours. If it cannot be fixed within 72 hours, the HOA must provide notice to every unit owner explaining why the amenity will be restricted for an extended period of time. This notification procedure is the sole purpose of the law, as confirmed by Tammy Story’s office.

In contrast, Tract A of Chatfield Bluffs was never "accessible" — not at the beginning of the development, and not today. The restriction was established by the original developer, Alan Fishman, and fully disclosed to every buyer at the time of purchase by Ryland Homes. Therefore, Tract A is a "restricted" common element and not covered under C.R.S. §38-33.3-302.5 (HB 22-1040) "accessible" common elements.

By attempting to reverse the legal status of that space — which cannot be done without a redevelopment plan — the current Board is flipping the intent of C.R.S. §38-33.3-302.5 (HB 22-1040) 180 degrees: transforming a statute meant to protect access to areas that were “accessible” into one that now forces access to areas that are “restricted.” In doing so, the Board has exposed the entire community to unintended financial, safety, and liability consequences.

New Exposure Under CRS §39-1-103(5)(a)

But that’s just the start of the problem that the current Board members created. Their actions now expose the neighborhood to C.R.S. §39-1-103(5)(a).

• What it is: A Colorado tax valuation provision allowing owners to request reassessment when external factors materially affect market value.
• What’s changed: Because adjacencies have been altered by opening access per the Board's actions, affected owners adjacent to these areas may now seek tax reassessment under C.R.S. §39-1-103(5)(a).
• Community impact to consider: While reassessment will lower an individual’s property taxes due to a reduction in their tax valuation, widespread reductions will also lower sales comparables determined by appraisers and aggregate sites like Zillow, which both pull this information from the tax assessor, and will then ripple across valuations for the entire neighborhood.

In Simple Terms

To put this matter in the simplest terms — the current Board members are purposely ignoring Representative Story’s explanation of HB 22-1040 in favor of their own interpretation and agenda. They want access to this restricted area at all costs and are willfully dismissing home valuations, state law, tax ramifications, official Colorado Parks and Wildlife warnings, family safety, liability impacts, homeowner concerns, and other matters in order to accomplish that goal. This Board was given all of the information presented to you — and much more — over months of deliberation, and they are wantonly ignoring all of it. It’s really that simple.

Original Development Plan

When Chatfield Bluffs South was originally developed by the Declarant, Alan Fishman, Tract D was specifically designated as “Open Space.” This is the area east of Lot 37 of Filing 4, where the concrete path on W. Vandeventor Drive begins, then runs directly south to Deer Creek Parkway, and then southeast of S. Field Court. (See Filing No. 1 below.) This area has always been “accessible” to the community as open space. This is why an “accessible” path runs through it — because it is, by this legal filing, accessible.

Tract A, the area west of Lot 37, was never designated as “Open Space” per the legal filing below and was never considered “accessible.” (See Filing No. 4 below.) Under Colorado law, there is a 10-year window from the date of any development filing to change, amend, or correct a deficiency within that filing. Because this filing was recorded on September 24, 1997, the window to change the status of Tract A—such as designating it as “Open Space” and making it “accessible”—closed on September 24, 2007. This means that any Board decision made after 2007 to alter the legal status of Tract A, including attempting to designate it as “Open Space,” can no longer do so legally without submitting a new development plan.

When Ryland purchased this development plan from Alan Fishman (Land Securities Investors), they had no choice but to inform homebuyers that Tract A could never be “built on,” which includes constructing any type of concrete path, nor could it be considered “accessible.” These two legal documents in the Original Development Plan prohibited such uses. Tract D was designated as “accessible,” but Tract A was "restricted." If homeowners had wanted to redesignate the restricted Tract A area to become accessible open space like Tract D, they had until 2007 to make that change.

Why Is This Area Restricted?

You may be asking yourself why Tract A is restricted. It's just like Tract D — isn't it? It's just like the park (Tract F) — isn't it? These are all common elements — aren't they? These questions are where much of the confusion lies. Let's clear all this up so you fully understand why Tract A is restricted.

First, let's clear up the confusion about common elements. In the case of any common interest community, which Chatfield Bluffs South is, a common element is anything that is not a street or sidewalk owned by the County, or anything that is not owned by an individual homeowner. Everything outside of those ownerships falls by default under a “common element.” So, the answer to the last question — “These are all common elements, aren't they?” — is “Yes.”

However, common elements must be defined as either accessible or restricted. A pool is a common element, as it is not a street owned by the County nor individually owned by any single homeowner, and is therefore an “accessible” common element. But what about the pool equipment building? It is likewise not a County-owned street or individually owned by any homeowner and is therefore also a common element. But is it accessible? No. It's a “restricted” common element, as the community owns it collectively but restricts access for obvious safety and liability reasons.

Next, let's clear up the confusion between Tract F (park), Tract D (open space), and Tract A (bluff). All are common elements, but only two are accessible — Tract F (park) and Tract D (open space). Tract F was developed as an accessible common element park, and Tract D was developed as an accessible common element open space per the original development plan filings. Tract A (bluff) was developed as a restricted common element. Why?

The original land development declarant, Alan Fishman (Land Securities Investors), fully understood the steep terrain of Tract A (bluff), along with the dangerous wildlife (rattlesnake) nesting grounds. The entire community needed to be surveyed during the land development process, and these findings needed to be fully disclosed to whichever builder would later purchase the approved development from him. Alan knew full well that he would be required to disclose this information and thereby proactively developed Tract A as “restricted” due to these liability risks. When Ryland purchased the approved filings from Alan and started to build Chatfield Bluffs South, they communicated this restriction to homeowners.

Tract A is restricted for one simple reason — liability. Alan Fishman had a piece of raw land that he wanted to develop and sell to a builder for profit. To make the deal attractive to a future builder, and maximize his return, he divided the south common-element space into two sections: Tract D, which he made accessible open space for the community to enjoy, and Tract A, which he made restricted to protect the community from the terrain and rattlesnake nesting grounds — and to avoid liability exposure to himself (Land Securities Investors).

There is not a single home builder that would ever allow access to terrain as steep and hazardous as the rattlesnake nesting grounds in Tract A of Chatfield Bluffs — not Ryland (now part of Lennar), nor Toll Brothers, KB Home, Taylor Morrison, Century, Meritage, or Pulte. The liability of granting access to such dangers is so great that it would amount to total negligence on their part and would guarantee lawsuits.

That's why access to Tract A is restricted!

Legal Development Protections

These legal filings protect every homeowner’s financial investment by defining the permitted land uses within the community. They establish certainty and predictability for our real estate investments. Even if a subsequent Board attempted to alter the status of any area after the 10-year window had passed, they could not do so without first submitting a new development plan that would “redevelop” that portion of the community. This is the only legal way to supersede these filings.

“No HOA Board in the State of Colorado has the authority to change a land development filing. The only way to alter land use established in an existing filing is to file a redevelopment plan.”

The current Board is now in violation of Colorado real estate and development law by altering this “access” restriction without following the legal process required to do so. They can, of course, claim on paper that Tract A is now “accessible,” but such a claim is meaningless and has no legal standing under the development laws that govern all land and structures built in the State of Colorado. In doing so, they have completely circumvented the development process required by Jefferson County planning and zoning ordinances.

This Is About Protecting Value, Not Resisting Progress

This is not about resisting progress in the community — it’s about protecting your home's value and holding any Board’s actions accountable to the governing CC&R document that explicitly prioritizes your home's valuation above anything else.

Again, the Preamble and Article IX, Section 1 of the CC&Rs clearly state the document's purpose:

“...for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of said property...”
“...to enhance the value, desirability, and attractiveness of the Lots and subserve and promote the sale thereof.”

There can be no decision by any Board that contradicts this legally binding mandate in the CC&R document. This document legally protects your real estate investment from human error, misguidance, and negligence.

Your real estate investment here in Chatfield Bluffs is fully protected by law under this binding document. This is a Covenant-Controlled Community — as etched in stone right at the entrance. Stated another way, we are a community that is controlled by this Covenant (Legal agreement). There is a Covenantal Duty by each of us to the other to maintain our individual properties for the purpose of protecting our collective property valuations. It's that simple.

When we elect a Board to manage the daily business of the community, they too are bound by that Covenantal Duty to protect property valuations — a duty the current Board has decided to ignore. This is why a Recall Vote has been initiated.

Board-Initiated, Not Mandated

Did you know that no state, county, or city authority has directed the Board to take these actions? This was a Board-initiated decision—one that disregarded valuation data, legal exposure, tax implications, wildlife impacts, and known terrain hazards. Because of the current Board’s actions, the future value of your home is now at risk.

60% of the Bluff Is Already Accessible

One final data point before we move on: Tract D, the accessible open-space area, covers over 16 acres of land. Tract A, the restricted area along the bluff, is roughly 11 acres. This means that when Alan Fishman originally developed the property, he designated 60% of the south land area as accessible — and restricted only 40% in Tract A due to the liability issues already discussed.

This raises an important question: What exactly is the Board attempting to do? Sixty percent of the southern land is already accessible to the community. So why are the Board and a few individual homeowners so adamant about accessing the restricted 40% area, which contains treacherous terrain and dangerous rattlesnake nesting grounds — especially when doing so risks lowering valuations across the entire neighborhood? Something just doesn’t add up.

Join The Conversation

The intent of this website is to educate the neighborhood on every matter concerning Chatfield Bluffs South. Most likely, this is the first time you have heard of the issues presented in this section, which have been discussed for the past few months by only a small group of residents.

Getting this information in your hands to hear your voice on the matter is an important goal of this site. Now you know more of the facts concerning your real estate investment that your neighbors have been fighting to maintain on your behalf.

It should now be clear to you what has transpired over the past few months and how your real estate investment could be impacted if the current Board is allowed to continue making these errant decisions. On Thursday, November 20, 2025, a Special Recall Vote will take place to either remove or retain the current Board members. If you are concerned with the valuation issues and Board actions presented in this section, let your voice be heard and vote NO to retain the current Board.

If you want to keep informed on this issue, email info@chatfieldvalues.com for future updates.