# Does a small self-managed HOA need a separate architectural review committee?

Most small self-managed HOAs can let the board act as the architectural committee. How to confirm it in your CC&Rs, state rules, and a charter template.

## The short answer

For most small self-managed associations, no — a separate architectural review committee is not automatically required. Whether the board absorbs architectural review or a separate group handles it depends on two things: your governing documents and, in a handful of states, statute. Some declarations do mandate a committee separate from the board, which is why the CC&Rs are always the first stop.

Where the CC&Rs do not mandate a separate committee, the widely accepted rule is that the board may either serve as the architectural committee itself or delegate its architectural-control powers to a committee the board creates. Smaller communities often skip the separate committee entirely, with board members handling reviews directly, and there is nothing improper about that arrangement where the documents allow it.

This guide walks through how to check your documents, the states where statute changes the picture, sensible committee size, and how to handle the conflict-of-interest questions that come with a board doubling as its own review body.

## Check what your CC&Rs actually require

Read the architectural-control article of your declaration before deciding anything. Declarations tend to follow one of three patterns: they name a standing committee and describe how it is appointed; they assign review to the board or to a committee the board may appoint; or they are silent on who reviews. Under the second and third patterns, the board may generally serve as the review body itself. Under the first, you need to appoint the committee the documents describe — the board cannot simply ignore a mandated structure.

One consequence of the board serving as the review body is worth stating plainly: there is no separate body to hear appeals, so the board's decision on an application is also the association's final decision. That is not a defect, but owners should not be left guessing about it.

Industry guidance recommends that if the board is the architectural committee, the association's rules say so explicitly and state that applications should be submitted to the board. A one-page adopted rule removes ambiguity for owners and gives every application a clear destination.

## A ten-minute decision checklist

Run through this checklist at a board meeting and record the answers in the minutes. It settles the question once, instead of re-litigating it every time an application arrives.

```
DECISION CHECKLIST: WHO REVIEWS ARCHITECTURAL REQUESTS?

1. WHAT DO THE DOCUMENTS SAY?
   [ ] Does the declaration mandate a separate architectural committee?
   [ ] Does it say "the board, or a committee appointed by the board"?
   [ ] Is it silent on who reviews? (The board generally may serve.)
   [ ] Do the bylaws add anything about committees or appointments?

2. MAY THE BOARD SERVE?
   [ ] No CC&R clause mandating a separate committee
   [ ] No state statute restricting board service (see the table below --
       Texas over 40 lots restricts it; Arizona requires a board member
       as committee chair)
   [ ] If in Texas with more than 40 lots: has the required candidate
       solicitation been run, and did it produce eligible volunteers?

3. QUORUM AND PROCESS
   [ ] How many members must vote to decide an application?
   [ ] If one member recuses, do we still have a quorum?
   [ ] What is our deadline to decide? (Check the declaration for any
       deemed-approval language.)
   [ ] Where are applications submitted, and who logs them?

4. PUT IT IN WRITING
   [ ] Adopt a rule stating who the review body is
   [ ] State that decisions of the board acting as the committee are final
   [ ] Publish the application form and the submission address
```

## State rules worth knowing before you decide

Most state statutes are silent on whether an association needs a separate architectural committee, which leaves the governing documents in control. A few states are not silent, and two of them point in opposite directions. The table below covers six states we verified; if your state is not listed, your governing documents almost certainly control by default, but it is worth having counsel confirm.

Texas deserves a close read for boards near the threshold. In associations with more than 40 lots, outside the declarant period, board members and their households are generally barred from the architectural review authority — but the statute's candidate-solicitation framework lets the board appoint otherwise-ineligible people, including its own members, if the required solicitation fails to produce enough eligible volunteers. That fallback matters in exactly the small-community scenario where nobody steps forward. Arizona runs the other way: the committee must include a board member, who chairs it, so a fully board-free committee is not an option there.

This table and this guide are operational guidance, not legal advice. Statutes change and subsections get renumbered; verify the current statutory text or consult association counsel before relying on any row here.

| State | Rule for a small self-managed board | Statute / authority |
| --- | --- | --- |
| California | No statute requires a separate committee. A director or committee member is barred from voting on review of a proposed physical change to their own separate interest; the statutory bar does not extend to a neighbor's or other owner's project. | Cal. Civ. Code § 5350(b)(5) |
| Texas | Over 40 lots and outside the declarant period, a current board member, that member's spouse, or a household resident generally may not serve on the architectural review authority — but if the required candidate solicitation yields too few eligible volunteers, the board may appoint otherwise-ineligible persons, including its own members. | Tex. Prop. Code §§ 209.00505, 209.00506 |
| Florida | No statute requires a separate committee. Authority to review and approve plans is valid only to the extent specifically stated or reasonably inferred in the declaration of covenants or authorized published guidelines. | Fla. Stat. § 720.3035 |
| Arizona | Any design review or architectural committee for a planned community must include at least one member of the board of directors, who must serve as the committee's chairperson — a wholly non-board committee is not permitted. | Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 33-1817(B)(1) |
| Colorado | No statute requires a separate committee. CCIOA requires only that decisions approving or denying architectural or landscaping changes follow the standards and procedures in the declaration, rules, or bylaws and not be made arbitrarily or capriciously. | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-33.3-302(3)(b) |
| Georgia | Neither the Property Owners' Association Act nor the Nonprofit Corporation Code mandates a separate architectural committee or sets architectural-review requirements; governing documents control (2026 SB 406 did not change this). | O.C.G.A. § 44-3-220 et seq. |

## How many members, and can they be board members?

If you do form a committee, the widely repeated practitioner norm is a minimum of three members, or five, always an odd number — an odd count guarantees a majority on every vote and eliminates tie-breakers. That is industry practice, not a statutory rule, but it shows up consistently across management and practitioner sources for good reason. On a three-person body, plan for what happens when one member recuses: two remaining members can still decide, but you should know in advance whether your documents treat that as a quorum.

Can a board member sit on the committee? In most states, yes — nothing in the statutes we verified for California, Florida, Colorado, or Georgia prevents it, and the governing documents control. Arizona goes further and requires it. Texas is the caution: above 40 lots and outside the declarant period, board members and their households are presumptively ineligible, subject to the solicitation fallback described above. Check the table, then check your CC&Rs.

## Conflicts of interest when the board reviews its own neighborhood

The clearest statutory line we found is California's, and it is narrower than boards often assume: a director or committee member may not vote on review of a proposed physical change to their own separate interest. The bar does not reach a neighbor's or a friend's project. None of the statutes we verified imposes a recusal duty for reviewing a neighbor's application — that is a governance and best-practice matter, not a legal trigger, and guide-readers in any state should be careful not to treat it as one.

Best practice, though, is stricter than statute, and for a board that is also the review body it is worth adopting formally. Practitioner guidance is consistent: disclose any conflict — including non-financial ones such as a personal relationship with the applicant or prior public opposition to the project — before discussion begins, then recuse. Recusal means leaving the room, not discussing, not voting, and having the recusal recorded in the minutes. The working rule is simple: when in doubt, disclose and recuse.

The reason to be rigorous is the appeal-finality point from earlier. When the board is the review body, its decision is final, so the minutes and the recusal record are the only evidence that the decision was made fairly. A logged recusal costs one member one vote; an unlogged conflict can cost the association the credibility of every decision it has made.

## Charter and recusal policy you can adopt

If the board will serve as the review body, adopt a short charter saying so and a recusal policy alongside it. The full text is below for copy-paste; a fill-in-ready version with blanks for your association details is also available to download as PDF or Word. Fill in the blanks, put it to a board vote, and attach it to the minutes.

```
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CHARTER (BOARD ACTING AS COMMITTEE)

Adopted by the Board of Directors of [ASSOCIATION NAME] on [DATE].

1. AUTHORITY. Under Article [X], Section [Y] of the Declaration,
   architectural review for [ASSOCIATION NAME] is performed by the
   Board of Directors acting as the Architectural Review Committee.

2. SUBMISSIONS. Owners submit applications to [EMAIL OR ADDRESS]
   using the association's application form. The association will
   acknowledge receipt within [NUMBER] days.

3. REVIEW. Applications are decided by majority vote of the
   directors eligible to vote. The Board will decide each complete
   application within [NUMBER] days of receipt.

4. RECORDS. Each application, the decision, and the reasons for
   any denial will be recorded in the association's records.

5. FINALITY. Because the Board serves as the review body, its
   decision on an application is the association's final decision.

RECUSAL POLICY

A director will disclose, before discussion begins, any interest
in an application, including where: (a) the application concerns
the director's own lot or unit; (b) the applicant's property
adjoins or directly faces the director's; (c) the director has a
personal or business relationship with the applicant; or (d) the
director has made prior public statements for or against the
project. A recusing director will leave the room during
discussion and will not vote, and the recusal will be recorded
in the minutes. When in doubt, disclose and recuse.
```

**Architectural review charter and recusal policy** — Fill-in-ready charter adopting the board as the architectural review committee, with the recusal policy attached. Complete the blanks and put it to a board vote. Download: [PDF](https://violationflow.homes/downloads/acc-charter-template.pdf) · [DOCX](https://violationflow.homes/downloads/acc-charter-template.docx)

## Where ViolationFlow fits

A board that is also its own architectural committee carries the whole paper trail itself: who applied, when the application was complete, when the clock started, who recused, and what was decided. ViolationFlow's ARC request tracking gives each application a case with deadlines and a dated timeline, so the record builds itself as the board works. If a decision is ever questioned — and with no appeal body, the record is all there is — the timeline exports to PDF for the minutes or for counsel.

The same tools cover the enforcement side when an owner builds without approval: templated email notices with every send logged, and a configurable escalation ladder where advancing a step is always an explicit board action, never automatic. Owner links let an applicant check their own case status from a private URL instead of emailing the board for updates. For how the request workflow runs day to day, see the guide on ARC request tracking for small associations.

## FAQ

### Can a board member sit on the architectural review committee?

In most states, yes — the governing documents control, and nothing in the statutes verified here for California, Florida, Colorado, or Georgia prevents it. Arizona actually requires a board member on the committee, serving as chair. Texas is the exception: over 40 lots and outside the declarant period, board members and their households are generally ineligible, unless the required candidate solicitation fails to produce enough eligible volunteers.

### How many members should an HOA architectural review committee have?

The common practitioner norm is three members, or five — always an odd number, so every vote produces a majority and there are no ties. This is industry practice, not a statutory rule, so check your CC&Rs for any stated minimum.

### If the board acts as the architectural committee, who hears appeals?

No one — when the board is the review body, there is no separate body to appeal to, and its decision is final. Say this plainly in an adopted rule so owners are not surprised, and keep a thorough written record since the minutes are the only account of how the decision was reached.

### Does a board member have to recuse from a neighbor's application?

Not by statute in any state verified here. California's voting bar covers only review of changes to the member's own separate interest, not a neighbor's project. Recusing from a next-door neighbor's application is still widely recommended practice: disclose the relationship, leave the room, do not vote, and record the recusal in the minutes.

### Do we need to formally announce that the board is the committee?

It is strongly recommended. Adopt a short rule or charter stating that the board serves as the architectural review committee, where applications are submitted, and that the board's decisions are final. It takes one meeting and prevents most disputes about who had authority to decide.

## Related guides

- [ARC request tracking for small associations](https://violationflow.homes/guides/arc-request-tracking-small-associations)
- [How long does an HOA have to respond to an architectural request?](https://violationflow.homes/guides/hoa-architectural-request-response-time-deemed-approved)
- [How to legally deny an HOA architectural request](https://violationflow.homes/guides/how-to-deny-hoa-architectural-request)

HTML: https://violationflow.homes/guides/small-hoa-board-as-architectural-committee
Site: https://violationflow.homes
Brand: ViolationFlow