This item on the agenda seeks agreement that each lot owner should pay $275 for this upgrade.
A good Chair might call that motion out of order for the very reasons expressed by JT above, i.e. the cost for this (s 108) matter should be based on unit entitlement (UE).
You might like to, for fun, ask the Chair to make a ruling on the validity of this motion as it appears to be contrary to the Act in that the cost of such an improvement to the common property should be based on UE and the motion seeks to do something else.
Nothing like putting the agent, or even more funny a volunteer, in the hot seat by asking for a such a ruling.
The wording of the motion would be useful to see.
Does the motion actually say that by SR the OC approve of the addition to / alteration of the common property.
Here is where s 108 gets a little entertaining as it is for ” the purpose of improving or enhancing the common property.”
Not really doing that are we, we are more realistically improving the amenity of the lots by making this change to the commons. The Act doesn’t really say much about changing the commons for the purpose of improving the amenity of the lot outside of what s 110 allows.
Still this seems to be a UE based cost.
Shared living – has its ups and downs