[fcd]

Jimmy, yep I got that there were no fences at present.

I was thinking more of the situation of installing a new fence or other dividing structure. There’s clearly a “who-pays” component of the original question for installing some sort of property boundary marking – which I think might be best considered under dividing fences principles.

Also I suspect simply marking the property boundaries with a permanent survey marker or other low-set device would be ineffective against the rules-don’t-apply-to-me crowd. (who will continue to park as they currently do) So will simply provide clarity of which cars are in the wrong place but create further work for the committee to then try deal with each car – probably case by case for every occurrence.

[fcd]

Actually if each of the villas are on a separate (privately owned) Title then it sounds like you’re dealing with a “dividing fences” matter. (between each villa and the Common Property). Same as if you were dealing with a fence between the Common Property and an unrelated neighbouring property.

If so then the general guiding principle is that the cost of any surveying, and construction of any dividing fence/structure would be shared 50-50 between the two parties.

Getting agreement ahead of time is “better” but not completely necessary. When agreement can’t be reached usually one party (the OC in this case?) could construct a not-extravagant “fence” and send the other party an invoice for 50% of costs. If the OC chooses the quote/contractor this would also help ensure the “fence” structure was of consistent appearance and construction-quality across the whole property.

Most states’ laws will fully support 50% of a “reasonable” fence structure as an enforceable debt, regardless of whether the other party has agreed or not. (but it’s better if they do agree)
In the very worst case the debt is recoverable against the proceeds of sale of the other property. Also depending how the OC issued or structured the debt to each villa owner you might find that a non-paying villa owner becomes “non-financial” and unable to vote on matters at OC meetings.

Would suggest dividing total costs by length of all “fencing” constructed (= $/m figure). This makes calculation of costs to each villa straight-forward. (50% of $/m by the length of fencing for that villa)

I don’t see why this would not also apply to lesser “fencing” if you did not actually want a fence constructed for some reason. Such as rows of timber bollards, such as you see around recreation areas. Or any other infrastructure used to delineate the property boundary.

[fcd]

I guess it depends on how the driveway space is perceived.

Is it as single-purpose-use? (cars only) To be kept free and clear for the exclusive use of vehicles?
Or can it be a shared, multi-purpose space that creates benefits for the townhouse ‘community’ beyond just vehicle movements? E.g., Imagine having a Christmas ‘street party’ on the driveway. Residents sharing food and conversation and deliberately choosing (for a couple of hours) to not use their cars.

In quiet streets kids use their driveways and the road as extended play areas, and this ‘idyllic’ image is something many people remember fondly, or aspire to. The OC community can choose whether they want to promote this sort of environment on their driveway.

[fcd]

A couple of things.

You can’t actually force control over someone else’s behaviour. Plus while you can apply some sort of management to reduce risk, you can never completely eliminate risk to zero.
So if you’ve made reasonable attempts to make your community aware of the risk, then there’s not much else you can do. (You shouldn’t have to give yourself an ulcer worrying over this.)

Let’s be really clear here; Kids on scooters do not hurt cars.
It’s the vehicle movements that cause the hazard. So rather than stopping the kids actually forming the community that us adults often fail to do, and having some healthy outdoor fun to go with it, how about directing some energy to addressing the cars’ problem? Even in the event of a collision I’d say (as a non-lawyer) that the vehicle driver makes a much-much larger contribution to ‘negligence’ than the OC does.

Plus letting the kids have some more free rein to scoot more often will tend to improve their safety – other members of the community will have seen them and have every reason to expect them to present on the driveway. It’s a phenomena that’s been studied and reported on that drivers will drive to the conditions they see/expect to see. Such as studies of bicycle rider safety which show that the more riders are in an area the rate of crashes (per 1000) will actually fall because of a safety in numbers/noticeability effect.

So are drivers expecting to see a driveway free and clear to ‘speed’ on, or are they expecting a driveway ‘congested’ with other non-vehicle users?

[fcd]

Has something changed recently to cause this disturbance?

• More people living next door and using the ‘plumbing’ more often?
• Next door have an illness that is causing them to use the plumbing more frequently at night?
• One or both parties are shift-workers or otherwise active when the other/s are sleeping and vice versa?
• This effected owner is sleeping more lightly due to factors in their own life?

Generally the OC has a responsibility to address excessive disturbances, using anything from Notices to Comply right through to altering some aspect of the Common Property building structure/services.

Generally living in close proximity means you will hear some noise from your neighbours. Zero noise is impossible to achieve. But needing to tolerate ‘some’ noise doesn’t mean any/all noise is reasonable.

So, realistically, how significant is this disturbance? Clearly the owner is highly frustrated, but is that due to the scale of the noise problem, or because they’re fed up and have become hyper-sensitive to the noise?

Then, what is a reasonable response for the OC to make? (that will practically address (‘fix’) the issue, and is within the limits of its authority and responsibilities.)

[fcd]

If the pool and the noise is coming from a next-door property then you’ll need to find out what your local Council’s laws are on noise levels, which usually vary with the time of day.

Individual residents (tenants or owners) can pursue this directly with Council on their own behalf.
Or if the OC considers it a problem for a sufficient number of residents the OC can add support to an existing Council noise enquiry/investigation, or commence one of their own on behalf of effected residents.

[fcd]

I’m wondering about the reasoning behind the one-Lot-one-gate-fob rule.

Perhaps there is only one parking space per unit and in the past units with 2 fobs have been parking more than one car inside? (thus the second car/s were taking others parking spots, or parking in inappropriate places)

If that guess is close to correct then only allowing one fob per Lot would seem to be a reasonable, practical response to limit (eliminate?) the problem.

willy1 – I assume the issue for you is that in the past you and your wife have both had your own sets of keys, each with its own fob for the gate. Perhaps the solution is to instead keep the gate fob in the car, rather than on your car keyring.

[fcd]

Re clear line of sight…when I’m going out i just point it and it is behind the dashboard and it works.  But coming in i have to  open the window and hold my arm out, or sometimes get out of the car.  Even then it takes a lot of clicks.  

The gate control system and its receiving antenna can be in a different location than the gate itself. You need to think about distance and direction to the antenna, NOT distance from the gate.

 

I would have thought the owner corp wd be responsible for a new one as it surely applies to common property?  (Though don’t like my chances)  

Owners Corp has NO control over how you or previous resident/s handle the remote control. E.g., Dropped a lot, Put through the wash, Button pushed too hard all the time, etc., etc.
So it’s common for the remote control for the gate to be deemed property of the individual Lot (like your front door key), but that isn’t necessarily always the case.

We can’t know the details of your individual circumstances- you need to ask a member of your building’s OC committee, or the Strata manager (sends you your levy notices etc).

[fcd]

All wireless devices use radio signals to communicate and it sounds like there is some sort of difference in signal strength reaching the receiving antenna on the gate whether you are going out or coming in.

It could be a larger distance when coming in and the remote signal is weak – A new battery in the remote will help.

But also check that there is a clear line of ‘sight’ from the remote to the antenna;
– No metal parts of the gate or other large blockages between the two.
– The position of the remote is not behind some part of the body of the car. (Does using it pointed through the windscreen, or holding it outside the car window make it better?)

[fcd]

Does anyone know of any legislation that says objects (like planters) must not be placed on balconies in such a way that they render the balustrade climbable? Given the current campaign on childproof windows, this would have to be the logical next step.  

No, but this line of reasoning could lead to some counterproductive outcomes.

Chairs, benches, etc. – moveable and climbable.

Tables, stands – moveable and climbable.

If the safety “logic” follows that line then might as well permanently bolt or lock closed the access door out on to the balcony and be done with it???

[fcd]

[fcd]

There’s a quote usually attributed to a certain Mark Zuckerberg, often held up as an example of a successful innovator in the social economy,

“Move fast and break things. Unless you are breaking stuff, you are not moving fast enough.”

He and his companies have since moved away from using it so often for some reason or other.

The actions of the sharing economy sector appear to show they still firmly follow this ethos.

[fcd]

I’m intrigued by the possible legal ways to block short-stay lets. Could you give some specific info on measures that are legal and that work?

I’d wondered if additional, specific by-laws were required (or not?) that laid any extra expenses/liabilities incurred by the Body Corp/OC on to the owners of short stay lets in the building. Such as,

• Additional cleaning costs.
• If an insurable incident occurred and insurance coverage was refused because the incident was caused by a short stay let and the let was outside a state or local gov’t law/rule/regulation. Could the Body Corp/OC pass the repair costs of the non-insured incident on to the lot/s owner’s?
• Higher building insurance premiums due to short stay lets. (where applicable)
• Call out and additional administration fees for (attempting to?) dealing with noise, parking issues, etc. caused by short stay residents.

Or are there other/simpler methods?

Thanks.

[fcd]

And what’s with the plastic bags screwing up the recycling machinery?  My dog has no trouble ripping a plastic bag to shreds.  Is the recycling machinery made out of recycled paper?  

If you’ve ever seen a paper shredder jammed with paper, or a whipper-snipper jammed with grass wrapped around the shaft, then you’ve got an idea of how multiple layers of many torn plastic bags could cause problems.

There’s also the issue of having recycling items within bags obscuring whether a bag might also contain non-recyclable items. Often the recycling processes your Council contracts can’t just pluck a suspect bag off the production line on its own, and so many of the recyclable items beside the bag get removed as well. These removed items are then often dumped as general waste; nobody is going to open the bags and hand-sort them – too time-consuming and costly. (Besides being an awful thing to have someone do.)

Not all Council recycling contracts are the same, and not all contractors’ recycling capabilities are the same. You really need to check what items can AND can not be recycled in your local area. Just because an item (such as a plastic bag) has a recycling symbol on it doesn’t mean it’s suitable for your recycling bin .

[fcd]

Thinking out loud here – is there a third option? To (perhaps) lease the spaces, say on an annual basis. With lease fees going to OC accounts.

As there’s less spaces than lots, and as lot residents move in/out the parking space needs also change, so you wouldn’t be permanently binding the additional parking spaces to any two (or one?) lot/s.

Set lease fee at an applicable rate for your area and adjust from time to time to reflect changes in value.

Lease could specify various conditions. (such as only available for lease by lot residents, only for their personal/private use (no on-selling), only to be used for parking of a vehicle/trailer, OC has right to remove non-complying cars/objects/junk, and to remove vehicle at end of lease if not removed by leasee.)

The spaces could be protected with lockable bollards. Leasee pays annual fee + key deposit. Deposit returned at end of leasee’s tenure if they return lock and all keys. If they don’t key deposit is retained by OC and pays for locksmith to replace with a new lock.

Could that work????

[Author]

Replies