Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Since it seems there is space for cars, just not properly designated and messy, is it possible to propose that the OC formalises some additional parking? Perhaps a driveway edge could be widened with spaces marked? Perhaps particular owners wanting an additional space could enter an agreement with the OC to fund the provision of the additional space and any future maintenance cost in exchange for a special privilege for the exclusive use of that space?
Termites could be a tricky issue where the approach differs from place to place. I live in a large set of class B townhouses with a lot of common ground that depends for its character on lots of trees. I also have an amateur interest in termites so I have read up about the biology of the local species, their behaviour and identification. We regularly remind owners to have private termite inspections done. ECs over several decades have had a consistent policy of paying for the treatment of any nest of a damaging species found on common property but not funding termite hunting expeditions. The main damaging species in our area typically nests invisibly in the base of trees of which we have very many. Finding the nests would require drilling into the trees and the expense would be large to cover them all. On might argue that we should do that as maintaining common property but drilling all the trees on a regular basis could also increase the risk that our trees get fungal infections and become damaged, perhaps a greater risk and in any case damaging to common property. So, if a unit owner finds termites on their unit area, and obtains permission to test trees in the vicinity, in an inspection at the owner's expense, the OC will fund the treatment of any nests found. Living with termites is part of what we have to accept to have the environment we have, just like we sometimes have snakes and always have possums.
We regularly provide advice about precautions one can take to minimise the risk of termite infestation and encourage private inspections.
In our area (inland and cool winters) the main damaging species of termites generally do not do a lot of damage in one year. They can and have done a lot of damage where inspections were not carried out for many years. On the coast, especially in warmer areas there are species that can do a lot of damage in a few months. For us regular private inspections seem a sufficient precaution and purging the common property of termites is not practical. Even if we got rid of every nest new nests would be established by adults that fly in every year. In contrast, on the coast a zero-tolerance policy on common property or mandated inspections might be appropriate and perhaps the OC should be held liable. In doing so I would hope the decisions would be based on a subtle appreciation of local conditions and species and not result in blanket rules.
Another issue is getting accurate identification of species. I have found half a dozen species on our site but only two of those are generally a concern for structural timber. The others tend to have only small nests without the extensive foraging to remote feeding sites (IE the units) and/or only eat well rotted timbers, if you have the latter sort you had a serious problem before the termites arrived!
Hmm. I checked the letter I had from a property valuer at the time we were planning our extension. It did seem to be in line with what I wrote above from memory. The argument included that there would be little impact on other owners because I stayed within my unit entitlement and funded it entirely myself so there would be little change in the overall costs owners generally. That valuer's opinion was something I had to submit with the Development Approval.
We actually had a debate about this issue in general at an AGM shortly after I extended, though not particularly because of it. One owner proposed that we should apply to have a review and reallocation of unit entitlements. The Act allows that (in the ACT) with a special resolution. The motion was lost resoundingly. I can't remember if the proposer wanted us to all have the same unit entitlements since it was a long time since the place was built and all owners were a similar burden on the OC for ground maintenance and such. Alternatively, he might have wanted to increase the unit entitlements for the minority of units that had had major extensions all within their unit boundaries. I think both views were put during in the debate. Cogent arguments could be made to make the spread of unit entitlements wider or narrower. In the end few cared to change the status quo.
While our unit entitlements reflected the size of units at the start (and their cost to build), most of our costs now are not particularly proportional to unit size; a small unit costs the OC more than half as much as a unit twice as big. Maintenance of our large area of common land is a major cost along with management fees. Larger units might have more people in them and more chance of wearing out the tennis court or playgrounds but there would not be much in it. Insurance is a significant minority of our costs. I agree I may have had a 'free kick' in that I contribute no more to insurance yet my greater improvements have been covered/absorbed in the overall insurance valuation of the property. On the other hand for most corporate expenses my extension made no difference.
I too would worry about disenfranchising people. In recent times our proxy forms have had all the motions numbered and people can direct their proxy to vote yes, no, or abstain on each particular motion. Alternatively they can tick the 'vote as he/she sees fit' box. At least once I have held held up my hand twice for a yes and once for a no (or something like that) since I held proxies for owners with differing views on at least one motion. I know others have done the same in our OC. The abstain option becomes important for special resolutions where the crucial number is how many negatives relative to the total vote. People neither for nor against, present or explicitly abstaining, contribute to the total “present and entitled to vote, in person or by proxy” (the phrasing in the ACT).
We had this question about reassignment of unit entitlements come up when individual townhouses were extended. For example, mine doubled with a second floor it did not have before. The crucial question seemed to be whether the overall value of the property had been substantially altered. Out of 105 units, even doubling one unit did not amount to a substantial increase in the overall value of the entire property (obviously the change is <1%) so no reassignments of unit entitlements was required. The result in practice for us was that even the most substantial changes we could think of would not precipitate a reassignment of unit entitlements.
roha22 said:
2. There are different solas panel types / installation to accomodate for roofs not facing north (for maximum sunlight)
Not sure if there are solar panels manufactured with this feature??
There is no way to make a special kind of panel that can absorb solar energy while facing the wrong way. If the roof is not too steep you could have a frame on a southern roof to hold up the panels so that they face north at a good solar angle. That would add cost and would look a lot worse on the south side. I think people just need to grow up and get used to solar panels. As someone said, they are becoming the Hill's hoist of the 21st century. It is no longer reasonable to say people can't have solar energy equipment. In our (ACT class B) case it was not too hard because we do not have the extra issue that the roof of a townhouse/unit is common land. Having said that, I do think it is reasonable to have some aesthetic preferences.
JimmyT said:
PeterC said:
I would be surprised if other jurisdictions did not have a similarly sensible split of major and minor.
Strata is full of surprises, Peter, and all too few of them are pleasant ones.
Surprise me then! Does every incursion onto common ground require an unopposed resolution in NSW or some other such very high hurdle, no matter how minor? Is there no scope for an EC to exercise some judgement?
Peter C.