Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I think you need a sign on the driveway warning drivers to proceed at walking pace as there might be children playing and pedestrians using the driveway. Good to hear that the kids are out doing healthy things in the fresh air rather than inside with their ‘devices’.
Default bylaw 7 sounds draconian. When we, in the ACT, had a lawyer review our rules, she suggested something along those lines. The EC did not propose it since we encourage kids to enjoy our common property.
The OC did adopt a rule requiring drivers to take care and to allow the OC to post a speed limit.
Seriously, “in a 20+ villa complex … children … play on our busy driveways”, how busy can they be? Sounds more like a quiet cul-de-sac to me with only 20 or so units.
Don’t know about the legislation or your by-laws but in these days of home offices and telecommuting there would be a lot of business that one could do without anyone being in the slightest bit bothered.
Unusually, I am inclined to agree with Austman rather than Jimmy T. Yes, the OC has to maintain the gutter whether it was well maintained previously or not. However, if there was no negligence or defect of the common property because the gutter had been well maintained, I don’t see how the OC is liable to pay for the car owner’s bad luck in a storm.
Austman, above is correct. 2.7m minimum width is the standard if you have a wall or other obstruction on one side and another parking space on the other side. If you can ‘borrow’ door opening space from adjacent spaces on both sides the minimum is 2.4m.
@justsaying said:
Car spaces are not supposed to be general storage areasIf the OC were to decide that some amount of storage was reasonable then they could be storage areas as well. An OC is a democracy, believe it or not! In our OC we have a general meeting resolution that assigns particular common property parking spaces to particular units and the conditions of that assignment permit moderate amounts of storage subject to conditions to do with excessive quantities, unsightliness and safety.
and there may be valid concerns related to unsightliness, fire safety and the effectiveness of sprinklers.
Maybe, but that can be taken into account in OC-agreed rules about what amount or type of storage is permissible.
Usually there is a provision in the Act or the default rules/bylaws that allows the EC to appoint a representative to enter a unit to inspect or undertake necessary maintenance of the common property. Reasonable notice must be given etc. If entry is still not permitted then it would be the unit/lot owner who is in breach of the rules.
I would take it up with your EC and/or strata manager.
If you take that route, which seems reasonable, then it could be good to explain personally to the 4 on the EC that your action is not anything personal towards them. Nonetheless, if it turns out that the EC is rapped over the knuckles and told firmly about the OC’s responsibility to repair and maintain common property, then they might learn to be less confident in the one person who seems to have undue influence.
I think Whale is correct. If the pipe is a tributary of the main pipe and it only services your lot then a fault in that pipe, and further damage as a consequence of the fault, is most likely maintenance that is your, the lot owner’s, responsibility.
I think insurance would only cover it if the damage were due to a specific event eg. the pipe was damaged by some event causing the stormwater to escape the pipe and erode the ground; just becoming leaky after 24 years of wear and tear is not an event.
Ditto. In the ACT, the EC can call a general meeting any time it likes (subject to proper notice etc). Alternatively a petition by at least 25% of owners specifying the matter to be decided can require the EC to call a meeting.
In the ACT, where I am, you can amend the sinking fund plan at any general meeting. I also can’t see anything that would prevent a general meeting from amending the budget resolutions, including reducing the remaining levy payments, between AGMs. If it is the same where you are, I think you could change your financial arrangements in the light of the changed situation. The general meeting would have to satisfy all the usual requirements for giving notice etc. If you need a particular class of resolution for your budget decisions at the AGM (eg. a special resolution), you would need the same class of resolution to amend those resolutions at this later general meeting. [In the ACT we went from needing a special resolution to only ordinary a few years ago.]
I assume you have found that the maintenance cost for something is likely to be less than expected when your sinking fund plan was adopted.
[You do have a sinking fund plan, don’t you?]
Why not just stick with the agreed levies for this year? Then next year, in the light of the new information, the AGM can pass a resolution to amend the sinking fund plan. Part of that amended plan would be a revised schedule of anticipated levies for each of the remaining years of the plan.
The money from this year’s contribution would not be lost. It can just sit in an interest-bearing account and slightly lower levies will be required in each of the next several years.
It is not unusual and quite reasonable for the managing agent to just want to communicate via one person from the EC. Often it is in the management contract that the EC will nominate one person for communication with the managing agent.
The secretary or the chair are obvious people though it is reasonable that the treasurer might communicate directly about financial matters.
You could propose that the EC formally resolves that you be the liaison person for the managing agent. Normally this might seem a bit excessive when everyone is being reasonable, but sometimes you have to use formality and process to keep things on track when you are dealing with people who are not being reasonable.
At least people are looking at standards to get a feel for what is reasonable. If the spaces are shorter than the current standard but the manoeuvring space is wider, then perhaps the current standard could be reasonably used to say how much sticking out of the space is reasonable and how much is not.
I recall an occasion when parking was discussed and some people argued that anything less than 3m wide parking spaces were intolerable. A reading of standards would have been worthwhile then. The standard seem well thought out. Minimum widths vary considerably depending on whether there is the ability to borrow door opening space from an adjacent clear area or parking spaces and on whether the manoeuvring space is more or less tight.
At least the managing agent seems to have the situation sussed enough to check with another EC member before going ahead.
Perhaps the EC just needs to manage the difficult guy by specifying jobs very precisely, more so than might be necessary in other circumstances, then insisting that the managing agent be used to obtain a trades person. Use the formality of EC resolutions to do particular things, to delegate particular tasks to particular people etc. In other circumstances this might be overly bureaucratic but bureaucracy and proper process can be your friend when you need it.
I think an EGM could pass a resolution that henceforth the size of the EC shall be (say) 6, which would stand until a later general meeting decided that it should be some other number. However, the EC is only elected at the AGM.
I would think that the pragmatic thing is to accept that the two who were elected without written evidence of their willingness to be nominated were properly elected. Clearly they were wiling or they would have resigned.