Am I right in the assumption that given our application was made when the existing ByLaw is in place that they must respond to our current application accordingly, treat it on it’s own merits and not delay for 4 months whilst they attempt to rally support for a No Pets ByLaw change?
Yes you are right, since you have requested permission during your current by-law, your request would fall under that by-law.
And given our exemplary pet ownership history and that the 2nd dog is the exact same breed (albeit a puppy) that they are unreasonably withholding approval?
Only the Tribunal can determine that. Everyone will have a different view on what ‘reasonable’ is. What you may feel is ‘reasonable’ may not be ‘reasonable’ to another owner within your scheme.
You certainly have the option to take the matter to the Tribunal arguing that the OC are taking too long to provide a response. However what you have done incorrectly is what many owners try do, which is, you obtained an animal before obtaining approval from the owners corporation (regardless of how long the OC is taking to provide a response).
Technically you may be in breach of your animals by-law presently. Just because you haven’t heard back from the OC regarding your request for a second dog, this doesn’t give you or any other owner the right to simply take matters into your own hands and bring a new dog into your premises. Your OC could issue you a notice-to-comply and pursue you through the NCAT for a penalty or an order to remove the animal.
Certainly you can rally owners together to try change the keeping of animals by-law in your scheme to a more ‘pet friendly’ version. I guess you could make an application to the NCAT for an order, however since you may be in breach of a by-law, not sure how this will look in front of a Tribunal member.