I don’t think the advice offered here is entirely reliable
@kiwipaul said:
OP …
OP? again, easy on the initials, please
… submit a motion to the EC for the upcomming EC meeting asking that all owners that have have made alterations without a relevant byalw must within 2 weeks show that they intend to submit a relevant bylaw within the following 4 weeks covering said alterations.
You are asking the EC to compel owners to submit a by-law and the EC isn’t entitled to do that.
Any owner that dosn’t comply and has made alterations the EC will have a bylaw drawn up at the owners cost and voted on at the next general meeting.
This would require a by-law to either be in place or to be passed to make this enforceable. Again, the EC can’t demand this unless a by-law is already in place.
I have been informed (from another forum) that the EC can get a bylaw written to address these situations and bill the offending owner for the cost of having the bylaw written.
I don’t think this is true and I would take this more seriously if you were quoting a strata lawyer rather than ‘another forum’ where opinions are unlikely to be any more reliable that those expressed here. This one, though, sounds like nonsense to me.
If they decline to do this I consider that you have every reason to go ahead with your alterations without having a bylaw written.
No, they don’t! Two or even three wrongs don’t make a right. What has clearly happened is that Adammark has come in on the other side of a transition from a laissez faire EC to one that wants to do the right thing (and save themselves the expense of fixing up unauthorised alterations).
What happened in the past has little or no bearing on whether or not alterations comply with by-laws and strata laws. You may feel morally justified in doing the wrong thing just as you may feel aggrieved when you get a CTTT order telling you to scrap all your expensive alterations and reinstate common property to its previous state.
Prior illegal work doesn’t give you the right to go ahead with your own unauthorised work.
There are two separate issues here. The first is Adammark’s wish to enclose their balcony. Unlike in previous years, they have a EC that’s doing things by the book, so they need to propose an exclusive use by-law, taking responsibility for their alterations and paying for the cost of having such a by-law passed (because they are the sole beneficiaries of it).
The other balconies are a separate issue and something that the EC should be pursuing at the same time – although they don’t have to. However, what they could be saying to owners is either come in on this by-law (as another poster suggested) and accept responsibility for your alterations.
I also have to say that if Adammark is waiting for the situation with the other balconies to be resolved before they make a move, they won’t be calling in the builders any time soon.
Finally, and completely separately, the EC should be drafting their own by-law that says that alterations to common property can’t be made without the express approval of the Owners Corp but if any are done without approval, then the current owner and subsequent owners are responsible for all repairs and maintenance.
My advice to Adammark is DON’T over-complicate this with other issues about who did what in the past. Do the right thing for your own plans and let others worry about past mistakes.