I agree with Jimmy. If the SC preferred to do nothing about the cats, then they would have been better off to have not minuted anything. Recording a decision to permit something that is not permitted by the bylaws could be called ‘a courageous decision’.
The bylaw seems OK as far as it goes but it does seem to me to invite being held in contempt because it allows some silly outcomes. It does not specify anything about types of animals. Is a goldfish in a bowl prohibited? What about a budgie in a cage? OK, then, if a budgie is OK, what about 50 birds in an aviary?
Why not permit people to have animals within the lot so long as they are controlled and supervised when on the common property and the numbers and/or types within lots are limited in a reasonable way?