Re: Goodbye lawn, hello concrete

Here’s an update on the above issues. The area has been concreted and the lawn is gone. 

Interestingly the meeting minutes include the following note. “this approval does not provide any owner permission to park on common property and is not considered as creating a new parking space. The reason for the works is to provide better access to the garage for lot x as they were driving over the lawns due to the restrictive nature of the driveway”. 

This is not true as the previous owners seemed to have managed for the previous 10 years, anyway to add insult to injury the lot owner and his son now park on the new concrete every day as their garage is converted to a games room. 

I did apply to NCAT and we recently had our Fair Trading mediation stage. The Secretary who attended said they want eveyone to get along and don’t want to Issue Notices to Comply to the other people who park on the lawns. The Secretary said they would instead speak to the people parking on the lawns and tell them to stop. When I mentioned the new concrete area is now being used for parking which contradicts the note on the EGM minutes and is in breach of one of our existing bylaws I was told to get over it. So I now have the option to pursue these matters at NCAT.

I don’t think it’s worthwhile going to NCAT about the lot owner and his son parking on the new concrete area as all they need to do is ask for and get permission to park there and they are off the hook.

We have our AGM in December and I’d like to include a motion to get the lot owner to pay for the concreting as he is the only one who has benefitted from the change.  At last year’s AGM he did volunteer to pay for the concreting when I raised the issue of the damage caused to the lawns.

Hopefully depending on how it’s worded when the lot owner sees it in print they will realise that OC funds shouldn’t have been used for this work as no one apart from him has benefitted.

Would this motion be possible and how should it be worded?