@HarbourView said:
I think I prefer the bureaucratic approach as major works have been done in the past by owners, with permission, but not by special resolution or bylaws. After 20 years there are only a few of us who remember what happened or why and new owners make assumptions that are incorrect.
I stand by my previous comments.
If you create a bylaw granting permission you would have to be very careful about the wording as a bylaw is permanent change and passes on to new owners of the lot when sold. A bylaw can be cancelled but only with a 75% vote of the OC (not sure if the recipient has to agree as well (as in the case of a Exclusive use bylaw)).
Also with a bylaw after a number of years maybe the owners does thing you don’t agree with and he tells you he has a bylaw authorizing this, you would then have to go to CTTT to obtain a ruling and as I keep hearing the CTTT decision are a lottery and having a bylaw would significantly increase his chances of winning (even if it didn’t specifily grant exclusive use)
With a simple motion granting permission, this could be withdrawn at any time (if unhappy with whats being done) with simple majority and tell the owner to restore area to original condition. If he goes to CTTT he has no bylaw to explain his actions and any motion he produces as proof of his action is only valid so long as it’s not revoked by the EC.
Also if you say major alteration have already been done on just a motion, and you have let it go what are the chances of obtaining a successful ruling if you apply different rules to different owners without good reasons.