- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
Hi FlatChatters, apologies for the length of this but hopefully it all relates and makes some sense.
I have read through a number of CP issues here in an attempt to answer my current problems and believe I have the answer but would like confirmation, if possible, on a few points.
Scenario 1:
In preparation for landscaping works a couple of year ago a new owner-couple asked about planting a particular tree species around their Lot.
Other longer-term owners advised not to do this as this species had caused problems previously in the 14-year strata’s life and had been removed. Advice from the landscaper also stated not to do it in the intended location due to potential problems with storm-water pipe location directly under plus block retaining-walls in close proximity.
Subsequently, the owners went ahead with the plantings.
At out next AGM (2017) their actions were raised and, following some discussion, a narrow majority agreed to let the trees remain on the proviso that the Lot-owners took responsibility for all maintenance & repairs to the trees plus repair any CP damage caused by the trees.
Our latest (2018) AGM is upon us. Having read the minutes of the last AGM, which we must accept as true and correct, I see that the previous meeting appears to have agreed to only maintenance of the trees and nothing else.
Given that I believed we had wanted and agreed that the strata was not to be responsible for damage caused by the trees, the minutes appear not to be true and correct.
Question(s):
- Have I a fair case for objecting to the minutes as-published?
- Can the meeting ignore my understanding and leave the situation as-is?
- If the minutes are amended, is a by-law required to place the onus back on the owners or is some other “special” approval available that has legal merit?
NOTE: I have read an amount around the subject and interpret things to mean we would absolutely need a by-law (at some cost) plus a signed document from the owners agreeing to our requirements.
- Is my understanding correct?
- Who gets to pay all the costs of by-laws and legals?
Scenario 2:
Another, first-floor, owner is wanting to install an aircon unit.
Their intended place for the compressor is affixed to an external wall of the relevant bedroom, some three-plus metres above the ground.
Background:
There is a small balcony outside the bedroom which could be utilized but this has been converted into a secluded garden space and so-far the owners are refusing to consider it as an option.
Another owner has compressors installed at ground-level, the location of one of which could accommodate a second unit with no issues, but the applicant is averse to paying the extra cost for pipe-work and electricals and I have issues with the visual aspect of conduits running everywhere.
If the compressor goes on the wall I have concerns about this being a precedent for other installs and, whilst this one may not be so obvious, other owners may want to do the same using similar, but far more visible locations.
Research has raised the potential need for council approval due to the intended height of the compressor install and my local certifier has gone some way to agreeing but would need to check more fully, at a cost.
Question(s):
- Has anyone experience of this particular scenario and what was the result?
- It would appear a by-law would need to be created plus, as per the above tree issue, a document agreeing to responsibilities and signed by the Lot owner. Is that correct?
- If council approval is required is it the OC who foots the bill or the lot owner?
- Can the OC insist the compressor go on the balcony?
Thanks in advance.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.