› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Common Property › Current Page
- This topic has 18 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by .
-
CreatorTopic
-
05/12/2012 at 3:09 pm #8587
Hi,
We are owners in a block of units, and I wish to submit a proposal to the OC to make better use of a common property lawn area.
Our complex has two buildings, with a large green lawn in between the two buildings. It isn’t currently used much, and it seems a wasted space. I think we could make better use of it, as there are many children in the complex and it would give them a place to play.
To make the area safer, I think it would need to be fenced at either end, and some planting done to make it look nicer. I have got quotes from fencing companies, and from our gardener for the planting. The total cost would be around $5,000.
I think any concerns about damage or noise would be covered by the by-laws, so I don’t think it needs a special by-law to be created.
But – do I need to put a resolution to the AGM for this work, or should I just approach the EC?
Many Thanks
Anna
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
06/12/2012 at 4:36 pm #17316Anonymous
Sad to say, Anna, it sounds like you need a Special Resolution to be approved at a General Meeting with not more than 25% of those voting at the meeting, either present or via proxies, to be in favour. Which means you do, indeed, need a Special By-Law; professionally created, too, probably.
As nice and sensible as it sounds, perhaps not all residents, be they owners or otherwise, might like their peaceful vista turned into a kids play area and I hope you can see the possibility for that to be a legitimate point of view.
But why not take a friendly ‘straw poll’ right now to see how sentiment lies? Before you waste too much time and emotional energy.
06/12/2012 at 6:22 pm #17318AnonymousBS has got it the wrong way round I fear. Err, Blue Swimmer… has got it back to front. 75% of voters need to be in favor. Not more than 25% voting against.
06/12/2012 at 7:21 pm #17319I’m not sure if it would require a special resolution in any case. Is it a change of use that would require a by-law? If you had an activities room and put gym equipment in it, would that need a by-law? It’s not exclusive use, that’s for sure.
I think all it would require would be a simple majority but – and this is a big but – there might have to be a by-law to control the hours of use otherwise the people living next to it will have something to say.
Oh … and that reminds me … a lot of buildings have by-laws saying children aren’t allowed to play on common property. If you have that, then you’d better get that proxy harvester fired up – you will need it.
Yes, I know I’ve contradicted myself but if I can’t beat myself up, who can I?
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
06/12/2012 at 9:45 pm #17323Anna R – I’ve always wondered why an Owners Corporation would need to put and pass a Special Resolution at a General Meeting of Owners in order to change / add to its own Common Property, but it does – refer the relevant section of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act below:
65A Owners corporation may make or authorise changes to common property
(1) For the purpose of improving or enhancing the common property, an owners corporation or an owner of a lot may take any of the following action, but only if a special resolution has first been passed at a general meeting of the owners corporation that specifically authorises the taking of the particular action proposed:
(a) add to the common property
(b) alter the common property
(c) erect a structure on the common property
06/12/2012 at 9:54 pm #17324My first thought on reading this was liability. If you were to set aside an area for children to use as a play area you would have to review your insurance to ensure you were covered, and it would likely increase your premium. Also you would probably have to check with the Council. It seems ridiculous that you have to be so cautious, but unfortunately I think if you are designating something as for use by children, that is what you have to do.
I differ from Jimmy in that I think if a common property area is to be allocated for a specific use, then it most probably would require a special resolution, because effectively you are preventing others from using it for other purposes. For those who don’t have children it would be reasonable for them to say they are being deprived of the use of that area, or that others are benefitting in a way they are not.
That is ironic because as Anna says, the area is little used. I used to live in a block of flats where I put up a resolution to grant exclusive use of the top of some back storage areas, which effectively were balconies coming off the windows of two lots. The other owners said no way would they allow that – which was really stupid because no-one could access those two spaces except the respective owners.
It is a nice idea, so rather than designating it for children why don’t you put up a suggestion for landscaping and putting in the fences, as a general improvement and amenity for everyone. Surely no-one would object to that, and that would only need to go to the EC.
10/12/2012 at 8:51 am #17351Hi All,
Thank you for your replies and advice.
Our building has the standard by-laws, which state that children must be supervised in dangerous areas, and can play unsupervised on safe common areas such as lawns.
I wasn’t planning to make it an exclusive childrens area – certainly no play equipment as there would be liability (and maintenance) issues with that. I am hoping that making the space more attractive would benefit all the residents. The need for a fence is due to the stairs at either end of the lawn, which are quite steep.
From Whales advice, it seems we need a special resolution to erect the fence.
How does this sound?
To make the common property lawn area more useable by the installation of fencing, landscaping and other amenities, with a budget of up to $
Many Thanks
Anna
10/12/2012 at 10:14 am #17352Anna – In my experience, in order to avoid protracted discussions at the Meeting and people claiming afterwards that they didn’t understand the implications of the Motion (and therefore didn’t attend the Meeting), it’s better for those to be as descriptive as possible both in terms of the voting requirements and what’s proposed. I’d suggest something like:
THAT in order to enhance its Common Property the Owners Corporation Specially Resolves to erect (height / style e.g. child-proof / colourbond / aluminium) gated fencing at either end of and to improve the landscaping at the grassed area located (describe) for an amount not exceeding $ (amount) with the use of the area being consistent with the existing By-Laws.
Good luck; it’s good to see Proprietors taking an active interest in the amenity of their Plans.
10/12/2012 at 2:11 pm #17356AnonymousIn the first post here Anna Said: “I think we could make better use of it, as there are many children in the complex and it would give them a place to play.”
By all means, she should give her plan a try, but Whale, I see your suggested resolution and you say things should be as ‘descriptive as possible’. So shouldn’t Anna highlight her intention to give he kids a ‘nice place to play’? And not do it by stealth?
My husband and I have raised a 10 year old son where we live, there are many other kids here too, and while we are an energetic and active family and our offspring is sporty, thankfully, he has never really played on the common property to any great extent and never unsupervised. But let me tell you, lazy families who just send their kids outside to ‘play’ in our inhospitable, unsuitable common property are in abundance here and it ruins the ‘peaceful enjoyment’ of most everyone.
Anna should tread very carefully and honestly, methinks. May I respectfully suggest trips to the park, the beach, bush walks or maybe the local school is a sort of ‘community play area’ out of hours, like ours is.
10/12/2012 at 6:41 pm #17360tsk tsk Blue Swimmer, I’m surprised that a fellow ocean dweller could be so cynical about another’s motives, especially when Anna also said that she was “hoping that making the space more attractive would benefit all the residents”.
That was one of the reasons that I didn’t suggest making a specific reference to children (they’re residents too remember), the other being that I thought the reference in the suggested Motion to the existing By-Laws, which Anna said includes one about children on the Common Property being at all times under adult supervision, should cover the contingency that you’ve raised.
So no, I wouldn’t be any more descriptive, but that’s up to Anna as only she knows what her motives are, and how she thinks the area will be predominately used.
10/12/2012 at 10:18 pm #17361AnonymousTsk, tsk yourself, Whale. I just thought you might be leading Anna ‘up the garden path’ inadvisedly; the sound of little kiddies a play is not many strata dwellers idea of seventh heaven I’d suggest.
11/12/2012 at 12:06 am #17362So cetaceans and crustaceans don’t get on – who knew?!?
The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.
11/12/2012 at 9:21 am #17363Not me ’cause I get on with everyone, but should we add play areas to pets, parking, and parties as the bane of some strata dwellers’ lives? (
)
Note: I just realised that the “p” word I used in my original post had another meaning which could upset some people; something I never set-out to deliberately do. So I edited it out at 1000hrs. Apologies to anyone who read my post in the last 40mins and was offended by that original “p” word.
11/12/2012 at 10:02 am #17364AnonymousWhale, I feel that is unfair and uncalled for and any derivation of the word used makes most parents feel ill in this day and age. I ask you to apologize and withdraw your suggestion.
I like kids. I have one. But I accept not everyone gets the warm and fuzzies at the sound of OPKs at play, especially if they’ve been tricked into something in the manner you are suggesting whereby they have lost their peace and quiet.
11/12/2012 at 4:11 pm #17366Oh darn, now I am going to torture myself wondering what the word was. Oh well.
13/12/2012 at 8:29 am #17374I would suggest a motion to install a fence in the coming year out of the existing grounds maintenance budget if that is feasible. You might be surprised how many people would resist having any increase in the budget for money spent on common property facitilies that they don’t use themselves. They can’t see past their wallets to see that a suite of facilities makes the place nicer to live in, provides more opportunities for neighbours to meet and perhaps become friends. They can’t even see that such things increase the value of their units even if they are stay indoors curmudgeons themselves.
We have various facilities, all of which are only used by a minority but the minorities are different. Some use the tennis court but not the BBQ, some use the BBQ but not the playground. I used to use the playground when my kids were younger but not now. Perhaps I will use it later if I have grandkids. Some use our open spaces to walk or kick a ball, many do not. Once something is in place people don’t seem to object but it is a hurdle to get over that only a minority expect to see a benefit from any particular change and even they will be luke-warm in their support:
“ We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous, or more doubtful of success, than an attempt to introduce a new order of things in any state. For the innovator has for enemies all those who derived advantages from the old order of things, whilst those who expect to be benefited by the new institutions will be but lukewarm defenders. This indifference arises in part from fear of their adversaries who were favoured by the existing laws, and partly from the incredulity of men who have no faith in anything new that is not the result of well-established experience. Hence it is that, whenever the opponents of the new order of things have the opportunity to attack it, they will do it with the zeal of partisans, whilst the others defend it but feebly, so that it is dangerous to rely upon the latter.”
Niccolò Machiavelli
The PrinceSo, if you can make it so that this particular upgrade is out of the general grounds budget without any increase you might have more success.
What if it were couched in broader terms? Perhaps a proposal for ‘sprucing up’ this particular bit of the grounds with a seat, some more interesting plantings around an open area and the fence that would make it safer for families to use. Perhaps it could be useful to have some ambiguity about what is maintenance vs. additions to the common property. Surely it is maintenance even if a bit of grass is replaced with some bushes.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Common Property › Current Page