Jump to content

      













Photo

Bylaws and restrictions


  • Please log in to reply
104 replies to this topic

#81 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 13 March 2017 - 04:10 PM

I think window covering restrictions are reasonable as well, but why should I care if someone has 2" white wood slats and someone else has 3/4" white metal slats?

 

Window covering usually need to look the same from the outside, but you can have your own colour on the inside.



#82 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,181 posts

Posted 13 March 2017 - 04:11 PM

...why should I care if someone has 2" white wood slats and someone else has 3/4" white metal slats?

I think such specific restrictions are quite rare. The bylaws at my building simply state that all window coverings must show as white or off-white from the outside. We have quite a few variations (wide and narrow horizontal blinds - both metal & plastic - wooden California shutters and perhaps even some vertical blinds) but overall the look is reasonably uniform.


  • VicHockeyFan and sebberry like this

#83 LJ

LJ
  • Member
  • 8,739 posts

Posted 13 March 2017 - 07:36 PM

If a strata is that concerned with the looks why don't they supply the blinds for the windows. Get a better deal in volume and then you are assured that they look the same.


Life's a journey......so roll down the window and enjoy the breeze.

#84 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 22,181 posts

Posted 13 March 2017 - 07:40 PM

If a strata is that concerned with the looks why don't they supply the blinds for the windows...

In most new strata developments they are supplied - correct? I am pretty some of the blinds in my building are the originals from 1994. Over time owners will make changes, but need to adhere to the very simple guidelines. It's not exactly a hardship to follow the white/off-white rule.


  • VicHockeyFan likes this

#85 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 13 March 2017 - 07:42 PM

In most new strata developments they are supplied - correct? 

 

Yes.  And yes, over time, people renew.


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#86 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,012 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 05:07 AM

Yup, this wording is pretty standard nowadays and applies to virtually all strata properties where the rule has not been changed by the strata.

Jonny is right about the laundry and balcony restrictions, too. You can't even have a satellite dish in a modern strata unit unless it's inside the home and not in any way mounted to the exterior or placed within the confines of a balcony.

Also developers are starting to implement strata restrictions on short term rentals like a hot dang. AirBnB can result in so much wear that ironically owners are looking to buildings where there are short term rental restrictions in place right from the start.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#87 DavidL

DavidL
  • Member
  • 126 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 10:45 AM

I'd say the wear and tear argument is not accurate at all. In our units we have found quite the opposite with respect to short term rentals and long term rentals. Just as an example no pets, no bikes, no moving furniture etc.

#88 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 47,012 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 10:52 AM

I've heard that The Union can be a mini nut house on the weekends when the AirBnB'ers return from the bars.

Everyone's mileage varies for sure, though.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#89 akimbo

akimbo
  • Member
  • 85 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 10:22 PM

Two buildings on our priority list specify one pet that can be carried. So no 140lb bellowing hounds. Price point eliminates toddlers in many cases.

I've never understood the weight restrictions on dogs.  Small dogs tend to be yappy.  When I visit friends in weight-restricted condos, I have to put my 32 pound dog under my jacket and climb up the back stairs which is no fun at all.  He doesn't make a sound and is clean. But you can have kids screaming their heads off all day and that's OK.  Just doesn't make sense.  I hope that when I can no longer handle a house and want to move to a condo that there will still be 55 plus allowed and no size restrictions on dogs. 



#90 akimbo

akimbo
  • Member
  • 85 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 10:27 PM

So what if your wife got knocked up and you had a child? What would be the recourse?

I would think you'd be more upset about the person who 'knocked her up' than the condo bylaws. :))



#91 akimbo

akimbo
  • Member
  • 85 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 10:30 PM

We're renting a condo in a building that restricts the kind of window covers you can have (only blinds in white or off-white, with slats of a specific width). I assumed it was something to do with temperature control in the summer, but my partner argues it's probably for aesthetic purposes. Is this a common rule? Does anyone know the logic behind it?

Yes, I had this with my Vancouver Condo.  It seems strange but it does look better from the outside.  You can always have the required colour on the outside and add another layer of whatever you want visible on the inside.



#92 akimbo

akimbo
  • Member
  • 85 posts

Posted 14 March 2017 - 10:37 PM

I would never by in a strata with crazy rules and/or bylaws. ....

When you spend enough time living in a condo, you realize why there are more and more "crazy rules".  It's because just when you think you've found some common, sensible ground, some owner or tenant does something crazy that you never thought of.  And so the list of "thou shalt not" gets longer. 



#93 DavidC

DavidC
  • Member
  • 19 posts

Posted 07 March 2019 - 12:21 PM

Greetings esteemed VVers!  New member after lurking a few years as a guest.

Tidy forum you have here, it's been a great resource for myself since purchasing a Victoria condo in 2015.

Thanks to the many contributors for that.

My question concerns rental restrictions.

For this months AGM, council has tabled a bylaw amendment via a 3/4 vote to institute a restriction of rentals to 15 units out of 90.

There are currently a minimum of 26 units rented.

Assuming a 3/4 majority is in favour, how is it typically determined which Owners must relinquish their unit?

Does council go back in time to when 15 units were first rented and then declare renters 16 and up ineligible?

It seems a no-brainer for the Owner group to oppose rental restrictions, if for nothing else than to protect property values.

And, given that 26 Owners currently rent their suites, it should be safe to assume there is not be a proliferation of NIMBYs who assimilate renters with pond scum.

I can only hope reason prevails, and this bylaw amendment is opposed at the AGM.

Heck, if one could count on those Owners who do rent to all vote accordingly, this should be opposed, no?

Then again, we know what can happen when the decision is left to the electorate.  :squint:  



#94 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 2,812 posts

Posted 07 March 2019 - 05:05 PM

26 are currently rented but they want to restrict to 15?

 

well nobody has to relinquish their unit all 26 get grandfathered in for now.  if the vote passes then i believe that then upon sale they will come off the rental-allowed list.  it'll also be harder to sell.  

 

i suspect that motion will not pass the vote.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 07 March 2019 - 05:05 PM.

  • Matt R. likes this

#95 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 760 posts

Posted 07 March 2019 - 05:15 PM

Even after the by-law is passed, current leases must still be respected. I would imagine they would have to go on an attrition basis? The first units that become vacant can not be rented out again until they are under 15 total?

#96 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 9,165 posts

Posted 07 March 2019 - 05:18 PM

I think that's right. If no current renters have plans to move out it could take years to see any change.


"[Randall's] aesthetic poll was more accurate than his political acumen"

-Tom Hawthorne, Toronto Globe and Mail


#97 Victoria Watcher

Victoria Watcher
  • Member
  • 2,812 posts

Posted 07 March 2019 - 05:20 PM

Even after the by-law is passed, current leases must still be respected. I would imagine they would have to go on an attrition basis? The first units that become vacant can not be rented out again until they are under 15 total?

 

i think a sale is required.  just your current tenant leaving does not make it go to owner-occupied.  that's impossible for a pure investor.  he'd have to sell and that's unfair.


Edited by Victoria Watcher, 07 March 2019 - 05:21 PM.


#98 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 760 posts

Posted 07 March 2019 - 05:24 PM

i think a sale is required. just your current tenant leaving does not make it go to owner-occupied. that's impossible for a pure investor. he'd have to sell and that's unfair.


Ahh very good, thanks for the correction.

#99 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 18,041 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 07 March 2019 - 06:35 PM

The first place you should be looking to see how this will be handled is in your strata bylaws.  

 

Units rented at the time of the bylaw passing will be subject to grandfathering in that the existing tenants won't be kicked out. 

 

Your bylaws will also be the place to find out what happens when a tenancy ends.  Ours for example allow the rental to continue until either the owner moves back in or sells the unit.  In that case, the owner would be permitted to continue to rent to new tenants even if the rental restriction limit has been reached.

 

Are there any commercial units in your building?  If so, there's two votes that must pass - 3/4 of the residential owners AND 3/4 of the commercial owners.  

 

It's important to ensure that those who currently rent out their units show up to the AGM and vote on this.  Remember, the 3/4 is out of the votes cast, not the eligible number of voters.  Assuming no commercial, if 90 people show up and everyone casts a ballot, 68 votes are needed to carry the resolution.  If the 64 people who don't rent show up and cast a ballot and none of the landlords do, then only 48 votes are needed to carry the resolution to impose the restriction.

 

A restriction change of this significance should involve a lawyer to prepare the resolution and necessary bylaw wording before the vote so that everyone knows all the potential implications and you're not left scrambling to figure it out afterwards.

 

EDIT:  Unfortunately you can't always rely on the property manager to give you sound guidance here.  In our strata where we lifted the age restriction the property manager insisted that we didn't need a separate commercial vote.  


Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#100 DavidC

DavidC
  • Member
  • 19 posts

Posted 08 March 2019 - 07:33 AM

It's important to ensure that those who currently rent out their units show up to the AGM and vote on this.  Remember, the 3/4 is out of the votes cast, not the eligible number of voters.  Assuming no commercial, if 90 people show up and everyone casts a ballot, 68 votes are needed to carry the resolution.  If the 64 people who don't rent show up and cast a ballot and none of the landlords do, then only 48 votes are needed to carry the resolution to impose the restriction.

 

A restriction change of this significance should involve a lawyer to prepare the resolution and necessary bylaw wording before the vote so that everyone knows all the potential implications and you're not left scrambling to figure it out afterwards.

 

EDIT:  Unfortunately you can't always rely on the property manager to give you sound guidance here.  In our strata where we lifted the age restriction the property manager insisted that we didn't need a separate commercial vote.  

Yes, voter turnout as usual will be key to the result.

We have effectively received little to no guidance from the property manager regarding this, only vague references at past council meetings with zero detail.

Now less than 3 weeks before the AGM, the rental restriction is defined as 15 units maximum.

Seems unlikely strata council has been advised by a lawyer, there are no commercial units.

I loathe bylaw amendment votes where insufficient data exists to allow one to make an informed decision.

Details of the grandfathering approach, relinquish-upon-sale, etc. aspects of this major change would go a long way with the Owner group.



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users