• Creator
    Topic
  • #10821
    Sir Humphrey
    Strataguru

      Here is our Animal Keeping rule. It might be handy for others reviewing their bylaws/rules/articles. Note that we are townhouses with a lot of common property on which it is reasonable to allow off-lead play with a well-trained animal and the formatting didn’t cut and paste very well:

      Keeping of Animals

                    (1)         A unit owner, occupier or user of a unit may keep an animal subject to the conditions set out in these Rules.

      Note: S.32 of the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011 states that “a unit owner may keep an animal, or allow an animal to be kept … only with the consent of the owners corporation” which may be given “with or without conditions” but “must not be unreasonably withheld”. 

                    (2)         Any animal that is deemed by the Executive Committee (EC) to be potentially harmful to the health or safety of others will not be allowed, including any type of dog or other species that is deemed dangerous under any relevant legislation in force in the ACT.

                    (3)         A unit owner, occupier or user of a unit who keeps an animal, or allows an animal to be kept, is deemed to have consented to the conditions imposed under these Rules.

           Conditions 

                    Approval Process 

                    (4)         The consent of the Owners Corporation (OC) is granted automatically by this rule for any unit owner, occupier or user of a unit to keep:

      • (a) up to two common household pets (dogs and cats) in the unit as a companion animal(s).
      • (b) a sufficiently small number of small animals (such as mice, cage birds, guinea pigs, fish, amphibians or reptiles) in the unit that can reasonably be expected to not cause a nuisance to other residents.
      • (c) an assistance animal, such as a guide or hearing dog, used by a unit owner or occupier of a unit or visitor.

                    (5)         For any animal not covered by sub-rule (4), including poultry, a unit owner, occupier or user of a unit is required to submit a written request for approval through the managing agent before bringing an animal into the Units Plan.

                    (6)         The EC may grant approval, with or without conditions, for an animal not covered by sub-rule (4) to be kept in the unit after consideration of the merits of the proposal but may refuse to grant approval if the applicant fails to provide on request any information that the EC considers relevant, which may include:

      (a)         Information about the animal including the breed, weight and standing height, and common characteristics of the species.

      (b)         A photograph of the animal.

      (c)         Documentation from a veterinarian attesting to whether the animal has been:

      1. Desexed
      2. Micro chipped

      iii.   Vaccinated and inoculated for worms and any other parasites as recommended by the RSPCA.

      (d)    Details of how the animal is proposed to be housed or controlled.

             Dealing with animal

                    (7)         The keeping of animals at Wybalena Grove must comply with the requirements of ACT Government legislation.

      Note: At the time this rule was adopted, ACT Government requirements were set out at http://www.tams.act.gov.au/city-services/pets. These requirements include that all dogs and cats must be desexed and micro chipped and that all dogs also must be registered. 

      The OC also encourages owners, occupiers and users to have animals vaccinated and inoculated for worms and other parasites as recommended by the RSPCA.

                    (8)         The animal must stay within the confines of the unit area except when under the control and supervision of a responsible person.

                    (9)         The unit owner, occupier or user of a unit must ensure that the animal is appropriately and effectively restrained and under the control of a responsible individual while on common property. This sub-rule is sufficiently flexible to permit off-lead walking and play with appropriately trained dogs or other animals.

      Note: The common property does not include the Wybalena Grove public road. The public road terminates at the three turning circles. The road and its verges are a ‘public place’, to which the Domestic Animals Act 2000 applies. S.44 of the Act requires that dogs in public places be restrained by a leash.

                    (10)       The unit owner, occupier or user of a unit must ensure that the animal does not soil any part of the common property and is to immediately remove any soiling which may occur on the common property.

                    (11)       The unit owner, occupier or user of a unit will be responsible for repairing or making good any harm or damage caused by the animal to any unit or the common property.

                    (12)       Sub-rules (8) and (9) do not apply to animals that were accustomed to roaming unaccompanied beyond the unit boundaries before this Rule was adopted and have been included on a ‘grandfathering’ list compiled by the EC.

                    Dealing with bad behaviour

                    (13)       The EC may require the removal of any animal from the Units Plan if it determines that the animal’s behaviour or condition causes a nuisance or a threat to the health or safety of other occupants or animals in the Units Plan or unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of another unit or of the common property.

      Note: If a unit owner, occupier or user of a unit believes that an animal at another unit is causing nuisance through noise or other means, they should, if possible, try to resolve their concerns directly with the owner of the animal. If this is unsuccessful then they can pursue the matter through provisions of ACT legislation on animal welfare, animal keeping, neighbour disputes, noise and nuisance. If the EC believes it is appropriate to pursue the matter through enforcing the OC Rules, then Rules 7, 8 and 9 may also be relevant.

                    (14)       Before removal of any animal, there must be repeated substantiated complaints by neighbours or other unit owners, occupiers or users of units regarding the animal causing a nuisance or threat to other occupants or animals or unreasonably interfering with the use and enjoyment of another unit or of the common property.

                    (15)       Any decision made by the EC that an animal must be removed from the Units Plan must be presented in writing to the unit owner, occupier or user of the unit.

                    (16)       If the unit owner, occupier or user of the unit fails to comply with any of the conditions in these Rules, the EC may revoke approval and require removal of the animal.

    Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #26099
      strataact
      Flatchatter

        Thanks Peter. Does your posting your rules here provide permission/approval for them to be taken and used with minimal changes (eg to UP number and name) for our unit plan.

        thanks

        #26100
        Sir Humphrey
        Strataguru
        Chat-starter

          I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to ‘give permission’ but if your OC liked the look of it and used something very similar, what would be the harm and how could our OC object?

          #26116
          CamRob
          Flatchatter

            Thanks for sharing the information on this. Seems like in most places the rules and regulations having pets in a building would be pretty much drawn up in detail so that there can be no question about how you are and are not supposed to be handling your “additional family members” when it comes to having animals in your home! Seems a little stringent when it comes to an approval process though! Almost as much work as it is to adopt or buy the pet to begin with if you ask me!

            #26119
            Sir Humphrey
            Strataguru
            Chat-starter

              The requirement that unit owners apply for permission and that an OC cannot unreasonably withhold permission comes from the Unit Titles (Management) Act (in the ACT), not from the whim of the particular EC or OC. In our case, we aimed to streamline things so that nearly all instances of ordinary animal keeping (one or two dogs or cats or a few goldfish or whatever) would be covered with approval given by the rule. That leaves the EC only having to bother with a much smaller number of less typical applications. 

              #26121
              Millie
              Flatchatter

                Hi All

                If an Owners Corporation can’t pass a Special By-Law banning short-term letter can they effectively pass a Special By-Law banning all animals?

                I’m going to be minding one small, quiet dog and have been barred from bringing it into the building because of a special by-law.  Looks like I’ll have to decamp and move to her place to mind her.

                If the NCAT won’t back an OC’s special by-law saying short-term letting isn’t allowed…

                Cheers

                #26122
                Sir Humphrey
                Strataguru
                Chat-starter

                  In the ACT, an amendment to the Owners Corporation ‘rules’ banning all animals would generally have no effect due to being inconsistent with the Unit Titles (Management) Act 2011*. However, transitionary provisions allowed inconsistent Owners Corporation rules to continue to have effect if they had been adopted before the Unit Titles Act 2001 came into effect.

                  In other states I think it is similar. So, an older Owners Corporation might have a valid by-law banning animals if 1) it was valid under older legislation and 2) the transitionary provisions of newer legislation allowed old by-laws to continue to have effect even if they would be inconsistent with the new legislation if they had been consistent with the old legislation. 

                   

                  *Unless, improbably, it could be successfully argued that the particular circumstances of the OC made it ‘reasonable’ to refuse permission for even the smallest and most innocuous of animals. 

                Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
                • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.