5 out of 6 owners approve deck, so what to do about the 6th?

I really have no idea where your BC manager (or is it strata manager?) gets this idea. 

You are right in as much as you will need a by-law to be passed which should include clauses that state that you and subsequent owners of the property will maintain the deck and should include a payment to the Owners Corp for the use of the airspace (based on the increase in value of your unit minus the cost of the deck's construction). You should also be responsible for the costs involved in drawing up the by-law and holding the general meeting to pass the by-law.

You may also require planning approval from your council – that will be assisted by the support of your executive committee (a simple majority will suffice).

As I said, I have no idea where the BC manager gets this idea that you require 100 percent approval and you should ask him where this is stated if he insists it's true – maybe you have a by-law that says any changes to common property have to have unanimous approval.  If so, propose a change to the by-law … again that would only require a 75 percent vote in favour.

But honestly, I think the manager is wrong and you should worry about how well equipped he is to do his job if he doesn't have a basic grasp of strata law.

Jimmy

Can you clarify if there is ever an occasion whereby 100% approval by owners is required?

Our EC wanted to propose a by-law which would transfer responsibility of external doors and windows to individual owners from the OC. Our Strata Manager also quoted the need for 100% approval in writing from each owner, and stated that if every owner did not agree to it, they may have recourse later, citing their lack of approval to proceed with the by-law.

Your comments would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Jimmy for explaining that so clearly.

There’s no real problem currently, except that our complex is now around 45 years old, and some of the front doors require replacement at a cost of around $1200 each. This could result in a major cost, and additionally there are 2 sets of glass sliding doors which are starting to require repairs. With 26 townhouses in the block, there is a strong likliehood of a large outlay coming up at some point.
The transfer of responsibility was suggested as a way to reduce costs (and of course rising levies).
There is also the issue of owners having replaced their own front doors which are no longer in keeping with the original look of the complex, and whilst this is not necessarily a bad thing currently, there is no by-law in place to allow this, so it appears that the OC is still responsible for any costs associated with future repairs to these.

JimmyT said:

This may sound like splitting hairs but it’s not so much all owners collectively but each individual owner affected (which amounts to the same thing).

 

But isn’t that the point with someone taking over an area of common property, as discussed in the OP? Someone taking over common property affects everyone’s access to that area that used to be common property, but if the permission is granted no longer is. Thus I can see the reasoning for requiring unanimous approval.

As someone who lives in a unit complex that's almost 35 years old, I can sympathise with sarahs's costs comment.

However, I do feel that the real problem is a failure to plan properly for future maintenance by keeping strata fees too low for years. Our complex suffers from the same syndrome and now – after a minor revolution to force people to face their responsibilities – owners are faced with the likelihood of a special levy or taking on a strata loan to fix years of neglect. 

Despite all this, the owners' corporation accepted our responsibility for looking after various doors, and has paid for replacements where necessary.

The sinking fund is there for a reason… I've been quite surprised at the disdain some OCs and strata managers of older complexes seem to have for the 10-year Sinking Fund Plan – If done properly, it can be a very useful document and help prevent the sort of funding crisis that makes OCs consider getting rid of their responsibilities. Changing by-laws to make individual owners responsible for such maintenance won't necessarily ensure the work is actually done, but could perhaps open up a different sort of dispute within your complex.

sarahs said:

There's no real problem currently, except that our complex is now around 45 years old, and some of the front doors require replacement at a cost of around $1200 each. This could result in a major cost, and additionally there are 2 sets of glass sliding doors which are starting to require repairs. With 26 townhouses in the block, there is a strong likliehood of a large outlay coming up at some point.
The transfer of responsibility was suggested as a way to reduce costs (and of course rising levies).

 

Basically you need a special resolution by-law that allows the deck builder to use such common property as required (like bits of wall and ground it is attached to) in exchange for their agreement to repair and maintain the common property at their own expense, now and in the future. Normally the person installing the deck would pay for the legals (since they are the only ones benefitting) although the OC might want to choose the lawyer. if the installer isn't prepared to do this, you'd be nuts to let them go ahead as responsibility for the deck would fall back on the OC when the owner sold. If the installation of the deck leads to  substantial increase in the value of the lot, the OC is entitled to some remuneration calculated on the basis of increased value minus cost of installation (including legals and paperwork).