Saturday, December 3, 2011

Pets in Apartments

Another decision concerning the keeping of a small dog in an apartment -- Arbour on Grey.  Here, the dog owner was unsuccessful.  But the decision confirms that it is not appropriate to have a "dog free" building.

If conditions are imposed, they must be reasonable.  See the recent 212 Margaret decision. The following conditions in the bylaws were struck down as unreasonable:
  • the pet does not weight (sic) more than ten (10) kilograms.
  • only one animal is to be kept within the lot.
  • the body corporate shall be entitled to withdraw its consent and require removal of the pet upon receiving two (2) substantiated complaints regarding the pet or the owner breaches any of the conditions of the approval.
I am always amazed that some body corporates want to ban pets.  It just deceases the pool of possible buyers, and thus deceases the value of their apartments.


brisbaneapartments said...

Why be amazed re Pets - its quite understandable that some residents prefer not to have pets in the complex & I must say the basis on which it has become an accepted truth that this impinges on value is questionable. Nevertheless a bylaw passed by a 2/3 majority should be respected unless it is patently beyonds the bounds of good reason & I would have thought banning pets is in the range of "reasonable behaviour". Bylaws like all laws have an arbitrary element but this is apparently not possible in Body Corporate Land!!

Brisbane said...

If a body corporate passed a bylaw by a 76% majority that said people could not cook rice in their apartments (as the smell may impact neighbours) or carry rice across common property (as it could spill), would that be acceptable? Of course not. The majority cannot tell the minority how to live, unless it clearly impacts the living of others.

I have lived in many apartment buildings with pets, and provided they are properly trained, there are no problems.