Bylaws

[Paula Cholmondeley]

[Greg Mansfield]

Hi, Paula.  I'm "here" now.

[Canal Terrace]

I am overseas for a week. I will try calling again when I get back. Everyone must have lots of work as no one has called me back.

Paula HJ Cholmondeley

The Sorrel Group

PO Box 490 

Brookline, MA. 02446

617 6693091

617 608 4552 fax

On Sep 11, 2012, at 1:56 AM, Greg Mansfield <gregm...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Paula.  I'm "here" now.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canal Terrace Condominium" group.
To post to this group, send email to canal-terrac...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to canal-terrace-cond...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/canal-terrace-condominium/-/uYwz7tbLZ5YJ.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Paula Cholmondeley]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:48:36 PM UTC-4, Paula Cholmondeley wrote:

October 17, 2012

 

Questions and Proposed Changes to the Canal Terrace Condominium Association Bylaws

 

 

General questions:

 

1. We understand there were changes to the DC Condominium Law in 1980. Do our bylaws comply with that, and if not, what needs to be changed to come into compliance?
2. Can we change any other document besides the Bylaws, e.g., the Condominium Declaration? Do you recommend any others?
3. We would like the ability to have as few members of the Board as possible – three members minimum.  Can we do that under the bylaws now, and if not, what changes would be needed? We’d also like the terms of office to all be for one year, with the option to renew them as long as the member was willing to serve.  What changes, if any, do you recommend? See changes #6 and # 7 below.
4. Does the Board have the authority to change assignment or number of parking spots?
5. Can the Board approve spending association funds that benefit just one or a few of the unit owners?
6. We’d like to define the HVAC convectors and thermostats in each unit to be common elements. If we do that how can we assign responsibility to the unit owners for maintenance of these items?

 

Specific changes desired (Page # / paragraph):

 

1. B-4 / 3.7, line 13-14 - Insert a phrase that requires a minimum of 25% of unit owners to be present or represented by proxy and that minimum to be required to approve or adopt decisions at Association meetings. This is in place of the wording, “… majority of the Unit Owners present in person or by proxy at the beginning of such meeting …”
2. B-4 / 3.8, last sentence - Only one proxy may be held by another unit owner.  Would like to discuss options and value of raising or removing this limit.
3. B-6 / 4.1 K – Adjust the language to allow the Board to determine when an audit will be done, i.e., remove the annual requirement.
4. B-7 / 4.1 M., line 5 – Delete the first part of that sentence (“No fine may be levied for more than ten dollars for any one violation; but” and start the sentence with “For each day that a violation …”
5. B-7 / 4.2 – Delete last sentence about providing notice of employing a new Managing Agent to the First Mortgagees. In line 14, given the limitation of two years for an agreement with the Managing Agent, do we need to specify or allow for renewability of this agreement? If so, can we simply append, “unless renewed by the Board.” to the end of the sentence?
6. B-7 / 4.3, first line – remove the word “initial” and insert the word, “minimum” at the beginning, so it reads, “The minimum number of directors …”. Delete the remainder of that paragraph after the first sentence and modify the title of that section to read, “Number of Directors”.
7. B-8 / 4.4 - Revise that paragraph to just read, “The Board of Directors shall be individually elected at the annual meeting of the Association, to serve until the next annual meeting of the Association and until their successors have been elected and qualified.”  Delete the remainder of that paragraph after the first sentence.
8. B-8 & B-9 / 4.6, 4.7, – Insert the use of email, acknowledged be each addressee, as an acceptable form of notice.
9. B-9 / 4.9 – allow for telephonic participation, (“dial-in” participation) to achieve a quorum and conduct business. This is in lieu of being physically present. Also, we’d like to add language which provides the capability for Board members to provide proxies to other Board members in the event they can’t attend a Board meeting.
10. B-10 / 4.13, line two – change “shall keep the minutes” to “shall be responsible for recording and maintaining the minutes” and append, “which will be approved by the Board at the following meeting.” to the end of the sentence. Do you have standard language for this that would better serve?
11. B-13 / 5.1, last line – delete, “and residents of the Condominium.”
12. B-14 / 5.6 – insert language that specifies that the Secretary “shall be responsible for ensuring minutes are recorded and maintained” versus being the person who takes the minutes and “keeps” the minutes.
13. B-14 / 5.9 – We’d like your suggestion on how to control the amounts without using a specific figure, e.g., $800, and add  wording that allows the President to direct or authorize the Agent to spend or obligate funds.  Do you have examples of other language that could be used?
14. B-16 / 6.1 C., line seven – Delete the entire sentence that starts, “Common profits in excess …” and delete the last sentence.
15. B-16 / 6.1 E. – What changes need to be made for handling special assessments? We’d also like to delete the last sentence, which requires 80% of the owners to approve special assessments other than for unexpected repair costs.  Is this permissible under the new/current Condominium Law?
16. B-19 / 6.4 B. – Delete the words, “not to exceed $30”.
17. B-19 / 6.5 – The description of the common elements should match what’s in the Declaration.  Can we insert that under paragraph A. (1)?
18. B-19 / 6.5 B. – We recently had an insurance claim denied that was for damage caused by faulty repairs done by a plumber hired by a Unit owner.  Please review this section and see if we can/need to change the language.
19. B-20 / 6.6 – Delete the $2,000 limit and adjust the language to allow the Board to decide if a special assessment is needed or not. 
20. B-20 / 6.7, line two – Add, “to include electrical or plumbing” after, “or improvements” and elsewhere in the paragraph as is needed to maintain consistency.
21. B-22 / 6.8 B.(4) – We’d like to insert an exception for allowing cats. Do you have an example of language that would set a reasonable limit on the number of cats that could be kept?
22. B-21 / 6.8 B. – can we drop all of paragraph B and just include it in the Rules and Regulations?
23. B-23 / 6.9 – we need to discuss this and get your suggestions for improvement or standard language.
24. B-24 / 6.10 – Is this limitation of liability for the Association valid?  Also, can we require unit owners to have insurance to cover their liability to either other unit owners or the Association?
25. B-25 / Article VII – Is this compliant with the current Condominium Law? Is there a requirement for insurance beyond casualty and liability?
26. B-27 / 7.5, line 18 – delete the phrase requiring Unit owners filing with the Agent a copy of individual insurance policies and delete the last phrase about notifying the Board of improvements with a value in excess of $1,000.
27. B-28 / 7.6 – Should w include the obligation of the Association to provide certificates of accord to Unit owners’ first mortgagees? If so, should 7.7 and 8.1 be changed to reflect that?
28. B-37 / 11.3 B. – Delete, “not to exceed $50”.
29. B-39 / 12.8 – Can we delete or adjust the amounts in this paragraph?
30. Exhibit K-1 to Application – Management Agreement – Delete the Management Agreement.

Note please post a reply if you think there are any other sections we should have them review.

[Paula Cholmondeley]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:48:36 PM UTC-4, Paula Cholmondeley wrote: In addition to the lsit of changes for the bylaws going forward I have asked the lawyer to give us their interpretation of two sections that might help in our current dicussions.

 

 

 Pia we would like your opinion on two area of our current bylaws to guide us in two discussions that the board is having.

 

Trees:
> There are 4 trees in the back of our property that are droping sap on
several cars in assigned parking spots.  We have an estimate of $2500 to cut
down these trees.  The sap is damaging the finish of the cars.  Some of the
unit owners affected care about this and say they want to sue us if their
finish if ruined or they can't use their spot, others say they do not care.
This expense is not in our current budget and we would have to divert funds
or dip into reserves to pay for this.  However under 6.6 of our bylaws a
couple of board members have said that this is an iimprovement that just
benefits those parking spots and so we should assess these unit owners for
this cost.
> What is your opinion?
>
> Reserves:  Our reserves are low.  We need to raise a minimum of 19K a year
to build the reserves.  About $47 more in monthly condo fees. Some board memberrs think it is best

to raise the condo fees but a few board members have said that
under 6.1.d we could do a  special assesment each year for this increase and
not raise the condo fee. (  Then we have 6.1.e which says special assesments
need a vot of 80% of the unit owners).
> What is your opinion?
>

[Paula Cholmondeley]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:48:36 PM UTC-4, Paula Cholmondeley wrote:Joel asked that I help him post this for the meeting tommorrow

BY LAWS-
Halina raised a good point re recovering delinquent funds. Perhaps lucia could advise if there are other avenues besides a lien on unit-covered in 11.2 but 6.3 says brd shall take "prompt" action to collect any assessments for common expenses that remain unpaid for more tha 30 dsys after due date. I assume common exp covers fees and all charges? What avanues of prompy action might be available? A lien means delinquent charges can only be recovered when a unit is sold which places burden on other owners to cover budget shortfalls for however long (many years perhaps) unit is not sold.

[Paula Cholmondeley]

On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:48:36 PM UTC-4, Paula Cholmondeley wrote:

We can confim this tommorw with Suzanne but her office regularly pursues legal action against tenants to collect past due amounts.    Some unit owners once sent a letter the associaition is going to pursue legal action pay up.  Other do not.

The question is how much to you want to spend on legal fees in order to pursue some of these balances.

[Joel Klenck]

I think this is going out to everyone but still not certain. Paula if you are only recipient would you please share at mtg or resend along with my thot's on reservefund and fee increase.

Sorry for length but unlikely that i will call in tho may try-Suzanne, what # to call if I am able? 

Some thot's on Bylaws below:

Re #4-The purchase agreement that states (9.1)purchaser shall have right to the exclusive use of pkng space #_____  which is a Limited Common Element is an old copy used by the "Bedford Corp" and original "Purchaser" which seems to have conveyed exclusive use of that space to original purchaser. I just realized that Declaration documents I received at closing are incomplete(1st page only)and definition of Ltd Common Element and restrictions on transfer etc, etc, of parking spaces....set forth in Declar. & Bylaws are missing. Greg, did you have full set of declaratons where all definitions and restrictions and transfers,etc.,are referenced?

Page 15 of rules& regs however refers to1. Each unit is assigned one pkg space and 2. ..only for the use of those persons owning ...specifically assigned space. and 6. Those persons owning or renting spaces etc, etc. I would read all this as there is nothing to prevent mutual agreement of reassigning to an "unassigned" space or creating new spaces but brd would be on shaky ground trying to reassign spaces already "owned" or "acquired" by purchaser from seller. 

Re#5-I would say be careful of how we use the word"benefit". "Benefit" would not be appropriate word to use for rectifying damage or problems to units caused by condominium owned elements,structures, systems or actions. We obviously would not spend assoc money for example on an outdoor awning for one unit because owner thinks the sun overheats the unit. 

Rectifying an obvious problem caused by Association Owned Elements should not be judged imo by the number of or which units the problem is affecting.  If so I would again object to the use of the word benefit as in "it's too bad that the leak in the gutter, pipe,etc., causes water to come into your unit or units but we can't use assoc. funds to benefit one or a few units" or "it's too bad that the trees we planted over your pkng space drip a paint damaging and windshield obscuring sap onto your car but.....". Just a couple of random examples I would hope no unit owners would have to experience.

Joel

 

Sent from my iPhone

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canal Terrace Condominium" group.
To post to this group, send email to canal-terrac...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to canal-terrace-cond...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/canal-terrace-condominium/-/TAqcTw8aLawJ.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Sent from my iPhone

-- 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canal Terrace Condominium" group.
To post to this group, send email to canal-terrac...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to canal-terrace-cond...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/canal-terrace-condominium/-/TAqcTw8aLawJ.

[PHJCholmondeley Canal]

Joel the lawyer has already agreed to look at this.  I need to ask why you are not flexible about moving your parking space.  This is not a deed space.  You do not pay taxes on it.  It is something the association has the right to reassign.

[Joel Klenck]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm totally willing to accept a legally reassigned space not under pine trees that would transfer with my unit when sold. Not willing to accept parking in a space assigned to someone else as a solution for as long I own my unit and then have to disclose when selling that the space legally assigned and transfered is unusuable due to sap problem. That would not only greatly diminish number of interested buyers but would result in a many 10's of thousands $ decrease of  unit value. I paid @ price reflecting off street parking and would have to sell at "street parking" value. That's why i would have to seek legal remedy soon for non disclosure if don't have space legally transferable with unit ie assigned specifically to unit G7. I'm fine with such a space if it can be arranged.

I was referring to whether the association has the right to take away an already assigned space and assign it to someone else without the agreement from the unit owner to whom it was first assigned due to the language in original purchase agreement-"In purchasing this unit, purchaser shall acquire the right to the exclusive use of parking space no._____. " not just pkng space assigned but designated as being a specific location by #. I wasn't referring to my situation but to whether brd could legally decide to reassign spaces without owner agreement.

Sent from my iPhone

[Joel Klenck]

Just read this. I didn't realize anyone else was involved in sap issue. I have never said, written or used words in any way that vould be construed as suing "us" over paint damage or not using spot so has someone else brought it up or said this?  I have only ever said I would have to look into legal action against sellers for non disclosure. If you are referring to me you have attributed language and intentions to me that I have never used or even thought of. I would like to make clear to everyone that this is the first I have ever heard of anyone-certainly not me-ever saying there was a "wanting to sue us(the board?the hoa?)if their finish is ruined or they can't use their spot". If you are referring to me I would ask that you Please be accurate in reporting what I have written and try to avoid especially such inflammatory and mistaken assumptions.

Joel

Sent from my iPhone

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canal Terrace Condominium" group.
To post to this group, send email to canal-terrac...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to canal-terrace-cond...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/canal-terrace-condominium/-/aNKtzUCnSHsJ.

[PHJCholmondeley Canal]

Joel the board decided last night after talking with the lawyer to get a 2nd opnion on the trees.  Once we get that opinion the board will decide its next steps.  Hopefully you will be at the January meeting.

[Joel Klenck]

I'm not sure if any of my previous emails have gotten posted or if are going to everyone or just you.Did you receive them ? I'm so disappointed that something I wrote could be so misinterpreted and feel I have now been falsely demonized as someone who wants to sue us. As stated I have never said or written or even thought anything remotely suggesting such a thing. 

Any id

Sent from my iPhone

[PHJCholmondeley Canal]

Joel all of your prior emails should be getting to the full group because you re sending them to the group email.  Please do not worry. You are not being demonized. All the issues you are raising are ones any onwer could raise. It is important for the association to think through the implications of wht it does and the issues your raise are like a devils advocate.  Because while you may not do them some other unit owner could.  I hope you enjoy the rest of your travels and by the time we get the 2nd estimate and revisit this again with that informaiton in hand you will be back.

[Greg Mansfield]

12/16/12 - Paula, I just sent Jeremy Moss an email asking for the model bylaws.  Cc'd you, Peggy and Dale.  Haven't heard anything more from him since I talked to him on the phone on 11/6, but I assume everything is a "Go" for us to start working with him on the Bylaws. 

Has anything else changed with regards to the Bylaws?

 

[PHJCholmondeley Canal]

Greg I signed their letter. I am out of town today but I will find the phone number for the partner and call her tommorrow morning because you are right. I called him several times and he has not returned my call also.

 

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Greg Mansfield <gregm...@gmail.com> wrote:

12/16/12 - Paula, I just sent Jeremy Moss an email asking for the model bylaws.  Cc'd you, Peggy and Dale.  Haven't heard anything more from him since I talked to him on the phone on 11/6, but I assume everything is a "Go" for us to start working with him on the Bylaws. 

Has anything else changed with regards to the Bylaws?

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canal Terrace Condominium" group.
To post to this group, send email to canal-terrac...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to canal-terrace-cond...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/canal-terrace-condominium/-/b8RjS3qMCi0J.