Page 13 - New England Condominium March 2022

NEWENGLANDCONDO.COM NEW ENGLAND CONDOMINIUM -MARCH 2022 13 185 Devonshire Street, Suite 401, Boston, MA 02110 Quality Representation at Reasonable Rates. (617) 988-0633 Contact Attorney Frank Flynn: FRANK@FLYNNLAW-NE.COM Flynn_E4C.qxp:Layout 1 12/8/14 2:30 PM Page 1 best way for boards and communities to ensure that they are not faced with cata- strophic conditions with regard to the envelope that holds their community. Better safe than sorry, always. n A.J. Sidransky is a staff writer/reporter with New England Condominium, and a published novelist. He can be reached at alan@yrinc.com. but they will encourage fungal growth in the soil, leading to diseased grass, trees, and landscape plants.” This also leads to increased cleaning and maintenance costs, not to mention the costs to repair and replace corroded or otherwise dam- aged mechanisms and structures. Flipping the Bird Assured Environments says there are three main options for getting rid of un- wanted birds from a multifamily com- munity, or anywhere they might pose a problem: exclusion, perch removal, and behavioral adjustment. Exclusion usually takes the form of netting, and is often recommended be- cause it prevents birds from accessing potential roosting spaces in the first place. For a residential building or com- munity, the upside is that this solution is relatively inexpensive, permanent, and humane—it doesn’t hurt the birds; it just makes the property less appeal- ing as a nesting or roosting spot. But depending on how visible the netting is on the property, it might be an eyesore. Perch removal products, including devices such as spikes, traps, or wires, prevent birds from landing on a build- ing or other structural component. This might be a good solution for a limited area like a railing or an awning, but might not be practical in every nook and cranny of a building or property. Behavioral adjustment approaches train birds not to land somewhere using deterrents like cutouts of fake predators (including owls or cats) and low-voltage electric shocks. While the idea of shock- ing birds may sound harsh, “Proper be- havioral adjustment equipment won’t seriously hurt birds,” says Assured Envi- ronments, “but it will train them to avoid the area.” This method might not sit well with animal welfare advocates, but the low profile of the equipment makes it attractive for a community focused on design integrity or other aesthetic con- siderations. Ca-CAW! Regarding the aforementioned Cali- fornia crow conundrum, the Guardian mentions that the city of Auburn, New York, in the state’s Finger Lakes region, has experienced such an influx of crows in recent years that the birds “now out- number human residents two to one.” This is another jurisdiction that has tried—unsuccessfully—to use lasers to abate its corvid population. Lasers have also failed in similar endeavors in Roch- ester, Minnesota, and Indianapolis, In- diana, where the crows simply moved from the inundated business district to another neighborhood where the lasers and recordings of bird warning calls that the city implemented were out of range. Kevin J. McGowan, an ornithologist at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology in Ithaca, New York who has studied crows for more than 30 years, tells the New York Times that the lasers employed by these cities are meant to simulate the movement of other animals, which has the potential to scare the crows into roosting somewhere else. But, says McGowan, crows are not so easily moved from a place they’ve already congregated. He suggests a less subtle dispersal tactic, like aiming firecrackers and bottle rockets amid the interlopers. (Whether such noise and detritus would be less of a nuisance than the noise and detritus of the bird themselves is debat- able.) Looking at rising crow populations over the last few years in cities across the country, the New York Times article also cites Kaeli Swift, a postdoctoral re- searcher at the University of Washington who has studied crows. She says, “Roosts move around—we don’t exactly know why,” adding that roosts grow larger in the winter when crows migrate from Canada. Their increasing numbers in cit- ies and suburban areas (rather than the rural environs they used to frequent) might have something to do with the steady supply of garbage left for them to descend upon. A Bird in the Hand As previously suggested, one man’s bird nuisance is another man’s bucolic pastime. Take this inquiry from one of our readers: “I have lived in my condo for more than a decade, and every win- ter, I (and a couple of other owners) have fed the birds with no problems. Watch- ing the birds has been a comfort to me, especially these past two years with so many other activities limited due to the pandemic. However, last month some residents complained that the birdseed was causing an influx of mice. After the complaints, my condo board announced new rules that prohibit this activity.” In response to whether the board had such authority, particularly without first consulting the owners, attorney Frank Lombardi of Lombardi Law Group in Lincoln, Rhode Island, says, “In most in- stances, \[the\] condominium association’s board has the exclusive authority to operate the common areas, including enacting rules which it rea- sonably believes will prevent damage to property. This in- cludes what it perceives as a need to avoid the migration or infiltration of rodents.” Lombardi goes on to say that there could be a provi- sion in this particular condo’s governing docs limiting the board’s authority specific to bird feeding, but “what is in fact more likely is that a board’s power is limited by language re- quiring it to make reasoned and fair deci- sions while operating the common areas.” Whether their decision was a knee-jerk response to the complaint or a well rea- soned decision after an investigation that proved the bird feeding was a nexus to the mouse infestation, it would be up to the reader and his or her cohort to sug- gest a solution that discouraged mice and other rodents, such as putting jala- peño pepper on the seed, or to “somehow prove that the birds are harmless and in fact contribute to the overall livability of the community.” Even as I write this article, looking out the window of my 17th floor New York City apartment, I both marvel and shudder at the vast array of feathered wildlife just within my view. There are of course the ubiquitous flocks of pigeons that swoop en masse between pavement picnics and protruding parapets. Then there are the starlings, robins, jays, and other flitting fowl that mostly seem in- nocuous—until one poops on your head MULTIFAMILY BIRD... continued from page 6 “‘City doves’ or ‘street pigeons’ may be the worst of the worst when it comes to New York bird pests, because of the colossal amount of excrement each bird produces annually— nearly two and a half pounds!” — Assured Environments or nests in your gutter. The seagulls seem incongruous with the urban density— until I remember that I am, in fact, on an island. Perhaps most surprising is the family of red-tailed hawks that have made a home on the roof of the neighboring highrise, often showing off their impres- sive wingspan as well as their predatory nature when circling and diving in on an unsuspecting rodent. It really is a jungle out there. n Darcey Gerstein is Associate Editor and a Staff Writer for New England Condominium. ter of law, can be found to be substantial or serious.’ The court then held that ob- servation of an individual in their home, with the naked eye and without trespass, does not violate the statute. Id . While there can never be a guarantee against an individual filing suit, the state of the pri- vacy law indicates that a plaintiff would not have a valid claim regarding surveil- lance cameras in a public place or, in the condominium context, in common areas such as the driveways, lawns, roadway, or exterior areas. Associations do still need to be mindful that security cameras are positioned in such a way to avoid record- ing within an individual unit. “Wiretapping Law: If the proposed security system has an audio recording component, its installation and operation would also implicate the Massachusetts wiretapping statute (M.G.L. c. 272, §99). The statute generally prohibits the inter- ception of oral communications. ‘Inter- ception’ is defined as meaning ‘to secretly hear, secretly record, or aid another to secretly hear or record the contents of any wire or oral communication…’ At a glance it may appear that one seeking to record oral communication need only remove the element of ‘secrecy’ in order to avoid violation of the statute. However, applicable case law has held that, gener- ally speaking, unless all parties have ‘ac- Q&A continued from page 5 continued on page 14