Page 13 - New England Condominium January 2019

NEWENGLANDCONDO.COM NEW ENGLAND CONDOMINIUM - JANUARY 2019 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 DAL CPA David A. Levy, CPA, P.C. Certified Public Accountants Areas of expertise in Condominiums ■ Cooperatives ■ Timeshares ALL COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS Call our office for a complimentary review of your financial needs 617-566-3645 or 866-842-0108 20 Freeman Place, Needham, MA 02492 SERVICING THE EAST COAST FOR 30 YEARS Member AICPA, CAI-NE www.DALCPAPC.net dlevy@dalcpapc.net DavidALevy_E4C_NEC_Sept15:Layout 1 10/7/2015 3:54 PM Page 1 “Also, where association rules allow own- ers to have some of their own plantings in limited common areas, we will likely see in- stances where marijuana is growing in areas to which underage residents would have ac- cess. Boards are already discussing whether it is prudent to amend their rules now in or- der to address this issue before it becomes a problem.” Animals Pet-related rules are another branch of regulation routinely affected by changing attitudes within a community. Increasing cultural acceptance of animals that provide either physical service or emotional support makes it much harder for an association to advocate for an outright ban on pets–as exceptions will almost certainly need to be made that can then cause headaches for a board attempting to juggle the conflicting demands of individual owners. “There’s almost no such thing as a no- dog building any- more,” notes Andrew P. Brucker, a partner with the law firm of Montgomery Mc- Cracken Walker & Rhoads LLP in New York City, “just due to the medical implica- tions.” Beatrice Lesser, a law partner with Ga- llet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP, in New York City, has dealt with this is- sue time and again. “I have urged co-op and condo clients who bring dog cases to me to change their policies regarding prohibition,” she says. “In every case, the pet owner pres- ents a distressing picture of personal prob- lems that were turned around by their dog ownership and gave them a reason to go on. Or that their doctor told them to get this dog, and their health improved measurably.” Studies have shown that even people without any sort of pre-existing ailment re- port better quality of life from having a pet in their home. Thus, it may be well worth it for boards to consider lifting outdated pet bans – not just for the improved board-resident relations such a move can foster, but in the interest of making a real, positive impact on their neighbors’ lives. Youths As a younger generation of buyers moves into a building or community association and start families, the community is natu- rally going to change to reflect the interests of both those parents and their children. If the community had previously skewed more toward older residents, this can sometimes cause a bit of culture clash between the old and new guard. For example, common areas that were once only accessible during a fixed window of time during the day may have those hours extended due to increasing de- mand. “An older population might put a closing time of, say, 9 p.m. on a playground that isn't used much,” says Brucker. “But if there's an influx of kids, \[that might need to change\]. Sixteen-year-olds, for example, aren't going to be happy with a basketball court curfew in the summer. They'll want more access to the common areas, and you'll see those rules change.” This also applies to gyms and fitness rooms, which are notoriously loud while oc- cupied. An older resident in a nearby unit may want to close up shop at 6 p.m., but the young professional who’s not even in the building from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. is likely to pro- test. And an older demographic with mini- mal need at all for a gym – not to mention playground equip- ment – might not be as quick to pri- oritize upgrades and enhancements to those amenities, so the onus is on the new guard to champion those common areas. “The biggest thing we see in regard to changing demo- graphics is that money actually gets spent to revitalize the old and unused equipment,” says Brucker. “It’s not a rewriting of a rule necessarily, but rather a signal of evolving philosophies.” Satellites? A less obvious issue related to America’s unquenchable thirst for additional enter- tainment options is that of the satellite dish, about which attitudes have changed signifi- cantly over the last decade-plus. In the heyday of DirecTV during the mid-aughts, satellite television appeared to be the wave of the future. “Sometime around 10 years ago, the FCC ruled that community associations could not flat out prohibit satel- lite dishes, and that they had to be allowed in limited common areas,” says David Barrett, President of RCM Services in Allston, Mas- sachusetts. “This meant that they could still be prohibited \[in associations\] where there were no limited common areas, but other associations had to put limitations on dish installation lest residents go wild.” Since then, streaming services like Netf- lix, Hulu, and others have come on the scene and changed the game. “Everyone cool (lol) is binge-watching Netflix and Amazon,” jokes Scott B. Piekarsky, Managing Member letproof as possible, in case the matter comes of the Wyckoff, New Jersey-based law firm up before a court.” Piekarsky & Associates, LLC, while point- ing to the very real – and somewhat ironic increasingly leading to progressive change – trend of associations loosening their rules can sometimes yield the opposite. For ex- around satellite installations just as the in- creasing reliance on streaming services has associations will have to welcome emotional sharply reduced the demand for clunky ex- terior dishes. Conservatives Of course, in many instances, a board will owners, should Fido or Fluffy cause prob- act to avoid change and maintain the status lems. quo for as long as possible. Mark R. Rosen- baum, a Principal at the law firm of Fischel boards want to maintain their control,” Bar- Kahn in Chicago, notes that often when rett notes. “I haven’t seen many communities boards proactively revise their rules, it’s to acting progressively, i.e., ‘Let’s just make it make them more punitive, not less. “The most common change I see is that like that.” the board spells out in some detail the pro- cess involved in fining owners, or imposing it may not be immediate. Brucker agrees that other penalties on owners for violations of as stated previously, human beings have an association documents,” Rosenbaum says. inclination to resist change. “There are many “Boards tend to find fining other owners people, when presented with any altera- distasteful, and generally hope that it won't tion to the status quo, will automatically be be necessary – and because of that, the rules negative,” he says. “But when enough of their governing the process have often been vesti- gial. But as boards have been told by courts and advocate for things like park benches, or to take their duties more seriously, and as a place to put strollers, the board has to lis- owners have pushed the limits of ‘neighbor- liness,’ boards have found that they have to much longer.” enforce their documents. And the more the rules spell out exactly how that process is to happen, the more boards can use that road map to make sure that the process is as bul- Even the issues discussed above that are ample, Barrett notes that while it’s likely that support animals, many boards are reacting to this by drafting rules that make it easier for them to take remedial action against pet “Generally speaking, in New England easier for everyone to have pets,’ or anything And when progressive change does come, neighbors stand up at an annual meeting ten, or that board won’t be sitting in its seats n Mike Odenthal is a staff writer/reporter for New England Condominium. “In Massachusetts, where they’ve recently legalized marijuana state-wide, this will surely become an issue.” — Anita Chmilarski