Home‎ > ‎News‎ > ‎

House Rules and Balconies

posted Sep 11, 2015, 4:39 AM by Marc Donner   [ updated Sep 13, 2015, 9:43 AM ]
House Rules

The Coop Board approved two revisions to the House Rules (posted to website) in its board meeting this month.

The first change adjusts the wording of the rules governing dogs adopted in 1999 to clarify the intent of the Coop to limit each apartment to a single dog.  The wording of section 11d now reads,

“Effective June 1, 2000 the maximum number of dogs permitted in any one apartment, whether as originally built or as combined, is one.  Apartments with more than one dog, as of that date, may keep them for the remainder of those dogs’ lives, but only the last surviving dog may be replaced.  Upon the written consent of the management office, a shareholder may acquire a second dog as the anticipated replacement for an aged dog, not more than one year before its anticipated demise.”

The second change responds to numerous complaints that the Board has received about renovation projects that have run unreasonably long.  This change brings to 205 a policy that has been widely adopted by Condos and Coops around the city.  The new policy, appearing as section 8e of the House Rules, reads,

“Renovation projects must be completed within six months of the approved start date.  A renovation project that runs longer than six months will accrue a $2,500 per month charge to the shareholder until the management office has been formally notified of the completion of the project and has inspected the premises and certified the completion of the project.  A shareholder may apply each month to the board for a waiver of this charge based on extenuating circumstances."


As you remember, the City recently made the rules for inspection of balconies significantly more stringent, in response to several safety incidents in recent years.  The Board received a report from Merritt Engineering of the Local Law 11 inspections of our balconies that reveals that we will need to address two issues in the near future. 

One issue is the consequence of deterioration of the concrete at the corners of a small number of balconies.  While it is not yet a safety hazard, the Board considers it important that we address this promptly before it becomes one.

The second issue is that some percentage of our balconies does not conform to the 1938 building code that was in effect when the building was built.  Remedying this deficiency, which we are told is relatively minor, should not be difficult, though the scope of the work must be assessed so that detailed plans can be prepared.

We will communicate further as more details are learned and as the work requires.