"pets, policies & problems" in co-ops and condominiums

8/13/2019 "Pets, Policies & Problems" in co-ops and condominiums

1/8

r8 HABTTAIJUNE 2OO7


2/8

Don't get bitten.Setting the proper proceduresin place can help you avoidthe dangers of dog wars.Bv FnnNr Lovtct

Frank Lovece, afrequent contributor toHabitat is the author of numerous books,including Lost and Found, about missing children.

I Z uR BoARD rs ABour to enact a pet policy. May dogV have mercy on your soul. Few things are more con-I tentious for a board than balancing the needs of petowners and their non-pet neighbors. On the one side, animallovers speak of their dogs - and that is universally the issue(cats, fish, and usually birds are essentially given a pass)- with almost religious fervor, mentioning unconditionallove, emotional support, and lifelong bonds. The other sideis usually filled with words like property values, bite,dog uapl' and the constant smell of urine.

JUNE 2OO7 HABTTAT r9


3/8

Given that divide between the holyand the hygienic, how does a boardcome up with a pet policy that satisfiesboth sides? It may not be as difficult asyou think, despite the high emotions of-ten involved. Now, enforcement - well,that's a whole other bag of kibble.The keys, in either case, are to knowthe established laws, to communicateregularly with the staff, and to focus onbehavior, not prejudice. Realize, too,that this particular issue applies differ-ently to small buildings. If you're put-ting in a laundry room or negotiating alobby redesign, the basic steps are thesame whether you have 10 apartmentsor 200. Not so with setting pet policies- because whether it's l0 apartments or200, there's usually still only one lobbythat the dogs have to go through.Stu* in the Middle with PooPet owners themselves are torn overhow to deal with all this. One cat-owning Manhattanite who sublets herco-op, speaking anonymously sinceher building allows pets, says, I havea no-dog policy that I'm deeply am-bivalent about, because I love animalsand, in fact, I'd [successfully] beggedto have the 'no-pet' rider taken out ofmy rental lease when I first moved in,before the building went co-op. ButI also want to protect my investment.I've seen in other people's apartmentsthe damaged floors, the clawed walls,and the unhappy neighbors who com-plain because the dog next door barksall day when it's left alone.That doesn't happen in every dog-lover's apartment, of course. Even so,she says, pet policy is one of thoseterrible issues where nobody can bepainted the bad guy, because there areperfectly reasonable concerns on bothsides of the argument. And the boardgets stuck in the middle.Or worse: in the headline-makingcase of the Ruppert Yorkville Tow-ers Condominium complex in the East90s, the board was actively vilifiedwhen it established an overreachingno-new-pets policy, and implementedit in a callous manner that treated petsno differently than washing machinesor parking spaces - in the process be-coming a case study of how not to put apolicy in place.

People are put in a position to choosebetween an animal and a home, andthe animal is a family member, saysdog owner Maddy Tarnofsky, an at-


4/8

boards don't get it - they don't under-stand the bond.And yet, just as some apartment com-plexes forbid smoking or are retirementcommunities that don't allow youngchildren, co-ops and condos have everyright to offer the choice of being perfriendly or pet-less. Neither choice isbetter or more moral than the other - it'sjust a choice. What matters most, eitherway, is creating a policy that balancesthe needs of all your shareholders orowners - and then properly implement-ing that choice.

Doggie Dos ond Don'lsThere are an estimated one million

dogs in the city, according totheNew YorkTimes. Or maybe two million, accordingto animal advocates. Or, yet again,perthecity's Department of Health and Men-tal Hygiene, there are 500,000 - with. only about one in five of them licensed.Any way you look at it, that's a lot ofdoggies in the window - and about400,000 irresponsible owners.Some co-ops and condos seem tooperate just fine without a pet policy.

Others manage the issue with a sim-ple, signed agreement specifying howan 'ownel will be responsible for hisor her pet. And others, particularly inlarge buildings or complexes, may stillfind themselves better off with a moreformal policy in place.Alan Saly is board secretary for thel7-apartment co-op at 570 44th Streetin Brooklyn. 'All the board members[here] know the people who want dogsand why they want dogs, he says.The super has three young childrenand they wanted a puppy - the boardfigured it was a reasonable thing. It'seasier to deal with when you know thepeople personally and not in the ab-stract.At the 168-unit co-op at 173-175Riverside Drive, there's a formal ar-rangement, albeit bare bones (so tospeak). We ask on the admissionsapplication whether someone has petsand what the pets are like, and let peo-ple understand they have to be respect-ful of their neighbors, says the boardpresident, Michael Connelly. We donot have any regulations specific topets. He's proud that his shareholdersare such that bad doggies haven't yetbeen an issue. Even so, he concedes,all you need is a couple of dogs [def-ecatingl in the lobby, and you've got aproblem.And the more apartments, the big-ger the potential problem. HowardSchechter, a partner at Schechter &Brucker and the attorney for the Rup-pert Yorkville condo board, says ofthe 1,257-unit two-building complexthat, with that many people in a lim-ited amount of space, the dogs werecreating a problem because the quan-tity of dog waste was substantial. Itsmelled in the summertime, and thestaff had to go wash the [block-long]sidewalks twice a day.It's a commit-ment of time and resources.That's a problem, agrees Tarnof-sky, the lawyer. Pet owners have to re-alize they have a responsibility to theirneighbors to act in responsible ways.That's very simple. Like they say, onebad apple can 'spoil the barrel. Andthen the boards will overreact and say,'That's it - no more dogs. 'Rather than react, it's usuallysmarter for a board to take the ini-tiative. The fairest thing for everyoneis to have a humane and consistentpet policy in place, which helps youavoid accusations of favoritism orinconsistency, or even lawsuits. Buthow do you create such a policy?

INTERCOMSMAI LBOXESccrvL rslAccESS coNTRoLWENGRAVI NGSET

ACADEMY, established in 1948, is the oldest and largestmailbox and intercom company in New York City.ACADEMY employs only the most competent and courteousrepairmen and installers. With an average of 18 years ofexperience, our fully insured and highly trained employees getthe job done right the first time.With ACADEMY you pay fortskilled seryice, not costly mistakes.

120-1O 1 sth Ave, Oueehs, NY 1 1356cattTodayi#s3g- 1 OOOvvwvn academymai I box.com . wwvrr.academyi ntercom. com22 I|AB|IAT JUNE 2OO7


5/8

[ow'di-dogLet's get your legal limitations out ofthe way first. The big one as far as locallaws go is Section 27-2009.1of the Ad-ministrative Code of the City of NewYork. You might have heard it calledThe Pet Law or The Three-MonthRule. This statute applies to rentaltenants, to co-op shareholders, and - inBrooklyn, Queens, and Staten Islandonly, because of a different ruling inthe Bronx-Manhattan judicial region- condo owners.It states that if a condo's bylaws ora lease has a no-pet PolicY, then thelandlord or the board has just 90 daysto file an objection to anyone housing apet openly and notoriously - the latterterm being legalese for, basically, tak-ing your dog out and walking it. A petowner isn't required to take the pet out-side the apartment, but the owners alsocan't hide the pet when, say, a buildingworker comes to fix the toilet.The tricky part - and the one that in-volves active communication with staff- is that even if a landlord, board mem-ber, or managing agent doesn't person-ally see the pet, the 90-day clock startsticking when any agent of the ownersees the animal. And not just doormenand supers - the 2001 case of Sewardvs. Cohen specified that this even in-cludes independent contractors that abuilding may hire for just one day, say,to lay new carpets. And after those 90days are up, the pet is legally entitledto stay.The other major legal Point is thefederal Americans with DisabilitiesAct. Obviously, You have to allowguide dogs for the blind or the deaf- but you might not know the sameallowance is required for psychiatricservice dogs. These are animals thatassist people with mental disabilitiessuch as a major depressive disorder,bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress,autism, anxiety disorders, and schizo-phrenia, by performing such tasks asinterrupting repetitive or dangerousbehaviors, providing a brace when thesufferer appears dizzy, or even barkingto alert neighbors if the suffere? passesout. Likewise, epileptics can get a sei-zure-response dog, and the physicallydisabled have mobility-assistance dogsthat do things such as pulling wheel-chairs, operating light switches, and'serving as a living cane for sufferersof Parkinson's disease.

I had a case involving a condo inLong Beach where they did allow ani-

mals up to, I think, 20 pounds, but nomixed breeds, says attorney and petadvocate Karen Copelan(. My clienthad a 55-pound pit bull mix. But shesuccessfully pleaded a mental disabil-ity and was allowed to keep the dog.Naturally, the courts have seen caseswhere pet owners will claim mental oremotional disability simply becausesomeone's having a hard time, and adog makes them feel better. That couldapply to anybody - and it trivializesgenuine mental disorders. In cases likeContello Towers Corporation vs. NewYork City Department of Housing Pres-ervation and Development - in which afamily in a pet-prohibited building gotits daughter a dog to help her deal withthe stress of a move, and tried to claimthe girl had an emotional disability- the courts have noted this distinctionand enforced the no-pet rule.Katz ond DogsWhat happens if an allowed animaldies, or perhaps goes to live elsewhereafter its owners have divorced? Can thenow pet-less owner get a replacement?That's currently outside the realm ofthe law, and a decision left up to eachboard. Two competing bills are floatingaround the New York City Council thataddress this issue. The earlier replace-ment-pet bill, initially named Intro. 189and now called Intro. 284, was intro-duced by Councilwoman Melinda Katzin 2005. The other, Intro. 13, came fromCouncilman Tony Avella the followingyear. Along with other provisions, eachbill states that a person is allowed tohave a replacement pet.But, says Avella, when Melinda in-troduced her bill, there was oppositionfrom the real estate industry, as wellas co-op and condo owners. I met withthe opposition, in effect, to work outa compromise. I got some agreement,and Councilwoman Katz and I talkedabout it - I said these compromiseswould help move the legislation along.But she refused [to amend her legisla-tionl, so I did my own bill.Katz's bill starts the 90-day clockticking when a pet is seen by anybodyrepresenting the owners - even some-one making a one-time delivery, saysAvella. My bill refined it so that it hasto be someone routinely in the build-ing. Additionally, he says, Co-op andcondo owners feel that, since they'reself-governing bodies, if they want tobe a pet- or a no-pet building, it's upto them.Thus, Avella's bill applies only to


6/8

fkPoper Troining

renters, including rent-stabilized onesin.co-ops and condos, but co-ops andcondos themselves are exempt. (Katzdid not respond to repeated phone callsand e-mails to her legislative and dis-trict offices.)Finally, regarding dogs out in public,the law states that owners have to cleanup after their animals (Public HealthLaw 1310) and have them on a leash nomore than six-feet long (Section 161.05of the New York City Health Code),except in such authorized areas as dogruns.

Sometime next year, the 10,000-resident l34-building Glen Oaks Vil-lage co-op in Queens plans to have itsfirst comprehensive pet policy in place.Three typical issues created the need.The biggest, as it is at Ruppert Yor-kville, is dog waste. More and more,people are claiming that residents arenot picking up after their dogs, andthat there's urine in the grass, saysresident manager Mildred Marshburn,who notes the complex already has a$100 initial fine for not curbing yourdog. (For those not raised in 1960s and1970s New York, when the term be-came popular, it means that dogs haveto do their business in the street - not inthe grass, tree beds, sidewalks, or any-where else. Owners also are required toscoop up afterward.)If it keeps happening, says Marsh-burn, after three or four times, wewould send the owner a letter from anattorney saying we'd seek to remove thedog.That has never come up, although, ittouches on the second issue: violent be-havior. A pit bull was ordered removedafter it got a little rough with one ofthe kids, she says, and left a bite in-dentation.The third issue involves sheer num-bers, and the attendant increased smelland noise. There's one apartment thathas four adult dogs, plus four puppies,two cats, and two birds, Marshburnsays in a genial, hey-whaddya-gonna-do? tone of voice. Because of all theseand related issues, he adds: We're nowlooking to implement a written policy.

We're thinking about putting some-thing in about the size or number ofyour pets and about pet registration.Those items are among the usualthings you'll find in a pet policy, al-though the size issue is controversial- a five-pound Chihuahua might barkincessantly, while a sixty-pound GreatDane might be as quiet as a five-ouncemouse. The argument for limiting sizeis that very big dogs can often be in-timidating or even frightening to somepeople, particularly in the closed con-fines of elevators or small lobbies.Here are some points to considerwhen drafting a policy that does allowpets:. Some absolutes. You need to re-quire proof of city licensing and ofup-to-date vaccines. Make sure thatthe dog has a collar with the name andphone and apartment numbers of theowner.. Some strong recommendations.It would be wise to get a signed andnotarized document stating that theowner understands and agrees to theco-op/condo pet rules. It should outlinethe proscribed steps if a dispute occurs,such as the use of a mediator or a boardvote. Also, having the pet's photo onfile is a good idea.. Questions to ask and points toconsider. Do you limit the number of

pets? Do you only limit the numberof dogs? Some animals do better inpairs, and an apartment with two dogsis probably preferable to an apartmentwith a dozen cats.Do you limit the size? If so, byweight or by height? The New yorkCity Housing Authority, for example,limits pets to 40 pounds when fullygrown. Some dog owners worry abouttheir animal getting chubby and ex-ceeding the limit. But your policy canlet a dog who made it under the limitbe grandfathered - and, really, howmany pounds can a pet put on beforea responsible owner takes steps topreserve the animal's health?Do you fine a pet owner, or perhapscharge a cleaning fee, when his or herdog defecates or urinates in the com-mon areas? How about if it does soon the sidewalk in front of your build-ing, which city laws require the co-op/condo keep clean? If you chooseto fine, does it escalate after the firstincident? And is there a limit as tohow many times a dog can leave amess in those areas - and if so, whataction will the board take regardingthe animal or the owner?


7/8

Do you want to limit the type of Pet?Most pet-friendly buildings allow cats,dogs, fish, small caged birds, turtles(except for snapping ones, which areillegal), and pet rodents such as ham-sters or mice. You don't need to spe-cilically prohibit wild animals such asiguanas, ferrets, monkeys, and snakes,which are illegal to keep as pets un-der New York City Public Health Code16l.0l (see the remarkably detailed andfascinating list at www.nycacc.org/re-searchtools.htm#).Do you want to require that animalsbe spayed or neutered? The HumaneSociety of the United States advocatesit for pets over six months old and sug-gests that landlords and others obtainwritten proof from a veterinarian, withexceptions fbr pets certified by a vet asbeing too old or sick for such surgery.In the rare cases of show dogs, whichgenerally aren't sterilized, you canmake an exception based on Proof.Do you want an escrow deposit frompet owners? Victor Beube, buildingmanager of the co-op at 1260 Amster-dam Avenue, successfully recommend-ed to the board an idea that's workedat the co-op next door, where he lives:get a $ 1,000 security deposit, whichthe board returns after five years. Get-ting the money back helps serve as anincentive for pet owners to follow therules.Do you want to specify areas such asan interior courtyard where a pet maybe unleashed, or require that pets bekept leashed in all public areas at alltimes?Do you want to sPecifY Pet onlYwashing machines and dryers for petowners who might have animal fur anddander on their clothes? This might bean extreme step in the absence of resi-dents with certifiably serious allergiesor other health issues, but it's an optionyou should alert shareholders/ownersto. Also on the extreme side, do Youwant to require proof of obediencetraining?Issues of noise and smell are gener-ally covered under proprietary leases'habitability clauses or condo house.,rules. But you may want to set sometime limits, such as continuous barkingfor an hour, for example, that can leadto reasonable corrective action. Dogsbark, requiring the same balance aboard would apply to someone playingthe God of War video game or watch-rng Terminotor J in surround sound.There's going to be noise sometimes,not incessantly.

The Humane Society of BoulderValley, Colorado, of all places, posts asample pet policy online at www.boul-derhuma ne. org/com mu n i ty I p et _friendly_pet_policy.htm, which youcan adapt to your specific needs.No-Pet ZoneSome co-ops or condos may chooseto be a no-pet building, just as some areno-smoking buildings. This generallyinvolves a no-new-pet policy, sinceexisting pets are grandfathered undercity statute in renrstabilized apart-ments, co-ops, and Brooklyn, Queens,and Staten Island condos. Otherwise,they're grandfathered under the tenetsof human decency and common sense.At Ruppert Yorkville Towers, a mas-sive high-rise complex filling the areafrom East 90th to 92nd Streets betweenSecond and Third Avenues, the board,in January 2004, enacted a no-new-petspolicy that overreached and was thenscaled back in May 2004. It requiresthat dogs wear identifying tags and beregistered with the board, fbr a fee, andbe licensed and vaccinated; that visiring dogs would not be allowed; andthat owners would be responsible fordamages caused by pets and fbr suchnuisance violations as making noisecontinuously and/or incessantly for aperiod of l0 minutes or intermittentlyfor one hour or more. It also set up afine structure of $100 for the first in-fraction, $250 fbr the next, $300 for thethird, and, after a fourth infraction, theremoval of the pet from the premiseswithin 30 days.Rescinded were a provision disallow-ing replacement petst another that petsbe sterilized; and a third saying dogscould not be walked on East 9lst Street,which, although closed to traffic, is acity-owned public thoroughfare andnot within the board's rights to control.The registration fee was reduced from$100 to $50.The initial policy was put in placewithout warning, says board attorneySchechter, since they were not lookingto invite people who did not have a dogto get a dog, and f-eared a last-minutestampede of residents getting dogs thatwould then be grandfathered.That said, the building was pet-friendly when it was converted from aMitchell-Lama development in Febru-ary 2003. It was even advertised thatway with a huge white banner acrossthe entrance at 9lst Street, saying 'Pet-Friendly Building, ' recalls one 20-year resident and current co-op owner,


8/8

speaking on condition of anonymity forfear of staff reprisal. The thoroughlyconscientious pet owner and a kindlygrandparent describes an unprovokedhostile atmosphere. I remember onelittle snit - a new doorman in his early20s, who beckoned me over and said, 'Ijust want you to know I'm keeping myeye on you. 'In any case, a developer enticingpeople to buy an apartment based on aparticular premise, and then having theboard it controls make an l80-degreeturn a year later, is a recipe for revolt. Areferendum, though not required by law,might have been a much smarter roadto take. No one can blame the board if amajority of shareholders/owners vote torestrict pets, and pet owners will morereadily accept the change and not bringlawyers, the press, and hostility to bearif they see it's the will of the people.It's both a fairer way and much less of aheadache for the board.The board, after all, has the leverageto enforce house rules, so callousness isinexcusable. Rules can be enforced as-sertively without being authoritarian;that's a good general observation and,particularly so, when you're dealing withdeep emotional bonds that apply with afamily pet. Try and picture how you'dwant someone to speak to you aboutyour incontinent parent or your special-needs child. If you can imagine some-one being cold and harsh to you or yourparent or child, well, that's exactly whatit's like for a devoted pet owner.At Ruppert Yorkville, for instance,the immediate $100 fine doesn't takeinto consideration that a pet ownerdoesn't want a pet to urinate in the lob-by on the way out the door. But acci-dents happen even with the best-traineddog and a model dog owner, so why notpenalize a first-time infraction with awarning rather than a fine? And hav-ing the same high, escalating monetaryfines for a well-to-do young profession-al and for a retiree on a fixed income isunnecessarily draconian.Of course, like arrogant parents wholet their children run riot in restau-rants, there arg many bad dog ownersout there. Just try and find an unsoiledpart of Central Park outside the fencedareas, and heaven knows the sidewalksare littered with dog feces, and thereare dog owners who may yell at you ifyou ask them to leash their pets. Thecritical thing to remember is that you'resetting policy for the people with whomyou live and not looking to p unish allthe bad apples elsewhere.

"pets, policies & problems" in co-ops and condominiums

Documents