I support this! The one thing I am against is occupants leaving their pets in their balconies while they are away for work and the pet getting distressed. This should be looked into if you can.

BTW, I chose option B because I thought it gives the Body Corporate the right to assess the application before the animal is accepted in the building. Hence, no horses, chickens, or a big number of animals in the premises.

Dear SB, I agree with you and I am happy to change to option A, and to make adjustments to the wording to be fair to all sides. I just want to be able to change the existing law into a more pet friendly one. I agree that the owners' corporate should have a say about bringing animals to the building and also the use of the common area. Where possible, I would not mind inclusion of more detailed information to the strata agreement such as: - No pets should be kept on the common area unless in transit and on a leash. - No more than 1-3 pets can be allowed per unit. - Pets should not be bigger than average 15kg, etc. I understand your concern, but conflicts between neighbors are a possibility with or without pets. What I am looking for is the opportunity of applying to have a companion animal in my house and taking full responsibility for such. I believe that having a blanket law that bans pets is not fair, as does not take in consider my needs and desires. Anyone requesting a pet, should be bound to all other already existing strata regulations of cleanliness and nuisance. Thank you for your feedback, Flavia

I don't agree as there is nothing about limiting noise or having the pet removed if it interferes with the peaceful enjoyment of the owner or occupier of another lot. If you get stuck next door or above or below a dog that barks non-stop or a parrot that makes a lot of noise you can't do anything. I've already had teenagers playing music on repeat for hours on end in the unit above and people with pianos, organs and drums in adjacent units, all I need now is barking dogs. If only quiet pets (rabbits, fish, guinea pigs, snakes) were allowed that might be a different story. Also, why have you gone with Option B instead of Option A? Option A (1) An owner or occupier of a lot may keep an animal on the lot, if the owner or occupier gives the owners corporation written notice that it is being kept on the lot. (2) The notice must be given not later than 14 days after the animal commences to be kept on the lot. (3) If an owner or occupier of a lot keeps an animal on the lot, the owner or occupier must: (a) keep the animal within the lot, and (b) supervise the animal when it is on the common property, and (c) take any action that is necessary to clean all areas of the lot or the common property that are soiled by the animal. Your option allows an owner or occupier of a lot to keep an animal on the lot or the common property while Option A restricts you to keeping the animal on your lot. This way less chance there will be poop to worry about for other residents on the common property, people without courtyards will have to keep their animals in the unit or on their balcony so less likely to keep noisy dogs and people with courtyards could have a dog but it would have to stay on their property so they will have to clean up after it and it won't be a potential danger to other residents as it would be if allowed to be kept on the common property. I would also prefer if 3b included dogs being kept on a lead whenever on c

Hi Megan, Thank you for your feedback, much appreciated. The change on the bylaw to clause 5 includes different scenarios where residents may lodge a request to have a pet and that includes the option of an assistance animal for someone with a disability. Item 4, on clause 5 the keeping of animals, does not exclude the option for people who simply want a companion pet to be allowed to do so. Of course, the owner's corporation still holds the right to assess the request as being reasonable before approval. Please let me know if you have further questions and I will be happy to discuss it further. Kind regards, Flavia

I am in favor of the building to be pet friendly.

I fully support the change- with the exception of the sentence : “...provide evidence to the owners corporation demonstrating that the animal is an assistance animal as referred to in section 9 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 of the Commonwealth." Animals are a joy to have- and a responsibility- but they should not be allowed just because of a persons disability status.

Absolutely Good idea. 100% support this request.