Legal Question: Would A Claro Cell Tower Antenna

J

jimmythegreek

Bronze
Dec 4, 2008
1,066
4
0
Placed on the roof of one of the buildings within an apartment complex of six buildings be considered a 'construction' addition to the property?

According to many of the Condo Rules in DR, any construction-additions to an apartment complex must be approved by a unanimous vote by all of the owners and not just the approval by one group of owners in one of the six apartment buildings within the complex.

Additional question-Can the consejo of an apartment complex increase the monthly condo fee without a vote on the increase at an assembly? I always thought that increases to the monthly condo association fee required an approval by the majority of owners in an apartment complex.

Thank you.
 
Last edited:
V

Virgo

Bronze
Oct 26, 2013
824
0
0
jimmythegreek said:
Placed on the roof of one of the buildings within an apartment complex of six buildings be considered a 'construction' addition to the property?
Click to expand...
Cannot help you with the laws/rules.

You didn't say on which side of the tower issue you are. Regardless, a cell tower within an apartment complex can severely reduce the value of ALL properties, not just the building directly below the tower. Although there may not be evidence proving that a cell tower is a health hazard, many people do believe it is, and if enough people believe it it will decrease property values. Plus, the possibility that the tower collapses, for example during a storm, possibly inuring people, cannot be excluded (and this will also affect property values). Of course the tower may be perceived as aesthetically unpleasant (that is, ugly) and that will also reduce property values. All of this suggests that a judge could agree that the tower should be approved by all involved (even if the rule does not explicitly indicate so).

If you are against the tower, you may inquire with a lawyer on the possibility of a "recurso de amparo" that stops the construction of the tower at least until further notice.
 
J

jimmythegreek

Bronze
Dec 4, 2008
1,066
4
0
Virgo said:
Cannot help you with the laws/rules.

You didn't say on which side of the tower issue you are. Regardless, a cell tower within an apartment complex can severely reduce the value of ALL properties, not just the building directly below the tower. Although there may not be evidence proving that a cell tower is a health hazard, many people do believe it is, and if enough people believe it it will decrease property values. Plus, the possibility that the tower collapses, for example during a storm, possibly inuring people, cannot be excluded (and this will also affect property values). Of course the tower may be perceived as aesthetically unpleasant (that is, ugly) and that will also reduce property values. All of this suggests that a judge could agree that the tower should be approved by all involved (even if the rule does not explicitly indicate so).

If you are against the tower, you may inquire with a lawyer on the possibility of a "recurso de amparo" that stops the construction of the tower at least until further notice.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response-Obviously I am against the tower going up on any of the buildings for the reasons that you mentioned.

In my opinion, it appears to be construction on any one part of the complex and requires a unanimous approval of all the owners, but the Consejo and Adminstrator are claiming that only the particular building involved needs the owners to approve the tower.

Already, we have had two buildings that disapproved the antenna. Now the Consejo and Administrator are trying with another building. To me, it looks like they are trying to get some kind of commission out of the deal from Claro, but I have no evidence of that-yet.

The reason I ask about the increase to the condo association fee is because this group is claiming they foresee a budget that will significantly increase our monthly association fee unless they get their Cell Tower. This has been quite alarming to see such type of coercive tactics, which is probably going to turn this into a legal matter for me in the near future.
 
A

Alfredo Guzman

Member
Apr 30, 2006
193
23
18
www.drlawyer.com
jimmythegreek said:
Placed on the roof of one of the buildings within an apartment complex of six buildings be considered a 'construction' addition to the property?

According to many of the Condo Rules in DR, any construction-additions to an apartment complex must be approved by a unanimous vote by all of the owners and not just the approval by one group of owners in one of the six apartment buildings within the complex.

Additional question-Can the consejo of an apartment complex increase the monthly condo fee without a vote on the increase at an assembly? I always thought that increases to the monthly condo association fee required an approval by the majority of owners in an apartment complex.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

According to Art. 8 of DR's Condominium Law, unless otherwise regulated by your specific condo's rules, unanimous approval from all owners is required in order to build new units or make new installations which may affect the building or its dependencies (the entire condominium not just the individual buildings).

You must consult the condo's declaration and rules, since there is a chance that the roof may be registered as a common sector for the exclusive use of the top condo unit.

Any conflict related to a condominium's administration or the use of its common areas, such as this case, must be brought before the competent Land Court. An emergency lawsuit (referimiento) would also be available to provisionally prevent the installation of the antenna (there are conflicting court precedents regarding this).

Any increase of a Condo's monthly fees as well as the approval of any extraordinary fees must be approved by the majority of condo owners at a duly called Homeowner's Assembly Meeting. Condo rules may increase, but never decrease, this majority rule.

Should you require formal legal advice, feel free to send a quick e-mail to Guzm?n Ariza (info@drlawyer.com) and inform us where in the DR is the condo located.
 
R

rubio_higuey

Gold
Feb 7, 2007
8,005
625
113
Some people would be happy they can now get the best GSM/HSDPA and LTE signal possible on their cellphones ...

just sayin'
 
J

jimmythegreek

Bronze
Dec 4, 2008
1,066
4
0
Alfredo Guzman said:
According to Art. 8 of DR's Condominium Law, unless otherwise regulated by your specific condo's rules, unanimous approval from all owners is required in order to build new units or make new installations which may affect the building or its dependencies (the entire condominium not just the individual buildings).

You must consult the condo's declaration and rules, since there is a chance that the roof may be registered as a common sector for the exclusive use of the top condo unit.

Any conflict related to a condominium's administration or the use of its common areas, such as this case, must be brought before the competent Land Court. An emergency lawsuit (referimiento) would also be available to provisionally prevent the installation of the antenna (there are conflicting court precedents regarding this).

Any increase of a Condo's monthly fees as well as the approval of any extraordinary fees must be approved by the majority of condo owners at a duly called Homeowner's Assembly Meeting. Condo rules may increase, but never decrease, this majority rule.

Should you require formal legal advice, feel free to send a quick e-mail to Guzm?n Ariza (info@drlawyer.com) and inform us where in the DR is the condo located.
Click to expand...

Actually, I now have discovered that the resolution was never even affirmed in the Asamblea, because two owners rejected the resolution. As you pointed out here, under Article 8, the antenna is considered an 'installation' and is required to have the unanimous consent-approval of all property owners. Even if it was only the owners in a quorum of 51% at the Asamblea, the resolution still was not approved, since it was not unanimous. However, even after the the Acta de Asamblea states the two owners rejected the resolution, it then goes on to say that is was approved! It appears that they do not understand that Article 8 requires a unanimous vote for construction-additions and installations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom