Page 16 - NY Cooperator April 2020

16 THE COOPERATOR — APRIL 2020 COOPERATOR.COM RESTORATION GROUP, LTD. Phone: 718.993.5700 info@yatesrestoration.com www.yatesrestoration.com Yates Restoration has set the standard in the restoration and maintenance of New York CIty’s most notable properties. Our unsurpassed expertise and team of artisans, technicians and project managers, means your project gets done right and on schedule. Call or visit us at our website. Restoring the City of New York for over 90 years • Facade Restoration • Roofing and Waterproofing • Terrace and Plaza Restoration • Balcony Restoration and Repair • Structural Stabilization • Steel Work • Ornamental Sheet Metal • Local Law 11 doesn’t serve the common interests of the membership. Additionally, ordinary family dynamics with their inherent conflicts and complications can be problematic on a resi- dential board that’s trying to govern efficient- ly and objectively. That does not mean that it’s flatly illegal for, say, a pair of spouses to serve together on their board. In spite of—or, some might say, because of—the broad decision-making powers bestowed upon residential boards, state statutes governing board directorship provide very little in the way of oversight or regulation. Most only include the basic con- dition that there be a board, and that it be elected by the membership. In New York, residential boards are gov- erned by Business Corporation Law (BCL), which leaves the criteria and qualifications for board candidacy and directorship up to individual communities’ Certificates of In- corporation (CofOs) and bylaws. However, according to Mark Axinn, a partner with the Manhattan-based law firm of Brill & Meisel, which specializes in co-op and condo repre- sentation, “Many bylaws require only that the individual be a resident of the State of New York and over 18 to qualify for board mem- bership.” That means that unless a building or association’s governing documents specify otherwise, spouses and other family mem- bers are free to run for and serve on the board together. That doesn’t mean it’s advisable, though. Attorney Bruce Cholst, a shareholder at Manhattan-based law firm Anderson Kill, thinks such a situation would be “a ter- rible idea.” “On many occasions,” he says, “I’ve seen spouses attempt to use the lever- age \\\[they\\\] have by having two votes on the board to spearhead their own private agen- das. The opportunity and the inclination are both rampant, and often it’s too hard to resist the temptation.” He goes on to say that even though a pair of spouses might not join the board together with the intention of causing trouble, the dynamic “\\\[is\\\] still insidious and invidious, and it’s just not a good idea.” Attorney Adam Leitman Bailey of Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. in Manhattan agrees. In his opinion, “The married couple will almost always be voting the same way with the same interests to protect. Instead of having two independent, free-thinking voting members to benefit the building, every vote will be handicapped in favor of the married couple holding two votes.” No matter how seriously they take their fiduciary duty, even the most well-intentioned couple will be a voting bloc, in appearance or in actuality. For that reason, Axinn recommends that co-ops amend their bylaws to prohibit more than one board member from any one apart- ment. Note, however, that even with Axinn’s recommended bylaw change, if members of the same family own more than one unit in a given building or association, in most states it would be perfectly legal for them all to serve simultaneously, as long as there was no more than one representative from each unit owned. advancements in efficiency and capacity. For many older buildings, says Durant, the prob- lem with the washing machines was typically backup resulting from suds drainage. To- day’s high-efficiency washers and detergents decrease the suds volume, so overruns and backups aren’t as much of an issue. Dryers need to be vented, and buildings not designed for a venting stack must have an alternative channel for exhaust. Newer “self- venting” units don’t require external vent- ing, but they also take much longer to dry clothes, and can make enclosed spaces very humid —so external venting through a win- dow or other air shaft is still typical. This is not too difficult in the large co-ops that Du- rant manages, but he says the bigger hurdle is overly restrictive boards that forbid any type of additions or alterations. At the co-op he currently manages on the Lower East Side, he says the board has undergone a review of many of its outdated or misapplied policies “to give residents the opportunity to live here comfortably and improve the value of their apartments.” Electrical capacity is another consider- ation when bringing an older apartment into the 21st century. Many older units do not have nearly the amperage to accommodate modern appliances. In buildings constructed prior to about 1980, electrical capacity did not account for the commercial-grade refrig- erators, microwaves, and wall ovens so popu- lar today, let alone the personal electronics that pervade most households. Add an air conditioner to that mix, and you might trip a breaker, says Durant, leading to an expensive headache and a sweaty apartment. Even newer buildings may not have the capacity for every unit to have its own washer and dryer on top of necessary kitchen and other appliances. And while wiring upgrades are sometimes feasible, often they have to be building-wide—not just in single units — which may not be structurally or financially possible for some buildings. On the Outs Thanks to the new FISP requirements that went into effect in February, any interior al- terations involving a building’s exterior ele- ments will likely undergo stricter challenges and scrutiny. According to the pros, the new requirements include more up-close, hands- on inspections and use of probes to examine potential underlying deteriorations. Any al- teration that restricts such inspections or that has the potential to affect facade integrity will be tougher to get approved—and if the in- spections reveal violations or safety concerns, existing exterior additions might have to be removed or changed, even if they were done legally. Therefore, multifamily building dwellers looking to expand their space or add features outside of their unit might have to look in- side rather than out. “In a limited space, we have to be creative,” he says. “Having a board that is less restrictive and open to new ideas I think retains a lot of people and increases the value of the apartments.” n Darcey Gerstein is Associate Editor and a Staff Writer for The Cooperator. WHEN INTERIOR... continued from page 15 shareholders and unit owners of their com- munities—to exercise their essential duty: voting in their annual elections for a board that will faithfully represent their interests. Family Ties Much of real estate is a family affair. Not only does our cultural tradition of living in discrete family units mean that ‘home’ is a decidedly kinship-based concept, but the prospect of generational wealth-building that comes from owning real property has been a bedrock of American culture since the coun- try’s founding. Even the business side of real estate has become a generational undertaking. Families in New York development, broker- age, investment, and management are in sec- ond, third, even fourth generations of owner- ship—the Trumps and the Kushners easily come to mind, but there are also the Dursts, the LeFraks, the Rudins, and the Tishmans, just to name a handful. But when the boards of directors in co- ops, condos, and HOAs also follow blood- lines, family relationships between members can constitute a concentration of power that RELATIONSHIPS... continued from page 1