Saving Green, and Greening, Too

Value Engineering Analysis helps condo owners and environment

     It's no secret that the current trend in home greening has been a boon
for developers and homeowners, as well as the environment.  Energy-
saving features not only lessen the drain on our natural resources, but
provide compelling economic incentives like lower energy costs and
long-term savings.  Kipcon Inc., a full-service engineering firm based
in North Brunswick, has come up with a new benefactor for this doubly
helpful practice: the community association. 
     People who live in co-ops, condos, and the like, are collectively
responsibile for the replacement and maintenance of essencial building
components such as roofs and boilers.  In order to plan for the purchase
and care of these high-ticket items, community associations create a
reserve schedule in which money from each resident is saved in a combined
account according to the demands of the property.  Target savings amounts
can be determined by partaking in what is known as a reserve study.
     "In a typical reserve study, we only evaluate the physical elements of the
building, typically, just the capital replacement items," explains Kipcon's
president, Mitchell H. Frumkin.  "For example, a reserve study may find
that the roof of a condo has a $100,000 replacement cost and a 20-year
lifespan.  The analysis would suggest that the homeowners put aside
$5,000 every year, so when it comes time to replace the roof, the money
will be there."
     While a reserve study alone is an invaluable tool for a community
association, Kipcon has taken this service one step further with the
introduction of its Value Engineering Analysis.  "Rather than simply
assessing the costs of replacing or maintaining capital replacement
items, Value Engineering seeks alternative options," says Frumkin. 
Kipcon takes a holistic approach by looking at the capital replacement
items, the relationship between the items and the cost of their
maintenance, and the cost of energy.  These three factors are then
compared with one another in order to save the community
association money over time. 
Builders are realizing that if they can create a greener
building, it will add another highlight to their sales
proposition.
     "If a building has an inefficient boiler that still has five years left
in it, we would suggest that the homeowners save for a high-efficiency
boiler," explains Frumkin.  "The new boiler might cost slightly more,
but will save residents money in the long run by reducing energy needs."  
     With approximately 80 percent of new residential developement
falling somewhere into the category of multi-unit residential projects,
the community association market is booming.  Value Engineering
Anaylsis can also be advantageous to developers during pre-construction,
in that it can help developers gain an edge over their competitors as well
as help homeowners save money in energy costs and reserve requirements.
     According to Frumkin, "Most builders want to get the lowest cost
possible for their building, because they need to sell units.  However,
more and more builders are realizing that if they can create a greener
building that will also save homeowners money, it will add another
highlight to their sales proposition."  --By Jodi LaMarco 

Women Professionals in Real Estate

Reaching the Top of Their Field

By Stephanie Mannino

Although New Jersey real estate has long been viewed as a male-dominated world, it's no longer just a boys-only club. Many women have carved their own paths to success in the industry, rising through the ranks as property managers, accountants and realtors.

Several of these professionals recently shared their personal experiences and unique perspectives on the industry with The New Jersey Cooperator. Although their career trajectories and areas of expertise differ, these women do share an entrepreneurial spirit, business acumen and strong personal drive in common.
They all love what they do and are thriving in their own businesses. Here's how and why they got to where they are today.

Robin Habacht

Robin Habacht, a property manager with Monticello Management, Inc., in Leonia, N.J., has been working in the service industry since the early 1980s, although property management is a more recent venture. "As Bob Dylan said, 'You're gonna have to serve somebody.' Well, it's true and if you're lucky, you'll make a
living at it and it will bring you a great sense of fulfillment," says Habacht. "I have been in and enjoyed the service industry for as long as I can remember. I started out in the early 1980s on Wall Street, working in accounting via stock loans back when E.F. Hutton spoke, not only did people listen, they knew who E.F. Hutton was. I rode the wave of incredible interest rates with best of them, watched the market crash, enjoyed the IPO craze as a chief financial officer. But after having been one of those ironically—'off on September 11 people'—I decided to take some time off from New York City."

Her time away from the city led to a new career for Habacht. "They say that timing is everything. At the same time that I decided to retire from New York City, a New Jersey management company came up for sale. At the same time, Paul DePetro agreed to join the company, bringing with him 25 years of New York City property management and engineering experience. Going into the business did not even look like an option, it was an amazing
opportunity."

Keeping It in the Family

Although she was starting over in New Jersey, she was no stranger to real estate. Habacht, who was born in New York City, comes from a family of New York City real estate and property management professionals. "Because my family has been in New York City real estate and property management for 50 years, it seemed that going into the business was just keeping it in the family. I'm on [the New Jersey] side of the Hudson and they are on the other."

Monticello Management offers its services throughout New Jersey and has offices in Bergen, Hudson, Monmouth and Ocean Counties. The company specializes in property and realty management; residential, commercial, rental and cooperative management; accounting and reporting; and cash management and collection.

Thriving in Her Own Right

Habacht believes that her years of experience and unique background have helped her thrive in the industry, and she has never felt at a disadvantage as a woman in a male-dominated line of work. "If I've been discriminated against as a woman, I've been too busy to notice," says Habacht. "I have always felt that I have a distinct advantage in the field. I hold a master's degree in accounting and several licenses in property management. I have a background that includes construction and engineering and have surrounded myself with the caliber of personnel that strive to achieve the best possible end result for the communities we serve."

She views her work as more than just a job. "I have the privilege of being in charge in my business," says Habacht. "This privilege has allowed me to take the best of every professional experience I have had over the years and recommendations from clients, and build my company's policies and procedures around them. I have the privilege and reward of giving my customers and employees the best of the best, and exceeding their expectations."

 

September 2007

CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS NOW PERMITTED BY NJ CONDOMINIUM ACT

On September 10, 2007, Governor Corzine signed into legislation
a bill modifying Section 46:8B-15 of the New Jersey Condominium
Act. The bill now confi rms that condominium associations may
charge a capital contribution or membership fee, as long as the
association’s master deed or by-laws provide the authority for doing
so. You may recall that the recent Micheve case cast doubt on an
association’s ability to collect these fees. Also included in the bill is
a provision mandating that association funds must be maintained
separately and not commingled. Capital Contribution and Membership
Fees. The law now provides that, if authorized by the master deed or
bylaws, an association may collect a capital contribution, membership
fee or other charge upon the initial sale or subsequent resale of a unit.
The funds collected must be allocated for maintaining or improving the
common elements or defraying common expenses or otherwise. The
charge may not exceed nine times the amount of the most recent
monthly common expense assessment for the unit. The bill also
validates any existing master deed or bylaws provision which already
provides for the collection of this type of fee.

Thus, a condominium association whose by-laws or master deed
already include authority to charge a capital contribution or membership
fee (whether in the original version or by amendment prior to this
legislation) can now be confi dent of its ability to charge the fee. Any
condominium association which does not currently have the authority to
charge a capital contribution or membership fee may now take steps to
amend its by-laws or master deed. The legislation, because it is part of
the Condominium Act, does not apply to homeowners associations or
cooperatives. Maintaining Association Funds. The law also includes a
provision that requires all funds collected by the association to be
maintained separately in the association’s name. For investment
purposes only, reserves may be commingled with operating funds of
the association as long as each fund is accounted for separately and
the balance of the account never falls below the amount identifi ed as
reserve funds. Under no circumstances may association funds be
commingled with the funds of the managing agent, a trustee, or of
another association. These requirements should not be a surprise
to most associations as they likely operate in this way already.

 

The following article appeared in Parker McCay Commentary: Community Association Law Fall 2007. Reprinted with the permission of Parker McCay P.A. © 2007.

Unit Owners’ Defamatory Remarks About Board Members

by David R. Dahan, Esquire and Scott Mahoney, Esquire (Mr. Mahoney recently left Parker McCay for another opportunity.)

Discussions of controversial issues between homeowners in community developments and the association’s board of trustees can sometimes escalate to heated debates. Insults, name-calling and allegations of improprieties are not uncommon forms of expression for owners unsatisfied with board policies, members or candidates. Often, these verbal assaults are accusatory, inaccurate and personal. In many cases, these remarks are made in writing, through emails to community members or flyers posted throughout the community, as opposed to public verbal statements. But are these statements defamatory? Trustees sometimes think so and seek to file suit against the offending owners to halt their tirades.

In defamation suits, courts will distinguish between defamation claims filed by “private persons,” and claims filed by public figures, which are far more difficult to prove. This is important because courts in New Jersey have held that association trustees, by virtue of their leadership role in the community, inject themselves voluntarily into public debates, and therefore qualify as “limited public purpose” figures. Gulrajaney v. Patricha, 381 N.J. Super. 241 (App.Div. 2005); Verna v. The Links at Valleybrook Neighborhood Association, 371 N.J. Super. 77 (App. Div. 2004). As a result, in order to prove defamation, trustees must show not only that statements are untrue (the baseline requirement for private individuals), but also that the statements were made with actual malice—that is, that the individuals responsible knew the statements were false, or made them with “reckless disregard” for the truth. Additionally, the evidence presented to prove malice must be “clear and convincing.” Furthermore, New Jersey courts have also held that a candidate for a seat on a community association’s board of trustees is a limited public purpose figure for purposes of defamation law.

Consequently, New Jersey courts have made it clear that there is a higher standard to prove defamation involving expressions of opinion about the activities of board members or candidates. However, such expressions must be made carefully and individuals making them must understand that they still could be held liable for their comments.

 

The following article appeared in Parker McCay Commentary: Community Association Law Fall 2007. Reprinted with the permission of Parker McCay P.A. © 2007.

Association Collection Policies

by Nikitas Moustakas, Esquire

An essential component of a well-run community association is the institution and maintenance of an efficient and structured collection policy. Additionally, a clear, comprehensive policy can protect an association from potential liability.

There are several important elements to a collection policy, including the maintenance of accurate financial records, a method to answering owner accounting inquiries, carefully imposed late charges, and timely action on delinquent payments. An association’s management agent will typically carry out the initial action on delinquent payments, but a policy should include an established time period after which a collection matter is turned over to the association’s attorney.

Once a collection policy is established, the association should clearly communicate the policy to the owners and strictly adhere to it. However, a policy may have some flexibility so that at the discretion of the association board, fines and interest can be removed when hardship befalls an owner precluding timely payments.

The following is an example of how a fully executed collection policy might play out:

• If an owner misses a monthly payment, a letter is sent to the owner as notice that full payment and any interest or fines incurred are due within 30 days.

• If the owner does not pay the debt within the 30-day period, the association notifies its attorney. Once the matter is turned over to the attorney, the account is reviewed for accuracy.

• The attorney prepares and records a notice of assessment lien and sends a demand letter to the owner.

• After the demand letter is sent, the owner has 30 days to pay the amount requested. Frequently, the owner will contact the attorney to discuss and clarify the delinquency.

• If the owner does not make payment 30 days after the demand letter, the attorney may initiate legal action, such as foreclosing the lien on the property or obtaining a judgment and collection on that judgment through various means. However, foreclosure should only be used as a last resort given the harshness and finality of such a remedy.

In closing, a comprehensive collection policy is critical to ensuring that all members pay their proper share of common expenses and that adequate cash flow is available to pay such expenses. However, strict adherence to the policy is necessary and cannot be selectively enforced. This will help to ensure that an association is collecting what is rightfully due in a timely manner and eliminate any defense that the policy is not equally applied to all. Otherwise, to the detriment of the association, members may take their time making payments with minimal concern for adverse action. 

 

A Look Inside Monticello Management

New Kid on the Block

 

By Keith Loria

Article Options

• Email to Friend
• Print Article
• Remove from Favorites
• Add to Favorites
• Remove from 'Articles to Read'
• Add to 'Articles to Read'
• Comments

Although Leonia-based Monticello Management, Inc. is a fairly new property management company, the people behind the company have a lifetime (or two) of real estate experience between them.

"I spent the first 20 years of my career as a financial officer on one end of New York City," says Monticello's co-founder and president Robin Habacht. "On the other end of the city there was a director of engineering and property manager named Paul DePetro, who had spent 20 years of his career working for Cushman Wakefield and Helmsley Spear—two of the largest management companies in the world."

In 2003, a property management company came up for sale and Habacht and DePetro decided to leave their respective positions to form a partnership as owners of the company. However, things didn't work out as planned.

"With my years in finance and Paul's years of property management, it looked like a great opportunity," Habacht said. "But after months of negotiations, the deal with the property management company fell through. But I already picked up two clients and Paul was committed to the venture."

Alternative Route

Rather than look for another firm for sale, they decided to found their own company. Monticello Management was born—with just those two clients to start. Since then however, things have definitely changed for the better. With a main office in Leonia, and another in Morganville, the company currently serves 25 client properties, representing more than 2,500 individual property owners, and is expanding with a third office buy the end of 2006.

Monticello's corporate mission statement hangs in every one of the company's associates' offices. Habacht says that the words may seem very basic, but stresses their importance to her firm and its employees.

"We must practice professionalism, courtesy and attentiveness at all times. ...Respect and address all matters of concern to the customer... Work in pursuit of the best possible solution... Own customer issues until they are resolved to the customer's satisfaction... Celebrate our successes and continually strive for improvement."

"Our goals have not changed," says Habacht. "Top notch service to our clients was and is our number-one priority. "Every decision made and action taken at every level within the company is keeping this goal in mind."

On Call

Believing that the most important thing that any property management service can do for its clients is to be there when trouble arises, Monticello Management promises their clients that they will be reachable 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

"We don't believe in answering services," Habacht says. "We don't believe that an answering service operator should decide if what I as an owner deem an emergency really is one. Owners are adults, and it's their decision to reach out to me."

After hours, client properties can leave a message on the office's voicemail or call the cell phone number if you need immediate assistance.

In Charge

When Monticello Management takes on a new client, Habacht says the company aims to be everything from facilitators and mediators to design consultants and managers of all the association's most important aspects. When people choose to live in associations, it's generally because they are looking for someone else to take some of the physical maintenance responsibility of the property off of their shoulders, says Habacht.

"I like to think of property managers in the context of the old saying about how 'children should be seen, but not heard,'" says Habacht. "What we do is make sure everything is working smoothly—and we do so from behind the scenes with the minimal disturbance to the owners. For example, we make sure that preventative maintenance strategies are in place to maintain the common elements and building systems, as well as to extend their life span."

Up for the Challenge

DePetro is in charge of engineering for Monticello Management. According to Habacht, if a property management company doesn't have a guy like him running engineering, the company is almost operating in the dark when it comes to construction projects.

"The biggest expense—the biggest drain my associations face today—is any capital reserve project," Habacht says. "Paul understands exactly what the contractor is talking about—so when one of my high-rises needs to be repainted, and we're dealing with wind and water coming off of the Hudson River, he's the guy you want. When an association has to choose which type of roof to replace their 20-year-old roofs with, Paul is the guy you want. He speaks the language of the engineer." Habacht estimates that DePetro has saved countless associations hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.

Coming Aboard

Monticello Management is always looking to grow, says Habacht, and they don't require client properties and associations to sign any long-term contracts, leaving the amount of years up to the associations.

"Generally, associations want to sign management companies on for two to three years so they can lock in the rates. We usually sign on for two years, but it's not a rule," says Habacht. "Transition periods vary. A new client can be up and running in two days—24 hours if we don't sleep—and three months is the general transition period."

Future Thoughts

Both Habacht and DePetro say they feel that the property management industry is competitive in New Jersey, and believe that the survival of their company depends on them sticking to a formula they believe is already working.

"We will maintain the strategy that service is number one," says Habacht. "Our five-to-ten year plan? I'd like to see us serving our associations with the same enthusiasm and commitment as we do today."

Q&A with Robin Habacht

The New Jersey Cooperator recently had the opportunity to sit down with Monticello Management's Robin Habacht to discuss her company and its future goals.

For those unfamiliar with the company, how do you describe what you do?

"A question like this should bring a smile to any property manager's face. We fill so many unconventional roles in our capacity, but I'll start with the conventional ones. I feel like property managers should be seen but not heard. However, what we do is make sure everything is working smoothly and we do so from behind the scenes with the minimal disturbance to the owners.

"When people choose to live in associations—whatever form the association takes—it's generally because they are looking for someone else to take some of the physical maintenance responsibility of the property off of their shoulders. So, property management companies are in place to make sure of just that. We make sure that the common elements such as the mechanical systems, the HVAC, and boilers are properly maintained, as well as recreational amenities such as the pool, clubhouse, and tennis courts. Even the plain common areas, like roadways and landscaping—all these items are cared for without disturbing the owners. Ideally, they're cared for before the owner even knows they need it."

What is the mission statement for Monticello Management?

"It's very simple and very basic, but very important:

•Practice professionalism, courtesy and attentiveness at all times

•Respect and address all matters of concern to the customer

•Work in pursuit of the best possible solution

•Own customer issues until they are resolved to the customer's satisfaction

•Celebrate our successes and continually strive for improvement"

What are your top goals for the year ahead?

"Our goals have not changed—top-notch service to our clients was and is our number one priority. Every decision made and action taken at every level within the company is keeping this goal in mind. Separating the company from the product, as a company we are aware of the pitfalls that we potentially face during growth, but that is a challenge for any company. It is therefore vital for a growing company to expand its intellectual capital as its customer base expands."

What is your role in keeping properties happy and dealing with problems when they arise?

"You're familiar with the expression 'Show and Tell?' This is about 'Show.' Our number one rule is NO ANSWERING SERVICE, and we are accessible 24/7. We don't believe in answering services. We don't believe that an answering service operator should decide if what I as an owner deem an emergency, is or is not one. Owners are adults, and it's their decision to reach out to me at 2 a.m. on a Saturday morning—although it really should be a good one at 2 a.m.!"

So how do they get in touch with you if it is an emergency?

"Simple. After-hours, our offices have a simple message, you may leave a voicemail or, at the end of the message, there is a cell phone number for emergencies, and that is my cell phone number. With over 2,500 individual owners, if I receive one call on my cell phone on a weekend once a month, it's an anomaly. But the fact that owners can reach us as promised 24/7, this is the 'Show' part—it's part of our promise. So, how do you keep clients happy? You deliver on your promises. You promise service and you deliver."

Keith Loria is a freelance writer and frequent contributor to The New Jersey Cooperator.

 

 

Satellite Issues

Are Unsightly Antennas and Dishes Ruining Your Condominium?

Aug, 2002 by Ishikawa, Jesse S.

Condominium developers and owners' associations typically seek to preserve the aesthetic appearance and marketability of their condominiums by limiting the unit owners' use of building exteriors. As telecommunications technology continues its rapid development, developers and owners' associations must contend with antennas and satellite dishes that can turn balconies, decks and rooftops into warrens of unsightly equipment.

Drafters of restrictions on the installation of antennas and satellite dishes must now contend with a broadly worded regulation that severely limits developers' and associations' ability to restrict antennas and dishes. Under the authority of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC") has adopted 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000, otherwise known as the "Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule" or simply the "OTARD rule." (1)

1. OTARD Rule Basics

In general, the OTARD rule provides that any law, regulation or restriction on property "within the exclusive use or control" of the user of an antenna in which the user has a "direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest" is prohibited if it "impairs the installation, maintenance or use" of the antenna.(2) A restriction "impairs the installation, maintenance or use" of the antenna if it: ·

• "unreasonably delays or prevents installation, maintenance or use" of the antenna, ·
• "unreasonably increases the cost of installation, maintenance or use" of the antenna, or ·
• "precludes reception or transmission of an acceptable quality signal."(3)

In a condominium, each unit owner holds a direct or indirect ownership interest in all common elements, and typically has exclusive use or control of one or more exterior limited common element areas, such as balconies, decks, patios and similar areas. These exclusive use areas are covered by the OTARD rule.(4) The rule applies to antennas one meter or less in diameter (or any size if located in Alaska) that are used to receive direct broadcast satellite service (including direct-to-home satellite service) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite,(5) antennas one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement that are used to receive video programming services via multipoint distribution services or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite, antennas that are used to receive television broadcast signals, and masts supporting any of the foregoing types of antennas.(6)

The only exceptions to the OTARD rule are restrictions necessitated by safety or historic preservation concerns. Even then, the restrictions must impose no more burden than necessary upon affected antenna users and apply in a nondiscriminatory manner to comparable appurtenances, devices and fixtures.(7) Local governments and associations can apply to the FCC for waivers from the rule, but waivers will only be granted if the FCC finds that there are "local concerns of a highly specialized or unusual nature."(8)

Parties may challenge the validity of a restriction under the OTARD rule by petitioning the FCC or a "court of competent jurisdiction" for a declaratory ruling(9) The burden of demonstrating that a challenged restriction complies with the rule rests with the party seeking to impose the restriction.(10)

2. Problems for Drafters of Condominium Restrictions

For drafters of restrictions on antennas and dishes in condominiums, the main difficulties with the OTARD rule are the rule's use of reasonableness standards and the strict interpretation of those standards by the FCC. An outright ban on the installation, maintenance or use of antennas or dishes in areas within the exclusive use or control of the user clearly would violate the rule.(11) According to the FCC, even far less burdensome restrictions would violate the rule.

The FCC has determined, for example, that:

• One cannot require a unit owner to obtain owners' association approval or permits before installing, maintaining or using an antenna, because any such requirement would result in unreasonable delay.(12)
• One cannot compel a unit owner to take any action that would increase, to the slightest extent, the cost to the unit owner of installing, maintaining or using the antenna because any such increase in cost is an unreasonable increase.(13)
• One cannot limit the number of antennas an owner may install in a given location if doing so would prevent the owner from receiving the desired services.(14)
   

It is also difficult to draft restrictions that will comply with the OTARD rule over time. How can one know what restrictions on installation will unreasonably increase costs when prices are changing as often as they are in the telecommunications business? How can one craft a reasonable limitation on antenna placement without knowing how new technologies will affect reception or transmission quality?
3. Drafting Valid Restrictions

It is still possible to draft restrictions that fit within the confines of the rule. The key to drafting a valid restriction is to tailor it as narrowly as possible to achieve the desired objective and then provide for alternative solutions in the event a particular unit owner's demands for service, changing technology, or other circumstances cause the restriction to impair the installation, maintenance or use of an antenna by causing delays, increasing costs, or decreasing reception or transmission quality. It may be a good idea to place restrictions in condominium documents that easily can be modified to keep pace with changing technology, such as the condominium rules and regulations rather than the declaration.(15)

Following are some types of restrictions that should be permissible under the OTARD rule.

a. Ban with "Saving Language." A complete prohibition on the installation of antennas and dishes would comply with the rule as long as it is accompanied by "saving language" providing that the restriction does not apply to the extent it conflicts with law or fails in a particular case to meet any of the rule's reasonableness standards. This type of restriction would be easy to draft, but may not adequately address the developer's or the association's concerns in particular situations in which the prohibition does not apply.

b. Require the Use of a Common Antenna. A restriction requiring unit owners to use a common antenna in lieu of installing personal antennas should comply with the rule, provided that the restriction meets certain requirements. The common antenna would have to provide all of the reception and transmission services that a unit owner could receive using personal antennas, at no extra cost and at an equal or better level of quality.(16) Furthermore, connection to the common antenna could not result in any delay to unit owners beyond that which the unit owners would experience in installing, maintaining and using personal antennas.

c. Require Installation in a Common Location. A restriction requiring unit owners to install individual antennas in a designated location within the common elements (such as on the roof of the building) rather than in areas within the unit owners' exclusive use or control should comply with the rule as long as the restriction also provides that if this arrangement increases costs, causes delays, or diminishes service quality in any particular case, the affected owner would be allowed to install an individual antenna in his or her exclusive use area. A "common location" arrangement must satisfy many of the same standards that must be satisfied in the "common antenna" arrangement discussed above. In particular, the developer or association would have the flexibility to choose the location, but the location must allow adequate reception and transmission, and no additional delays or costs could be placed on unit owners.

d. Minor Restrictions Relating to Aesthetics or Installation. Minor restrictions addressing specific aesthetic or installation issues should comply with the rule as long as they do not cause delays, increases in costs or decreases in quality of service. These restrictions could be used alone or in combination with any of the other types of restrictions suggested above. Examples would include:·

• Restrictions requiring painting or screening of the antenna or dish, as long as the painting or screening does not invalidate any manufacturer's warranty and the association pays the cost of the painting or screening(17) ·
• Restrictions requiring antennas and dishes to be located in unobtrusive locations within the unit owners' exclusive use areas, provided the reception or transmission is of adequate quality in those locations,(18) ·
• Restrictions prohibiting unit owners from installing antennas or dishes in, on or over common elements over which the unit owners do not have "exclusive use or control;"(19) 
• Restrictions requiring that any contractor employed to install a dish or antenna must have insurance covering personal injuries and property damage,(20) and ·
• Restrictions requiring unit owners to indemnify the association and its members from claims and liability for personal injury or property damage caused by the installation, maintenance or use of antennas and dishes within the unit owners' exclusive use areas.(21)

4. Conclusion. While the OTARD rule is an obstacle to condominium developers and associations trying to preserve the aesthetic appearance and marketability of their condominiums by restricting the installation of antennas and dishes, it does not completely prevent developers and associations from regulating antennas and dishes. With creativity and careful drafting, developers and associations should be able to craft restrictions that go at least part of the way in meeting their goals. ___________________

It is also difficult to draft restrictions that will comply with the OTARD rule over time. How can one know what restrictions on installation will unreasonably increase costs when prices are changing as often as they are in the telecommunications business? How can one craft a reasonable limitation on antenna placement without knowing how new technologies will affect reception or transmission quality?