Ex MD of the TIDC slams Trustees intent to add bulk

Here is what the former MD of the Thesen Islands Development Company (TIDC) has said to the Trustees of the HOA:

I have added bold to what I see as key points.

December 26, 2018

The Trustees of the Thesen Islands Home Owners Association

Dear Sirs and Madams

INCREASING THE BULK FACTOR FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON THESEN ISLANDS

Firstly I wish to confirm myself as co-author of the e-mail, as forwarded to yourselves by Gray Rutherford, and the contents thereof as correct, being my view. Proposed change is not minor - 2 ex TIDC Directors say

Secondly, I wish to expand on the matter, not only as former MD of the development company and former trustee of the TIHOA, but also as concerned and potentially affected member.

I cannot support this notion for a general increase in bulk for all erven and for the following reasons:

i)                    As mentioned before this amendment cannot be viewed as “minor” and surely doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the trustees or DRP.

ii)                  A 10% increase in bulk for each erf cannot be utilized equally and will only be benefitting certain owners, but will inconvenience everyone.   How would the Dry Mill Owners be benefitting from this increase for instance?

iii)                Each stand has a list of constraints, including building lines, bulk, ground floor coverage, first floor coverage, etc.   All of this will be required to be revised to allow for the development of new bulk.   Furthermore these restrictions were carefully considered in allowing for views, light and privacy.

iv)                Who will defend the cases of owners who are now negatively affected by the potential changes, which may result? … and at who’s expense? … the inconvenienced owners I have to assume.

v)                  For the majority of the erven the improvements have been designed and built to the limit of two or more of these constraints and the amendment of these constraints could have significant impact on other owners.

vi)                I see the main beneficiaries of such an increase of bulk being the architects and town planners (and non-conforming owners), who will be creating a wealth in work for themselves should such increase in bulk be implemented.   

Thus the parties responsible for the (misinformation, leading to) over-bulking of certain erven will now benefit even further.   

It is no rocket science to correctly calculate building areas with the computerised area calculation off electronic plans and surely those parties guilty of wilful misinformation, or at least gross neglect, should be held professionally accountable. 

I furthermore see the trustees and management of the home owners getting themselves caught up in legal action by dissatisfied owners, negatively impacted on by increased bulked on erven, inconvenienced by a wave of construction activity, effecting their views, light, privacy and value of their properties. 

If this matter does require consideration, my views and suggestions are as follows:

a)      It must be properly considered, research and documented for open debate by the members.

b)     As all parties will not equally benefit by a general increase, the increase should be considered ad hoc, where needed, on due consideration, at merit and subject to financial compensation to the HOA.   Such compensation must be in line with escalated cost of (maximum allowable) bulk as sold by the development company.

c)      This matter must be tabled at a future AGM or SGM, following provision of complete information and due debate by the members.

d)     My view is that this matter, which would have required unanimous consent of all members, in the case of a body corporate, must receive expert input to advise on the correct level of consent by members, in order to prevent it being challenged by negatively impacted and dissatisfied members.

I trust that my information and concerns raised in this and the previous e-mail will be well received, as intended, and will bring you, the trustees, to a different insight and to reconsider this matter.   Should you then decide that you still wish to have this matter considered, that you will inform the members for their due consideration

If this matter is not referred back to the members with proper information for debate and due consideration, I shall have no option as negatively impacted member, than to refer this matter to the Community Schemes Ombud.

Yours faithfully

Willem Scholtz

P80: Heron View