Incompetence, evasion & the Design Review Panel: You be the judge

What has happened to the Design Review Panel? This story and the following one are hard to explain - how are such very basic compliance issues missed? 

Or is the DRP not interested in ensuring that only plans that are in accordance with the Design Guidelines are approved?

Or are there no Design Guidelines except for those the DRP is keeping close to its chest and only sharing with the connected few? 

Like some of the Trustees, for example. 
See The email that got Craig Smith banned

Not only does the Design Review Panel tries to mislead homeowners... 

See  HOA tries out a new story. I am not buying it

and Chris Mulder (Ex TIDC Director & Master Planner) steps into the fight. Read his letter to HOA Chairman here

...But it is both incompetent and evasive as this story will demonstrate. Or if not incompetence, what?

Where was the oversight from the Board of Trustees? 

To try to keep it brief, I will give a summary:

August 28, 2018: I see a double story garage under construction at P45. This is an obvious contravention of the Design Guidelines that absolutely should not have been approved by the Design Review Panel.  What needs to be understood about the Design Guidelines is that they are mostly a series of rules as anyone who reads them will  see. There is no mystery there.  

September 12, 2018: I receive a reply from the Building Control Officer.  His reply made absolutely no sense at all. He can be excused as he is very new on the job. Later he seemed to indicate that he'd received his information from the DRP! 

But that's how the DRP does it. Pushes a paid employee out front. Like they did by having Paul Burchell put his name to their attempted snow job on the justification for the increasing of the bulk. 

September 21, 2018: I replied to the Building Control Officer's email 

Here is an  excerpt from my reply (see full reply below):

I note that your position is Building Control Officer. As a Building Control Officer, you will understand the importance of regulations for regulating and controlling what is being built. You will also agree, that regulations need to read and then applied in their entirety. Sections cannot be cherry picked to make a case for non compliance.

Your reply did not address my points directly. In fact, your reply only makes sense if one ignores what is written in the Owner’s Manual.  I do not have the time to point out all the relevant sections but a careful reading will inform you.

Applying your reasoning, a garage can be built any where provided it is within the building envelope and there is no Regulation Plan for the stand.  If, as you do, you ignore all that is written in the Owner’s Manual.  

Using my stand (P79) as an example:  It has a 1.5 m building setback from the street boundary and does not have a Regulation Plan.  Therefore I could have built a garage facing the street, 1.5m from the boundary. 

September 21, 2018: I get a reply from the Building Control Officer on "finding a way forward with regards to giving a more detailed response from us."

December 18, 2018: I write again to Paul Burchell. An excerpt (full email below):  

It is unfortunate that the HOA seems fit to have a very recently hired Building Control Officer, DelaRey Ferreira, answer my questions when he is not yet familiar with the Design Guidelines. Perhaps the DRP is too embarrassed?  

What is puzzling about this apparent approval is that Edu Lohann (who I believe is still serving on the DRP) has many years experience and, certainly in the past, filled the role of checking the technical aspects of all plans before they are seen by the full DRP. Then also on the panel is Trevor Griffin, an architect also apparently still serving on the DRP who has many years experience. Both apparently didn't see a problem with this submission. 

Can I have a response from the DRP.? 

December 19, 2018: I get a forwarded message from Sam Lurie, the Head of the Design Review Panel:

Dear Paul 

The DRP has discussed this at length. 

I invite Mr Rutherford to our next DRP meeting where the entire panel will be available to answer his concerns re P45. 

This meeting is pencilled in for the 22 January 2019.

Summary: After 3 emails stretching over 4 months, I get invited to a DRP meeting "penciled in" for the end of January, 2019.  And "The DRP has discussed this at length" but they are not going to "share" their discussions unless I come to a meeting  "where the entire panel will be available to answer (my) concerns re P45"

This is just kicking the can down the road.  But the reason for this is simple. The Design Review Panel has failed its responsibilities. And wants to avoid replying to my email.  What else can I think?

Here are all the emails in their entirety:

My email, dated August 28, 2018, addressed to Paul Burchell at the HOA:

------------------------------------------------------

Dear Paul,

Double garage under construction on P45:

I refer to the Design Guidelines, approved by Knysna Municipality, May 2015.

I read under D29 Garages & Carports, the following:

Garages or carports facing the street to be set back a minimum of 5 metres from the street boundary.  

Further on I read:

Garages or carports facing service lanes have reduced setbacks (see Regulation Plan for property).

However, if you look in the HOA records for P45, I do not believe* you will find an Annexure B - Regulation Plan included as part of the original Sale Agreement. 

Neither will the "Annexure A - Site Layout Plan" reference a Regulation Plan. 

Therefore, as there is no Regulation Plan for P45 allowing a reduced setback, no relaxation of the setback for the garage should be permitted.  

*I qualify my statement only because I am not specifically looking at the documentation for P45. However, I am looking at Site Layout Plans for erven in the same street which would be the same as P45.

Sincerely,

Ken Rutherford

P79

-----------------------------------------  

On September 12, 2018, DelaRey Ferreira, the newly appointed Building Control Officer replied:

Good afternoon Mr. Rutherford

My apologies for the delay in responding to your letter.

With regards to the double garage currently under construction at P45, please see my response below:

There are no Thesen Island stands on streets where a zero building line applies. Only on the lanes.

The lanes – Log, Timber, Linen, Canvas, Cotton, Little, Harbour, Crab Claw, Beach, Post and Picket may all have garages on the zero building line.

Garages can be single or double in size, unless they have a specific regulation plan requiring a setback for urban aesthetic reasons.

P45 is situated in Timber Lane, please see attached Site Layout Plan confirming the zero building line for this stand.

I trust this information is satisfactory but please feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss the matter further.

Kind regards

------------------------------------------------------------------  

On September 21, 2018, I replied:

Dear Mr Ferreira,

Thank you for your reply.

I note that your position is Building Control Officer. As a Building Control Officer, you will understand the importance of regulations for regulating and controlling what is being built. You will also agree, that regulations need to read and then applied in their entirety.  Sections cannot be cherry picked to make a case for non compliance.

The Thesen Islands Design Guidelines which comprises the Owner’s Manual, Site Plans and Regulation Plans (“Design Guidelines”) regulate and control what can be built and where it is can be built.  Quoting from the Owner’s Manual, I raised specific points regarding the garage been built on the property line at P45.  

Your reply did not address my points directly. In fact, your reply only makes sense if one ignores what is written in the Owner’s Manual.  I do not have the time to point out all the relevant sections but a careful reading will inform you.

I quote from my email (with updated comments):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read under D29 Garages & Carports, the following:

Garages or carports facing the street to be set back a minimum of 5 metres from the street boundary.  

Further on I read:

Garages or carports facing service lanes have reduced setbacks (see Regulation Plan for property).

However, if you look in the HOA records for P45, I do not believe you will find an Annexure B - Regulation Plan included as part of the original Sale Agreement.    

Neither will the "Annexure A - Site Layout Plan" reference a Regulation Plan.  (19 September, 2018: My reading of your reply confirms that there is no Regulation Plan for P45.)

Therefore, as there is no Regulation Plan for P45 allowing a reduced setback, no relaxation of the setback for the garage should be permitted.  

-------------------------------------------------------------

In your reply you write: “There are no Thesen Island stands on streets where a zero building line applies. Only on the lanes.

The lanes – Log, Timber, Linen, Canvas, Cotton, Little, Harbour, Crab Claw, Beach, Post and Picket may all have garages on the zero building line.  Garages can be single or double in size, unless they have a specific regulation plan requiring a setback for urban aesthetic reasons.”  

You have this back to front. A Regulation Plan is needed for a reduced setback.   I refer you to D32 Garages & Carports:

In general garages or carports facing the street to be set back a minimum of 5 metres from the street boundary.  If not street facing may be set back 1.5 metres.  Garages or carports facing service lanes have reduced setbacks (see Regulation Plan for property).

I also refer you to T6 Building Envelope and Building Lines:

For stands of less than 500 sq.metres or stands on a narrow lane some of these building lines may be less – please refer to the Regulation Plan for that particular stand.

Bold added.

Applying your reasoning, a garage can be built any where provided it is within the building envelope and there is no Regulation Plan for the stand.  If, as you do, you ignore all that is written in the Owner’s Manual.  

Using my stand (P79) as an example:  It has a 1.5 m building setback from the street boundary and does not have a Regulation Plan.  Therefore I could have built a garage facing the street, 1.5m from the boundary.   

Yours sincerely,

Ken Rutherford

P79

--------------------------------------------  

On September 21, 2018, DelaRey, the Building Control Officer replied:

Good morning Mr. Rutherford

Thank you for your detailed letter.

I would like to discuss this matter with Paul Burchell upon his return from leave next week for the purposes of finding a way forward with regards to giving a more detailed response from us. To be honest I do not have access to sufficient documentation/information to thoroughly respond to your letter at this stage.

I do apologise for the delay in responding to your query in a satisfactory manner, your patience is appreciated.

I will contact you next week with a suggested way forward.

I trust this is acceptable.

Kind regards

------------------------------------------------------

On December 18, 2018, I wrote to Paul Burchell:

Dear Paul,

Having just written to you, I am reminded of the above issue to which I have not  yet received a response. My email is dated September 21, 2018. 

It is unfortunate that the HOA seems fit to have a very recently hired Building Control Officer, DelaRey Ferreira, answer my questions when he is not yet familiar with the Design Guidelines. Perhaps the DRP is too embarrassed?  

What is puzzling about this apparent approval is that Edu Lohann (who I believe is still serving on the DRP) has many years experience and, certainly in the past, filled the role of checking the technical aspects of all plans before they are seen by the full DRP. Then also on the panel is Trevor Griffin, an architect also apparently still serving on the DRP who has many years experience. Both apparently didn't see a problem with this submission. 

Can I have a response from the DRP.? 

(I included all the previous emails.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

On December 19, 2018, I received this forwarded email:

Dear Paul 

The DRP has discussed this at length. 

I invite Mr Rutherford to our next DRP meeting where the entire panel will be available to answer his concerns re P45. 

This meeting is pencilled in for the 22 January 2019.

Sam Lurie 

----------------------------------------------------------