A must read before the TIHOA AGM. Where has the money gone.....? Letter from Max & Janneke Diethelm (E18)

17 December 2014
Dear Trustees and Homeowners,                                                                                
I have taken note of the content of the e-mails sent to all homeowners of TI by Brian Sears (Chairman) dated 21 November 2014 and dated 01 December 2014.

From the above letter from the Chairman dated the 21 Nov.2014, I was very surprised to read that the budget for the "Reserve Fund" (in the financial reports it's called Accumulated Surplus) is increased by only R 200 000 namely from R 5.3m to R 5.5m for the financial year of 2014/5, in spite of the fact that the "New Homeowners levy" of approx. R 450 000 and the "3% Levy" of R 270 000 combined already adds up to R 720 000 per year! A similar scenario happened in 2012 and 2013 although the R 720 000 income was less.

This abnormality concerned and persuaded me to look into the past financials. I herewith want to share my findings with you the homeowners of Thesen Island and hopefully I made it easy to understand!

At our AGM in 2010, we the TIHO decided in good faith to introduce a "New Homeowners Fund" and a "2% Levy" in order to prop up our reserves to R 10m (R 10 000 000) by 2021.
Our Treasury subsequently collected "New Homeowners Levy" and "Extra Levy of 2%" from date of inception up to the 31st of October 2014 just short of R 1,6m. If you add this R 1.6m to the existing reserves of R 4.94m we had in 2011 it would take us to R 6.54 by October 2014. Providing we feed the fund as envisaged, our "Reserve Fund" will be in the region of R 14m by the year 2021. (inflationary-escalation and interest after tax included).

But it did not happen!

Our "Reserve Fund" since inception in 2011 to October 2014 grew only by a meagre R 120 000 (from R 4.94 in 2011 to R 5.07 in Oct. 2014)

Our good intended collection of R 1.6m has been gobbled up with among others, new projects and considerable spending in excess of budgets. For some reason since 2011, our "budget overruns" were not considered in "our standard levy increases" and our "Reserve Fund income" had to come to the rescue.

In the financial year ending October 2014 alone, total expenses exceeded budget by close to R 1.3m.

For instance we exceeded the budget for Eden Telecom which does the security installations (not to be confused with our Security Contractor "Allsound Security" that mans our gate) in the last 3- years, by a hefty R 1.1m alone!

Our total Security budget which was in 2011  R1.6m, is for the year of 2015 a staggering R 3.36m, that is 33% or 1/3 of our total budget or R 5 900 per year for each Homeowner on Thesen Island in Knysna.

The Pezula Estate with 3-security gates manned for 24-hours and 25-cameras has a budget of R 1.4m for same period. Maintenance on the installation is seldom needed hence there is no contract required.

Is our security installation here on the island unreliable or too fragile that we need a maintenance contract of almost R 400 000 per annum in place?

Now we have only 2-options to solve the backlog;

Treasury prudently curtails spending, or increases the income!  
My suggestion is to apply both options and to vote in the upcoming AGM for an average of R 300 per month special levy to make up the shortfall in our "Reserve Fund". This adds R 2m per year and would take us less than 2- years (providing spending is kept within budgets) to recover. In my view this is the cheapest way out and it comes with no further burden and luggage attached.

But only if;

a) Treasury adjusts the standard levy to cover budget needs without compromising the "New Homeowners Levy and the extra levy".
b) Treasury controls and adheres more strictly to budgets.In 2014 out of 71 itemised budgets, 49 were exceeded.
c) Possibly change the constitution to include that spending above a certain amount requires the approval of the homeowners. (quite common ruling)
d) Possibly change the constitution back to the original which says "any resolution of the trustees shall be carried by a simple majority of all votes cast".
e) Safeguard our wet-and parkland in the constitution.

Summary;

A  shortage of money in the "Reserve Fund " was in my mind unnecessarily created. It has triggert a search for other income, causing questions and animosity.
Financially it make's no difference to our pockets. Provided spending was justified, we paid and still pay too little standard levy and we now have to make up for it.

And finally something to ponder about;
a) A once off levy is always more transparent to work with and saves tax. At today's tax rate, a R 10m saving in the Homeowners account attracts a payment of R 280 000 to SARS annually.
b) To irrigate 1-square meter of garden/lawn with 10-mm of water requires 10-litres of water. For 48 000 sqm you would require 480 000-litres ( 10x48000). That is 48 of the biggest tanks (10 000-litres) available on the market. So by watering only once with 10-mm the tanks will be empty and I now leave the rest to your imagination. (However your own harvesting at home for a small garden is probably worthwhile).
c) Coral Trees grow up to 90cm (3-foot) in Diameter. Look up on Google "coral trees" and familiarise yourselves with the characteristics.

Wish you all a happy festive season.
Max and Janneke Diethelm E-18

NB. figures are based on financials year ending 2010/1/2/3/4

 Max Diethelm

Trustees "Blatantly wrong to say Development will not detract from views or negatively affect their lifestyle..." Read Brian & Gill Robert's (P89) letter

I wrote in my letter to the Trustees:

I don’t know the owner of P89 but this stand borders the Parkland and has wide views over it. It is a lovely position and I considered buying it. You now plan to build a house on the Parkland next to his home.  Do you not realize that the enjoyment and value of his home would be substantially diminished?

Gill Roberts, the owner of P89, came around to my house yesterday. She had found this blog, and wanted to thank me for opposing the Trustee's plan to build houses next to them. She told me of the sleepless nights she and her husband, Brian, had had when they got the proposal from the Trustees. In her recent email to me she wrote:

I wish that we had been in the loop right from the beginning – it would have alleviated a lot of stress on our side. Thank you yet again for taking such a firm stand in this matter. As I said yesterday we felt like we were going to be fighting this all on our own.

Here is their letter, (emphasis added by me in bold):  

Dear Peter and Trustees,

I refer to the letter from the Trustees and our telephone conversation regarding the proposed development of the additional 15 erven in the South East corner of the island.

First and foremost the letter (entitled “Motivation as issued”) is blatantly wrong and misleading in stating:

"The Development will not

• Detract from existing members’ views or negatively affect their lifestyle..."

Nothing could be further from the truth as far as we are concerned. At P89 we have unrivalled views and a lifestyle second to none on the island, both of which will be destroyed if this development is allowed to continue.

We have been coming to Knysna for almost 20 years for holidays, most of which were spent in a small apartment which we bought in the early years. In 2004 we decided to start looking for something a little better and more in line with a possible retirement venue. We spent seven long years looking, including looking at many properties on Thesen. These were always rejected for lack of privacy and views.

Finally in 2011 we discovered P89 and it was everything we dreamed of, and only one direct neighbour. We have the Thesen lifestyle, but with privacy, we have views and most of all, we have somewhere to retire to in the future.

The view from our bedroom balcony at sunrise is something we marvel at every day and we like nothing better than to have our early morning coffee while watching the sun come up over the hills. If the proposed development goes ahead then all we will have is a view into other peoples’ bedrooms and living rooms and a view over the trailer park. Even sitting outside in our garden or on the patio will mean that we will have neighbours peering down on us.

We were told that we need never fear that our view would be compromised in any way because not only was all development on the Island completed, but that the land in front of us was contaminated and could never be utilised other than for landscaping and gardens.

It will be so very unfair to put this vote to all the homeowners as they will most likely vote “Yes” to something that will not have the slightest impact on their lifestyle or on their pockets.

We on the other hand have everything to lose – our lifestyle will change dramatically. Our beautiful view and privacy which we hold so dear will be taken from us permanently. This is indeed asking a very high price from us.

We feel that the fairest way to achieve the target of R10 million would be to impose a special levy on everyone so that each homeowner has equal responsibility towards attaining this very important and very necessary goal.

In conclusion we would like to emphasise that we are vehemently opposed to your proposal to build 15 properties in front of our dream house.

We trust and hope that you will seriously consider our heartfelt concerns in making your decision.

Yours sincerely,

Brian and Gill Roberts

89 Plantation Point

My Reply to the HOA Trustee's to their email pulling the plug on their Parkland stands scheme - 11 December 2014

11 December 2014

Dear Brian and the other Trustees of the TIHOA,

In reply to the email sent to all home owners withdrawing the Trustee’s proposal to build houses in the Parkland, I want to make the following points (excepts from the email are in Italic):

Preparatory work was necessary to bring a clear proposal to the AGM. The Trustees could hardly come to the AGM saying we have a proposal to build additional houses, we don’t know where and we don’t know how many and we don’t know how much money could be generated. To undertake a proper investigation, the Trustees have approved expenditure of R108 000 to bring the proposal to a state that it can be communicated to the Members and presented to the AGM

Who is buying this? Not me. An email could have been sent to every home owner saying “…. we are exploring avenues for raising income to fund the infrastructure maintenance fund. We have identified an area at the eastern end of Plantation Point and overlooking the beach to add about a dozen stands. What do you think of this?”

How far would R108,000 go with ePap Children’s Feeding Project, the Knysna feeding scheme for preschool children? It would give 450 kids a meal each school day for a year.  

The suggestion that the Trustees are trying to sneak this through is simply not true. The idea was first brought to the Trustee meeting, by myself, in April 2014 and has been worked on since then. The Trustees had discussed the Project at each of the Trustee meetings on 3rd June, 12th August, 7th October and at a special meetings called to discuss the development on 17th November. The minutes of 3rd June and 12th August are on the Members web site, while the minutes of 7th October and 17th November will be posted on the website once approved at the Trustee meeting on 9th December 2014

The April, June and August meeting's minutes were only posted on the HOA website on 31 October, 2014.  See the screen shot below.

There was no recorded discussion on the matter in the minutes of the April meeting. Just a reference to looking to other avenues for income.

I was not invited to the special meeting on 17 November. It appears it was by invitation only to a few home owners.

Your proposal was sent to all the homeowners on 22 November, 2014. 3 weeks after the minutes were posted! This is assuming home owners read the minutes on the day they were posted.  

Aside from the few home owners who you identified as “directly affected” who were notified on 30 October, the vast majority of home owners had 3 weeks’ notice of the plan. I live full time on Thesen Islands and I heard about the scheme in a coffee shop on 14 November.

The Trustees, also, do not wish to create a rift, disunity or animosity in our community. The Trustees believe that this would inevitably develop between Members if a vote is called.

This is a bit rich. The Trustees were the ones proposing a vote on cutting up the Parkland. Hindsight is perfect but how about some foresight? You couldn't anticipate that “a rift, disunity or animosity” would be caused when you called for a vote?

On a personal note, I wish to express my concern with the tone of some of the opinions. The Trustees have been called corrupt and there have been suggestions that they should be voted off. I wish to remind all Members that the Trustees give of their time, without any compensation, freely and without complaint.  

Surprised that people get hot under the collar when you propose building stands in the Parkland and boardwalks in front of their houses?  Adding 13 houses to the end of their cul de sac? Having to face more building and trucks in and out through the Gate House, all day, every day during the week for a few years? 

The Trustee’s lack of foresight caused a period of tension and unhappiness among home owners on Thesen Islands. Sadly, there is now distrust of the current Trustees. Many home owners were forced to spend hours of their time and lots of their energy fighting the proposals.  Also without compensation.

The best way to avoid criticism is to make no suggestions. I do not think this is what Members would expect from their Trustees.

No one would say that the Trustees should not come up suggestions. But this scheme was the wrong scheme, handled the wrong way, cost R108,000 and caused distress, tension and distrust on Thesen Islands.  

And no hint of an apology from the Trustee’s for this fiasco.

I am very sorry this has happened. It has been very unpleasant for many home owners, for you and your fellow Trustees. I look forward to starting the new year with a clean slate.  

Yours sincerely,

Ken Rutherford

P79

More Egg on Trustee's faces - Gray Rutherford responds with the Arcus Gibb Map to HOA dismissal of his statement regarding Parkland contamination

The area inside the highlighted border are the "Contamination Zones". See Map Key for details. This map formed part of the Arcus Gibb report that detailed the contamination of Thesen Islands.

I have highlighted the outline to make it easier to see. Looks like the outline of the Parkland, doesn't it? Read Gray's letter below and draw your own conclusions. 

Press "Control" and  the +" key to increase size of map. To reduce size, press "Control -"

 

"The Trustees and Dr Chris Mulder are well aware of the contaminated areas and the proposed development would not be located on contaminated land." 

- Excerpt from the letter from HOA Trustees to home owners, dated 2 December, 2014.

"The area shown for potential future houses is not contaminated and were not part of the previously identified contaminated areas. " 

- Excerpt from letter from Dr Chris Mulder, CMAI to Brian Sears, Chairman of the TIHOA, dated 28 November, 2014, and sent to home owners in letter dated 2 December, 2014.

Here is Gray Rutherford's letter:

To : Chairman, Thesen Islands Home Owners Association Trustees

Re : Parkland Contamination

I refer to my previous e mail to you dated 26 November 2014.  As I have not had the courtesy of a direct response, I am taking as your response the dismissal of my statement in the email you sent to Thesen Islands home owners on 2 December 2014.

I had thought that, in the interest of good governance, you would have independently investigated my statement that the full extent of the Parkland is a remediated contaminated area. Despite not wanting to become further involved in this sorry saga, your public rebuttal requires me to substantiate my statement.  (Bold added)

I attach a (reduced) contaminated areas plan ref J90299B – 3 dated June 2001 by consultants Arcus Gibb that identified the different contaminated zones on Thesen Islands.  It encompasses the full Parkland and includes the areas where you planned to develop 15 more residential stands.  This plan formed part of a report that detailed the contamination on Thesen Islands and the remediation plan and strategy agreed with the environmental authorities.

If you choose, you can verify this information with the records of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, the Knysna Municipality and the contamination consultants, Arcus Gibb.

In our increasingly urbanized world I believe the protection and preservation of our green spaces is the most important legacy we can pass on to our children, grandchildren and future generations.  

"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our
children"   -  Native American proverb

Gray Rutherford
10 December 2014

Upcoming AGM - Elect Trustees who will push for the long term protection of the Parkland; Get/Give proxies for home owners who won't be at the AGM

I asked the HOA for a report on the current Trustee's terms of office:

Dear Ken

With reference to your e-mail dated 1 December 2014.

The following Trustees have resigned as from the date of the AGM:
Richard Wilkinson, Roel Goris and Mike Hennessy

The following Trustees have to stand down in terms of the rotation policy per the Constitution: 
Brian Sears, Hendri van der Merwe

Lester Day was co-opted as a Trustee during the year and has to stand down as a Trustee at the AGM. 

The following Trustees remain in office:
Suyenne Botha, Remia Eksteen, Noel Meier and Peter Hudson. 

I trust this answers your question.  Please feel free to contact me should you have any further queries.

Yours faithfully
Wiekie Smit

In summary, there are 10 Trustees of which
3 Trustees  will be resigning at the AGM; 
3 Trustees have to stand down;
4 Trustees remain in office. 

So according to this, 6 new Trustees are going to be elected at the AGM. Assuming the "co-opted" Trustee has to be replaced. I think that the 2 Trustee's who have to stand down, can offer themselves for re-election. 

Georgie Hudson (B7) has written that John Jacobs (H35, husband of Sustra), who was opposed to the cutting up of the Parkland may be willing to stand for election. 

Is there anyone else who will be willing to serve as a Trustee? We need to come up with a list of 6 preferred candidates that we will all vote for. 

Georgie also makes the good point that we need to get proxies from owners who will not be at the AGM. I have already got one from my neighbour. I should also be getting one other one. 

Let's all go on a proxy hunt! Ask your neighbours if they are going to the AGM and if not, ask for their proxy. Proxy forms were sent with the AGM material a few days ago. 

We can increase our clout by collecting as many proxies we can. 

I never thought...the real threat to the Parkland would be of an invasion led by HOA Trustees

Here is my letter to the Trustees of the HOA. 

This is the covering email:: 

Your scheme is flawed and the way you have gone about it can only be interpreted as disdain for the homeowners. 

Why does your scheme get the full treatment in you email presentation while opposing views get only a few selected (by you, needless to say) paragraphs? There is no justification for this unequal treatment.  It smacks of bias.

I want my email be sent to all homeowners.

I am not asking that you hand over the mailing list, but you are obligated to allow opposing viewpoints be presented in the entirety by email, like you presented your scheme. 

In anticipation of a probable reply that opponents can do that at the AGM, I reject that.  There is not enough time to do that at the AGM. Letters, such as those written by Rolf and Jacqueline Lamprecht and Jennifer Wilkinson need time to be read and to digest. 

I look forward to your reply to this letter and my email.  

I, and many other homeowners, are also waiting on your response  to my brother, Gray's letter. 

Here is my letter:

Date: 27 November, 2014

To: The Trustees of the Thesen Islands Homeowners Association

From: Ken Rutherford – P79

I worked in the Thesen Islands Sales Centre for all the years the stands were being sold. A number of “up country” buyers were nervous about having Parkland near their house - a kneejerk reaction to squatter invasions. I would say to them: “Look at the open space as free ground. You get to enjoy looking over it, the birds will love it, your kids can play on it, you don’t have to maintain it and…. it will never be invaded!”

I never thought for one moment that the real threat to the Parkland would of an invasion led by HOA Trustees.

When a number of you Trustees bought your stands, I was the one answering your questions. I represented to you what the development would comprise by means of the Master Plan and sales literature. You bought on what was represented to you.

Say you had come back into the Sale Centre a few months later and found that there was no longer a waterway in front of your future home. Or the open ground near your home was now earmarked for more stands. Or that no main beach, no clubhouse, no tennis and no squash courts were going to be built.  You would have been outraged.

You would have said “Ken that is not what was represented to me when I bought my stand. It is completely unacceptable. You cannot take away part of what I bought.”

And I said to you: “Well, we have polled the other buyers and half of them don’t want the (fill in the blank) and you going to get a rebate of R (fill the amount of money saved by not building the (fill in the blank) divided by all the buyers).”   Would that have made you happy?  I don’t think so.

But with your proposed development scheme, you are advocating taking away from what your fellow homeowners bought into.  Surely, being a trustee means looking after the interests the homeowners?

I don’t know the owner of P89 but this stand borders the Parkland and has wide views over it. It is a lovely position and I considered buying it. You now plan to build a house on the Parkland next to his home.  Do you not realize that the enjoyment and value of his home would be substantially diminished?

Did none of you think that some, if not all, of the homeowners on the Eastern end of Plantation Point probably bought there because it was a cul de sac with only a few houses?  Yet you plan to take away from what they bought by adding 13 houses. I live on a cul de sac and the limited number of houses beyond me was a major reason we bought there. 

One of the reasons we, and others, decided to make our homes on Thesen Islands because there was Parkland. Yet you propose that if half of the homeowners want to cut up the Parkland, those of us who want it to remain as it was represented to us when we bought our stands, must accept it. We will not.

As Trustees, you must know the history of the contamination and remediation of the Parkland area and the ongoing environmental monitoring.  This is the very area where you plan to develop stands. 

Have you not wondered why P89 and P90 are the most easterly stands on Plantation Point? Why didn’t the Thesen Islands Development Company develop more stands there?   The Thesen Islands Development Company did not develop stands there because of the contamination and remediation. But this is where you plan to develop 13 stands.

You have failed the homeowners. You should resign and let new Trustees take your place. Let us have Trustees who understand what looking after the interests of the Homeowners means.

The proposal is "a betrayal of our trust...and a threat to our quality of life as well as our financial investment" - Rolf and Jacqueline Lamprecht's letter to Brian Sears, Chairman of the HOA

From their letter below:

We see the proposal as a betrayal of our trust in these matters and a threat to our quality of life as well as our financial investment in our property.

“How would New-Yorkers feel if Central Park is to be sacrificed to raise funds for the city?”

                                       P97,  4^th November 2014

RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHERN PARKLAND

Dear Brian

Thanks for briefing us on the proposed development of the southern parkland.

It is with great alarm and considerable concern that Jacqueline and I read about plans to develop this area.

Thesen Islands is a high-density development where public areas serve a vital role in the success of the venture. They have an aesthetic, recreational and environmental function. In many ways they are the life-blood of the community.

When we decided to buy a property and settle on the island, the parkland and the opportunities it offered was one of the main considerations. The greenbelt was more attractive to us than living on a canal. We were particularly attracted to our erf as it is in a quiet cull de sac with little traffic. We believed that these areas were sacred, protected from development at all costs.

We see the proposal as a betrayal of our trust in these matters and a threat to our quality of life as well as our financial investment in our property.

You state that the area is “underutilized”. This is simply not true. Our family constantly make use of this space. We love to walk and play there. We enjoy the magnificent views across the lagoon and above all the open space. Many others do the same. It would be exceptionally short sighted to develop this area. While the golf course itself is underutilized, and I understand must be a considerable financial burden to maintain, it could be re structured to natural wetlands similar to the pond area north of the dog run.

How can the addition of 15 houses possibly “beautify” one of the only open and fairly natural parts of the islands?

Having broadly explained our feelings, we would like to list our concerns:

1)     The conversion of public parkland to housing is a major blow to the nature of our environment here on Thesen Islands.

2)     Doing this is a breach of the trust we place in the custodians of our estate and comparable to a government changing the constitution of a country to suit their current strategy.

3)     We and other homeowners will loose a large part of our “lebensraum”.

4)     Our road will carry much more traffic ( at least 30 more cars), disturbing our peace and threatening our children’s safety.

5)     The area earmarked for housing is an important habitat for birds, notably the Orange-throated Longclaw, Levaillant’s Cisticola and the Spotted Thick-knee. All above-mentioned birds breed in this area. This area has, for the first time, a resident Spotted Eagle-owl.

6)     It would be short sighted and reprehensible to develop housing in a green belt when we live in an area where nature is protected within the area of the Garden Route National Park.

7)     We have more to gain in the long run by leaving the area as communal parkland than building houses on the only truly open area on Thesen Islands.

8)     During the construction phase, which will last many years, there will be major disruption to our local environment and quality of life.

With regards to future budget planning and paying for the continued upkeep of the estate, our feelings are as follows:

The estate was originally developed fully to its current extent. Planning for the upkeep should be possible within the current structure with sound financial planning and management without altering the core structure of the estate. If additional funds need to be raised this should be done without changing our environment profoundly.

The real beneficiaries of the proposal for development of the southern parkland are not the homeowners but the service providers for the development.

We prefer options 1 and 2 in your list of proposals.

Some of the proposed changes to the parkland are good and will enhance the lifestyle of the homeowners but the proposed new housing will certainly not. Within the context of the current proposal including the additional 15 properties, we see the positive proposals as mere “sugar-coating”.

We hope you consider this letter and see it as constructive criticism. We appreciate the work you do and the need for you to plan for the future. We all have the best for our environment of Thesen Islands at heart.

“How would New-Yorkers feel if Central Park is to be sacrificed to raise funds for the city?”

Yours sincerely

Rolf and Jacqueline Lamprecht

"Your scheme...is ill conceived." says Gray Rutherford, former Marketing/Sales Director and shareholder of the Thesen Islands Development Company in his letter to Trustees

To : The Trustees of the Thesen Islands Home Owners Association 

Your scheme to develop a significant portion of the Parkland into 15 residential stands is ill conceived.

Point Number 1:

The original Concept 25 plan for Thesen Islands by Dr Mulder did not have the Parkland and Bird Reserve as it exists today.  These came about as the result of the independent environmental specialist report detailing the toxic contamination of the area formerly used by Thesen & Co for the treatment and storage of poles.  This is the present Parkland area where you plan 15 more stands.

A comprehensive remediation plan including the encapsulation of the worst areas and the removal or covering of the toxic layer by a one metre thick layer of clean sand was presented by the specialists and approved by the Department of Environmental Affairs.  

Slightly contaminated wood waste was also deposited in places as fill material below the one metre sand layer.  If you walk these areas, you will notice that they have been raised above the original ground level. This is evidence of the remediation and filling that has taken place.

It was agreed by the Board of the Thesen Islands Development Company that this area would be excluded from the residential development and my suggestion to create the Parkland and Bird Reserve was accepted.  I believed this green space would be a major attraction for future owners.

There was a very good environmental reason not to develop the Parkland.   Having been remediated, it would be reckless to disturb the sub surface soils with excavations (such as for services & foundations) with the resultant potential of human health risks associated with direct exposure to contaminants.

I understand that the Department of Environmental Affairs planning approval given at the time precluded the future development of this area.

Point Number 2:

As the Marketing and Sales Director representing the Thesen Islands Development Company, I and my sales team gave an assurance to every buyer that the Thesen Islands project would be carried out as per our published Master Plan. This included the Parkland and Beach area as it now stands.  Not one where later another 15 stands would be squeezed in.  

The Homeowners Association are the successors in title to the Parkland and other common areas and their Trustees are morally bound by this commitment regarding the layout and size given to owners by the development company.  I believe you are also legally bound.

Gray Rutherford

Former Marketing and Sales Director and Shareholder 

Thesen Islands Development Company

26 November 2014

I heard a rumour that the Trustees were planning to cut up the Parkland for stands.... I though it was a joke! But it isn't

This is my email of 14 November. 2014, to the homeowners whose emails I had as personal contacts.  About a dozen.

Good day,

I heard a rumor of more houses being planned on Thesen Islands with actual plans being circulated among some members, so I searched the most recent Trustee's meeting posted on the TIHOA website and below is what I found. It is more than a few houses, it is a major redevelopment and it appears, from reading the minutes, to have the backing of all the Trustees. 

I quote from the relevant minutes of this meeting on 12 August 2014, in full at the end:

"….Dr. Mulder had agreed to do the proposal, design etc. on risk providing that he be given the development contract should the project be approved.

….purpose of the meeting was to obtain the Board of Trustee’s support.

Dr. Mulder said that there were ample space in the Parkland…. the following possible income generating developments could be considered: residential erven, a frail care centre and storage facilities. He said that the parkland could be upgraded, bigger play areas developed, walking and jogging routes created etc. He said that solar panel and water harvesting could be incorporated in the development.

He showed where the various proposed developments would be and how the area could be upgraded. Dr. Mulder said that council would consider the remaining open space as sufficient.

…it would be easier to convince members to have more stands developed and sold by showing them what the improved parkland would look like. We would need to present some schematics at the AGM to get support from the Members. Dr Mulder said that there was enough time.

…. the next process would be to establish if the municipality would approve of further development on Thesen Islands, the signing of a contract with CMAI, stipulating that the work would be done on risk and the compiling of a presentation for the AGM"

It is alarming to think that the first most members will know about this is at the upcoming AGM when we will be presented with plans and maps. And be asked to approve it?

Yours sincerely,

Ken Rutherford

P79     

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

Thesen Islands Homeowners Association

Minutes of the 76th Board of Trustees Meeting held at 09:00 on Tuesday 12 August 2014 in the

Clubhouse, Thesen Islands, Knysna.

76.6 Address Dr. C. Mulder

76.6.1 BS said as an additional opportunity to generate income the further development of Thesen Islands was suggested.

76.6.2 BS said that he had discussed the matter with Dr. Mulder and reported back to the Trustees who had further queries. He said Dr. Mulder was therefore invited to the meeting to give an overview of suggestions and answer any questions that the Trustees may have.

76.6.3 BS said that he had given Dr. Mulder a list of concerns to be addressed/considered.

76.6.4 BS further said that Dr. Mulder had agreed to do the proposal, design etc. on risk providing that he be given the development contract should the project be approved.

76.6.5 NM asked who would be responsible for the property sales. BS said that it could be managed by the Homeowners Association office.

76.6.6 RW pointed out that approval had to be obtained from members as well as the Knysna Municipality for further development.

76.6.7 BS said that the purpose of the meeting was to obtain the Board of  Trustee’s support.

76.6.8 Dr. Mulder said that there were ample space in the Parkland, available and consent had to be obtained from members to develop it. He said when members’ approval had been obtained a change of land use or rezoning application would be lodged with council.

76.6.9 Dr. Mulder said that the following possible income generating developments could be considered: residential erven, a frail care centre and storage facilities. He said that the parkland could be upgraded, bigger play areas developed, walking and jogging routes created etc. He said that solar panel and water harvesting could be incorporated in the development.

76.6.10 Dr. Mulder gave an overview of the area under discussion and pointed out the location of the contaminated area.

76.6.11 He showed where the various proposed developments would be and how the area could be upgraded.

76.6.12 RW confirmed that the contaminated area would not be included in the proposal and asked if that would leave enough open space. Dr. Mulder said that council would consider the remaining open space as sufficient. He said it could be made mandatory that the proposed new units install solar units etc. if sufficient electricity is generated could even sell to the development.

76.6.13 BS pointed out that the trailer park was unsightly and suggested that it was moved or upgraded.

76.6.14 The possibility of incorporating the volleyball court as a water harvesting dam into the new development was discussed and agreed to.

76.6.15 BS said that the southern boundary was becoming a security risk and suggested that the upgrade thereof be incorporated in the proposal. 5

76.6.16 The proposal was discussed and RW said there was enough frail care facilities in the area and the average age of the members were dropping. He said he had also looked into assisted but found it not to always be successful.

76.6.17 RW said that more stands could be considered where the frail care was proposed.

76.6.18 BS said it would be easier to convince members to have more stands developed and sold by showing them what the improved parkland would look like. We would need to present some schematics at the AGM to get support from the Members. Dr Mulder said that there was

enough time.

76.6.19 He said the next process would be to establish if the municipality would approve of further development on Thesen Islands, the signing of a contract with CMAI, stipulating that the work would be done on risk and the compiling of a presentation for the AGM.

76.6.20 While Dr Mulder accepted the work at risk for his practice, he would need to be paid for 3^rd party consultants as they would not work at risk. This included Gerrit Nieuwoudt.

76.6.21 Dr. Mulder said he would prepare concepts for discussion with Knysna Municipality to establish if they would approve thereof.

76.6.22 PH asked what the time schedule would be should the proposal be approved by the members.

Dr. Mulder said if the final authorisation rested with the Knysna Municipality he predicted 6-8

months. He said that the development would thereafter be done in phases and the costs linked

to each phase.

76.6.23 The funding of the infrastructure was discussed. Dr Mulder said that we could pre-sell stands and it would be self funding.

76.6.24 The meeting thanked Dr. Mulder for his time and input. 

https://cms.gloportal.co.za/dsservlet/215217.pdf?key=DK488369