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