On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 I had a meeting with Hugh Bosman, the new chairman of the Design Review Panel as well as Bernie Kemp, the new Building Control Officer and Gray Rutherford, the first chairman of the Design Review Panel. Gray drafted the Guidelines and managed its updating until the time of his resignation as Chairman of the Design Review Panel in 2004.
Gray gave an overview of architectural design guidelines on Belvidere Estate and Thesen Islands. He spoke of the challenges faced by those whose task it is to implement them.
Hugh and Bernie appreciated this broad look as it gave a “foundation” to the subject. They understood the need for a clear view to ensure Thesen Islands does evolve into an architectural hotchpotch, where technical points are used to undermine the design philosophy.
What has to be recognized is that they have a very difficult job. Some owners have no sense of the design philosophy and the need to abide by the design rules. And some architects, as well. Or they may well have, but feel they should be the exception. And will push their own interests aggressively and unethically.
If owners are interested in seeing that Thesen Islands remains true to the design philosophy, they need to abide by the rules themselves and be vigilant. Look at what has happened or happening, and if they don’t like what they see, make their views heard with the HOA. And the people like Hugh (giving his time for free) and Bernie need our support.
As to the serious points I raise in my letter below regarding the changes made to the Design Guidelines, Hugh has undertaken to investigate and get back to me. He points out that he was not involved at the time. I have sent him a copy of the “TI Design Guidelines – Revision October 2013” which I downloaded some time ago from the HOA website. This copy conveniently has all the changes made highlighted in yellow.
Here is my letter:
19 August, 2016
Trustees of the Thesen Islands Home Owners Association
Dear Trustees,
As a reader of the minutes of the Trustee’s meetings and the Chairman’s Feedback letters, I am well aware of the issues you are dealing with, some of them complex and requiring great amount of thought and time. I am grateful that the HOA now has Trustees with caliber needed to address the big issues facing Thesen Islands. The results of your efforts, and the new team at the HOA, are already being felt.
I know, of course, that you are volunteers and you took the position of Trustees because you care about Thesen Islands greatly. I also recognize that the time you are giving to Thesen Islands could be spent on more pleasant matters elsewhere.
So I do not relish putting another major issue on your plate. But I believe this issue is vitally important and needs to be addressed now before it becomes more difficult to turn around and then only after major damage has been done to the Thesen Islands ethos.
When I first objected to the approval of the Wall at P76, I was told that my objection would be handled by the DRP (I refer to the DRP letter quoted below) and if I was not satisfied, I could take it up with the Trustees. This I am now doing.
The approval of the street facing wall at P76 is more than merely a wall at one house. It is a watershed event that marks a turning point of Thesen Islands. How you, as Trustees, decide the way forward will mean whether we go from what was described in the sales literature as:
“A friendly village… Thesen Islands has been inspired by the Traditional Neighborhood Design planning philosophy, the neighborhoods are designed for the people live in them. The design of the buildings, roads, walkways, lighting, bridges, fencing and signs give the Islands a friendly village atmosphere”
to a Thesen Islands where some of us can choose to live behind 2.0 m brick walls. Needless to say, this does not create a friendly village atmosphere.
What has happened here is that the eye is been taken off the ball and the Design Review Panel has become its own misguided master. The Trustees were warned about this as far back as March 2013.
The Design Concept at the beginning of the Design Guidelines says:
The Islands’ architecture is “Colonial Maritime” – identifying with Knysna’s historic vernacular architecture and seafaring connection. The concept is based on criteria derived from Cape Colonial buildings, but without the Victorian embellishments. The concept emphasizes simplicity, human scale and vertical proportions, traditional plan form, harmony, refined details and natural colours. Buildings are smooth plastered brick or timber clad frames. Wooden verandahs, decks, railings, boardwalks, gazebos and picket fencing reflect the Thesen Islands’ and Knysna’s timber heritage
The Thesen Islands Constitution on the Design Guidelines:
The broad concepts of the Design Guidelines constitute an integral part of this Constitution and may not be changed. Minor amendments may be made from time to time by the Trustees in consultation with the Design Review Panel.
Many of the changes made to the Design Guidelines, called “Revision Oct 2013” cannot be considered as “minor amendments.” These are the only changes the trustees can make in terms of the Constitution.
For the record, I cannot find the minutes of the meeting recording the required consultation between the Trustees and the Design Review Panel regarding the changes made in the so called “Revision Oct 2013”. Please advise me when this required consultation took place and provide me a copy of the minutes recording the consultation.
Edu Lohann, Chairman of the Design Review Panel in his letter, dated 15 December 2015, addressed to the Trustees & Henk Booysen, and sent to me by the HOA, cites a number of these “Revision Oct 2013” changes in defending the approval of the wall at P76. So it can be said, the wall is a result of the “Revision Oct 2013” changes made to the Design Guidelines.
Showing who is now in charge, the first point Lohann makes in his letter is to refer to the powers given the DRP in the “Revision Oct 2013”:
Lohann writes (all quotes from his letter are in italics):
“The guidelines make provision in D62 that allows the TIDRP to interpret the guidelines and makes decisions accordingly. “
A clause that gives the DRP the power to “interpret the guidelines and make decisions accordingly” cannot be considered a “minor amendment” and is in violation of the Constitution.
As the chairman of the Thesen Islands Design Review Panel, Lohann is remarkably ignorant about the design rules of Thesen Islands. He cites as a number of “principles” used in approving the wall at P76.
The first “principle” Lohann cites is the small pockets of stands of less than 500 m² on the Islands which were sold with House Concept Plans. This required that the buyer to build a home with a certain look thereby creating a harmony among these smaller houses on smaller stands. For example, Bitou Lanes.
P 76 measures 790 m² and was not sold with a House Concept Plan. So this “principle” is not pertinent.
The second “principle” Lohann cites:
For stands of less than 500 sq.metres or stands on a narrow lane some of these building lines may be less – refer to the Regulation Plan for that particular stand.
Lohann gives the impression that that the position of P76 on what he calls “a narrow lane” has some special significance and says there is a Regulation Pan for this stand. There is no Regulation Plan for P76. So this “principle” is also not pertinent.
The third “principle Lohann cites:
In this case the properties along the lane have zero building lines. This in fact means that it was designed to have solid walls along the lane to create a specific street scape.
Zero Building lines were never meant “to create a specific street scape… of “solid walls.” This is an absurd statement. It is illogical that the Design Concept which talks about human scale and picket fences allows for up to 2.0m walls in lanes in the Guidelines! This “principle” is nonsensical.
The fourth “principle” Lohann cites:
A zero building line means that the house, outbuildings(single or double storey) and any other structure like a wall can be positioned on the zero building line (property boundary).
It is called a “Zero Building line” because a “Building” can be built on the boundary line. A wall is not a building. What Lohann doesn’t get is that a building on the boundary line is unlikely to cover the full length of the boundary and will have windows and doors to visually break it up. A solid wall is visually solid. This “principle” is fallacy.
To summarize the above, Lohann is claiming, or inferring that P76 has certain “rights” due to various factors such as a Concept Plan (non existent), a Regulation Plan (non existent), being on a “lane”, and having a zero building line. P76, like virtually all stands larger than 500 m², was sold with only a Site Layout Plan showing the buildable areas. Along with this Plan, all regulations pertaining to this stand are in the Design Guidelines.
Lohann then writes:
There are numerous properties on Thesen Islands with zero setbacks and the owners of these properties are within their rights to develop it up to the boundary. There are many examples where walls were built on the boundary.
This is clearly incorrect. If he is talking about side or back walls, then it is irrelevant. If he is talking about street facing walls please ask him for the Stand numbers, Site Layout Plans and Regulation Plans, if applicable, of the “many examples”.
I hope that Lohann, the Chairman of the Thesen Islands Design Review Panel no less, is not making what could be read as a “someone else did it, therefore the next person can do it” argument. If he is, he shows a lack of awareness of the fundamental reason for Design Guidelines. And if this type of logic (or principle?) used by the DRP when making decisions, we may as well dissolve the DRP. He should be aware of the following under “Design Concept” on page 3 of the Thesen Islands Design Guidelines:
"Existing deviations from the manual cannot be assumed to have established any precedents even if previously incorrectly approved."
Lohann, referring to D8 Walls in the Design Guidelines, writes that the wall at P76 could have been 2.0m high, but is “only 1.8m high”. D8 has nothing to with street facing boundary walls, but with the DRP having approved a wall at P76, Lohann now says it does. Therefore, now an owner is entitled to build a 2.0m high wall on his front boundary. This is the slippery slope we are now on.
And, for the record, D8 says that walls must be “plain, without decoration” and “… decorative mouldings” are not permitted. The wall at P76 has a decorative moulding on the top, painted a different colour to the wall.
D6 Lane Definition: The pre “Revision Oct 2013” Design Guidelines make no differentiation, using the words “street” for all roads on Thesen Islands. Adding this definition and then claiming, once again, some special “rights” as P76 is located in a lane which is now not a “street”, is a violation of the Design Concept. It cannot be considered a “minor amendment” as allowed by the Constitution.
The same lack of understanding of the Thesen Islands concept that has in resulted in the mishmash of changes called “Revision October 2013” are demonstrated in his letter. It is a misguided, confusing avalanche of words ending with an irrelevant ‘cut and paste’ on New Urbanism. (Please see the e-mail from my brother, Gray, sent previously to the Trustees. It gives the background on the compilation of the Guidelines and the relevance of New Urbanism to Thesen Islands. [Posted on the blog])
The Trustees need to apply their minds to the Thesen Islands ethos, reflected in the Design Concept and the sales material. Then look where the “Revision Oct 2013” and the current Design Review Panel is taking Thesen Islands.
The Trustees, bound by the provisions of the Constitution, should consider getting legal opinion on whether many of the changes made in “Revision Oct 2013”, and apparently approved by the Trustees, are not in violation of the Constitution. Clauses that gives the DRP the power to “interpret the guidelines and make decisions accordingly” and, apparently, allow walls 2.0m high to be built on front boundaries cannot be considered “minor amendments”. I used the word “apparently” as some of the changes are poorly drafted and contradictory making it hard to understand them.
Regardless of the constitutionality of the changes, I believe the Trustees need to roll back the Design Guidelines to pre the “Revision Oct 2013” version as if all the changes are allowed to stand in their entirety they will destroy Thesen Islands as we know it.
1.8m front walls and the coming 2.0m high front walls are a corruption of everything that is Thesen Islands.
Ken Rutherford P79
For the record, I worked full time on the marketing and sales of Thesen Islands for nine years, from late 1998 through the middle of 2007. I was initially a Consultant, later the Manager of the Thesen Islands Sales Centre that sold every stand on Thesen Islands and I dealt closely with the owner’s building design requirements.
Each stand was sold with a Site Plan. Certain stands were sold with a Regulation Plan as well. Still others were sold with a Site Plan, Regulation Plan and a Concept House Design commitment. All were sold with a requirement to build according to the Design Guidelines.
We all had to be knowledgeable on all of the above as we had to explain to the buyers in clear, coherent manner what that they could do, what they couldn’t do and what was expected of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment