Jackhammers at Dawn

I sent the email below to the HOA on April 3, 2017. I never got a reply. But no replies to emails to the HOA is a story for another day.    

I now have another major addition to a house taking place up the road.  So I thought again of my email and wondered what other owners may think. This is my email to the HOA:

“Once again, there is a major renovation taking place close to my home.

Having been disturbed soon after 7h30 by power tools and hammering, I thought I would take a look at the “Contractor’s Conduct Agreement”.  To my absolute amazement I found this:

7.7.3      Building activity on the ERF shall be confined to 06h30 to 18h00 Monday to Friday

I am lucky that this builder only starts at 7h30.

The rules governing contractors should favour the home owner, not the other way around. It is certainly reasonable to require that a contractor be told not to use power tools or hammers before, say, 9h00. The contractor is, after all, working in a residential neighbourhood. “

If you agree with me, please write to the HOA. If more people write, the HOA may take note of the interests of the home owners.

The Final Word: Design Review Panel's response to my criticism of the approval of the Wall

I received a response from Hugh Bosman, Chairman of the Design Review Panel, for which I thank him.  
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To read my criticism, go to my post: My response to the TI Design Review Panel's letter to the trustees defending the approval of the wall   by clicking on this link:

http://thesenislandernews.blogspot.co.za/2016/12/my-response-to-ti-design-review-panels.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sadly, Hugh has since resigned his position. It is a big loss to the Design Review Panel and the home owners of Thesen Islands. Hugh is enthusiastic, responsive and open to debate. He gave a lot of his time and was committed to doing a good job for Thesen Islands.  Here is his letter, with my comments:    

Dear Ken

Thank you for the opportunity to comment ahead of your next blog. By way of an introduction allow me to make a few general comments. 

The first is that the Design Review Panel (DRP) is the one portfolio that retains a significant amount of institutional knowledge. This is due to the ongoing involvement, almost from inception, of the professionals on the committee. Needless to say, this knowledge materially adds to consistency in decision making.

The second is that the DRP, because of its composition, has in-built checks and balances and there is often rigorous but constructive debate. 

Thirdly, you will be aware that the TIHOA Constitution 9.1 states that "The broad concepts (my highlights) 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. With this in mind the Guiding Principles that we have developed within the DRP states, among other things, that "The DRP will continuously review aspects of the Design Guidelines to ensure they are relevant, practical, and in accordance with modern practice. Proposals for change must be true to the overall original Design Guidelines, the Thesen Islands Constitution, the Cape Colonial design criteria, and the New Urbanist principles."

My comment:  Yes, I am. See my letter.

Fourthly, the DRP is not charged with ensuring compliance to the Design Guidelines other than when reviewing plan submissions. This notwithstanding, the DRP is trying to assist the TIHOA in ensuring that all erven have approved as-built plans on record. 

My comment:  Does not the reviewing of plans and seeing that they comply with the Guidelines ensure compliance?  

Fifth, most of your concerns stated in your letter of in respect of the Design Guidelines refer to the wall at P76. We feel that we have dealt with this adequately. The DRP is extremely sensitive to the issue of walls on Thesen Islands and to anything that could change to overall "look and feel" of Thesen Islands. You will know that the DRP faces objections and challenges almost every month. In my short involvement with the DRP the committee has not once shirked its responsibility to take tough and unpopular decisions. It will continue to do so knowing that it cannot satisfy everyone all the time.

My comment:  The wall is not the major issue. At the beginning of my letter I wrote:  “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.”

Sixth, I think it is impractical to roll back any of the Design Guideline revisions. It would cause enormous confusion and unhappiness out of proportion to the P76 wall. In retrospect the decision to permit the wall may not have been correct but we also do not think we can now approach that homeowner to ask them to break down the wall. 

My comment:  I  wrote:  “The Chairman of the Design Review Panel.... 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.”  

So if the changes resulted in the approval of the wall, and this decision “may not have been correct” surely those changes should be rolled back?

I have never suggested that he wall should be broken down, but I can understand that sentiment.

Finally, Edu Lohann comes in for a great deal of criticism in your previous letter. I appreciate that you have every right to disagree with the decisions of the DRP. However, my experience with Edu is that he has a very good understanding of the Design Guidelines, applies them to the very best of his ability without fear or favour, and interrogates every submission in the greatest detail. 

My comment: Edu Lohann, as Chairman of the Design Review Panel, signed the letter defending the approval of the wall. My letter is my response to his argument. No more than that.

I have reviewed some of the changes to the Design Guidelines. From April 2014 to December 2016 there were 10 minor amendments. Most of these refer to the details governing shade sails, blinds and pergolas; the use of luxaflex; veranda enclosures and balustrades. Separate entrances for boats have been allowed providing a gate matching the picket fence is installed. One amendment clarifies minor elements against a major building form. Since then the DRP has also introduced, through the trustees, a clarifying amendment about wall heights. The DRP will continue to consider further minor amendments (a new luxaflex-type product is currently on trial and will be introduced if it meets some basic design Guideline requirements). However these are rigorously debated and are not put to the trustees without careful thought.

My comment: My letter refers to the changes called “Revision Oct 2013”. These are the Guidelines on the HOA website, as of August 4, 2017. I look forward to the updated Guidelines being on the website.

As regards the changes called called “Revision Oct 2013”, I have checked the minutes of the trustee meeting of October 2013 and the changes were correctly dealt with and minuted. These changes were then sent to the Knysna Municipality for their ratification.

From our face-to-face discussions in your offices I know that we are fundamentally on the same page in terms of what we desire for Thesen Islands. That includes not changing the essence of the Design Guidelines, trying to apply them as rigidly as possible, and, at all times ensuring that the "look and feel" of the Islands remains as it was originally intended. There have been some historical slips and we are aware of these. In most cases these were not sanctioned by the DRP. We are, through the moratorium period on penalties, trying to get to a point where we have approved as-built plans for every erf. This may mean that we have to compromise where things were allegedly allowed in the past as we can now not achieve 100% compliance.

I trust that this response meets with your approval and that you understand where the DRP stands on the issues raised by you. We welcome further discussion should you wish to comment further.

Regards,

Hugh

My comment: The Design Review Panel is not the Border Patrol with home owners and their architects trying to slip plans through undetected.  Home owners (and their architects) should understand the need for the Guidelines and comply with them. Then when the plans are examined they will mostly be approved. And if they are not approved, listen to the reason(s) why without rancour, and correct them.

As I said when I was selling stands on Thesen islands, “It is not a buffet of rules, you cannot pick and choose which rules you want to abide by. You have to abide by them all.”

Random thoughts on the AGM 29 December, 2016

Peter and Georgie Hudson walking their dogs - October 2002

The expected “Shootout at the OK Corral” never happened.  After weeks of hearing (second hand) badmouthing of the trustees and the terrible job they were doing, and how they will or deserved to be tossed out, the reported malcontents folded like a cheap suit and decided a Christmas brunch was a better option than attending the meeting.

That was the best decision they could have made. The owners attending the meeting seemed galvanized by the rumblings of the discontents and were not in the mood to see the current trustees undone by rumour and misinformation. 

Graham Power, a shareholder through Power Developments in the TI Development Company and whose Power Construction built the infrastructure, got a poor response when he got up to speak about the Parkland (“Where is Chris? Is Chris here? He can explain everything.”) and soon realized which way the wind was blowing – and so, assuring his place on the right side of the record, seconded the motion for the Trustees to try to reclaim ownership of the HOA buildings, tennis and squash courts from the Parkland Trust (which had been sold to the said trust for R1). 

The meeting was long as usual but without a lot of personal complaints, a feature of past AGMs. There was a feeling that we’re all in this together and decisions need to be taken in the interests of all owners.  And that we need to trust the trustees to do this.

I think the trust has been earned by the work they have done. The Chairman, Bill Cooper, was impressive in his grasp of all the issues and ran the meeting well. The trustees who reported on their Portfolios were concise and on top of their game.

The new fingerprint system controlling access and egress is working well. In the spirit of the meeting, no one complained about guys like me holding them up. I’m getting the hang of how to show my finger to the machine and often get through on my first attempt.  I, like others, cannot see the screen in broad daylight, so I don’t know if I am getting the nod to enter/exit unless I watch the boom which makes it a little more difficult.

I also think it would be an improvement if the lanes were made a bit wider coming in. Often the left lane used by visitors/contractors/deliveries backs up to block the right lane used by owners. If this change is made it will be about the fourth redesign of the Gate House layout. But we will get there in the end.     

The Vodacom deal is a great for owners. I cannot wait to ditch my Telkom ADSL line.  The sewer problem is a difficult issue. The Municipality seems clearly out of its depth, but that is hardly surprising - why should Knysna be any different? But why couldn’t we be a bit more like George?  They seem to have a far more efficient operation there. As an owner said, “Why can’t we get Vodacom to handle the sewerage too?”  

In the early years, the TI Development Company proposed to the Knysna Municipality that they build a sewer treatment plant on the Islands. They said “no”. They wanted the augmentation fees. These are fees paid by every development to the Municipality to increase capacity of the sewer, water, refuse operations, etc, to accommodate the increased number of houses.  Of course, these fees never seem to be used that way. They are used to pay salaries, operating expenses, etc. If we had our own sewer plant, we could use the grey water for our common gardens, like Belvidere Estate. 

In the end, the owners’ satisfaction with the current trustees was clear in the fact that there was no need for an election as no one stood to replace them.  This is the first time I can recall this happening. The trustees who were due to step down were therefore re-elected unopposed. 

How the island looked before Thesen Islands - 1998

Click on image to enlarge. This picture was taken by my brother, Gray, in 1998.  It is actually two pictures joined together. We had a large print on the wall in the Sale Centre and it was used in early marketing material and adverts.

The only areas of the island that were redeveloped where those areas that were inside the original sea wall built over many years. The sea wall turned the wetlands into dry areas.  The sea wall appeared that it was built in bits and pieces and had not been maintained for many years. See A and the red line which shows the old sea wall.  See B: Here the old sea wall had been breached and the lagoon had reclaimed the area inside the wall, turning it back into wetland. Therefore no development took place here. No development took place on wetlands.

When the Sales Center on the South side of the Boat Shed first opened in December 1998, we were not allowed onto the island. The factory, of course, was still functioning as it did for a a few more years. We were not welcomed with open arms by the upper management of Thesen and Co. This was understandable as we meant the end of their working life. After a number of months, we were reluctantly allowed onto the island but with strict instructions to stay clear of the working areas. This was not a problem as the first phase that we were selling was at the eastern end, Hammock, Jubilee Island, Ferry Island and the eastern side of Plantation Island.

We would drive out prospects in our cars which was an adventure as there were no roads, aside from a track here and there. At that stage there was no markers as to where this stands we were selling were but we had a good idea. I remember driving through waist high grass and telling perspective buyers, worried they we were about to end in a ditch, that we were now in the waterway heading out to the Ashmead channel. The grass bending past the side of the car gave the feeling of being in a very low boat with water at shoulder height.

This area of the island was not used by Thesen and Co, of course. But like a farmer with unlimited land, they use this area to dump various unwanted machinery, building rubble and anything that they did not know what to do with. The only trees were Wattle and it seemed absent of bird life aside from the gray herons in the southern part of what is now the bird reserve.   

The early buyers took a leap of faith by signing a contract depositing 20% of the purchase price into the attorney’s escrow account, although the sale agreement did state that if their stand was not transferred by certain date they were entitled to ask that their deposit and interest be refunded.

These buyers were critical to the redevelopment as Investec had set a requirement for a certain number of sales before they would commit to the funding of the project.