Friday, December 28, 2018

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

December 28, 2018

A copy of Chris's email of today to Bill Cooper, Chairman of the HOA, was forwarded to me. I asked Chris for permission to put it on the blog so all homeowners can read his views. This was his reply:

Hi Ken
I have not problem in you sharing the mail because it is what it is and in my view we need to protect  the value what all of us as a team  created here through years and years of blood, sweat and guts. And protect what we promised and sold to our buyers. Regards, CM 

Here is his email:

From: Chris Mulder <chris@cmai.xx.xx>
Date: 28 December 2018 at 09:30:19 SAST
To: "Graham Power (Mailbox)" <gap@powergrp.xx.xx>, Admin - TIHOA <admin@tihoa.xx.xx>, Gina Oosthuizen <tihoa@tihoa.xx.xx>
Subject: TRUSTEES¹ EXPLANATION OF THE DECISION TO OFFER INCREASED  FAR (BULK) TO REGULARISE THE ESTATE
Hi Paul /Gina
Can you please pass this mail on to Bill Cooper.
I do not have his email address and I promised Graham Power I will send my mail this morning since we have a meeting scheduled there at the TIHOA offices at 12 noon  
CM

Dear Sir 

Allow me  some comments, as a member and Home Owner  on your IMPORTANT NOTICE TO MEMBERS which apart from some very general and fleeting statements are flawed in one major aspect of your  point of departure.

It took our office (CMAI) and a team of various professionals, coordinated by myself, all of 8 (eight) years 1990-1998  to get the Thesen Islands Development approved, including ALL of the Design Guidelines, Regulations Plans, Urban Regulations and every single site plan  for all the stands to be sold on Thesen Islands. Barlows then still owned the Island.

This level of detail planning and design, where every single erf to be sold was regulated  by  a set of plans clearly explaining the Bulk, mandated single storey requirements, coverage, setback lines , building lines , parking areas, and in some cases access, and fence and garden walls or a mandated tower requirement  where applicable was unprecedented in SA at the time. In other words we created a set of purpose made Special zoning Parameters to be rolled out  and be mandated/required by the Conditions of Approval  in the building/creation  of Thesen Islands.

Once we started selling, all of these plans  for every single sale that was made were signed and agreed to by all of us who purchased stands on Thesen Island  in addition to the Sales Agreement  and the Constitution. Thus everyone who purchased a stand here, knew exactly  what she or he bought into and what the rules are/were.  Most people who bought here, did so exactly because of the to be entrenched Zoning parameters promised by the Thesen  Island Development Company  (TIDC) established 1998/1999.

These guidelines and regulations, and especially the building period were, on several occasions  unsuccessfully legally challenged by certain Home Owners over the first 5 or 6 years because the relevant documents were crystal clear and enforceable under the SPECIAL ZONING  or Special Zoning Parameters that was created for and approved for Thesen Islands  and applied for by this office over the above said 8 year period of 1990 to Dec 1998.   

We officially received the said approvals  with 101 Conditions to comply with attached to it. During the two ensuing two  years before  TIDC commenced with construction, the 101 Conditions were meticulously ticked off one by one and complied with.

We indeed obtained  Special Zoning parameters outside the Knysna Zoning Scheme for Thesen Islands based inter alia on the following:

1.       Our Streets are specially cambered   and narrower  and more varied than anywhere else in Knysna or most Municipalities ….. with a complete  system of integrated and dedicated walkways and “pedestrian sheds”  found nowhere else . Hence our streets are PRIVATE and have been kept private and not ceded back to the Municipality, like we ( the Development company)  ceded back the water and sewer and electricity to the Municipality. We could not have achieved this if we did not obtain the SPECIAL ZONING  parameters

2.       Our Stormwater management system in the streets are site specific and specially approved.

3.       All our open spaces are private and managed as such under the Special Zoning parameters agreed on  and thus not  managed under the Knysna Zoning Scheme, as are the canals.

4.       Our regulations and specifications  about the  mandatory picket fences , the locally made street lights, bollard lights, street furniture,  trash receptacles,  and signage, all designed by CMAI ( all made locally by local artisans here in Knysna and designed labour intensively to create the max amount of jobs) also required the SPECIAL ZONING  parameters and Municipal approval because it is not STANDARD Municipal issue and hence cannot be seen as a part of the Knysna Zoning Scheme

5.       Stand sizes of 264 to 300 sq meters and even  400 sq (almost 20 % of the houses on Thesen Islands)  meters were basically unheard of or non-existent in the Municipal area except in the Townships at that time, and we thus had to obtain SPECIAL ZONING parameters and special approval  for these erven all of them with unique setbacks and regulation plans . I personally sat and negotiated with the then Town Engineer  the fact that  three of these smaller stands, amount to one equivalent erf in the Municipal area and thus had to be incorporated as such  in  SPECIAL ZONING Parameters  for Thesen Islands.

6.       Finally, the fact that we had a full regulation plan, complete  site plan, and an  Urban Regulation plan plus a precinct plan for every single stand on every  island spelling out exactly what and how much can be built on each stand was unique  and totally new in the country at that time and we obtained the   SPECIAL ZONING parameters and status and approvals based on this for every phase and for every single island. Special Zoning parameters were created for the individual islands, as for example for  the houses on Saffron Island with all their living rooms cantilevered over the water,  the row houses on Q island, the gantry houses and.. and.. and. There are  many examples of this to prove the point that we obtained Special Zoning parameters outside of the Knysna zoning Scheme  !  

7.       The list requiring the SPECIAL ZONING parameters can be expanded to include the Parkland and the previously contaminated land  and the two Core Contaminated Zones, the bird park, the dog run, etc.

  
8.       If we did not struggle for eight years to obtain a SPECIAL ZONING designation in order to control our own destiny and tried to NOT get regulated within the normal Knysna zoning Scheme to a large extent, we could have simply submitted a  sub-divisional  town planning plan showing 605 empty erven ( that is TIHOA and TICOA) like all other applications and subdivisions  in any  town or any other town in this country.  We could have  just mentioned the number of stands and  only the stand or erf sizes, and let the Knysna Zooming Scheme apply.   Then Thesen Islands was going to be, or would have been  “ just another suburb  “………. and we would have  now lived in  the sprawl of a mundane  “Suburbia” where it is basically a free for all bar a couple of  standard Municipal issues.

All of these documents and stamped  approvals and the entire set of  stamped (by the Municipality)  regulating plans, urban regulations (Hard copies) for all the houses  were officially handed over to the HOA by myself and was in possession of the HOA  and used at the DRP meetings for years until Wiekie Smit died.

Are these documents still in possession of the HOA ??. ………or what happened to them?  If you still have them , you can or should work through them  to better understand the process  and the steps of applying for more bulk.

This was how we started and built out most of the  512 single residential houses and 56 Apartments (also Special Zoning Parameters)  on the Island and how it was approved and stamped by the DRP.

At that time, myself and Gray Rutherford was on the DRP and sat in and signed off the plans  at EVERY  DRP  meeting . We appointed Edu Lohan as the administrator plus a member of the Trustee body and two or three architects to serve on the DRP.

During these first 8  years when most of the houses were built, not a single plan was approved if the plan did not conform with all the guidelines and coverage  and bulk allowed. 

If your general statement that there are a considerable amount of houses over bulk and wrong calculations can be believed at all, then it should be easy to check why and how the “mistakes” originated and then the Architect involved  who erroneously or purposely  stated the wrong calculations 

The DRP could not and cannot “ re-measure” the plans then because the technology was not that easy at the time. We had to rely on the submitting Architect’s integrity.  My view is that some people, of course, built on illegally after the plans were approved. It happens everywhere.   

I am aware of the fact that these people were then pushing and exerting pressure on the DRP to “use” the Knysna zoning Scheme to help them win their battle  with the illegally built on additions with the HOA.  In a fair amount of cases during the past 5-6 years, the DRP were even overruled by the Trustees to accommodate these people who built illegally and were pushing for the Knysna Zoning Scheme to be the guiding document .

Partially this is the case again NOW and in the past year and the same school of thought is surfacing again  ……. Certain home owners absolutely WANT the Knysna Zoning Scheme  to be the controlling document because it serves their purpose of legitimising the  increase of  illegally built or newly approved bulk etc.

In your email letter /Notice to Home Owners below you are now stating repeatedly subliminally  and  erroneously and inferring that the Knysna Zoning scheme is the controlling document.

This phenomena reared its head for the first time some 4 or 5 years ago  when Wiekie Smit passed away  and one Henk Booysen arrived  on the scene and was appointed as Estate Manager knowing absolutely nothing about the history of the Special Zoning Parameters approved for Thesen Island when he arrived here and never bothered to find our either. He must have misled a lot of Trustees too and he left here, still not understanding the situation.

 At that time very few people in the Trustee body fully understood  or wanted to accept the decisions  and the role of the DRP. Nor did they want to understand or accept it or  realise the power we  really have in our hands because of the  fact that we have SPECIAL ZONING parameters approved and need not to comply with the Knysna Zoning Scheme in most aspects.

Neither did they understood  what the knock on  effect is going to be by Trustees overruling the  DRP ………which did happen  often.

Everyone in the Municipal Planning section was in 2012/13 , and still is  now, NEW  in town !.... and had no clue what and how Thesen island was approved and the Special zoning parameters entailed.

On invitation from the Town Planning Section , I spent two hours there, three months ago ,“lecturing” the Chief Town Planner and the five Town Planners working there now…..all of them not living more than three years in Knysna, on these Special Zoning parameters. They then asked me to draw up a set of Special Operating Procedures for them on the planning and approval processes followed on approving plans at Thesen Island. Which I did and hopefully now they understand what the procedures are and should be.    They cannot even find their set of stamped and approved plans or are not motivated enough to search for it, or even familiarise themselves with the guidelines and the approved Zoning parameters and status.

During the last five or six years very few people in the HOA seems to  have had a clue or  understood the zoning parameters either, since they kept harping on the Knysna Zoning Scheme  and it will be interesting to go back on the DRP minutes and determine how many times the Trustees overruled the DRP in the past 6 years.

If the HOA can find their set of stamped (now apparently missing)  since the arrival of Henk Booysen  and approved guidelines and Zoning Documents, you might make your task of getting the new proposal as circulated by TIHOA  easier to get approved.

The Town Planner you referred to in the attached document  plus the Municipal official responsible for approving plans came and visit me some 10  weeks ago when this current TIHOA  proposal first surfaced or  was mooted  and asked MY opinion on the increase of bulk, because the Planner and I are  seemingly the two only people around or easily accessible that knows what was submitted and what was approved.

I told them, and they agreed with me when they left, that in principle I have no objection to a well-considered bulk increase as long as we DO not increase the coverage.
It is however a major departure from our  design guidelines  in that it touches at the core of what was created here and what we all signed for and we all bought into.

Thesen Island today is a result of these guidelines and regulations that were implemented  rigorously throughout its forming years and building years.

The Enduring Value created on Thesen Island we all gladly share  ……..manifests itself in the :
?         Economic Value …..that is continuous rising in the property values (basically trebled in ten years)  here……. the  yearly rising in rental income……..this would not have happened if we lodged our application under the Knysna Zoning Scheme
?         Socio Economic Value …….which manifests itself in the  way residents find enjoyment of the  use of the open spaces and the spaces between  buildings, the walkways, parks   and visit and socialise there
                      ?         Sensory Value …the sight, sound, touch feel and taste of the           e                     place   
?         Environmental Value …….the fact that Thesen Islands continue to win  International awards 18 years post the advent of construction for the Wildlife and Habitat Creation ,is extremely significant   and important in upholding and building on the Enduring Value created here.

Because of all of the above there is an Enduring Value Component here on Thesen Island found in very few places in the World.

We must protect this above anything else.

Hence it is extremely important that we should :
  1. Obtain approval at the AGM  or a Special AGM from the residents to Change the bulk and explain that this is a one-time effort.   
  2. Then prepare our application accordingly with the said documented  Home Owners approval  and clearly spelling out exactly what is going to be changed as a ONCE off……. Not under the Knysna Zoning Scheme but under our own Special Zoning Parameters
  3. Ensure that a couple of years from now  we are not faced with yet another similar demand.
  4. Then submit our application to the Municipality for approval .
  5. Then once Municipal approval has been given, the DRP can do its job to approve new submissions accordingly. Not the other way around .

As it is done, or proposed now, my view is that the HOA via the DRP are, in approving alterations to building  plans and stamping the plans with the new bulk numbers  for approval, are ultra vires.   (ultra vires: beyond one's legal power or authority)

You need the HOA members  approval first spelling out in detail what the allowed extra bulk is for every stand and that it impacts the  very basic core of what was signed for by all. This is NOT a minor amendment that can be ruled on by Trustees alone.

Then you need to submit to the Municipality an application with  motivation, and a document spelling out in detail what the allowed extra bulk is for every stand and apply for approval by the Municipality.

Once this approval has been obtained and approved by the Municipality which is “not a mere formality “ as stated by you in the Newsletter the new plans can be approved.

Regards
           
Chris

HOA asks Ex TIDC MD: Why refer this to our accountants? Read his reply

December 28, 2018

Oh, what a tangled web we weave 
When first we practise to deceive!


From Marmion, a poem by Walter Scott, written in 1808.

Email from HOA to Willem Scholtz:

 From: gm@tihoa.xx.xx 
Sent: Thursday, 27 December 2018 4:49 PM
To: 'Willem Scholtz'; 'Thesen Islands HOA'
Subject: RE: Increasing the Bulk factor for Residential Buildings

Dear Mr Scholtz,

Your email below has been sent to the Board of Trustees.
On what basis do you feel that this issue falls within the province of the auditors ?

Regards

Paul Burchell  | General Manager  | Thesen Islands HOA 


Read Willem Scholtz's first email here Ex MD of the TIDC slams Trustees intent to add bulk


Willem Scholtz's reply (bold added):

From: Willem Scholtz  
Sent: Thursday, 27 December 2018 5:37 PM
To: 'gm@tihoa.xx.xx'
Subject: RE: Increasing the Bulk factor for Residential Buildings

Dear Mr Burchell

Let me then rather be more specific, why I have requested this matter also to be brought under the auditors attention.

Firstly I consider this matter outside the jurisdiction of the board of trustees and therefore the decision unlawful.  

I furthermore understand that this decision has been implemented and acted on by certain parties, which may hold risk and financial implication for the TIHOA, if the decision is proven to be unlawful.

It is therefore a matter of corporate governance and financial risk, which I do feel is matters of interest of the auditors.

Kind regards,
Willem

Another owner says NO to the HOA's Bulk scam

December 28, 2018

Here's another letter from a homeowner to the HOA. 

The writer, Max Diethelm was an early buyer on Thesen Islands. He bought his stand from the Thesen Islands Development Company and built his home.

As a homeowner, I say "Thank you, Max, for having the courage of your convictions and publicly standing up against this scam being forced on homeowners."  

If, like Max, we all stand up we might be able to save Thesen Islands.

Scam, you say? 
Yes, the scam (meaning a dishonest scheme) to redevelop Thesen Islands under our feet. Being forced on homeowners without consultation, and by stealth.  

Stealth, you say? 
Yes, the changes to the Design Guidelines were approved in July 2018, but only the connected homeowners were told. The rest of use were only told 5 or 6 months later, in December, 2018.

I have made some parts of Max Diethelm's the letter in bold as I feel they are key points.

December 27, 2018

Dear Trustees,
I herewith kindly ask you to be humble and refrain from increasing the bulk for the following reasons;
 
According to correspondence in circulation you are sowing huge disunity amongst the homeowners. The explanation in your message dated the 21 Dec 2018 is perceived as weak. 

Having read that letter carefully over and over and taking also your message dated the 22 March 2016 into consideration, It appears that there are still ways and means available to accommodate building irregularities with the municipality without increasing the bulk in general. 

Clear is also the fact that you as trustees are aware that the bulk increase amounts to some 15 500 m2 or the equivalent of two rugby fields. 

At only 13 000.00 per m2 it translates into some R 200 million of building activity.

Why are you withholding this important information of scale from the members ??? This is not minor!
 
As already mentioned in earlier correspondence to yourself, you are turning this Island into an never ending building site with dire consequences waiting in store.
 
Please kindly restore your well deserved respect by not going ahead with the bulk increase. It is not in accordance with the constitution particularly the way it is handled and I certainly would also be part of challenging your decision with the help of the Community Schemes Ombud.

With Kind Regards
Max Diethelm

Wednesday, December 26, 2018

Ex MD of the TIDC slams Trustees intent to add bulk

Here is what the former MD of the Thesen Islands Development Company (TIDC) has said to the Trustees of the HOA:

I have added bold to what I see as key points.

December 26, 2018

The Trustees of the Thesen Islands Home Owners Association

Dear Sirs and Madams

INCREASING THE BULK FACTOR FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON THESEN ISLANDS
Firstly I wish to confirm myself as co-author of the e-mail, as forwarded to yourselves by Gray Rutherford, and the contents thereof as correct, being my view. Proposed change is not minor - 2 ex TIDC Directors say
Secondly, I wish to expand on the matter, not only as former MD of the development company and former trustee of the TIHOA, but also as concerned and potentially affected member.
I cannot support this notion for a general increase in bulk for all erven and for the following reasons:
i)                    As mentioned before this amendment cannot be viewed as “minor” and surely doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of the trustees or DRP.

ii)                  A 10% increase in bulk for each erf cannot be utilized equally and will only be benefitting certain owners, but will inconvenience everyone.   How would the Dry Mill Owners be benefitting from this increase for instance?

iii)                Each stand has a list of constraints, including building lines, bulk, ground floor coverage, first floor coverage, etc.   All of this will be required to be revised to allow for the development of new bulk.   Furthermore these restrictions were carefully considered in allowing for views, light and privacy.

iv)                Who will defend the cases of owners who are now negatively affected by the potential changes, which may result? … and at who’s expense? … the inconvenienced owners I have to assume.

v)                  For the majority of the erven the improvements have been designed and built to the limit of two or more of these constraints and the amendment of these constraints could have significant impact on other owners.

vi)                I see the main beneficiaries of such an increase of bulk being the architects and town planners (and non-conforming owners), who will be creating a wealth in work for themselves should such increase in bulk be implemented.   

Thus the parties responsible for the (misinformation, leading to) over-bulking of certain erven will now benefit even further.   

It is no rocket science to correctly calculate building areas with the computerised area calculation off electronic plans and surely those parties guilty of wilful misinformation, or at least gross neglect, should be held professionally accountable. 

I furthermore see the trustees and management of the home owners getting themselves caught up in legal action by dissatisfied owners, negatively impacted on by increased bulked on erven, inconvenienced by a wave of construction activity, effecting their views, light, privacy and value of their properties. 

If this matter does require consideration, my views and suggestions are as follows:

a)      It must be properly considered, research and documented for open debate by the members.

b)     As all parties will not equally benefit by a general increase, the increase should be considered ad hoc, where needed, on due consideration, at merit and subject to financial compensation to the HOA.   Such compensation must be in line with escalated cost of (maximum allowable) bulk as sold by the development company.

c)      This matter must be tabled at a future AGM or SGM, following provision of complete information and due debate by the members.

d)     My view is that this matter, which would have required unanimous consent of all members, in the case of a body corporate, must receive expert input to advise on the correct level of consent by members, in order to prevent it being challenged by negatively impacted and dissatisfied members.

I trust that my information and concerns raised in this and the previous e-mail will be well received, as intended, and will bring you, the trustees, to a different insight and to reconsider this matter.   Should you then decide that you still wish to have this matter considered, that you will inform the members for their due consideration

If this matter is not referred back to the members with proper information for debate and due consideration, I shall have no option as negatively impacted member, than to refer this matter to the Community Schemes Ombud.

Yours faithfully

Willem Scholtz
P80: Heron View

Monday, December 24, 2018

HOA tries out a new story - I'm not buying it.

December 24, 2018


Dear Paul,

I refer to the HOA communication "Trustees' Explanation of the decision to offer increased bulk". I appreciate that you are promising prompt replies to queries as the AGM is shortly.

I am upset and sad to read such a self serving communication from the HOA. It tells me that a deep rot has set into the HOA. How this has happened so quickly is astounding.

Here, for example, are just 2 facts that are not clearly stated:

Fact No 1: 42% of the houses (212 homes) on Thesen Islands will be able to add 9.68% to 10% to their bulk. 

And this 42% are the biggest houses already. As the bigger houses will get more sq m of bulk, the amount of construction needed to use this bulk will be so much bigger.

A homeowner tells me the total bulk increase is approximately 15 300 sq m, which is the equivalent of 2 Rugby Fields! Or adding 51 homes of 300 square metres to Thesen Islands. That's 10% more homes!

Fact No 2: The HOA stresses in bold that "The potential of additional building at the ground floor level is thus consequently minimal." This true and suits the HOA's agenda. But what should be stressed in bold is that this means that virtually 100% of the extra bulk will be added to the upstairs!

So homeowners can expect that single story part of their neighbour's house will become double story with the resultant invasion of their privacy,  reduced sunlight and the blocking of any view.

You always need to question the motives of someone who makes what you know is a simple issue seem very complicated. Be it your plumber, car mechanic or lawyer. In this communication, the HOA has taken what is a simple issue - their desire to increase the bulk to stimulate building by gutting the Design Guidelines - and now re-wrapped it as a hugely complicated issue that needs fixing, in what i see as an attempt to mislead homeowners.

The communication buries the key issues under an avalanche of words using the approach of "this is too complicated for you to understand, but we'll try to explain it to you. But no need to worry, we're handling it as we know what's best"

It is plainly not an attempt to enlighten, but to mislead.

I say this as someone who 20 years ago this month started working as a salesman at the Thesen Islands Sales Centre. Over the next 7+ years, I explained, face to face and through written communication, the vision of Thesen Islands as encompassed in Design Guidelines to hundreds of prospective buyers. Many of those  prospective buyers are owners who bought into that vision. It is a simple vision, easily explained which is why Thesen Islands sold so well. 

I dispute the notion of "recent attacks on trustees". This, no doubt, applies to me (as well as others).  Criticizing and commenting on decisions and statements made by the trustees is not an attack on trustees.  Trustees shouldn't play the "victim card".

I am very confused that the HOA is now spinning the increased bulk as a matter of  "dotting the i's and crossing the t's" whereas the DRP in the recent Chairman's Report said that the 

"real aim was to provide the stimulation for improvements and possibilities, which we think is now achievable." 

It's like "Well, that story didn't work, let's try this new story." 

I have a few questions about your previous story. Does the HOA agree with the goal of the DRP and agree that their goal is achievable?

And if so, would the HOA agree that achieving "more improvements" will mean more truck, bakkies, noise and dust?   

That more vehicles on our narrow roads will mean more danger to our children?

That "more improvements" will mean more workers and an increased threat to our security?

That unlike the original "4 year building time limit", this building will continue for ever?


HOA says: We have made a close inspection of plan submissions which revealed that many early plans had incorrect area calculations, and this has carried through to  current applications for approval of alterations. As a result, several houses that have been built are (without the owners knowing,) in excess of the maximum allowable floor area ("FAR") under our Design Guidelines. 

My question: Incorrect calculations? I find this hard to buy. Here's how simple is the  calculation: 
600 sq m stand X 0.35 X 1.6 = 336 sq m maximum floor area
0.35 is the maximum 35% stand coverage. In this case, 210 sq m
1.6 is the double story factor

The cover sheet of all plans submitted had the relevant calculation that was checked by Edu Lohann as part of his job to "run the ruler" over the plans submitted. He still works for the DRP. This is an attempt to paint a simple exercise as complicated, prone to mistakes.

HOA says: Apart from the plan submissions to the DRP which highlight that many properties are over bulk according to our existing Design Guidelines, additional investigations by our BCO indicate that as many as a third of properties are non-compliant; and these are only the properties that we are aware of. 

My question: As many as a third? Please explain the methodology used in this investigation?

HOA says: It needs noting that ALL past and present changes have been agreed to and accepted by the Trustees and the Knysna Municipality:  the application is merely a formality. The DRP has as a result been approving plans based on addenda dating back some years.

My question: So the Design Guidelines that the HOA has posted on its website are not correct?  And haven't been for years? 

So "Mr No Insider Connection" submits his plans according to those on the website. While "Mr Connected" gets the benefit of his plans approved "based on addenda dating many years." 

And this unfair application of the rules has been known to the HOA for years, but allowed to persist? This conveniently appears to give the answers to Craig Smith's questions: The trustees plans were approved based on the "addendas".  Only known to the connected. Can I have a copy of all these addendas?  The email that got Craig Smith banned

HOA says: As mentioned above, the previous Chief Town Planner of the Knysna Municipality at the time of approval of the Thesen Island development was consulted and, after an extensive review of all the information supplied, provided the HOA with an opinion that this proposed change is considered a Minor change to the Guidelines as mandated in Clause 9.1 of the Constitution.  Our attorneys have also concluded that the minor expansion of rights, within the parameters of the Knysna Municipality Zoning Scheme, for which Municipal approval is a mere formality, is indeed a minor change to the Design Guidelines, within the meaning of clause 9.1 of the Constitution.

My question: The HOA dug out the "previous Town Planner" and asked their attorneys. The "consulting with attorneys" line may impress the guy with the "Don't speak to me, speak to my lawyer" bumper sticker. But that's about it.
This is a tougher crowd. How much of the homeowner's money did you waste there, by the way?

But tell me: Why did the HOA DECIDE TO NOT ASK the opinion of the 4 local directors of the Thesen Islands Development Company, 3 of whom have houses on Thesen Islands, the 4th, the director who basically wrote the Design Guidelines and served as Chairman of the Design Review Panel for many years has an office in Belvidere? 

After all, who better than the TIDC directors to ask what their intention/vision was? And which many of the current owners bought into.

The simple answer is, I suspect, that they would have told you that increasing the bulk is not considered a minor change as per the Constitution.

Perhaps the HOA realized that they wouldn't rubber stamp the gutting of the Design Guidelines, so they decided not to ask them?

Well here's a list of the people, who I know or  am told,  were recently asked this question and answered that the proposed changes could NOT be considered minor:

Willem Scholtz - former chairman and shareholder of the TIDC
Gray Rutherford - former Marketing Director and shareholder of the TIDC

Read their letter to the trustees in this blog.
Chris Mulder - former Master Planner and shareholder of the TIDC
Hannchen Louw - legal advisor to the Power Development Company - former shareholder of the TIDC and HOA legal specialist
Marine Vreken - Town Planner
Hugh Bosman - former chairman of the Design Review Panel
Ian Tamaris - former member of the DRP
Suyenne Botha - former member of the DRP

Or is all this story of consulting with this and that been cobbled together after the fact?

Please tell me the name of this "previous Chief Planner" and share his insights? Please also share the opinion of  your attorneys?

HOA writes: Studies show that the vast majority of homes have been designed and built to maximum ground floor coverage. This meaning that the additional allowance can generally only be used on the first floor or on covered patios. The potential of additional building at the ground floor level is thus consequently minimal.    (HOA bold emphasis)

My comment: This argument can only be seen as attempt to mislead the owner unfamiliar with the Guidelines. Here's why:  Yes, nothing could be added in the  ground floor. So this is what the HOA stresses in bold. What SHOULD be stressed in bold is that it ALL can be added to the upstairs. So that single story part of your neighbour's house will go double storey. That's far more intrusive as you will  find when your neighbour looks from his upstairs window onto your previously private patio and shouts "That steak looks ready to turn, Bill"

And here's how much he can add if his stand is 800sq m:  800 sq X  35% = 280 X 1.5 = 420 sq m current max house size.
New plan: 280 X 1.6 = 448 sq m. An extra 28 mm.
28 sq m can be added to the upstairs. As a reference 36 sq m is the size of a double garage.

HOA writes: The trustees are concerned that some members have taken this as an opportunity to sew (sic) division and dissent."

My comment: Well, here's this homeowner's concerns:

This homeowner is concerned that the Design Guidelines and the Design Review Panel have been hijacked to serve the business and other interests of a connected few  And that the Trustees, have for unknown reasons thrown their weight behind this. Or is it that it serves the interests of a few trustees who have plans for bigger homes, apparently already approved? I refer to the still unanswered questions asked by Craig Smith in the email that got him banned.  Read the email that got Craig Smith banned here

This homeowner is concerned that his peace and quiet will be destroyed as he slowly watches the increasing density of Thesen Islands from behind a moving brick truck.

As for "sewing (sic) division and dissent", the HOA uses a technicality to silence a dissenting owner as it doesn't want to answer his hard questions and uses its power of emailing spin to every homeowner at the click of a button. My blog is the only way, and not a very effective way, of getting out an opposing view to a few owners on an issue of huge consequences to them.  An issue which, I believe, the HOA has not been straight with homeowners.

That this is seen as sowing "division and dissent"  shows disregard for the huge majority of owners who the trustees are meant to be representing.  

Or am I wrong? Send a link to my blog to everyone in the interests of an open debate.

It would be sad if the legacy of this group of trustees will be that their failure to protect the interests of the huge majority of homeowners,  resulted in the slow destruction of the look and feel of Thesen Islands, until it looks like Knysna Quays.

I look forward to your prompt reply as promised. It is important that the questions are answered well in advance of the AGM, obviously.

Sincerely,
Ken Rutherford