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?

Read " More trucks, dust, noise, workers and danger to our kids & security"

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

ReplyForward