What I know: A summary of the scam to date

The realization that I have had since I read the HOA communication "Trustees' Explanation of the decision to offer increased bulk" is the lack of trust I now have in the HOA.  I cannot believe anything they tell me. That communication was, to be polite, an attempt to mislead homeowners.

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

I'm not naive. I know that there are people who will lie to gain an advantage. I have a simple way of dealing with this: If I find you lied to me, I never believe anything you tell me again. Unless I know it to be true. Because past conduct is a predictor of future conduct.  

But when it is as simple operation as your Home Owners Association that you have to be "suspicious of", well, that is disheartening. 

I like to relax in my home on Thesen Islands, not be on my guard for what scam the HOA is going to try to pull next. And if you read my blog, in the short few years of Thesen Islands, there was another scam that had to be beaten back. And I wasn't involved in the fight against the Vodacom towers, but there was a smell there, too. 

And to think I started this blog to share pictures of the early stages of the development. Now it has turned into a local version of the corruption exposing "Daily Maverick".

But getting to the here and now...

Okay, so this is what I know and what I think. We are being scammed. Thesen Islands is being redeveloped right under our feet. If we do not stand up and say to the trustees "No, you cannot do this", then look forward to living on a building site. Say goodbye to the Islands as you know it. 

Many questions have been asked of the HOA over the last few weeks. I've written letters myself. None have been answered properly. Even a simple question asking "which trustees are standing for re-election?" hasn't been answered. Yet the HOA promises "prompt answers".

Following up on the embarrassing snow job attempted in their December 21, 2018, communication, they are now, in a message sent out on December 31, 2018, saying that

"whilst the trustees stand by their decision" to increase the bulk they are forming a "sub committee" to make "inputs" that the Board of Trustees "will consider, and "if appropriate act upon."

As they say in America, they're taking a leaf right out of the ANC government playbook.  (To do something in the way someone else would do it) 
This is what the ANC does when it finds itself on the back foot. It forms a committee!  

But the trustees stand by their decision!  Of course, they do. Some of them appear to benefit personally from the increasing of the bulk.  

So what is the point of this talk shop? Chaired by a trustee, nogal!  It is a small bone tossed to the homeowners to make us feel that we have some influence. 

Then they add:  "The implementation of the new FAR rules will be held over." What? "Held over" means delayed. But they have already been implemented. Since July, apparently.  You know it but you just never told us.

I have a suggestion for the Trustees: Before you set up a committee, first find out if the majority of homeowners want to increase the bulk and turn Thesen Islands into Knysna Quays? You have never asked us!    

As to the rest of what has been happening, In this void of no answers, a homeowner (me) can only speculate. Here's what I think has happened:

The Design Review Panel (DRP) chaired by Sam Lurie, has been turned into a vehicle to promote business. What type of business, you ask? The business of promoting building on Thesen Islands through renovations, additions and upgrading.

To achieve this, they gutted the Design Guidelines. As Max Diethelm, an owner, says in his letter to the HOA:

"the bulk increase (allowed in the new Guidelines) 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."

Good business for the designers and architects on the DRP.

And business is what they are very clear about. This is what the DRP in the Chairman's Report, the author unidentified, said in December, 2018:

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

Blunt, isn't it? Why the DRP chose to show their cards and disclose their agenda in such a blatant way is a mystery. But we can be thankful that they were so upfront. At least we know where we stand.

Then the mystery is, why did the rest of the trustees go along with this? Surely, they saw that it wasn't in the interests of the huge majority of homeowners? Whose interests they are meant to be representing?

I don't know. But perhaps the answer is in Craig Smith's email. The one that got him banned. Read it here.

In it, you will read that 3 of the trustees, Mark Williams, Lester Day and Remia Eksteen apparently had plans approved with the new added bulk. I say, apparently, as the HOA has refused to answer the questions in Craig Smith's email. Instead, they banned him. But pressure from homeowners has got him un-banned.

Looks like these 3 trustees decided to take advantage of their insider knowledge and submit plans for bigger houses. The other trustees? What did they know about this? They are keeping quiet. And the 3 trustees? They're keeping quiet, too. No explanations, no protests of innocence. Nothing. Surprising? You'd think if there was a plausible explanation, we'd have heard it.

Then the 2nd mystery is that these changes were apparently approved in July, 2018. But only the connected homeowners were told of this. And plans continued to be approved with the new added bulk up right up to when the rest of us were told in the Chairman's Report in December, 2018.

Why this subterfuge? I don't know. Perhaps they thought they wouldn't get away with it. But wanted to get away with as much as they could, for as long as they could? Here also, the HOA is silent.  But it looks like a betrayal of homeowners, for sure.

Then another mystery to me is where was Bill Cooper while all this was happening? Cooper has done a lot of good in his time as Chairman. He came in at a difficult time and steadied the ship. He has overseen a lot of innovative thinking and forward planning.

Obviously trustees change every year, so Cooper hasn't had the same team, but I think he's been a decent Chairman.  Until now, sadly. I hear he was away when this scam was hatched. But what happened when he got back? He's not telling. But he owes us an explanation. And maybe save what's left of his reputation.

So where do we go from here? I think Williams, Day, Eksteen and Lurie need to go. They have no credibility.

In truth, I think the whole lot of them need to go. They haven't looked out for the homeowners. It has been all bullying and bluffing as they try to force through the increased bulk changes.

Some new trustees need to be elected. Paul Burchell appears to be an excellent and experienced manager. He can guide the new trustees. 

The changes to the Design Guidelines must be rolled back immediately. No building permits issued.

A thorough investigation needs to be done into what plans have been approved with the added bulk or any other changes. Whose houses, who were the architects, what were the owners promised and what was expected of them?  

Don't be under any illusions, the Thesen Islands HOA is in big trouble with possibly financial exposure.    Read HOA asks Ex TIDC MD: Why refer this to our accountants? Read his reply

Owners need to stand up an be counted at the AGM. Or give your proxy in to someone you trust. 

We need to take Thesen Islands back. Or suffer the consequences of rampant self interest and greed.

I won't be at the AGM. Thankfully, I am away as the meeting would make me nauseous.

Ken Rutherford

Incompetence, evasion & the Design Review Panel: You be the judge

What has happened to the Design Review Panel? This story and the following one are hard to explain - how are such very basic compliance issues missed? 

Or is the DRP not interested in ensuring that only plans that are in accordance with the Design Guidelines are approved?

Or are there no Design Guidelines except for those the DRP is keeping close to its chest and only sharing with the connected few? 

Like some of the Trustees, for example. 
See The email that got Craig Smith banned

Not only does the Design Review Panel tries to mislead homeowners... 

See  HOA tries out a new story. I am not buying it

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

...But it is both incompetent and evasive as this story will demonstrate. Or if not incompetence, what?

Where was the oversight from the Board of Trustees? 

To try to keep it brief, I will give a summary:

August 28, 2018: I see a double story garage under construction at P45. This is an obvious contravention of the Design Guidelines that absolutely should not have been approved by the Design Review Panel.  What needs to be understood about the Design Guidelines is that they are mostly a series of rules as anyone who reads them will  see. There is no mystery there.  

September 12, 2018: I receive a reply from the Building Control Officer.  His reply made absolutely no sense at all. He can be excused as he is very new on the job. Later he seemed to indicate that he'd received his information from the DRP! 

But that's how the DRP does it. Pushes a paid employee out front. Like they did by having Paul Burchell put his name to their attempted snow job on the justification for the increasing of the bulk. 

September 21, 2018: I replied to the Building Control Officer's email 

Here is an  excerpt from my reply (see full reply below):

I note that your position is Building Control Officer. As a Building Control Officer, you will understand the importance of regulations for regulating and controlling what is being built. You will also agree, that regulations need to read and then applied in their entirety. Sections cannot be cherry picked to make a case for non compliance.

Your reply did not address my points directly. In fact, your reply only makes sense if one ignores what is written in the Owner’s Manual.  I do not have the time to point out all the relevant sections but a careful reading will inform you.

Applying your reasoning, a garage can be built any where provided it is within the building envelope and there is no Regulation Plan for the stand.  If, as you do, you ignore all that is written in the Owner’s Manual.  

Using my stand (P79) as an example:  It has a 1.5 m building setback from the street boundary and does not have a Regulation Plan.  Therefore I could have built a garage facing the street, 1.5m from the boundary. 

September 21, 2018: I get a reply from the Building Control Officer on "finding a way forward with regards to giving a more detailed response from us."

December 18, 2018: I write again to Paul Burchell. An excerpt (full email below):  

It is unfortunate that the HOA seems fit to have a very recently hired Building Control Officer, DelaRey Ferreira, answer my questions when he is not yet familiar with the Design Guidelines. Perhaps the DRP is too embarrassed?  

What is puzzling about this apparent approval is that Edu Lohann (who I believe is still serving on the DRP) has many years experience and, certainly in the past, filled the role of checking the technical aspects of all plans before they are seen by the full DRP. Then also on the panel is Trevor Griffin, an architect also apparently still serving on the DRP who has many years experience. Both apparently didn't see a problem with this submission. 

Can I have a response from the DRP.? 

December 19, 2018: I get a forwarded message from Sam Lurie, the Head of the Design Review Panel:

Dear Paul 

The DRP has discussed this at length. 

I invite Mr Rutherford to our next DRP meeting where the entire panel will be available to answer his concerns re P45. 

This meeting is pencilled in for the 22 January 2019.

Summary: After 3 emails stretching over 4 months, I get invited to a DRP meeting "penciled in" for the end of January, 2019.  And "The DRP has discussed this at length" but they are not going to "share" their discussions unless I come to a meeting  "where the entire panel will be available to answer (my) concerns re P45"

This is just kicking the can down the road.  But the reason for this is simple. The Design Review Panel has failed its responsibilities. And wants to avoid replying to my email.  What else can I think?

Here are all the emails in their entirety:

My email, dated August 28, 2018, addressed to Paul Burchell at the HOA:

------------------------------------------------------

Dear Paul,

Double garage under construction on P45:

I refer to the Design Guidelines, approved by Knysna Municipality, May 2015.

I read under D29 Garages & Carports, the following:

Garages or carports facing the street to be set back a minimum of 5 metres from the street boundary.  

Further on I read:

Garages or carports facing service lanes have reduced setbacks (see Regulation Plan for property).

However, if you look in the HOA records for P45, I do not believe* you will find an Annexure B - Regulation Plan included as part of the original Sale Agreement. 

Neither will the "Annexure A - Site Layout Plan" reference a Regulation Plan. 

Therefore, as there is no Regulation Plan for P45 allowing a reduced setback, no relaxation of the setback for the garage should be permitted.  

*I qualify my statement only because I am not specifically looking at the documentation for P45. However, I am looking at Site Layout Plans for erven in the same street which would be the same as P45.

Sincerely,

Ken Rutherford

P79

-----------------------------------------  

On September 12, 2018, DelaRey Ferreira, the newly appointed Building Control Officer replied:

Good afternoon Mr. Rutherford

My apologies for the delay in responding to your letter.

With regards to the double garage currently under construction at P45, please see my response below:

There are no Thesen Island stands on streets where a zero building line applies. Only on the lanes.

The lanes – Log, Timber, Linen, Canvas, Cotton, Little, Harbour, Crab Claw, Beach, Post and Picket may all have garages on the zero building line.

Garages can be single or double in size, unless they have a specific regulation plan requiring a setback for urban aesthetic reasons.

P45 is situated in Timber Lane, please see attached Site Layout Plan confirming the zero building line for this stand.

I trust this information is satisfactory but please feel free to contact me should you wish to discuss the matter further.

Kind regards

------------------------------------------------------------------  

On September 21, 2018, I replied:

Dear Mr Ferreira,

Thank you for your reply.

I note that your position is Building Control Officer. As a Building Control Officer, you will understand the importance of regulations for regulating and controlling what is being built. You will also agree, that regulations need to read and then applied in their entirety.  Sections cannot be cherry picked to make a case for non compliance.

The Thesen Islands Design Guidelines which comprises the Owner’s Manual, Site Plans and Regulation Plans (“Design Guidelines”) regulate and control what can be built and where it is can be built.  Quoting from the Owner’s Manual, I raised specific points regarding the garage been built on the property line at P45.  

Your reply did not address my points directly. In fact, your reply only makes sense if one ignores what is written in the Owner’s Manual.  I do not have the time to point out all the relevant sections but a careful reading will inform you.

I quote from my email (with updated comments):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read under D29 Garages & Carports, the following:

Garages or carports facing the street to be set back a minimum of 5 metres from the street boundary.  

Further on I read:

Garages or carports facing service lanes have reduced setbacks (see Regulation Plan for property).

However, if you look in the HOA records for P45, I do not believe you will find an Annexure B - Regulation Plan included as part of the original Sale Agreement.    

Neither will the "Annexure A - Site Layout Plan" reference a Regulation Plan.  (19 September, 2018: My reading of your reply confirms that there is no Regulation Plan for P45.)

Therefore, as there is no Regulation Plan for P45 allowing a reduced setback, no relaxation of the setback for the garage should be permitted.  

-------------------------------------------------------------

In your reply you write: “There are no Thesen Island stands on streets where a zero building line applies. Only on the lanes.

The lanes – Log, Timber, Linen, Canvas, Cotton, Little, Harbour, Crab Claw, Beach, Post and Picket may all have garages on the zero building line.  Garages can be single or double in size, unless they have a specific regulation plan requiring a setback for urban aesthetic reasons.”  

You have this back to front. A Regulation Plan is needed for a reduced setback.   I refer you to D32 Garages & Carports:

In general garages or carports facing the street to be set back a minimum of 5 metres from the street boundary.  If not street facing may be set back 1.5 metres.  Garages or carports facing service lanes have reduced setbacks (see Regulation Plan for property).

I also refer you to T6 Building Envelope and Building Lines:

For stands of less than 500 sq.metres or stands on a narrow lane some of these building lines may be less – please refer to the Regulation Plan for that particular stand.

Bold added.

Applying your reasoning, a garage can be built any where provided it is within the building envelope and there is no Regulation Plan for the stand.  If, as you do, you ignore all that is written in the Owner’s Manual.  

Using my stand (P79) as an example:  It has a 1.5 m building setback from the street boundary and does not have a Regulation Plan.  Therefore I could have built a garage facing the street, 1.5m from the boundary.   

Yours sincerely,

Ken Rutherford

P79

--------------------------------------------  

On September 21, 2018, DelaRey, the Building Control Officer replied:

Good morning Mr. Rutherford

Thank you for your detailed letter.

I would like to discuss this matter with Paul Burchell upon his return from leave next week for the purposes of finding a way forward with regards to giving a more detailed response from us. To be honest I do not have access to sufficient documentation/information to thoroughly respond to your letter at this stage.

I do apologise for the delay in responding to your query in a satisfactory manner, your patience is appreciated.

I will contact you next week with a suggested way forward.

I trust this is acceptable.

Kind regards

------------------------------------------------------

On December 18, 2018, I wrote to Paul Burchell:

Dear Paul,

Having just written to you, I am reminded of the above issue to which I have not  yet received a response. My email is dated September 21, 2018. 

It is unfortunate that the HOA seems fit to have a very recently hired Building Control Officer, DelaRey Ferreira, answer my questions when he is not yet familiar with the Design Guidelines. Perhaps the DRP is too embarrassed?  

What is puzzling about this apparent approval is that Edu Lohann (who I believe is still serving on the DRP) has many years experience and, certainly in the past, filled the role of checking the technical aspects of all plans before they are seen by the full DRP. Then also on the panel is Trevor Griffin, an architect also apparently still serving on the DRP who has many years experience. Both apparently didn't see a problem with this submission. 

Can I have a response from the DRP.? 

(I included all the previous emails.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

On December 19, 2018, I received this forwarded email:

Dear Paul 

The DRP has discussed this at length. 

I invite Mr Rutherford to our next DRP meeting where the entire panel will be available to answer his concerns re P45. 

This meeting is pencilled in for the 22 January 2019.

Sam Lurie 

----------------------------------------------------------

More evasion from the Design Review Panel - You be the judge

Here's another story of incompetence and evasion by the Design Review Panel.

On December 19, 2018, I wrote to Paul Burchell:

Dear Paul,

In November 2018, I was approached by a neighbour of the above stand questioning the double storey garage being built, apparently, within the setback on the above stand, H41.

My reply was:

--------------------------------------------------

Have you written to the HOA about your concerns? 

The Design Guidelines are downloadable from the HOA website. In them you will read:

Relaxation of building line: A single storey garage or carport may be sited up to 450 mm from a side boundary line that does not abut a waterway.

As, apparently a double storey is being built with a 450 mm set back, I do not see how it complies with the Guidelines.  

The HOA owes you an explanation. But if you do not lodge a forceful objection with the HOA, you will not be taken seriously. Write to both the GM and the Chairman of the HOA as well as the Trustees. That is how it works.  

-------------------------------------------------

.

As I am becoming increasingly concerned with the current  operation of the DRP, can I also have an answer for this apparent approval  in violation of the Design Guidelines? 

Sincerely,

Ken Rutherford

-------------------------------------------

Here is the reply I received:

Dear Paul 

I invite Mr Rutherford to our next DRP meeting where the entire panel will be available to answer his concerns. 

This meeting is pencilled in for the 22 January 2019.

Sam Lurie

How about a simple email telling me how this was approved? 

No, I have to come to a meeting of the "entire panel"  to "answer my concerns" at a meeting that may or may not take place.

Kicking the can down the road, again. That is our Design Review Panel. And hoping I'll  not want to waste a morning sitting in a meeting waiting for the "entire panel " to "answer my concerns"

In Afrikaans, they say "Hulle vat my vir 'n gat."