The fight against the unilateral decision of the HOA/trustees to gut the Design Guidelines and increase the bulk is far from over. We have a group of trustees who are still pushing ahead despite opposition from 80 to 90% of the owners at the AGM in January 2019.
You only have to read what the HOA/trustees say. See below.
You only have to look at how the HOA/trustees have changed their story of the reason for this decision to believe that if there was a 3rd story they could come up with to push this through, they would.
You only have to know that the HOA were approving plans with the increased bulk for about 6 months, before they told us. And they did this WITHOUT having the approval of the Knysna Municipality. Both the HOA and KM confirm this. See below.
I wasn't at the AGM but l, and the rest of the owners who were not there, owe a big vote of thanks to the owners who turned up in numbers and voiced their objection to this "added bulk" scam that will destroy Thesen Islands under our noses. See below for feedback from some owners.
Let the Increased FAR (Bulk) Committee and the HOA know where you stand. Write your letter today. You are in this fight, too. Don't stand on the sidelines letting others speak for you. If enough owners voice their unhappiness, we may be able to stop it now. They can ignore 1 or 2 owners, but they cannot ignore hundreds.
Send a link to this blog to the many other owners who are unaware of it. The HOA can send out an email to every owner at the push of a button, I cannot do that.
Below is my submission which I sent to each Committee member. Send you submission to the HOA. Ask for confirmation/proof that it was received by the committee. Or email me at thesenislander@gmail.com for the individual addresses of the committee members. I don't want to post them here.
Your submission can be as short as you want it to be. One sentence stating your position is all that is needed.
The next meeting is: Monday, April 1, 2019
(No indication of when the last meeting is - it could be this one. So get your submission in without delay. We don't want to run into a "disqualified submissions" issue like that happened with the proxies at the AGM)
Date: March 26, 2019
To: The Committee Members
Mike Barber
Hugh Bosman
Suyenne BothaLester Day (Chairperson)
Orrie Fenn (Trustee Infrastructure)
Dr Chris Mulder
Mark Stemmett
From: Ken Rutherford
I
refer to the INCREASED FAR (BULK) COMMITTEE Terms of Reference,
published on March 15, 2019:
1.1.2 consider
evidence and submissions in writing or verbally from stakeholders
As a stakeholder, I am submitting the following “evidence and
submissions” for your consideration.
Firstly, I thank you for giving your time and energy to
serve on this committee that potentially could sway whether we stay Thesen
Islands or become Knysna Quays South over many years of increased building
activity.
As you are aware that the position of the trustees, in a message sent out on December 31, 2018, is:
"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."
You will
also be aware the trustee’s first motivation for the increased bulk: “the real aim (for the changes)
was to provide the stimulation for improvements“- Chairman’s Report December 6, 2018.
How many
owners benefit from that? More building means more dust, more dirt, more noise,
more bakkies, more trucks, more danger for children riding bicycles, more
security threats from the increased workers. There was a solid reason for the 4 year
building time limit.
As the
trustees stand by their decision, what do you say to the perception that your
committee is a bone tossed to owners to make them feel involved in the decision
to increase bulk but, at the end of the day, has no relevance?
My
concern is that you may have been appointed to give legitimacy to the
undemocratic, and illegally implemented without approval of the Knysna
Municipality, decision of the trustees to increase bulk?
1.1 The overall
objective of the Increased Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (Bulk) Committee is to
consider the Increased Bulk agreed by the Trustees while taking cognisance of
the majority view of Members at the AGM...
Not surprisingly, this is an attempt to downplay the huge majority
of the owner’s opposition to the increase in bulk. In fact, owners who were at
the AGM paint a very different story of what happened and what the mandate of
your committee was meant to be. I was not at the AGM so I share with you parts
of the emails I received:
Owner 1
“Not sure if you've been informed, but the 'expansion' of Thesens was
rejected by a forced vote by the homeowners (as the HOA had removed the topic
from the agenda pending the commission - slimy ) . No decision on the insider
offenders yet.”
Owner 2
“In a nutshell a member asked for a show of hands from the floor for
members who were against the increase in bulk. Nearly 80% of those present did
not want it.”
Owner 3
Of significance and importance to us is that the question of the TIHOA
DRP and Trustees decisions relevant to the question of “Increased Bulk or FAR”
was hotly debated. Although poorly controlled and after many exchanges the
action of the Trustees in establishing a sub-committee was put to the vote and
their action was carried by the narrowest of margins. Then because of continued
pressure It was decided to have a “Straw Poll” for an indication from the
meeting to sub-committee as to whether the Members actually wanted any
“increase in Bulk or FAR”. The overwhelming
vote was NO – my estimate 90% against, so the Subcommittee has a clear mandate
of Members feelings and this really took the Trustees by surprise.
Owner 4
So we survived, although it probably was the largest gathering ever by
Members for an AGM it was not overly dramatic. It was interesting to hear the
comments, Chris Mulder spoke leaving no doubt that for him and the Developers
negotiating the Building Rules for TI were long and hard. Graham Power also
spoke and sort of intimated Members take a vote on whether the Committee
proceed with their deliberations. Another Member stood up and said, let’s have
a show of hands. This was the obvious solution. By far, I mean by a huge margin
the overwhelming majority stuck their hands up for leaving the DRP Guidelines
concerning Footprint and Bulk as is. There was then a call of hands for the
proposal the Committee investigate the issue. If there were twenty it was a
lot. This was not a formal vote but a show of hands to guide the Trustees.
The Committee still stands but their job
is to resolve the issue of properties who are over Footprint or Bulk.
In real terms I think this means they are not going to let go of the Bulk
story, it is bound to raise it’s ugly head again. The Trustees maintain there
are more than 30% of houses not in compliance; their inference is that these
can be fixed by the Bulk story. Chris strongly disagreed and said that under
his guard every building was properly checked.
So that’s where we are, I don’t for one minute think the Bulk issue has
gone away.
1.1.4 with the
understanding of the data by type of property, or group of properties and the
interpretation of the applicable Zoning parameters/scheme, to submit to the Board comment as to whether the change proposed by the
Trustees is minor...
In the “IMPORTANT NOTICE TO MEMBERS -TRUSTEES' EXPLANATION OF THE
DECISION TO OFFER INCREASED FAR (BULK) TO REGULARISE THE ESTATE dated
December 21, 2018, the trustee said:
“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.”
The trustees appear to have lost
faith in this “legal opinion”. But as we were told they had one, please investigate,
firstly, if it exists, and if it does, what it says and which attorneys provided
it. And the date it was provided.
3.8 Minutes
shall be kept in a Minute Book and signed off by the Chairperson at the next
meeting. These minutes, because of the
confidential nature relating to members, will be made available for viewing to
members upon written request, in a redacted form (to comply with POPI) in a
reasonable time.
The trustees love to roll out POPI and I suspect that they are getting ready to
use it here to hide the names of the trustees and
other connected owners who benefited from the approval of
plans with increased bulk from about July 2018 through the end of the year when
they told the rest of us.
And they didn’t even have
the approval of the Knysna Municipality to do this! See below for confirmation
of this from both the HOA and the Knysna Municipality.
Oh,
and “made available for viewing” means? Sit and read them in an office at the
HOA. Tough luck if you don’t live in Knysna. How’s that for discouraging an informed
membership? But like the
ANC, they don't want an informed electorate
Let’s look at the POPI Act:
The Protection of Private Information
Act. “In a technological age, which is
governed by social media and characterised by aggressive consumer marketing,
the over-arching aim of the bill is to protect individuals’ personal
information from misuse. She says privacy is important because data and its relative
worth to companies in the form of databases is enormous. She says this means
there is a real chance that it will be abused.”
https://www.property24.com/articles/impact-of-popi-act-on-sectional-title/21092
Fair
enough. But from the Act:
Section 11: Personal information may only be
processed if — (c) processing complies with an obligation imposed by law on the
responsible party; (d) processing protects the legitimate interests of the data
subject; (e) processing is necessary for
pursuing the legitimate interests of the responsible party or the third party
(the other owners in the scheme) to whom the information is supplied.
I would
say it is in the interests of owners to know who the trustees are, it is
suspected, who benefited from their positions to get their own increased bulk plans
approved and those of connected individuals without the rest of us owners
knowing a thing about it.
I would say this is in the “legitimate interests” of
all owners and the gets to the core of good governance: How and when, or if, the increased bulk was
approved by the trustees.
We already
know it was implemented without approval of the Knysna Municipality (1) as the
trustees have acknowledged it (2).
(1) Email
from KM Town Planner on February 11, 2019 that said “Yes, we have
recently received an application for the increase in bulk and the application
is still in its initial stage”
(2) See “In order to clarify
possible misconceptions, we list the timeline of documents sent to Knysna
Municipality relating to, inter alia, FAR” in the email “Increase in FAR (Bulk)” dated February
15, 2019.
4.2 Any member or person present at a Committee meeting shall
recuse themselves while any matter in which they have a direct or personal
interest or potential conflict of interest is considered.
Chris Mulder will mostly
be sitting in a chair in the lobby. At times, he may be joined by Lester
Day. It is ironic that they throw this
in now when they co opted and made chairperson of the Design Review Panel, an
interior designer who also sells light and bathroom fittings.
4.4
As the Committee has an investigative and deliberative function, it will not
take formal decisions or votes. However, when the Chairperson reports the
findings and recommendations of the Committee to the Board, the Chairperson
shall report all matters as agreed by the Committee or as not agreed. Where the
Chairperson believes this will assist the Board, he/she shall explain points of
internal disagreement in his or her report to the Board.
Nothing has changed. It is the trustee’s call. As the trustees said in their December 31,
2018 email: “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."
The position of the trustees is clear. They want to increase the
bulk. And as they control the work of your
committee and more powerfully the means of communication with the owners, only
their spin (as it changes) gets communicated to the owners. This we have seen in the past.
The 80 to 90% of owners at the AGM who oppose the increase in bulk
never get to tell the rest of the owners why they feel this way. Just dismissed in a one liner in the AGM minutes.
In summary, aside from my questions at the beginning on how you
see your roles, these are my questions and requests:
The minutes of the trustee’s meeting approving the increase
in bulk.
The minutes of the trustee’s meeting approving the implementation
of the increased bulk Guidelines, with subsequent approval of house plans,
without the approval of the Knysna Municipality.
The names of the owners, house numbers and architects who
had plans approved with the increased bulk.
The legal opinion that the change to the Design Guidelines
was “minor” in terms of the Constitution with the name of the attorney and the
date it was provided.
In the email, IMPORTANT NOTICE TO
MEMBERS - TRUSTEES' EXPLANATION OF THE DECISION TO OFFER INCREASED FAR (BULK)
TO REGULARISE THE ESTATE dated December 21, 2019, the trustees made certain
claims:
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 investigate the methodology used in this
investigation. And the details of the results.
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.
Do the trustees acknowledge
that the claim that the Knysna Municipality had “agreed and accepted” the
changes is actually false? I refer to the email from KM Town Planner on February 11, 2019
that said “Yes, we have recently received an application for the increase in
bulk and the application is still in its initial stage.”
I submit the following posts from my blog
And just
so you know what sort of Design Review Panel we now have:
Depressing
isn’t it? Your committee, even as hamstrung and boxed in by the trustees’
“Terms of Reference” as it is, has the last chance to, just maybe, save Thesen
Islands from the rampant self interest and greed of a few. I wish you all
strength to make the right decisions.
