By Ken Rutherford, with input from Gray Rutherford
The Thesen Islands Design Guidelines (TIDG) are sometimes seen by the uninformed as an arbitrary set of rules restricting a member from enjoying his property. Regrettably this attitude has been given credibility over the years by some trustees who have, either from a lack of understanding, or willfully, undermined the TIDG, or have stood by while their fellow trustees have. Those opposing major changes, like myself, have been dismissed as fuddy duddies clinging to the past. And worse.
As I have done on my blog over many years, I want to make the case for the preservation of the TIDG: They play a vital role in safeguarding the unique environment and lifestyle we all enjoy. For this to happen we need informed trustees who want to serve as guardians of Thesen Islands. I am optimistic that we now have such a group guiding Thesen Islands, hence this letter.
Here is an excerpt from the current Coral Gables Design Guidelines, a city in Florida, USA, incorporated in 1925, almost 100 years ago. It was and remains a planned community based on the popular early twentieth century City Beautiful Movement and is known for its strict zoning regulations. The city was developed by George Merrick, a real estate developer from Pennsylvania, during the Florida land boom of the 1920s:
‘The single-family regulations, as well as the design and performance standards in the Zoning Code, seek to ensure that the renovation of residences as well as the building of residences is in accord with the civic pride and sense of stewardship felt by the citizens of Coral Gables. By preserving the community character of the Gables, the Zoning Code safeguards both individual property values, as well as the quality of life that best serves the collective interest.’
This is the cornerstone of the Thesen Islands Design Guidelines; to “best serve the collective interest” of the members. Put another way, the TIDG are there to protect members, most specifically by regulating what the neighbours can build and where on their properties. While the member may feel his enjoyment is diminished by a rule, if he is allowed to ignore it, the neighbours will often pay the price. As when the rules are subverted by ill-considered, often illegal, changes to the TIDG. Or simply not enforced.
The ongoing fight on Thesen Islands is to build more, bigger and cover more of each erf. Such as when a recent group of trustees, thankfully now all gone, tried 3 times to overturn the limits on the size of house allowed. But the TIDG have been subverted by stealth, and this has been going on for many years.
UPDATE: The following section refers to actions by the previous board of trustees that thankfully the current board had the sense to withdraw and revert to Design Guidelines Revision 2019, stamped by KM 17 August 2020.
By boldly calling the designs on the HOA website the “Residential Design Manual 2021 – First Edition” when the first edition of the TIDG was in 1998, the trustees who wrote and approved this “First Edition” arrogantly assumed the right to subvert the TIDG. The look and feel of Thesen Islands is under threat yet again.
The process that apparently now has them at the Knysna Municipality (KM) for stamping is flawed. Members were not allowed input on the proposed changes. The changes are not “minor” in terms of the constitution. Prior to the AGM the HOA could not provide a document highlighting the changes, and they still cannot. The draft minutes of the AGM do not even record the answer by the trustee in charge of the portfolio when asked to explain the changes to members. But from the audio, it was not a comprehensive answer. They must be withdrawn from the KM immediately.
In short, when the previous trustees tried to increase bulk, they were defeated as they told the members of their plan, so they used a different tactic this time. They didn’t tell the members what the changes were. UPDATE: Withdrawn.
Less Privacy, Less Open Water
They mean less privacy for neighbours as building lines are ignored such as allowing a deck to be built closer to the neighbour and further towards the waterway. This new assault on the front waterway building setback means your neighbour’s deck can now stretch a few metres further out to the waterway, obscuring your view of the waterway and giving you a front row seat to watch their next social gathering. Then, if there is a bit of open water in the front of his property, he will be allowed to install a 2nd jetty. So you liked your waterway view? Well, it's now hidden by a bigger deck, another jetty and boat.
Houses on the waterways are close together with the only open space being the waterway in front of them. Yet we are allowing the decks and jetties to multiply and the decks move closer to the waterway? It is vital that this encroachment of the waterways be stopped immediately. For the record, my house is not on a waterway.
Merit Approvals
The word “merit” is used 17 times as opposed to 4 times in the previous version (Revision March 2014, KM stamped 25 May 2015).
The Guidelines have many rules that are effectively no longer rules as they can be ignored if there is “merit”. Whose merit? The merit of the member wanting to sidestep the rule or the “merit” of the neighbouring members who could be negatively affected by the side stepping?
If we want to have a harmonious community (and perhaps legal action) this way of granting approval must be avoided. The Guidelines need to be clear and consistent and apply to all members equally, not in grey areas of “merit” approvals.
By the way, Westford Bridge Estate has recently removed what was an “waiver of the guidelines” or “merit” clause of approval from their design manual. They don’t work.
Judged by the standards of Coral Gables, these changes FAIL to “preserve the community character and safeguard both individual property values, as well as the quality of life that best serves the collective interest.”
Some background on Gray. Gray, as a partner in the Thesen Islands Development Company, compiled with several architects the original TIDG for Thesen Islands and was the first chair of the DRP for about 4-5 years. As a partner in the Belvidere Estate development, he also co-wrote the Design Guidelines for Belvidere Estate and was chair of the DRP there. He recently reviewed and updated the Architectural Design Manual for Westford Bridge Estate.
