Hatchet Job on FAR Committee Report & Members: Don't Follow the Trustees Down the Rabbit Hole

Here it is! George Rex never restricted bulk when he sold to Thesen. Just as I thought!

Go down the rabbit hole. To enter into a situation or begin a process or journey that is particularly strange, problematic, difficult, complex, or chaotic, especially one that becomes increasingly so as it develops or unfolds. (An allusion to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll.)

The 4* remaining trustees, now with 2 co-opted friends, are trying to take members down the rabbit hole.Their complicated, technical, legalistic (and need I say unreadable?) response to the FAR/Bulk Sub Committee is another attempt to create confusion among members. Then demonstrate what they see as their brilliant research, analysis and grasp of the issues. 

Like spinning you around in circles until you are dizzy and then before you fall, grabbing you and saying “Look, I have saved you!”

To the point, it is a strategy of distracting members with technical issues as they continue to  pursue their goal of turning Thesen Islands into a business opportunity by increasing bulk.     "The real aim was to provide the stimulation for improvements..” - Chairman’s Report – 6 December 2018

*There are actually 5. But the 5th trustee is away most of the time and does not seem to play a role in this saga. So I’m leaving him out here.  Read this. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moving on to the trustee’s response to the FAR/Bulk Sub Committee’s report. 

80-90% of the members voted  against the increase in bulk at the AGM in January 2019. The trustees didn’t like that. So they now dismiss it as “A straw poll is exactly that, an indication of opinion of the attendees of that meeting, no more and no less.” But the trustees were not actually wanting even a discussion, never mind a vote. The taking of a straw poll had to be proposed by a member and the rest of the members pushed for it. * Read this. 

What is wrong with a “straw poll”? Aside from when you don’t like what it tells you? It is members putting their hands up to give their vote on a matter. It is the same as putting you hand up to vote for a trustee or a new Constitution.  "No, of course not, you fool!  Completely different. Pay attention!"

These trustees will argue about the meaning of every phrase and word that does not suit them. Why is that? Because the members are not buying their argument and that – plus creating confusion - is all they have ever had. So this thing drags on like a bad marriage.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote in the post on 2 August 2019 FAR/Bulk Committee Report: Bad news for Trustees (and they don't want you to see it). :

The decision to form a committee to investigate the bulk issue was, in my opinion, a strategic move by the trustees to try to remove it from discussion at the AGM in January. It failed. Members insisted it be discussed with 80% to 90% voting against the increase in bulk.  

Nevertheless, the committee was still planned as either the trustees had to drop their plan to increase bulk right there and then at the AGM, or roll the dice that the still to be formed committee would advance their agenda. 

But the trustees knew they'd rolled "snake eyes" when they saw the make up of the committee. Independent, knowledgeable members not able to be bullied into submission.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... it is worth noting that the trustees are the servants and not the masters.. (of the members).  But not here on Thesen Islands. *See more at the bottom of this post.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2018 I posted HOA tries out a new story - I'm not buying it , I wrote “The (HOA) 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". 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


They are now replaying their same (albeit failed) strategy to bury the killer blows dealt to their scheme by the FAR Sub-committee:   

”It is the view of the committee that the Trustees should not have agreed the overall increase in FAR proposed by the DRP….” 

and  

“The DRP be run exclusively by the appointed professionals…”  

“Trustees should not have any say on DRP rulings…”

“The Trustees may, from time to time, ask the Chairperson of the DRP for a report on DRP approvals and submissions not approved, but will otherwise not intervene in this process.”


The sub-committee, chaired by a trustee, with another trustee on it (both having now resigned. Fired?) was put in place by the trustees themselves and they selected/approved the members. In fact, it is officially called a “Subcommittee of the Board of Trustees”. But now they are so pissed off with it they have disowned it.  It is now “the FAR Committee”. 

And they complain “The FAR committee was comprised of a majority of members who were expressly and vocally opposed to any relaxation. There were no DRP members on the committee either." This is their own committee they are complaining about!  

The General Manager and the Building Control Officer (who is an important cog in the DRP) were also on their committee. But when the 4 committee members released the report they said “The Report was finalised with no dissenting views on any aspect and agreement was reached by consensus”. Make of that what you will. 

The trustee’s response to the killer blows?  “Comments above fall beyond the scope of the FAR Committee Terms of Reference..”  The straight-jacket terms of reference having been set by the trustees themselves in an effort to control the sub-committee. There is no practical  reason for ignoring parts of the report if, as they claim, it is outside the terms of reference. Other than you don’t like what it says.  

To be clear about the trustee's response: Who asked the trustees to go on this mission exploring the ins and outs of the conditions of approval of the development, the Knysna Municipality zoning laws and who knows what else, blah , blah, blah, blah, hiring consultants, “experts”, maybe lawyers, all expenses paid by us, of course, to produce an unreadable response to the FAR committee’s report that torpedoed their scheme?  And then they expect members to attend "workshops" on this?

But you can bet your house that if the FAR committee had said “increased bulk is a great idea” we would not have this gobbledegook drop with a thud in our mailboxes.  For sure, the sub-committee’s report would not have seen the light of day if some of the committee didn’t decide to release it directly to members. 

The trustees appear to be delusional at best, dishonest at worst.  They claim they take the member’s wishes seriously yet ignored the wishes of the 80-90% of members at the AGM who rejected the idea of increasing the bulk. Then they say they  “take very seriously our duty to be impartial….”  but have never allowed any other viewpoint other than their own to come from the HOA. And attack and threaten members who have, in their eyes, the audacity to call them out. 

They talk of  “unwarranted and perpetual attacks on their personal reputations by disaffected members” (never substantiated). I would say they’re doing a fine job themselves on their reputations and don’t need any help from members, disaffected or not.   

Oh, and they say “As always, we will happily engage with any bona fide request from any Member”. They have ignored countless requests for information on this whole fiasco for the last 9-10 months. Bona fide! Now they tell us! That has been the problem!  Here I, and many members, have been asking the same questions countless times, but we have never received an answer because, apparently, our questions aren’t “bona fide”!  

As a service to fellow members who don’t want to waste their time asking questions that are not considered “bona fide”, here are 2 examples that must fall into the “not bona fide” category: 

The names of the owners, house numbers and architects who had plans secretly approved with the increased bulk? 

A copy of the legal opinion that the increase in bulk is, to quote the trustees, "indeed a minor change to the Design Guidelines, within the meaning of clause 9.1 of the Constitution"? A 10% increase in bulk is minor?  Not one director of the Thesen Islands Development Company agrees. Read what 2 have to say here

While moaning about “attacks on their personal reputations”, the trustees do a hatchet job on the FAR Committee members as well as those quoted in the report who do not agree with them. And throw some mud: “their premature conclusions resulted in concealing a substantial FAR indiscretion by a FAR Committee member. It also revealed that other members of the FAR Committee are presently non-compliant.” 

Does that mean they can expect a visit from the Building Control Officer in the near future?  Is this not an attack on “personal reputations” they claim they are against? I am not going to get into a “whataboutery” with the trustees on compliance, either. But many members could.  

The FAR sub-committee proposals would, hopefully, stop insider deals and trading favours. We already had a taste where insiders were getting their plans approved with increased bulk while the rest of us knew nothing about it. So much for openness, transparency and fairness.  

To end, there is this from the remaining trustees: “The FAR Committee holds itself out to be beyond reproach with numerous suggestions as to the operations of the HOA, specifically the DRP.”  If you needed any further indication that the trustees do not tolerate any criticism, this is it.  How dare the FAR Committee even make suggestions to them?  The trustees know everything and they know what is best.  

As for the  “beyond reproach” jibe:  I would gladly take all the members of the FAR sub-committee to be trustees instead of the current bunch we are stuck with. And so, I think, would most members. For what the members of the FAR Committee did is put the interests of the members first. And stood up against this power grab by the trustees. For that, they earn their anger and hostility. 

The committee members can reflect on this quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt:

“I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.” 

And know that you have the respect of a huge majority of owners.  



*Another owner sent me this:
"At any stage the owners in a general meeting can direct the trustees to...abort or alter any course the trustees may be embarked on...it is worth noting that the trustees are the servants and not the masters..."  Read the full piece here. 


Every member reading this blog needs to realize that there are many other members who only get to read the “fake news” that the HOA puts out. So forward a link to it to all friends who are members. 

If you cannot, or do not want to, attend the AGM in January, give your proxy to a member friend or neighbour, telling him or her your position on this issue. If you give it to the chairman, as is the usual default choice on the proxy form, you know how he will vote.  

We need well-informed, involved members. The future of Thesen Islands depends on it.

HOA warns "Take Precautionary Security Measures" due to "considerable construction activity"

(I wrote this back in July but never posted it. There's been so much unpleasantness on Thesen Islands over the last year that I didn't want to add more. But recently I heard that there'd been an armed robbery on another gated estate in Knysna.  

The house next door was being modified and the armed robbers used a ladder from the builder to access the home through an open upstairs window. The family were held up. While no one was physically harmed, the mental trauma will have long term effect. 

The question has to be asked as to why this house with a window upstairs open was targeted and how the robbers knew there was a handy ladder next door? Speak to anyone in crime prevention, construction activity does bring an increase in crime. 

So I decided that this post, while disturbing, needs to be aired.) 

The HOA believes that the "considerable construction activity" is such a threat to our security that they warn us about in their newsletter. Yet they plan to turn Thesen Islands into a never ending construction site. 

Increasing construction activity is not in us owners interests, as the HOA confirms by their warning. But the HOA by continuing to push this "increased bulk" and the way they have gone about it, has demonstrably shown that have long stopped putting owner's interests first. 

Remember: 80-90% of owners at the AGM in January 2019 voted against it but that has counted for nothing. It should have been dead and buried right there. Read more here

 So I read in the Thesen Islands Homeowners Association newsletter sent to owners on 2 July 2019 (bold added):

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

Take Precautionary Security Measures 

Allsound's crime statistics in and around Knysna for the 5-month period ending May stand at 294 reported incidents. Although Thesen Islands is proud of its effective security measures, 

we need to bear in mind the considerable construction activity occurring across the Islands with a constant to-and-fro of contractors, builders and maintenance staff. 

This is a reminder to all of us to be AWARE of what is happening around us, to immediately report suspicious activity, and to make sure that we keep garage doors closed, and doors and windows locked whenever we're not at home. Please also make sure you do not leave valuables in plain view where they can be reached at home or picked up through a car window. Finally, make sure you lock your car doors wherever you park your vehicle.

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

As I wrote in my post on 18 December, 2018:

Most importantly this is definitely not in the interests of the huge majority of homeowners, ourselves included. Increased construction will bring more big trucks, more bakkies, more noise, more dust and more workers. The trucks and the bakkies will endanger our children and grandchildren riding their bikes on our narrow roads. The extra workers will be an added threat to our security.

Read more here

As I wrote in my post on 19 December, 2018:

Your role is to boost the businesses of architects, interior decorators, kitchen installers, builders and allied trades by adding on to your house. Or even knocking it down and rebuilding it if you like a lot of "stimulation" in your life. While you suffer from the increased congestion with trucks, as well as noise, dust and more workers,  less safety for your kids on bikes on our narrow roads and less security due to the increased number of workers, just think you are doing your part in making other people richer.

Read more here

And as I wrote on 24 December, 2018:

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? 
Read more here

If the trustees force through their plan, I predict that the next warning from the HOA to us will be about the danger to our children brought on by the increased trucks on our narrow roads.

As I wrote in my post on 12 May, 2019:  

CRITICAL: Say No to BIG trucks for the saftey of out children. Speak Up NOW!

These trucks will be travelling on our extremely narrow roads past our houses and parks. Family neighbourhoods where children play, walk and ride their bikes, tricycles and scooters on the sidewalks and streets. The danger to our children & grandchildren cannot be ignored by any reasonable owner. If the luckless Moorhens and Coots at the bird ponds, now getting run over regularly, are the “canaries in the mine”, our children are in grave danger.  

Read more here

Now is the time for owners to make their voices heard! 

Write to the HOA at tihoa@tihoa.co.za TODAY!
Make sure you vote at the AGM or give your proxy to a friend or neighbour to vote for you.   

Groan... More Baloney from the Trustees

Quick! Fire somebody!

He who does not bellow the truth when he knows the truth makes himself the accomplice of liars and forgers. Charles Pierre Péguy (1873 – 1914) 

There is no pleasure in shining a light on the trustees’ decisions and actions. It is depressing. But the disinformation that continues to come from the HOA needs to be exposed. 

Members must to know so they can make informed decisions about the credibility and capability of our current leadership.  And this blog which started out as a happy place to share pictures of the development, has by default, become the alternative voice.  Along with the unofficial (not HOA controlled) TI Facebook group.  

What is clear to me, though, is that the trustees, and hence the HOA have become increasingly combative and belligerent in dealing with members and others. Where everyone who irritates them by criticizing their decisions or does what they don’t like is attacked, threatened or sued. Read this   (Links are in blue and open in a new window)

This “Scorched Earth" approach has bad consequences for Thesen Islands. Unhappy members, 4 trustees resigning in 2 months, an architect reportedly resigning from the DRP. Most likely the next resignations will come from the professional staff at the HOA. As they, too, decide they cannot take the toxic atmosphere any more. We have a well qualified, experienced GM who is not allowed to get on with his job with what seems like virtually every request, no matter how innocuous, sent to the lawyers or trustees for input. Does all this impact on the running of Thesen Islands? Absolutely. Does this look appealing to potential buyers on Thesen Islands?  Absolutely not.  

Is this the type of HOA you want?  

Do you accept them passing a resolution increasing bulk in August 2018 but only telling you in December 2018, while during this time they approved “increased bulk” plans of insiders who they have refused to name? Read this and this

Are you happy that, unlike say, the Knysna Municipality, our HOA refuses to put the minutes of the trustee’s meetings on the HOA website for everyone to read (like in the past)?  

Have you been intimidated into silence by your HOA? 

I think it is disgraceful that we have an HOA that shamelessly carries on like this. And it reflects poorly on us members, too. Think about this, please. Make your voice heard. 

The latest episode of this ongoing soap opera is the Board of Trustees’ ponderously named CHALLENGES TO TRUSTEE ACTIONS RESULTING IN UNNECESSARY LABOUR, INCONVENIENCE AND EXPENSE email sent to members on 17 September, 2019.

Controlling the HOA communications with members, they abuse their position to convey an incorrect version of what happened at the CSOS hearing and then use that version to smear a member, accusing him of wasting their time and our money. And threaten “strong action” against members who they claim are doing the same. See more on CSOS below. 

For example, read how they spinned the AGM discussion on bulk here  (Keep in mind that more members read their communications than read this blog. Forward this to all the members you can.)

As has become a continuing story about credibility over the last 10 or so months, the Board’s version of what transpired at the CSOS Arbitration Hearing between the HOA and Craig Smith does not stand up to scrutiny.  Like their changing story of the reason bulk must be increased. Read about that here

And it is not a matter of Smith’s version versus the HOA’s version. Here we have the CSOS Adjudicator confirming Smith’s version. And we have a Resolution signed by all the trustees that is dated on the business day before the hearing that confirms BOTH Smith’s and the Adjudicator’s version. 

Here’s a summary of events according to Smith (Read his full response here):

August 2018:  Board approved a Resolution to increase bulk. This increase was not communicated to Members until Dec 2018.
November 2018: Smith asks Board to revoke Resolution and take the issue to members. Board refuses.
March 2019: Before continuing with his CSOS Application, Smith again asks HOA if the Resolution has been revoked.   Answer is negative.

(Smith: Why is this important ? Clause 18.12 of our Constitution states “All Resolutions recorded in the minutes of any meeting of Trustees shall be valid and of full force ……until varied or rescinded”.)

Monday 16 September 2019: Arbitration hearing with Smith, HOA Chairman Bill Cooper and the CSOS Advocate in attendance. At the start of the hearing, Cooper presents the advocate with a Resolution signed by the Board of Trustees revoking the Resolution to Increase Bulk. The date of this Resolution is Friday 13 September 2019. As this is what Smith had been asking for since November 2018, the CSOS Advocate declares the meeting closed. Read the Resolution here.    

Here’s Zama Matayi, the CSOS Adjudicator, confirming Smith’s version in an email dated 23 September 2019. Read his email here

Please find herewith copy of the (TIHOA) resolution that revokes the previous resolution to increase bulk. (Y)our prayer was to declare the resolution invalid. This document sets aside the resolution you wished to declare invalid therefore there is nothing to declare invalid because same has been revoked.

Here is what the Board of Trustees told members in their email dated 17 September,  2019:

Monday's referral was moot long before it was to have been heard.  The Adjudicator picked this up and refused the relief and struck down the Application brought against us (TIHOA).  Unfortunately, the Application had to be comprehensively and responsibly dealt with by the TIHOA.  We had to have legal assistance and, in addition wasted many many man hours within the Estate Office and that of the Board of Trustees to contend with this frivolous endeavour by a disenchanted individual. Read the full email here

As you have read, that is not what Craig Smith said happened and not what the CSOS Adjudicator said happened. And the Resolution revoking the increase in bulk that the HOA itself handed in at the hearing confirms both Smith's and the Adjudicator's version.  

Then the trustees, having been asked since November 2018 to revoke the resolution wait until the Friday (13 September 2019) before Monday’s Arbitration Hearing (16 September 2019) to revoke the Resolution. And they accuse Smith of wasting their time and HOA money on this? 



More on CSOS.  As their website says “The CSOS was established in terms of the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act to regulate the conduct of parties within community schemes.” All Members  pay dues based on our individual levies and the money is collected by the HOA and paid over annually. The CSOS provides an Alternative Dispute Resolution service. Any person in a community scheme may lodge an application to the CSOS if such person is a party to or is materially affected by a dispute. This entails the resolution of disputes outside of the courts. This method is often preferred as the most cost effective and speedy way of settling disputes through methods such as conciliation and adjudication.

Coming soon...    

Don't Follow the Trustees down the Rabbit Hole  A response to the hatchet job on the FAR Committee's Report and the committee members.  

Top 10 Reasons Leisure Island is Now a Better Place to live than Thesen Islands. Looking back on our decision, 19 years ago, to make a home on Thesen Islands rather than Leisure Island, one of the options, I came up with this list. 

FAR Report Fallout! 4 Trustees resign... Why does the HOA not name them? Because 2 of them delivered a report they weren't meant to?

"And now, at this point in the meeting, I'd like to shift the blame away from me onto someone else."

HOA email to members, 6 September 2019:

Dear Member

Over the past two months we have had four Trustees resign for business as well as personal reasons.

We are however pleased to advise that Robyn McCall and Renette Kumm have recently been co-opted to help fill the void due to the above resignations.

As co-opted Trustees they serve until the next AGM (Jan 2020) and are available for re-election at the time if they so desire.

We welcome Robyn McCall and Renette Kumm onto the Board and wish them well in their new roles.

Paul Burchell
General Manager

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

When I read this, I was more troubled by what it did not say than what it did.

Firstly, ”over two months”? That is conveniently vague to hide any conflict that resulted in resignations.

Secondly, the resigning trustees are not identified. Surely, having been elected by the members, members should be told who they are? But not many members expect openness and transparency from the HOA anymore.  

That's why this blog (not my choice, but someone has to get the other side of the story out) continues to be the place members come to read about what is happening on Thesen Islands. As well as a growing number of  onlookers (amused, intrigued, potential buyers?) slowing down to look at the continuing wreck... circus...sh*t show... pick your word...that is Thesen Islands today.     

Well, the resigning trustees are Lester Day, chairman of the FAR Committee and a long standing member of the Board. Orrie Fenn who was also a member of the FAR Committee. And we know how the remaining trustees feel about their report. They hate it and blame them for it. 

And then 2 outsiders, Paul Zwarts who was doing good work on the gardens and Russell Belter, who was only elected this January. 

One could say that the voices of reason have gone. I don’t really know, but they did not seem to be part on the inner circle.

Who is left?

Bill Cooper, Remia Eksteen, Sam Lurie and Mark Williams. They are undoubtedly the drivers of the increase in bulk. And they get to choose two more trustees. John Stevens, is the fifth Trustee, who is in charge of finance, and has not seemed to have gotten himself embroiled in this mess.

What is unfortunate is that, until now, none of the four have given their reasons for resigning. I  think that if you were elected by members you owe them an explanation as to why you resigned, especially if the issue is the governance of Thesen Islands.

Thesen Islands is in a crisis. Now is the time to stand up and make you voice heard. That means all of us. And we need a few strong members to stand as trustees at the next AGM. 

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

Sh*t show: Some people might find the term offensive but when you read one of the definitions on Urban Dictionary I think you'll agree that it fits. This is how it is described: A description of an event or situation which is characterized by an ridiculously inordinate amount of frenetic activity. Disorganization and chaos to an absurd degree. Often associated with extreme ineptitude/incompetence and or sudden and unexpected failure.

Coming soon...  

Don't Follow the Trustees down the Rabbit Hole  A response to the hatchet job on the FAR Committee's Report and the committee members.  

Plus: 

Top 10 Reasons Leisure Island is Now a Better Place to live than Thesen Islands. Looking back on our decision, 19 years ago, to make a home on Thesen Islands rather than Leisure Island, one of the options, I came up with this list. 

   

FAR/Bulk Committee Report: Bad news for Trustees (and they don't want you to see it).

Snake Eyes: A throw of 2 ones with pair of dice. The worst possible result; a complete lack of success.  

The decision to form a committee to investigate the bulk issue was, in my opinion, a strategic move by the trustees to be try to remove it from discussion at the AGM in January. It failed. Members insisted it be discussed with 80% to 90% voting against the increase in bulk.  You read it on this blog. 

Nevertheless, the committee was still planned as either the trustees had to drop their plan to increase bulk right there and then at the AGM, or roll the dice that the still to be formed committee would advance their agenda. 

They set self serving, narrow terms of reference and swore (or tried to swear) the committee members to secrecy.    

But the trustees knew they'd rolled "snake eyes" when they saw the make up of the committee. Independent, knowledgeable owners not able to be bullied into submission.  

The committee investigated the issues and made their report. It is an indictment of the decisions and conduct of the trustees and the conduct of some of the HOA staff. 

In conversation with one of the committee members some time ago, I asked the question: "What if the trustee's don't like your report and sit on it? Well here is the answer:

Four of the committee members went ahead and released it. I received an email with the Report attached on 28 June 2019, now over a month ago. The trustees have said nothing since, aside from, I have heard, some of them attacking the integrity of individual committee members. So who knows what their plan is now? 

All of us owners need to give credit and thanks to these four Committee members - Mark Stemmett, Suyenne Botha, Chris Mulder and Hugh Bosman - who put the interests of the owners first and stood up against the power grab by the trustees.  These are the type of people who should be trustees.  

Here is the email:

Interested Thesen Island Members

A number of participants on the FAR Committee have decided to release the Final FAR Report (see attached). The Report was finalised with no dissenting views on any aspect and agreement was reached by consensus.

For some unknown reason the Trustees decided to withhold the release of the Report.

Please feel free to contact any of us for further clarification.

M. Stemmet

S. Botha

C. Mulder

H. Bosman

COMMENT: Other committee members included Lester Day (Chairman & trustee), Orrie Fenn (trustee) and Mike Barber. Note that the report was "finalised with no dissenting views on any aspect", even from the trustees on the committee. (The trustees have always presented every decision taken as "unanimous", whether that is true. This is the first time individual trustees have disagreed with the "unanimous" position on the bulk issue put out by the trustees.) 

Here is the report with my comments in blue and bold added by me within the paragraphs.

Final Report of the Increased FAR (FLOOR AREA RATIO) Bulk Committee to Trustees and Members

Introduction
Members of the TIHOA, including committee members, questioned the need for the existence of this proposed committee taking into account that the majority of members at the AGM expressed by straw poll disapproval of the FAR proposal. These objections were specifically noted in the Terms of Reference agreed by the committee but did not influence the discussion and decision-making process.

The committee had other important areas to review and these are noted below.

Zoning Schemes
A presentation was made to the committee by Chris Rabie, previously the Head of Department, from the Department of Planning, Local Government and Housing Cape Town, who authored the broad outlines of the rezoning and subdivision of both TIHOA and TICOA on 17 December 1988. As the development proceeded, the authorities issued appropriate approvals for each sub-division (or phase) (according to the chairperson of the DRP copies of these approvals are apparently not available either at the Knysna Municipality nor TIHOA). COMMENT: I recently located the full approval document for Phase 1A & 1B, dated 13 November 2001, which I have shared a copy with the HOA and the committee. This approval includes the Design Guidelines and therefore FAR/bulk allowances as well as Site Plans and Regulation Plans. The committee broadly accepted the interpretation from Chris Rabie that the specific Thesen Islands zoning parameters as developed phase by phase were a subset of the Knysna zoning scheme parameters. It was confirmed by committee member Mark Stemmett that approvals are in fact available and we expect to receive further information on this from VPM Surveyors.  

Chris Rabie conceded that the increase in FAR for Thesen Islands would be considered a major amendment. The process for such an amendment would include public participation from the members. Only members themselves can apply or instruct an Association to apply on their behalf: The application must also be advertised. 
COMMENT: The trustees told us that "..the application is merely a formality.." This is not true.  See below for the source *

Minor v Major changes
A presentation was made to the committee by Ludolph Gericke of G2 Planning, and a previous Town Planner of Knysna Municipality, who indicated that the changes to the FAR factors proposed by the Trustees were in fact of a minor town planning nature in a normal zoning scheme.  However, this does not in fact imply that a minor town planning amendment will not result in major impact in aggregation.  We are awaiting an updated report from Ludolph Gericke as he has been provided with additional information relating to Thesen Islands’ regulation and site plans.  

The committee concluded that he had not taken sufficient notice of the accumulative effect of the individual minor changes applied across all the properties on Thesen Islands.

In addition to this proposed change to the FAR factor, the Design Review Panel (DRP) through the Trustees in the ordinary course of business periodically amend the Design Guidelines and submit these to the Knysna Municipality for approval. This clearly leads to possible conflict as each and every homeowner/member all signed up to specific Design Guidelines when they bought their properties.

COMMENT: Or to put it another way, rules sometimes get changed so the insiders get their way.

It is recommended that a practical process be developed where ALL changes to the Design Guidelines (whether considered major or minor) are shared with the members as part of a public participation process, and then taken to the Trustees for consideration. 

The committee was unanimous on the fact that the current Design Guidelines is the version stamped and approved by Knysna Municipality on 25 May 2015. Any additional amendments proposed by the DRP to the Trustees, at any future stage, must be brought to an SGM or AGM and Members must be given the chance to approve, or not, each of the proposed amendments. This is consistent with Thesen Islands’ Constitution and this ruling needs to be incorporated into the Design Guidelines and the Terms of Reference for the DRP. The committee was also adamant that the current Guidelines must be strictly adhered to by all until a revised set is authored, agreed on by the members, and submitted to the Knysna Municipality for approval.

Proposed Increased FAR (Bulk)
TIHOA had no consolidated data set of all the properties with coverage, DSF (double story factor) and floor area. Before the committee commenced its meetings, it was necessary to research and plan how to extract all the data reliably and cost-effectively.   Fortunately, Mark Williams, who is a Trustee and sits on the DRP, had been extracting this data from various sources and he made this package available to TIHOA. Our gratitude to Mark for his efforts. The core building blocks for this data were from Edu Lohann, surveyor general etc.  We have reviewed (audited) key elements of this consolidated data, including a cross reference to the independent stand size used by Francois Slabber, from PKF Auditors, in generating levies, and are satisfied that it provides a data set from which to draw conclusions.

The committee has identified 32 properties that are non-compliant in terms of coverage or FAR (per the existing Design Guidelines), significantly lower than was originally assumed 

COMMENT: Here is what the trustees told us on 21 December, 2018 in their 
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO MEMBERS -
TRUSTEES' EXPLANATION OF THE DECISION TO OFFER INCREASED
FAR (BULK) TO REGULARISE THE ESTATE*

"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. '

"..it does not appear reasonable to apply the guidelines strictly to some members while it is widely known that probably a third of houses exceed bulk (FAR). "

"...our studies show that the impact (of the increase in bulk) is minor since many of the houses are already over bulk." 

Well, as I expected, that has also turned out to be untrue. A third would be more than 150 houses. But no, it is 32!  And the 32 properties INCLUDE those approved secretively  "between August and November 2018" which owners have still not been told about! 

It was challenged at the time. Chris Mulder wrote in his 26 December, 2018, email to the HOA:
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.." Read his full email here

I challenged it in my post The HOA tries out a new story. I'm not buying it

but which excludes the many smaller stands that received veranda and carport allowances: There are further properties that are non-compliant for reasons other than coverage. The Building Control Officer (BCO) is reviewing these 32 properties to establish if any have been granted departure applications. The list of 32 properties includes several properties where approval was granted between August and November 2018 in terms of the increased FAR; they have now been put on hold.
COMMENT:  Not all have been put on hold. At least 2 properties are finished or almost finished "bulking up".  As expected the HOA (our HOA) refuses to answer any questions about these, despite emails from many owners.

 It is noted that the data set was the result of a desk top study, and to verify this would require an on-site inspection/ measurement of each property which the committee felt was not justified in terms of cost and time.  

The Committee REJECTS the motivation that FAR should be increased to accommodate non-compliant properties  (Original report bold)
COMMENT:  That had to be the stupidest argument made for the increase in bulk. Like saying that too many people are being arrested for drunk driving so we need to raise the alcohol limit. 

Turning to the specifics of the data set, analysis showed that in aggregate there is unbuilt coverage of 9 482m² (18 070m² including allowances) and unbuilt FAR of 6 577m² (15 165m² including allowances). In terms of the increased FAR proposal, there is a further 9 118m² (17 706m² including allowances) available over the currently allowed FAR.

It is the view of the committee that the Trustees should not have agreed the overall increase in FAR proposed by the DRP as an isolated guideline, but a system should be put in place that through a public participation process, all Guidelines be reviewed over a cycle and then approved by the Trustees.  

COMMENT:  The trustees should not have increased bulk. Nor should they have done it without telling anyone except the insiders.  Stated clearly and without favour. The committee includes 2 trustees, I remind you. 

The committee strongly recommends to the Trustees that: 

(1) The DRP be run exclusively by the appointed professionals whose mandate will be to strictly apply the Design Guidelines as approved by the Members from time to time at a General Meeting and agreed to by the Knysna Municipality.  

(2) Trustees should not have any say on DRP rulings unless the DRP refer any issues to them or a Member objects to a DRP ruling. 

(3) The DRP is not the body to deal with non-compliance save for instances where the TIHOA asks for a view on particular issues. 

(4) The Trustees may, from time to time, ask the Chairperson of the DRP for a report on DRP approvals and submissions not approved, but will otherwise not intervene in this process.

COMMENT: Simply put, keep the trustees away from the DRP.  Think about that for a moment.  The trustees cannot be trusted.  

Observations/Actions
It has been noted that some building works have taken place on Thesen Islands without the appropriate paperwork. The committee was informed by the BCO that consequently the processes have been strengthened to prevent builders working on site where DRP approvals have not been formalized.  Members are reminded of the Rules and Regulations relating to building works, particularly over weekends.  

COMMENT: How does this happen? We have had a Building Control Officer for years. He should be driving around seeing what is going on. Permits have to be displayed on the fences. The mind boggles.  

It has also been noted that TIHOA officials have in the past granted approval for building works that have not been confirmed by the DRP. Here again the TIHOA General Manager (GM) informed the committee that similarly that processes have been improved to ensure that no action can be undertaken without the required formalities in place.

COMMENT: How is this possible? The HOA gives approval to a builder to start building without approved plans? This is so basic that I cannot see what "processes" can be "improved" to avoid this. This is just a failure to do the job you are paid to do. 

There can however be no reason or excuse for members not to adhere to the processes put in place, and the GM should immediately send out a circular to this effect.  

COMMENT: The fish rots from the head down. If the trustees don't stick to the rules, the HOA staff don't feel they have to stick to the rules and then the owners don't feel they have to stick to the rules. 

For noting, the committee has received relatively little input from individual members, notwithstanding the feedback received during the AGM, and would appreciate comment on this final report to tihoa@tihoa.co.za.  
    
21 June 2019
Signed by:
Lester Day ………………………………………
Orrie Fenn ………………………………………
Mike Barber ………………………………………
Chris Mulder ………………………………………
S Botha ………………………………………
H Bosman ………………………………………
M Stemmett ………………………………………
P Burchell ………………………………………
D Ferreira ………………………………………

COMMENT:  So now we sit with this mess, created by the trustees. 

Increased bulk plans "approved" by the DRP and, in some cases, Knysna Municipality that need to be withdrawn as the increase in bulk is not approved.

Owners with properties who thought they had legal approvals are now over bulk according the only approved Design Guidelines. Very large, illegally approved, houses impinging on neighbour's views, light and privacy.  

And, a month after getting this Report, the trustees have no plan on how to sort this out. They need to go.