central planning authority · 1 central planning authority minutes for a meeting of the central...

1

CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

Minutes for a meeting of the Central Planning Authority held on August 30, 2000 at 12:00 pm. at the existing Lower Valley Water Treatment Plant, near to the Agricultural Pavilion and in the Planning Conference Room, 3rd Floor Tower Building.

29th Meeting of the Year CPA/29/00

Mr. Heber Arch (Chairman) Mr. Alvin McLaughlin Mr. Dalkeith Ebanks (Absent) Mr. Frank Flowers Mr. Attlee Bodden Mrs. Melba Nixon Mr. Rex Miller Mr. Charles Duty Mr. Robert Cameron Mr. Robert Watler Mr. Dawson Whittaker Mr. Olsen Levy (Absent) Mr. Antonio Smith Mr. James W. Corcoran (Executive Secretary) Mr. Nicholas Popovich (Planning Officer) Mr. Robert Lewis (Planning Officer)

Apologies were received from Msrrs. Olsen Levy and Dalkeith Ebanks

1. Confirmation of Minutes 2. Development Advisory Board Matters 3. Matters Arising 4. Minor Matters 5. Subdivisions of Less than Six Lots 6. New Applications 7. Other Matters 8. Enforcement 9. Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) 10. Matters from the Director of Planning 11. CPA Members Information/Discussions

2

APPLICANTS THAT APPEARED BEFORE THE CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

NAME REASONS TIME ITEM PAGE

Kerry Bush (NP) Setback concern 2:10 7.03 46

Robert Imperato (AR) Access issue, sign size 2:40 5.04 9

Raul Gonzales (BES) Access issue 3:20 5.02 6

Mini Warehouse Two (AR) Site suitability 3:50 6.03 16

1.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

2.0 DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD MATTERS

3.0 MATTERS ARISING

4.0 MINOR MATTERS

4.01 CABLE & WIRELESS (CAYMAN) LIMITED Block OPY Parcel 89 (256/97) ($5,000) (AR)

Application for a TV antennae to be placed on the Butterfield building rooftop

FACTS Location: The Bank of Butterfield Building (the former Coe

Building) on Edward Street in downtown George Town.

Zoning: General Commercial Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) Notices were undertaken on July 27, 2000.

No objections were received.

Background: August 27, 1997 (CPA/27/97 Item 6.08): Permission granted to renovate the Coe Supermarket for banking and retail purposes.

Existing Use: Bank of Butterfield and retail shops

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General Proposal The applicant is requesting planning permission to construct an eight foot (8’) satellite dish on the rooftop of the newer Bank of Butterfield building. It will be located adjacent to the existing air conditioning units.

3

The Planning Department has no concerns regarding the proposed antennae and feels its proposed location is a suitable one.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following condition:

1) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

4.02 LA CASA DEL HABANO Block OPY Parcel 114 (048/80-B) ($3,488) (A.R.)

Application for three (3) signs

FACTS Location: Cayman Courtyard Gallery, corner of Shedden Road and

Harbour Drive, adjacent to Diamonds-in-Paradise, George Town.

Zoning: General Commercial Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) Notices were undertaken on July 27, 2000.


Existing Use: Retail

Proposed Use: Retail

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General Proposal The applicant is requesting planning permission to construct three (3) signs at various locations on the building. The signs are not illuminated and will not, if approved, require a Building Permit.

The Building itself contains many stores and the subject retail store has very little street frontage. The entrance to the subject store is along the alley that used to contain the staircase entrance to the Cayman Arms.

The size of the proposed signs are as follows:

SIGN #1: Mounted above an entrance door to the subject retail store, at the end of the alley. Limited visibility.

Height Above Ground: 8’ Width: 3’-2” Height: 1’-8” Area: 5.3 ft2

SIGN #2: Hanging perpendicular to building, over the sidewalk. Height Above Ground: 10’-6” Width: 5’ Height: 1’-8” Area: 8.3ft2

SIGN #3: Mounted on wall inside the courtyard. Not visible from the street. Height Above Ground: 3’ Width: 4’ Height: 1’-4” Area: 5.3ft2

4

Summary The Planning Department sees the signs as appropriate for the use and not out of context with either the building itself or with the surrounding area. The signs are aesthetically pleasing and more than satisfactory.

However, the Planning Department would like the Authority to discuss the location of proposed Sign #2, as it protrudes over the sidewalk. While the Department would like to see it located above the walkway on the underside of the canopy, it has been proposed in the current location because it is more visible.

Photos of the building have been provided for reference purposes.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions

1) Sign #2 shall be erected flat against the building and not over the sidewalk.


4.03 HOME GAS LTD. Block 15B Parcels 4, 5 & 6 (106/80) (RS)

Application for a fence.

Mr. Attlee Bodden declared his interest and left the room.

FACTS Location: Walkers Road, George Town

Zoning: Neighbourhood Commercial & Low Density Residential Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served to adjacent property

owners and no objections were received.

Existing Use: Home Gas utility compound

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to replace a 6’ chain link fence with an 8’ chain link fence and in other areas around the property, a new 8’ chain link fence is proposed.

Given the nature of the existing use of the property, the Department is not opposed to the proposed height of the fence. However, it is suggested that the visual appearance of the chain link fence could be made less intrusive by covering the fence with either black or green mesh, similar to the treatment provided to the fence along the Harquail By-Pass.

The Department would also recommend that the fence along Walkers Road be setback 6’ and that suitable landscaping be provided in this area. This relatively

5

minor change to the proposal would significantly improve the visual appearance of the site.

Finally, it is noted that there is an existing hedge on Parcel 6, adjacent to a portion of Point Four Road. In an effort to further reduce the visual impact of the proposed 8’ high fence, it is recommended that the existing hedge be continued along the remaining portion of Point Four Road where it abuts Parcel 6.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:

1) The fence shall be setback 4’ from the property line abutting Walkers Road. Landscaping shall be provided on the outside of the fence to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.

2) The fence shall be green.

3) The existing hedge shall be continued along Point Four Road adjacent to parcel 6.

4.04 C.I. GOVERNMENT (DOEH) Block 20C Parcel 45 (008/90) ($20,000) (NAW)

Application for a storage shed and 6’ fence.

FACTS Location: Giglioli Building

Zoning: Marine Commercial Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on August 3, 2000. No

objections were received

Background: N/A

Parcel Size: 2.5 acres

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant has applied for a permanent 261 sq. ft. storage shed for the purpose of storage and a 6’ fence around the storage area and chip and spray parking area.

Fences of this height in similar zones have been looked at favorably.


1) The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief Building Control Officer. Construction of the storage shed shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.


6

5.0 SUBDIVISIONS OF LESS THAN SIX LOTS

5.01 MCALLISTER WHITTAKER Block 53A Parcel 63 (063/89) ($3,000) (JAB)

Application for a three (3) lot subdivision.

FACTS Location: Old Man Bay, North Side

Zoning: Beach Resorts/Residential. Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent landowners.


PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting permission to subdivide parcel 63 into three (3) lots. Lot A is proposed to be 23,000 sq. ft., lot B is proposed to be 18,000 sq. ft. and lot C is proposed to be 13,400 sq. ft. It is proposed that lots A and B are to be accessed via a proposed 24’ wide right-of-way over parcel C.

It should be noted that there are several buildings on site that have existed for a number of years. Although this subdivision will cause two (2) of the buildings to encroach on setback requirements, the Department is of the opinion that this subdivision will not physically change what is existing and is only a partition for land ownership.

It is also noted that the parcel has less than 200 feet of frontage.


1) The surveyor’s final drawing shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval prior to the survey being registered.

2) The applicant shall notify the Planning Department in writing of the new parcel number, immediately upon registration of the lot with the Registrar of Lands.

5.02 RAUL GONZALES Block 13D Parcel 121 (369/91) ($8,000) (BES)

Application for three (3) lot subdivision.

FACTS Location: Near the George Town landfill site, George Town

Zoning: High Density Residential and Heavy Industrial Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors

on July 11, 2000. One letter of objection was received (see “objection” below).

7

Background: February 15, 2000, the Planning Appeal Tribunal allowed an appeal for the construction of a tyre repair shop on lot “C”.

Proposed Lot Sizes: Lot “A” = 4.89 ac., Lot “B” = 0.87 ac., Lot “C” = 0.74 ac.

AGENCY COMMENTS Comments from the Chief Engineer are noted below.

Chief Engineer “As per your memo dated 7-Aug-00, PWD has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations. Following are PWD recommendations regarding the proposed development: There will be no access allowed from parcels A or C to the bypass road.”

OBJECTION “Thank you for your notice of above planning application. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION. 13D/121 HAS NO LEGAL ACCESS AT PRESENT. 13D/122 (also Raul Gonzales) has no legal access. Mr. Gonzales is using the RIGHT OF WAY on my land block 13D/2 which we granted to Government to access the Cayman Islands Dump. I have recently had fixed boundary survey done, which clearly shows the position. Please keep me informed of any further developments regarding this planning application.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting planning permission to subdivide the above parcel of land into three lots. Access to the lot is via the By-pass Road. The application complies with the minimum requirement of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision). The Department no specific concerns with the application.

The PWD has indicated that no access to the Harquail By-pass will be permitted for lots “A” or “C”. However, lot “C” has approved plans showing access to the By-pass. Regarding lot “A”, access should not be allowed onto the By-pass road as it is in a poorly maintained condition.

The applicant Mr. Raul Gonzales and his agent Mr. Eric Cronier appeared before the Authority at 3:20 pm. The objector, Ms. Broadbent did not appear. The Authority welcomed the applicant and his agent and asked them to comment on the adjoining proprietor’s concern regarding access over her land.

8

Mr. Cronier stated that the access has been used for many years. He is instructed to prepare documentation in an attempt to obtain a registered vehicular right-of-way over the adjoining proprietor’s land in favour of his client. This is only to formalize an existing access. However, he was not optimistic that the v-r-o-w would be granted. He was also instructed to seek prescriptive rights should the r-o-w request not be granted.

There being no further discussion, the Authority thanked the applicant and his agent for appearing.


1) There shall be no access from lot “A” to the Harquail By-pass.


5.03 MCFORD MCLEAN Block 73A Parcel 78 (066/00) ($3,500) (EJ)

Application for a three (3) lot subdivision.

FACTS Location: Sunnyfield Road (Farm Road), off Queens Highway.

Zoning: Low Density Residential Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors.


Background: October 18, 1995 (CPA/33/95; item 5.3) approval was granted for a two lot subdivision.

March 10, 2000 a two (2) bedroom house was approved administratively.

Proposed Use: Three (3) lot subdivision

Proposed Lot Sizes: Lot A = 1.56 ac., Lot B = 1.04 ac., Lot C = 1.09 ac.

Total = 3.70 ac. (161,172 s.f.)

Site Coverage: .97% (approved house)

LETTER FROM APPLICANT’S AGENT “I refer to my application of 10th July 2000, regarding the proposed subdivision of parcel 73A 78 into 3 lots. I understand that this is to go before the CPA Board on 30th August, and it is to be recommended that a 30ft access (rather than the proposed 15ft one) be required over new lot B in favour of new lot A. The district maps detailing the “Proposed Amendments (1994) to The Development Plan 1977” previously published by your office show the parcel within the Agriculture/Residential zone. It was therefore supposed that no further

9

subdivision would be allowed (unless a Designating Order was obtained), and a 15ft access would be sufficient. It is now known that the parcel was included in the rezoning of land in this area to Low Density Residential. This explains the Department’s recommendation of a 30ft access. However, I have discussed this with my client, and he has indicated that there is absolutely no intention to further subdivide the land. He will keep new lot C for himself and give his two daughters one lot each. You should note that plans have already been lodged with your Department, for permission to build a single home on new lot B. The proprietor therefore asks the Board to permit the requested 15ft access in view of the above-mentioned intentions. If any future application to subdivide lot A is ever made, then the proprietor agrees that the Board may require the upgrading of the access to 30ft, as a condition of any permission.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The application is requesting permission to subdivide parcel 78 into three (3) lots. Lot “A” is proposed to be 1.56 ac. with a 15’ vehicular right-of-way over lot B. Lot “B” is proposed to be 1.04 ac. and lot “C” is proposed to be 1.09 ac. Access to lot “B” and “C” will be via the gazetted extension of the existing road (BP387). The Department recommends a 30’ right-of-way over lot “B” in favour of lot “A” instead of the 15’ proposed.



2) A 24’ right-of-way is to be provided over lot “B” in favour of lot “A”.

3) The applicant shall notify the Planning Department in writing of the new parcel numbers, immediately upon registration of the lot with the Registrar of Lands.

5.04 SWARA PROPERTTIES LIMITED / SUNSHINE LAND LIMITED Block 13B Parcel 59 (227/79) ($32,300) (AR)

Application for a two (2) lot subdivision and a sign

Messrs. Robert Walter and Charles Duty declared their interest and left the room.

FACTS Location: the former First Cayman Bank Building on West Bay Road.

Zoning: Neighbourhood Commercial

10

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) Notices were undertaken on July 4, 2000. One notice was hand served with the appropriate response received. One (1) objection was received (see “objection” below).

Existing Use: Vacant Office Building

Proposed Use: Office Building with related parking and separate parking lot to the rear.

Parcel Size: 0.8 acre or 34,848 ft2

Proposed Sizes: Lot A: 0.46 acre or 20,144 ft2

Lot B: 0.34 acre or 12,691 ft2

Proposed Sign: 5 feet by 14 feet or 70 ft2

AGENCY COMMENTS Comments from the Chief Engineer are summarized below.

Chief Engineer The following ‘site plan’ issues were addressed by the Public Works Department, to their satisfaction:

• No land for future road widening is required

• The entrance is a sufficient width

• The method of storm water management is satisfactory

Response to Agency Comments The Planning Department would note that the comments made by the Public Works Department are merely comments on the existing site plan/site design issues.

The Planning Department has traffic concerns, as with all proposed subdivisions, which were not addressed in the memo received from PWD.

OBJECTION “We write on behalf of Mr. Patrick Delapenha, owner of Block 13B, 128 to file an objection against the application made by DDL Architects. We are concerned with the following: 1. The proposed egress and ingress on to the West Bay Road and the traffic

congestion this will create at the current access and take out service to the Pagoda Restaurant owner by my client.

2. The bypassing of the traffic lights by the cinema movie goers and Marquee shoppers creating a traffic nuisance and hazard at my client’s entry to his property.

11

This is not an exhaustive list of our concerns and my client will have further points to raise in due course.”

LETTER FROM APPLICANT’S AGENT In response to the Planning Department’s concerns and the issues expressed in the objector’s letter, the Applicant’s Agent has submitted the following letter”

“Thank you for your letter yesterday clarifying the department’s concerns on the above application. We hereby confirm the following 1. A right of way is already in existence across lot A in an agreement between

the eventual two owners – it is of course subject to subdivision. Parcels 81 and 82 are also currently undergoing combination by Evans and Associates (a requirement of planning approval on the cinema project) and once combined they would also be combined with lot B should the subdivision be approved.

2. The owners will be please to move the sign back 12’ from the property line and we would be grateful of you would take the dimension to be altered to 12’ for the purposes of the meeting.

3. The size of the sign (is) related to the number of units on the Cinema site and is significantly smaller than many of the signs on West Bay Road.

4. We would suggest that a review of the traffic patterns would show that his alternate entrance would assist with reducing U-turns on Lawrence Boulevard from traffic on West Bay Road going to the Cinema.

5. The owners will be pleased to submit a proposed landscape plan to the Department for approval to any works being carried out.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General Proposal The applicant is requesting planning permission to subdivide the property into two lots and construct a monument sign.

Subdivision Proposal Proposed Lot A, fronting on West Bay Road, will contain the existing building and 18 parking spaces. This complies with the minimum parking standards required for the existing building, based on 1 space per 500 ft2 of floor area, which was required at the time of approval.

Proposed Lot B, utilizing the rear portion of the existing property, will be used for a parking lot in association with cinema ‘Marquee’ expansion project. Lot B will contain 39 parking spaces.

Proposed Lot B will therefore have no street frontage. The applicant’s agent has stated that proposed Lot A will be combined with the existing cinema properties (Parcels 82 and 81). As well, as proposed Lot B will utilize access over proposed Lot “A”, Lot “B” will require a registered right-of-way over proposed Lot “A”.

12

Sign Proposal While the aesthetics of the proposed sign are more than satisfactory, the Department notes the following in relation to the proposed sign:

• The proposed size of the sign is 70 ft2, in excess of the Authority’s policy, which permits a maximum of 32 ft2.

• The sign should be considered an off-site sign due to its location on Lot A and the it advertises a development north of lot “B”.

Traffic Concerns This proposal would allow customers to access the Marquee development from West Bay Road as well as Lawrence Boulevard. This has the potential to dramatically increase the flow of traffic entering/exiting the former First Cayman Bank building.

As the Public Works Department commented only on site related design issues, the potential traffic impact is unknown.

It view of the potential concern, the Planning Department recommends that Cinema access across proposed Lot “A” to Lot “B” should be restricted to access only and that exiting the Cinema site via this route should be prohibited. The Applicant’s Agent has expressed a willingness to do this.

However, the applicant has not provided a satisfactory means for preventing the extra traffic exiting onto West Bay Road. They have stated that they are willing to utilize signage and provide a speed bump. However, the Department is not convinced that this will be sufficient to achieve this goal. The use of a “tire shredder” between proposed Lot “A” and “B” has been suggested but the applicant apparently does not wish to utilize this method of traffic restriction.

Any traffic restriction methods must be located on the proposed property line between proposed Lot “A” and “B”.

The potential impact of the Cinema traffic exiting onto West Bay Road is not the only traffic concern. The Department concurs with the objector’s concern in that the subject parcel’s existing driveway is considerably close to the Pagoda driveway on the adjacent property.

Landscaping The Department contends that both Lots A and B should be properly landscaped.. The Department is concerned that this may be the only opportunity to obtain a proper landscaping plan for both lots “A” and “B”.

Appearing before the Authority at 2:40 pm were the applicant and his agent Messrs. Robert Imperata and Derek Serpel, and an objector and his agent Messrs. Patrick Delapenha and Hedley Robinson. The Authority welcomed all asked the applicant to address potential concerns regarding the size of the proposed off-site sign and access issues.

13

Mr. Serpel described the area, indicating that a secondary entrance was needed to the project to alleviate congestion. The proposed access would be a feeder road from the proposed parking area. Full size signage is intended on Lawrence Boulevard. The West Bay Road sign can be scaled down.

Mr. Robinson expressed his client’s concern about the entry/egress at West Bay Road which will create traffic problems for his clients property, the Pagoda and his residence. His client would agree to an entry only at West Bay Road, with means to exit unto West Bay Road. The combination of a shopping centre and the cinema will worsen existing traffic problems in the area.

Mr. Delapenha emphasized that he had to block off his windows at his house due to traffic nuisance. He also indicated that the owners of the gas station and the Pizza Hut often complain about traffic by-passing the lights and cutting through their property.

Mr. Serpel stated that ingress would not be a problem. He asserted that egress would be of concern only at peak times at the conclusion of movies. He provided diagrams illustrating existing and proposed traffic patterns. He volunteered to place traffic signs if necessary or required. He maintained that PWD had advised that a secondary egress was desirable, as it took some of the load off the by-pass road.

Mr. Robinson said that in his opinion the load off the by-pass road would be negatively affecting his client’s property. After 9:00 pm. road signs are not adhered to. There is no proper police presence to monitor or control the area. Exiting at that location will negatively affect my client.

Mr. Serpel offered exit prevention means excluding a tire shredder, which he felt was too aggressive. His client is willing to register a one-way easement allowing access only.

Mr. Robinson indicated that his client would not object to a one-way only.

The Authority asked whether the applicant would consider pedestrian access only from that direction to the parking area.

Mr. Serpel stated that that was the current situation. The property is currently jointly owned.

The Authority inquired as to whether the 1st Cayman Bank Building would have sufficient parking after the subdivision.

Mr. Serpel affirmed that the submission addressed that observation satisfactorily.

The Authority sought confirmation that the objectors would agree to access only from West Bay Road, and that the applicant agrees to this. Both the applicant and the objector concurred.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission for the two (2) lot subdivision only, subject to the following conditions:

14


2) Lot A shall have a registered 22’ vehicular right-of-way in favour of Lot B, along the southern boundary.


It was further resolved to adjourn the application for the proposed sign for the following reason:

a) As an off-site sign to be located on Lot A (which is not the main entrance to the referenced development), the proposed 70 ft2 size of the sign exceeds the size normally considered for directional signs.

The applicant is advised that the Authority is willing to consider a sign 15 – 20 sq. ft. in area referencing the parking area at lot “B”.

The applicant is also advised that this permission does not include the use of lot “B” (i.e. for parking). A separate application to amend the parking area will be required prior to combination of lot “B” with the main development site. Said application must include Section 18(4) notices (the Development and Planning Law, 1999 Revision) to adjacent proprietors and must be submitted before or concurrently with the revised sign.

5.05 CARLOS WHITTAKER Block 49A Parcel 25 (261/00) ($3,000) (JAB)

Application for a two (2) lot subdivision.

FACTS Location: Hutland, North Side

Zoning: Agricultural/Residential Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent landowners

and no objections were received.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting permission to subdivide parcel 25 into two (2) lots. Lot “A” is proposed to be 13.0 ac. and lot “B” is proposed to be 12.9 ac. The parcel is being subdivided by the road and therefore has adequate access.



15


6.0 NEW APPLICATIONS

6.01 C.I. GOVERNMENT (SAVANNAH PRIMARY SCHOOL) Block 28D Parcel 271 (051/81) ($20,000) (RS)

Application for a storage building.

FACTS Location: Savannah Primary School

Zoning: Institutional and Low Density Residential Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were done - no objections were

received.

Background: No prior CPA action

Existing Use: Savannah Primary School

Proposed Use: Storage building

Building Size: Existing - 27,267 s.f. Proposed - 320 s.f. Total - 27,587 s.f.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to erect a storage building, 320 square feet in size. The proposal complies with all setback, site coverage and density requirements and the Department has no concerns with the application.



6.02 C.I. GOVERNMENT (GEORGE HICKS HIGH SCHOOL) Block 15B Parcel 249 (304/82) ($26,000) (RS)

Application for a storage building.

FACTS Location: George Hicks High School, George Town

16

Zoning: Institutional Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices –no objections were received

Site Coverage: 4.7%

Building Size: Existing - approx. 62,623 s.f Proposed - 320 s.f.. Total - 62,943 s.f

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to erect a storage building, 320 square feet in size. The proposal complies with all setback, site coverage and density requirements and the Department has no concerns with the application.



6.03 MINI WAREHOUSE TWO LIMITED Block 12C Parcel 263 (157/00) ($240,000) (A.R.)

Application for storage units

FACTS Location: On Canal Point Road, east of the Bella Capri Restaurant

and across from The Strand, off West Bay Road.

Zoning: Neighbourhood Commercial Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) Notices were undertaken on June 23, 2000

and July 12, 2000. One (1) objection was received (see below) but was withdrawn.

Background: June 21, 2000 (CPA/21/00 Item 4.01) Holiday Inn (under construction) received planning permission for the placement of storage containers on this parcel as well as the adjacent Parcel 356.

Existing Use: Vacant

Proposed Use: Storage Units

Parcel Size: 0.56 acres or 24,393.6 ft2

Site Coverage: Building = 32.79 %; Building + Parking = 75.76% (maximum 75% permitted)

Building Size: Proposed - n/a Parking Required - 8 (1/1000 ft2)

17

Total - 8,000 ft2 Parking Provided - 9

AGENCY COMMENTS Comments from the Water Authority, Chief Engineer, Chief Fire Officer and the Chief Environmental Health Officer are noted below.

Water Authority “Please be advised that the proposed development will be approved upon compliance with the following requirements: This development is in the area served by the West Bay Sewerage System. However, the sewer line nearest the plumbing system of the proposed development is a pressure line. Connection to this line would be cost prohibitive for the very limited flow expected from this facility. Therefore, we are requiring that a septic tank be installed in the area at the southwest corner of the site.

• The developer must provide a septic tank with a capacity of at least 750 US gallons. The septic tank shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards.

• All treated effluent shall be discharged into a deep well. The deep well shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards.

• The elevation of the invert of the discharge pipe for the treated effluent into the disposal well shall be a minimum of two feet above the local water table elevation.”

Chief Engineer “As per your memo dated 28-Jun-00, PWD has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations.

• PWD has no objections to the proposed development.”

Chief Fire Officer “The drawings (site plan) submitted to us by Mini Warehouse Two Limited for the proposed construction of warehouses on Block 12C Parcel 263 have been reviewed. We write to advise that we are satisfied with the proposed site layout. Final comments/requirements are subject to the review of a complete set of drawings submitted by the Chief Building Control Officer.”

Department of Environmental Health “The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:

1.0 ONSITE SOLID WASTE FACILITY 1 The proposed design details of the onsite solid waste facility does not

satisfy the department’s requirements. In addition, the service vehicle

18

cannot easily access the facility. The applicant shall submit revised plans showing the facility located and designed to meet the specifications as outlined:

MINIMUM SITING REQUIREMENTS 1. The facility should be located away from overhead power lines and

other protrusions that could cause electrical shock, injury or other difficulties during servicing.

2. The facility shall be so configured that the service vehicles can access the facility and exit the site without reversing onto the highway.

3. A minimum distance of 50ft is required between the facility and any structure or other obstruction to allow adequate space for the vehicle to back out of the facility.

MINIMUM DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 4. 1. The design of the facility shall conform to the minimum

specifications outlined below: a. The floor slab shall be constructed of reinforced concrete with a

minimum thickness of 6 inches and shall be provided with a floor drain located at the centre of the slab or in some other convenient point. The drain shall discharge into a deep well or other approved liquid waste disposal system.

b. The slab shall have a minimum internal width of 8ft and a minimum internal depth of 8ft-6in.

c. The enclosure shall be constructed of suitable material and shall be a minimum of 5ft-6in.

d. The facility shall be provided with water under pressure. A tap and hose shall be provided to facilitate washdown.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General Proposal The applicant is requesting planning permission to construct an 8,000 ft2 mini warehouse building for storage (warehousing) purposes. It will consist of forty-six (46) rental units of various sizes and one washroom facility.

The Planning Department is concerned about the following items:

1. Zoning/Proposed Use The Planning Department points out that this type of warehousing or storage facility may be considered an industrial use. It is generally suitable in an Industrial zoning, rather than the Neighbourhood Commercial zone.

The suitability of this industrial-type use in a commercial zoning is the major contention of the objection that was received regarding this application.

19

2. Aesthetics The applicant’s agent has supplied a colour rendering. While the front façade appears suitable (subject to the addition of cayman style drawing), the Planning Department is not satisfied with the overall aesthetics of the proposed structure, for two reasons, as noted below:

• The Department is concerned with the side elevations. The building is two hundred feet (200’) in length and has one continuous roofline. The Department would recommend that, if the Authority is considering granting planning permission, the applicant be required to add three (3) gables along each side of the structure or to separate the building into several structures.

• The building is proposed to be constructed of metal, with the front ¼ portion of the structure (fifty feet (50’) of the two hundred foot (200’) length) to be completed in stucco. While this finish technique has been undertaken on several other projects on the Island, the Planning Department has not been satisfied with the overall outcome.

3. Site Coverage Pursuant to Regulation 12(12) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision) “Site coverage, parking areas, driveways and service areas in any Neighbourhood Commercial … zone shall not exceed seventy-five per cent of the lot concerned.” Therefore, the maximum site coverage for the subject property (including the building and all paved areas) is 75% or 18,295.2 ft2. As the building is 8,000 ft2, that allows 10,295.2 ft2 for paved and parking areas.

The applicant’s agent has provided information that the paved and parking is proposed at 10,153 ft2 for a site coverage of 74.41%.

However, the Planning Department has calculated this paved and parking area at 10,482 ft2 or 75.76%, in excess of the maximum amount permitted by 0.76% or 236.61 ft2.

Therefore, either the building must be reduced (thereby reducing the covered area and the amount of parking required) or the paved area must be reduced with concrete grid pavers.

Therefore, a compromise of the applicant is to provide grass blocks in the driveway area directly in front of the proposed building. This is indicated on the colour rendering.

4. Site Design Issues

• The Department of Environmental Health has not approved the garbage location.

• The Water Authority requires a septic tank, which is not shown on the site plan.

• All of the parking stalls are of the parallel design.

Summary

20

The Department has concerns regarding the nature of this light industrial-type of use in a Neighbourhood Commercial zone. As well, the Department is concerned that site coverage has been exceeded. These factors are sufficient reason to consider refusing the application.

The Department would contend that if the Authority considers granting permission, considering of the nature of the proposed use in relation to the zoning, the applicant be required to complete several design improvements. These would include completing the entire building in stucco as well as adding architectural details, undertaking grass block for that portion of the driveway in front of the building and provide extensive landscaping. The location of the septic tank and the garbage facility must also be approved.

The applicant’s agent Mr. B. George Serrant appeared before the Authority at 3:50 pm. The Authority welcomed Mr. Serrant and asked him to address issues regarding the use apparently not being compatible with the area and zoning and the aesthetics of the proposed development.

Mr. Serrant stated that he has made changes to the aesthetics to fit in to the extent that the proposal is better than some development in the area. This project will have less traffic impact than most in the area. There is to be landscape screening and no one will perceive that it is a mini-warehouse. Furthermore, mostly small units are proposed.

The Authority asked Mr. Serrant whether he knew what type of market the development would cater to.

Mr. Serrant did not have that information.

The Authority expressed its concern about the proposed industrial use and indicated that at least one similar proposal was not allowed in the area.

Mr. Serrant stated that the units were for rental and were therefore commercial in nature.

The Authority referred Mr. Serrant to the Development Plan 1997, which describes storage and warehousing as light industrial uses.

Mr. Serrant asserted that there were no current objections to the development. The previous objection was withdrawn after the objector saw the revised plans. Notices were done to a 300 ft. radius and no one else objected. The development will not detract from the aesthetics of the area. Across from Red Sail Sports there are warehouses that certainly not pleasing to the eye.

The Authority indicated that the area referred to is more commercial in nature. There is a residential area in the vicinity of this the subject site. This is different. Mr. Serrant’s comments would be taken into consideration prior to a decision. The Authority thanked him for appearing for his client.

The Authority discussed the applicant agent’s comments, the Development Plan 1997 [section 3.06(1)(d)] description of storage and warehousing, the

21

Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision), the development and Planning Law (1999 Revision), whether the proposed use was suitable for the zoning and the area, the past decision not to allow this type of use in the area, the Planning Department analysis and all other parts of the report.

Decision: It was resolved to refuse the application. The Authority expresses the following facts and findings:

FACTS The subject parcel is located on Canal Point Road and in an area zoned Neighbourhood Commercial. Surrounding land uses are commercial and residential, including the Strand, apartments and subdivision, comprised of primarily single family dwellings.

The proposed 8,000 ft2 building has a continuous 200 foot elevation and was divided into 46 rental units. The proposed use of the building was that of storage. This storage use is considered a light industrial.

FINDINGS The review of the application by the Central Planning Authority included the comments of your agent at his appearance before the Authority, agency comments, Planning Department analysis, the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision), the Development Plan 1997 and the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision). Findings are as follows:

1) Section 3.06(1)(d) of the Development Plan 1997 describes storage and warehousing as light industrial uses. Per regulation 11 (4) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision), “Light industrial development may be permitted by the Authority in other areas provided it is not offensive and does not adversely affect the area…”

The Authority finds that the proposed light industrial use would adversely affect this neighborhood commercial area, which is comprised of a mixture of commercial and residential development. The Authority also finds the unbroken building mass and aesthetics out of character and offensive compared to most existing commercial and residential development in the area.

2) The Authority has in the past not allowed light industrial warehousing in this neighborhood, primarily due to the existence of residential development in the area. The Authority finds it appropriate and in the interest of consistency in this high amenity area to continue allowing only uses that are compatible with the zoning of the area.

The Authority wishes to remind you of the right to appeal pursuant to section 51 1999 Revision of the Development and Planning Law (R). Such appeal shall be made by notice in writing, and referred to as a “Notice of Appeal”. It shall be signed by yourself or your attorney-at-law and filed in the offices of the

22

Permanent Secretary, Education, Aviation and Planning within the ten day period as stipulated in Section 51, subsection (1).

Immediately thereafter the appellant shall serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal on the Director of Planning and on all parties who may have filed objections or been heard at the hearing of the application to which the appeal relates. A copy of the Appeal Rules for the Development and Planning Law may be obtained from the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

6.04 DELIDA SEYMOUR Block 14CJ Parcel 34 (263/00) ($4,000) (BES)

Application for house.

FACTS Location: Myles Road, George Town

Zoning: General Commercial. Existing Use: House Proposed Use: House

Parcel Size: 19,602 s.f.

Site Coverage: 10.1%

Building Size: Existing – 1,680 s.f.

Proposed – 294 s.f.

Total - 1,974 s.f.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General Proposal The applicant is requesting planning permission to construct a dwelling house on the subject property. Presently, there is a dwelling house on the property. The Department has no specific concerns with the application.


1) The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

2) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans which you will receive when the above condition is complied with.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) from the Central Planning Authority on completion of the building.

23

6.05 CORBIERE INVESTMENT Block 5B Parcel 125 (391/97) ($2 million) (BES)

Application for apartments and swimming pool.

FACTS Location: Church Street, West Bay

Zoning: Neighbourhood Commercial Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors

on July 12, 2000. No objections were received.

Existing Use: Duplex to be removed Proposed Use: Apartments

Parcel Size: 1.50 acre (65,340 s.f.)


Building Size: Proposed - 28,146.47 s.f.

Parking: Required - 18

Proposed - 32

CPA Guidelines - 27

AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Chief Fire Officer, Water Authority and Chief Engineer are noted below.

Chief Fire Officer “The drawings (site plans) submitted to us by Corbiere Investments for the construction of apartments on Block 5B Parcel 125 have been reviewed. We write to advise that we are satisfied with the proposed site layout. Final comments/recommendations are subject to the review of a complete set of drawings submitted by the Chief Building Control Officer.”

Water Authority “In reference to your memo received 04 August 2000.

Please be advised that the proposed development is not approved, pending compliance with the following requirements:

• The developer shall provide an on-site biological wastewater treatment plant with a treatment capacity of at least 4,050 US gallons per day (gpd). The treatment plant shall be designed to produce an effluent quality of 30 mg/l BOD5 and 30/l Suspended Solids.

24

• The developer is required to submit detailed information to the Water Authority on the proposed treatment plant, i.e. design calculations, specifications and drawings, for approval, prior to installation.

The required treatment capacity is based on the following calculation: (18) 2 bedroom apartments @ 225 gallons per day each

Total estimated daily waste water flow: 4,050 US gpd

• Adequate area shall be reserved for the treatment plant. The location shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the Planning Department. Special consideration shall be given to the elevation of the treatment plant, relative to the elevation of the local water table.

• All treated effluent shall be discharged into a deep well. The deep well shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards. The elevation of the discharge pipe for the treated effluent into the disposal well shall be a minimum of two feet above the elevation of the local water table.

• The treatment plant shall be at an elevation to allow gravity –flow discharge of the treated effluent into the discharge well. If the elevation of the wastewater discharge pipe from the development is such that gravity-flow discharge into the disposal well is not possible, a pumping station will be required upstream of the treatment plant. Full details of any proposed pumping station (i.e. size of wet well and pump specifications) shall be submitted to the Water Authority for approval

• The treatment plant shall have easy access for operation, maintenance and inspection.”

Chief Engineer “As per your memo dated 19-Jul-00, PWD has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations. Following are PWD recommendations regarding the proposed development:

Storm Water Management and related issues The proposed method of storm water management shown is not satisfactory. Comments: Currently there are no drains shown in the plan. There should be approximately one drain to every eight parking spaces hence a total of 5-7 drains should be sufficient. Curb the parking and driveway area. Construct a “hump” in the entrance/exit to prevent storm-water from entering/leaving the proposed development.”

Response to Agency Comments The Planning Department is in agreement with those comments made by the

25

various departments. Should the application be approved, these comments will be taken into consideration as conditions prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy).

LETTER OF VARIANCE FROM APPLICANT “Further to our telephone conversation yesterday, we understand that there is a CPA policy, which notes that the orientation of a building determines the setback direction on the site. We wish to apply for a variance to this policy due to the irregular shape of the site. Please note that only one corner of a building (three buildings in total) is at a distance of fifteen feet from the boundary line, (which complies to the regulation side setback distances). We also understand that there is a CPA policy, which notes that a four-foot landscaping buffer must be retained at the boundary lines. We wish to note that all paved parking and recreational areas are six feet from the boundary lines. The recreational areas include a pool / cabana area and children’s sand play area. These areas that are depicted as ‘pavers’ on the revised site plan, are proposed to be assembled using concrete pavers on a sand bed. The pool and cabanas have been relocated to a minimum distance of twenty feet from the boundary. Please find attached a revised site plan to clarify your records. Please contact us should you have any queries or concerns. We look forward to your favourable review and approval of this project.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting planning permission to construct 18 apartments with 36 bedrooms, which would comprise of three apartment blocks containing six units in each block. As indicated on the site plan, a swimming pool with two cabanas are proposed at the rear of the property. Access to the subject property is via West Church Street. The applicant’s agent has submitted a letter of variance requesting a 15-foot building setback of phase 2 building.

Pursuant to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation standards, the proposal would generate approximately 117 trips per day.

The proposed building elevations are in keeping with the character of the area.

The surrounding land use is retail shops, institutional, vacant properties, and apartments. The application meets the minimum requirements of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision). The Planning Department has no specific concerns with the proposal.

26


In addition to Building Permit requirements, conditions (1-3) listed below shall be met before a Building Permit can be issued:

1) A suitable letter from the appropriate supplier committing the necessary water allocation to serve the proposed project is required to be submitted to the Director of Planning.

2) The applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning.

3) The applicant shall submit a revised site plan illustrating the following information at a minimum:

a) The pathway at the rear of the single-family house shall be omitted and replaced with a landscaping buffer strip.

b) A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the front property line, and a 4 feet minimum in width landscape strip along the inside edge of the sidewalk. Construction of the sidewalk, drain and driveway shall be in accordance with the Public Works Department standards.

c) The parking lot and driveway aisles surfaced with asphaltic concrete or equivalent and tire stops provided for each parking space which must be striped.

d) A stormwater drainage system, complete with construction details, as approved by the Public Works Department, shall be installed on site to accommodate stormwater runoff.


5) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans, which you will receive when all of the above conditions are complied with.

Additionally, once construction has started, conditions (6-15) shall be complied with before a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) can be issued.

6) The finished floor level shall be at least five feet (5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two feet (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].

7) Internal bathrooms shall be mechanically vented.

8) Landscaping along the roadside should not exceed a height of 2’-0” to prevent sight distance obstructions for vehicles entering and exiting the development.

27

9) The applicant shall provide an on-site biological waste water treatment plant with a treatment capacity of at least 4,050 US gallons per day (gpd) to treat the wastewater generated by the entire development. The applicant is required to submit to the Water Authority detailed information on the proposed treatment plant, i.e. design calculations, specifications and drawings, to allow proper evaluation of the system. No approval will be given until this information has been provided. The treatment plant must be designed to produce an effluent quality that meets the following standards: 30mg/l BOD5 and 30 mg/l Suspended Solids and must have easy access for routine maintenance and operation, e.g., desludging of the plant. Adequate area shall be reserved, including proper setbacks, for this treatment plant.

10) All treated effluent shall be discharged into a deep well. The deep well shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Water Authority’s standards.

11) The parking lot and driveway aisles surfaced with asphaltic concrete or equivalent and tire stops provided for each parking space which must be striped.

12) Each parking space shall be striped and directional traffic arrows painted upon the pavement near the edge of the roadway indicating enter/exit.

13) The entire parking lot and driveway area should be curbed to prevent surface water from running off onto the road or adjacent parcels. The driveway should be sloped away from the road.

14) The location of the solid waste facility must be easily accessible to the Department’s service vehicles.

15) A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the front property line, and a 4 feet minimum in width landscape strip along the inside edge of the sidewalk. Construction of the sidewalk, drain and driveway shall be in accordance with the Public Works Department standards and shall include ramps at driveways for the disabled.

16) There shall be no banner, portable or freestanding signs on the subject property, as these are subject to a separate application and approval of the Central Planning Authority.

17) The finished grade and surface drainage systems of the site shall be designed to prevent the accumulation of water on site.

18) Provision must be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during construction period.

19) The applicant shall provide adequate number of sanitary facilities during the construction stage.

28

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) from the Central Planning Authority prior to occupying the building.

The applicant is reminded that the proposed development is subject to compliance with the Public Health Law, Fire Brigade Law, Water Authority Law and Roads Law.

To prevent potential delays and save money, the applicant may wish to coordinate with the following agencies prior to commencing any construction: Caribbean Utilities Company, Cable & Wireless and the Cayman Water Company and/or the Water Authority - Cayman.

6.06 PATRICK EVANS Block 56C Parcel 56 (001/97) ($500) (EJ)

Application for after-the-fact storage shed.

FACTS Location: Frenchman Drive, on the east side of Breakers.

Zoning: Low Density Residential Existing Use: Single family house

Proposed Use: After-the-fact storage shed

Parcel Size: .23 ac. (10,018 s.f.)


Building Size: Existing – 1,033 s.f. Parking Required - 1

Proposed – 64 s.f. Parking Existing - 1

Total – 1,097 s.f.

LETTER OF CONSENT FROM AFFECTED LANDOWNER “I Clericy Bodden have no objection with Mr. Patrick Evans tool shed on Block 56C Parcel 56.”

LETTER FROM APPLICANT “Good day I would like to bring to your attention that we have closed in our garage door.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The after-the-fact shed does not meet the required rear setback; however, meets all other requirements for coverage, lot width, parking and all setbacks.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission.

6.07 NAUL BODDEN (“VILLAS ON THE GREEN”) Block 27C Parcels 736 & 739 (217/00) ($2,082,420 - $90/s.f.) (RS)

29

Application for ten (10) apartments, pool and gazebo.

FACTS Location: Sunrise Landing subdivision, Savannah

Zoning: Low Density Residential Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served to adjacent property

owners and no objections were received

Background: No prior CPA action


Proposed Use: Apartments

Parcel Size: 2.5515 acres

Site Coverage: 9.2%

Building Size: Existing – 0 Parking Existing - 0

Proposed - 23,138 s.f. Parking Required - 15

Total - 23,138 s.f. Parking Proposed - 22

AGENCY COMMENTS Comments from the Water Authority, Chief Environmental Health Officer, Chief Fire Officer and Chief Engineer are provided below.

Water Authority “Please be advised that the above development is not approved, pending compliance with the following requirements:

• The developer shall provide an on site biological waste water treatment plant with a treatment capacity of at least 2,850 US gallons per day (gpd) to treat the wastewater generated by the entire development.

• The developer is required to submit to the water Authority detailed information on the proposed treatment plant, i.e. design calculations, specifications and drawings, to allow proper evaluation of the system(s). No approval will be given until this information has been provided.

• The treatment plant must be designed to produce an effluent quality that meets the following standards: 30 mg/l BOD5 and 30 mg/l suspended solids, and must be readily accessible for routine maintenance and operation, e.g. desludging of the plant. Adequate area shall be reserved for the treatment plant and its location shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the Planning Department. Special consideration shall be given to the location and elevation of the treatment plant, especially in respect of the elevation of the local water table.

30

• All treated effluent shall be discharged into a deep well constructed in strict accordance with Water Authority standards.

• The elevation of the invert of the discharge pipe for the treated effluent into the disposal well shall be at a minimum of two feet above the local water table elevation.

• The treatment plant shall be at an elevation to allow free gravity discharge of the treated effluent into the discharge well. If the elevation of the waste water discharge pipework from the development is such that a free discharge into the disposal well is not possible, then a pumping station will be required upstream of treatment plant. Full details of any proposed pumping station (i.e. size of wet well and pump details, etc.) is required to be submitted for approval by the water Authority.

• The treatment plant shall have easy access for operation, maintenance and inspection.

Please be advised that the above property is situated within the area presently supplied with piped water and will be connected to the George Town Water Supply system upon request by the developer.”

Chief Environmental Health Officer “The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:

SWIMMING POOL 1. In order to determine if the swimming pool will conform with public

health requirements the applicant should submit for review plans and specifications showing at least the following: a. The volume, system flow rate in gallons per minute and turnover

rate in hours. b. The type and size of the filtration systems and means of waste

disposal. c. The pool-piping layout with all sizes shown and showing the

location of the main outlet, surface skimmers, and inlets d. The rated capacity of the pool pump in gpm at the design head

with the size and type of motor indicated.

e. The means of adding makeup water.

f. The pool dimensions, including the depth and adequate cross sections drawn to scale.

g. The proposed deck work configuration, showing the anticipated drainage.

SOLID WASTE

31

1. The proposed size and location of the solid waste facility are not adequate. The facility shall comply with the minimum siting and design requirements as outlined below.

Minimum Siting Requirements 1. The facility should be located away from overhead power lines and other

protrusions that could cause electrical shock, injury, or other difficulties during servicing.

2. The facility shall be so configured that the service vehicle can access the facility and exit the site without reversing onto the highway.

2. A minimum distance of 50ft is required between the facility and any structure or other obstruction to allow adequate space for the vehicle to back out of the facility.

Minimum Design Specifications 4. The facility shall be provided with water under pressure. A tap and hose

shall be provided to facilitate wash down.

Chief Fire Officer “I regret to report that we have some queries regarding access for fire vehicles, therefore, we are unable to comment at this time. I do, however, suggest that the architect/developer contact the department so that we can discuss the areas of concern.”

Chief Engineer Comments are summarized as follows:

• A strip of land does not have to be reserved.

• The entrance is sufficient.

• The drain wells are sufficient.

• The parking area and driveway must be curbed and sloped toward the drains.

1. The enclosure shall be constructed of reinforced concrete with a minimum thickness of 6in and shall be provided with a floor drain located in the centre of the slab or some other convenient point. The drain shall discharge into a deep well or other approved liquid waste disposal system.

2. The slab shall have a minimum internal width of 14ft and a minimum internal length of 14ft 6in.

3. The enclosure shall be constructed of suitable material and shall have a minimum height of 5ft 6in.

32

• A hump must be constructed at the entrance/exit.

• No additional sidewalks are required.

Response to Agency Comments As per Environmental Health’s comments, the garbage facility will have to be enlarged and relocated. The Chief Fire officer’s comments pertain to the fact that portions of the apartment building are three storeys and therefore fire access is required to three sides of the building. The Chief Building Control Officer has confirmed that fire access is available to three sides of the building.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

• The Sunrise Landing subdivision was designed to include the two subject parcels as the location for future multi-family development. The parcels are at the beginning of the subdivision and abut the existing golf course. The existing subdivision road is of a high standard, is capable of handling the traffic from the proposed apartments and leads directly to Hirst Road, the main collector road for the area. For these reasons, the subject site would appear suitable for apartment development.

• The aesthetics of the proposed apartments are of a high standard and will not detract from the quality of the Sunrise Landing subdivision.

• The applicant is proposing a pool and gazebo with a 10’ side setback. The setbacks for ancillary structures are at the discretion of the Authority. In this instance, the pool and gazebo will be adjacent to part of the golf course where there is a small pond and the proposed 10’ side setback would therefore appear reasonable.

• The two subject parcels will have to be combined.

• As designed, the proposed apartments have 22 identified bedrooms. As per the applicable regulation, a maximum of 61 bedrooms would be allowed on the site. Two of the units also have dens with bathrooms in close proximity and four of the units also have a third floor study/loft area. Since the applicant is applying only for Phase 1 of the development, there is no concern with bedroom density even if the dens and third floor study/lofts are considered bedrooms. However, the Authority may wish to make a determination on whether the dens and study/lofts are considered bedrooms so that the bedroom density issue is clear when the applicant applies for Phase 2.


In addition to Building Permit requirements, conditions (1-3) listed below shall be met before a Building Permit can be issued.

1) The applicant shall submit a landscape plan which shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning.

33

2) The applicant shall submit a copy of the application made to the Registrar of Lands to combine the subject parcels.

3) The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the solid waste container relocated to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Health.


5) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans which you will receive when all of the above conditions are complied with.

Additionally, once construction has started, conditions (6-27) shall be complied with before a final Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

6) The subject lots shall be combined and registered with the Registrar of Lands.

7) One shade tree shall be provided for every twenty-five (25) lineal feet of the sidewalk.

8) A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the front property line, and a 4 feet minimum in width landscape strip along the inside edge of the sidewalk. Construction of the sidewalk, drain and driveway shall be in accordance with the Public Works Department standards.

9) The parking lot and driveway aisles surfaced with asphaltic concrete or equivalent and tire stops provided for each parking space which must be striped.

10) A stormwater drainage system, complete with construction details, as approved by the Public Works Department, shall be installed on site to accommodate stormwater runoff.

11) The parking area and driveway must be curbed and sloped toward the drains.

12) A hump must be constructed at the entrance/exit.

13) The applicant shall provide an on site biological waste water treatment plant with a treatment capacity of at least 2,850 US gallons per day to treat the wastewater generated by the entire development. The applicant is required to submit to the Water Authority detailed information on the proposed treatment plant, i.e. design calculations, specifications and drawings, to allow proper evaluation of the system(s). No approval will be given until this information has been provided.

14) The treatment plant must be designed to produce an effluent quality that meets the following standards: 30 mg/l BOD5 and 30 mg/l suspended solids, and must be readily accessible for routine maintenance and

34

operation, e.g. desludging of the plant. Adequate area shall be reserved for the treatment plant and its location shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the Planning Department. Special consideration shall be given to the location and elevation of the treatment plant, especially in respect of the elevation of the local water table.

15) All treated effluent shall be discharged into a deep well constructed in strict accordance with Water Authority standards.

16) The elevation of the invert of the discharge pipe for the treated effluent into the disposal well shall be at a minimum of two feet above the local water table elevation.

17) The treatment plant shall be at an elevation to allow free gravity discharge of the treated effluent into the discharge well. If the elevation of the waste water discharge pipework from the development is such that a free discharge into the disposal well is not possible, then a pumping station will be required upstream of treatment plant. Full details of any proposed pumping station (i.e. size of wet well and pump details, etc.) is required to be submitted for approval by the Water Authority.

18) The treatment plant shall have easy access for operation, maintenance and inspection.

19) In order to determine if the swimming pool will conform with public health requirements the applicant should submit for review plans and specifications showing at least the following:

a. The volume, system flow rate in gallons per minute and turnover rate in hours.

b. The type and size of the filtration systems and means of waste disposal.

c. The pool-piping layout with all sizes shown and showing the location of the main outlet, surface skimmers, and inlets

d. The rated capacity of the pool pump in gpm at the design head with the size and type of motor indicated.

e. The means of adding makeup water.

f. The pool dimensions, including the depth and adequate cross sections drawn to scale.

g. The proposed deck work configuration, showing the anticipated drainage.

20) The solid waste facility should be located away from overhead power lines and other protrusions that could cause electrical shock, injury, or other difficulties during servicing.

21) The solid waste facility shall be so configured that the service vehicle can access the facility and exit the site without reversing onto the highway.

35

22) A minimum distance of 50ft is required between the solid waste facility and any structure or other obstruction to allow adequate space for the vehicle to back out of the facility.

23) The solid waste facility shall be constructed of reinforced concrete with a minimum thickness of 6in and shall be provided with a floor drain located in the centre of the slab or some other convenient point. The drain shall discharge into a deep well or other approved liquid waste disposal system.

24) The slab of the solid waste facility shall have a minimum internal width of 14ft and a minimum internal length of 14ft 6in.

25) The solid waste facility shall be constructed of suitable material and shall have a minimum height of 5ft 6in.

26) The solid waste facility shall be provided with water under pressure. A tap and hose shall be provided to facilitate wash down.

27) The finished floor level shall be at least five feet (5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two feet (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) from the Central Planning Authority prior to occupying the building.

The applicant is reminded that a TV dish, fence or sign is subject to a separate application.

The applicant is advised that the dens as proposed were considered and counted as bedrooms for density calculations purposes. They will also be counted as such for any future phase.

6.08 MINISTRY OF SPORTS Block 4E Parcels 39 and 41 (211/00) ($450,000) (NAW)

Application for a cricket pavilion.

FACTS Location: West Bay, next to existing cricket pitch off Birch Tree Hill

Road

Zoning: Institutional Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors

on June, 15 2000. No objections were received.

Advertising: Advertising was started on Tuesday, July 25, 2000 completed on Tuesday, August 1, 2000

Background: NA

Existing Use: Sports Field

Proposed Use: Cricket Pavilion (locker rooms, viewing gallery, concession stand, kitchen, and bar).

36


Site Coverage: . 6%

Building Size: Proposed – 6,200 s.f.

Total – 6,200 s.f.

AGENCY COMMENTS Comments from the Chief Environmental Health Officer, Water Authority, and the Chief Engineer are noted below.

Chief Environmental Health Officer “The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application: 1. A wash hand basin shall be provided for the kitchen area and the bar

respectively. 2. A two-compartment sink shall be provided for the bar.”

Water Authority “Please be advised that the proposed development will be approved upon compliance with the following requirements: The wastewater flow anticipated from this project exceeds the maximum flow for which a septic tank is allowed as the method of sewage treatment. However, due to the intermittent nature of the flows, a biological wastewater treatment plan is not suitable. Therefore, a customized septic tank, as described in attached specification sheets, will be approved for this development. In the event that site conditions preclude the installation of a tank with the recommended dimensions, the developer shall consult with the Water Authority – Cayman before varying the dimensions to obtain the required capacity.

• The developer shall provide a septic tank with a capacity of at least 4,000 US gallons. The septic tank shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards. See attachments.


• The elevation of the invert of the discharge pipe for the treated effluent into the disposal well shall be a minimum of two feet above the local water table elevation.

Please be advised that the above development is situated within the area presently supplied with piped water by the Cayman Water Company. The Cayman Water Company should be contacted for a connection to their distribution system.”

Chief Engineer “We object to Dill Lane as an access to site. Numerous complaints from

37

residents regarding excess speed of cut through traffic accessing the site. Also the exiting road is less than 20’. The parking area should be curbed. The driveway should be sloped towards the drains. A hump should be constructed in the entrance/exit.”

Response to Agency Comments The Planning Department is in agreement with those comments made by the various departments. However, should public works agree with itself on the proposed one way entrance this would also be acceptable to the Planning Department.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS GENERAL PROPOSAL

The applicant is proposing a Cricket Pavilion including: Locker Rooms, a Viewing Gallery, Concession Stand, Kitchen, and Bar.

ZONING

The application is consistent with the institutional zoning.

ACCESS/PARKING

The currently proposed entrance is sufficient however, legally registered right-of-ways should be obtained prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The following memo from the Ministry of Sports sufficiently shows that these right-of-ways have been requested.

It should also be noted that the access through Dill Lane is only sufficient for one-way access. Public works has submitted comments that state this road should not be used to access the site. However, Public Works created and submitted the plans for the proposed development with access over this road.

Should PWD choose to agree with themselves on allowing a one way access a letter from Roads Division should be sufficient to allow this access. However, should the Roads Division wish the development to occur without this access, revised plans should be submitted without this access.

SUMMARY

The proposal fulfills all planning requirements and is functionally and aesthetically acceptable. Should the future bleacher area be added additional parking will be necessary. The access over Dill Lane should be resolved by the Public Works Department. Legally registered vehicular Right of Ways should be in place prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application for the following reason:

1) Revised site plans shall be submitted removing the one way exit over Dill Lane, or a letter shall be submitted from the Roads Division of Public Works stating that this proposed access is permissible.

38

6.09 DAVID WATLER LYONS Block 14D Parcel 380 (243/92) ($45,000) (EJ)

Application for addition to create a duplex (1x2).

FACTS Location: Temple Wood Street, Windsor Park, George Town

Zoning: High Density Residential Background: September 23, 1992 (CPA/23/92; item 2.1) the CPA

granted approval for a two (2) bedroom house.

Existing Use: House

Proposed Use: Addition to create a duplex

Parcel Size: .15 ac. (6,534 s.f.)


Building Size: Existing -1,099 s.f. Parking Required - 2

Proposed – 646.75 s.f. Parking Proposed - 2

Total – 1,745.75 s.f.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The proposed meets all planning requirements for coverage, lot size, lot width, parking and all setbacks.


In addition to Building Permit requirements, condition (1) listed below shall be met before a Building Permit can be issued.

1) A suitable letter from the appropriate supplier committing the necessary water allocation to serve the proposed project is required to be submitted to the Director of Planning.


3) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans which you will receive when all of the above conditions are complied with.

4) The finished floor level shall be a minimum of five feet (5’) above mean sea level.


39

6.010 HEATH MCFIELD Block 14C Parcel 85 (044/98) ($100,000) (NAW)

Application for an after-the-fact addition.

FACTS Location: On Whitman Seymour Road, George Town

Zoning: General Commercial Notice Requirements: Notices were hand delivered to the land owners of Parcel

13D 304 (LPP) and no objections were received.

Background: The application was submitted as a result of an enforcement warning letter being sent to the applicant. The application is being considered after-the-fact because the foundation of the house addition has been partially constructed.

The Central Planning Authority considered the matter on February 24, 1998 and deferred the application pending a site visit by the Authority. The site visit was conducted on June 17, 1998.

At a meeting held on June 24, 1998 the following decision was made:



3) The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) from the Central Planning Authority prior to occupying the building.

Planning permission expired on July 13, 1999.

Existing Use: Four Dwelling Units

Proposed Use: Addition to one of the Dwelling Units



Building Size: Existing – 3,056 s.f. Parking Required - 4

Proposed - 744 s.f. Parking Proposed - 0

Total – 3,800 s.f.

40

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS CURRENT ZONING

As noted above, the property is zoned General Commercial and pursuant to Section 12(8) of the Development and Planning Regulations, residential development in this zone may only be permitted in one upper storey of a five storey building.

PREVIOUS ZONING

Prior to the 1997 revisions to the Development Plan, the property was zoned Medium Density Residential. If the property was still zoned MDR, the after-the-fact addition would not satisfy the front and side setbacks. The existing front setback would be reduced from 25’ to 18’ and the existing side setback would be reduced from 12’ to 4’. Also, the existing site coverage would be increased from 29.2% to 36.3%, both of which exceed the maximum site coverage of 25% in the MDR zone. In addition, there are four houses presently located on the subject lands, resulting in a density of 16.7 houses per acre which would exceed the maximum permitted density of 4 houses per acre in the MDR zone.

SECTION 12(4) NOTICES

The applicant has notified the adjacent property owner of the proposed deficient side setback and that neighbor has indicated no objection to the application.

SUMMARY

The application does not meet many of the Planning Department requirements however, the application was previously approved in 1998 under the exact same circumstances.


1) The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief Building Control Officer. Construction shall not resume prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.


3) The finished floor level shall be a minimum of five feet (5’) above mean sea level.


6.011 PALLAIS DE SIENGE Block 69A Parcel 94 (118/95) ($10,000) (JAB)

Application for after-the-fact terracing with stone walls and road to the sea.

41

FACTS Location: Queens Highway

Zoning: Low Density Residential Background: House approved at CPA/23/95; item 6.4

Pool approved at CPA/14/96 item 7.1 after many deferrals relating to setbacks

Existing Use: House and pool

Proposed Use: After-the-fact terracing with stone walls and road to the sea

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting permission for an after-the-fact development including stone wall and terracing to the sea and a road to the sea. The Department would like to point out that this application is the result of an enforcement warning letter and has been visited by the Authority on two separate occasions.

Although the Department would note that Regulation 7(6)(b) permits ancillary structures within the sea side setback, it should be noted that the Department does not support this type of development on the beach.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application due to sea-side setback and pedestrian right-of-way preservation concerns.

The applicant is therefore invited to contact the Planning Department to arrange a suitable date and time to address the Central Planning Authority prior to a decision.

7.0 OTHER MATTERS

7.01 RALEIGH GARDENS Block 14D Parcel 99 (001/00) ($50,000) (RS)

Application to amend planning permission CPA/10/00; item 3.02 granted on March 29, 2000 for 45 apartments and a pool.

FACTS Location: Off Smith Road, near Pasadora Place plaza

Zoning: Medium Density Residential Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served to adjacent property

owners and no objections were received.

Background: August 2/00 – application for the three dens is adjourned


42

Building Size: Proposed - 720 s.f. (240 s.f. for each of the three additions)

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking approval to add a den to three of the previously approved buildings. As noted above, the Authority considered the application on August 2, 2000 and adjourned the matter in order to invite the applicant to appear before the Authority to discuss concerns that the proposed dens are actually bedrooms and that the resultant maximum bedroom density would be exceeded. The applicant has now submitted revised drawings that show that the wall between the den and the living room has been removed, thereby creating open access between the two rooms. In addition, the bathroom has been reduced to a half bath with the removal of the bathtub.

Decision: It was resolved to amend planning permission of CPA/10/00 Item 3.02 to accept the dens as proposed, subject to the following condition:

1) All previous conditions of CPA/10/00 (March 25, 2000) remain applicable.

7.02 MARIE CLAIRE FERNANDES Block 114C Parcels 136 and 304 (214/99) ($20,000) (A.R.)

Application for change of use from a single family dwelling to commercial/office.

FACTS Location: Between L & T Tyres and the Eucalyptus Building on

Shedden Road, George Town.

Zoning: General Commercial Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) [12(4)] Notices were undertaken on July 1,

1999 and July 23, 1999. No objections were received.

Background: August 18, 1999 (CPA/24/99 Item 6.18) CPA deferred the change of use application to invite the applicant (at the time, First Choice Used Car Sales) to appear before the Authority.

Existing Use: Single Family Dwelling

Proposed Use: Commercial/Office

Parcel Size: 0.4 acres or 17,424 ft2

Site Coverage: 6.9%

Building Size: Existing - 1,209 ft2 Parking Required - 4 (1/300 ft2)

Proposed -1,209 ft2 CPA Guideline - 4

Total -1,209 ft2 Parking Provided -10

43

AGENCY COMMENTS Comments from the Water Authority, Chief Engineer, Chief Fire Officer and the Chief Environmental Health Officer are noted below.

Water Authority “Please be advised that the above development is subject to approval upon complying with the following requirements:

• The developer must provide a septic tank with a capacity of at least 1,500 US gallons. The septic tank shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards.


Please be advised that the above development is situated within the area presently supplied with piped water and will be connected to the George Town Water Supply system upon request by the owner.”

Chief Engineer “As per your memo dated July 7th, 1999, PWD has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations.

General Comment This proposal is impacted by PWD plans to widen the junction of Crewe and North Sound Roads. The improvement is necessary to improve the flow capacity of vehicles as well as to provide an adequate connector between the E-W and N-S arterials. PWD recommends the CPA require the developer do the following:

Traffic Management and Related Issues. The applicant should be advised of PWD future road plans. A preliminary drawing is attached for your convenience. We strongly suggest that access be restricted via Crewe Road. Instead we recommend reverse frontage via the access road at the rear of the property. (i.e. road leading to the National Archive Bldg.). This road already adequately serves several businesses on adjoining parcels. The driveway aisles shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) feet side with minimum fifteen (15) feet radius curves.

Storm Water Management and Related Issues. Storm water drains shall be located in the parking lot with parking areas sloped towards the drains. Curbing shall be provided around the parking area to prevent storm water runoff onto surrounding properties.

44

Construct a gentle hump (entrance/exit ramp) at the driveway in order to prevent storm water from or onto the access road.”

Chief Fire Officer “The drawings (site plan) submitted to us by First Choice Limited for the change of use on Block 14C Parcels 136, 304 have been reviewed. We write to advise that we are satisfied with the proposal. Final comments are subject to the review of a complete set of drawings submitted by the Chief Building Control Officer.”

Chief Environmental Health Officer “The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application: 1. The existing onsite solid waste facility should be relocated to the

curbside.”

Response to Agency Comments The PWD comments potentially impact the proposal the most and should be addressed the by Authority. The Planning Department noted that the revised site plan shows the relocation of the garbage facility, as requested by Department of Environmental Health.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS Previous Applicant The previous applicant, First Choice Limited, applied to change a portion of the residential dwelling unit to a used car sales business. They were invited to appear, but did not show for the meeting. The Department was verbally informed the applicant intended to withdraw the application, by never received anything in writing.

Current Use One of the property owners has now taken over this application, with the intention of changing the entire building to a retail/commercial/office use, for rental purposes. As the property is zoned General Commercial, the proposed use complies with the zoning. At this stage, should the Authority see fit to grant planning permission, the Department would recommend the applicant be made aware that a restaurant application requires a separate approval and is therefore subject to a separate application.

The applicant/owner has been made aware of the Department’s and the Authority’s concerns regarding the previous application.

The Planning Department would note the following issues with respect to this development:

Traffic/Access

45

• PWD has commented that the current access off Shedden Road be closed off and relocated to the rear of the property.

• The Planning Department replies that this rear access is over three private rights-of-way and there is no registered right-of-way in favour of this parcel.

• The land dedication requested by PWD is not yet gazetted.

• Within the past year, the Authority approved a change of use and addition to a building across the street (Allan Myles). In this instance, PWD had requested land for future road widening which detrimentally affected the application and the Authority did not concur with PWD.

Parking

• During the previous application, the Planning Department expressed a concern regarding the provision of parking, in that the proposed used car sales operation should provide more than ample parking for those cars to be sold (both on view and in holding), employees and customer parking.

• The Planning Department notes that, for a general commercial use, the proposed ten (10) parking spaces would be sufficient.

• However, the Planning Department still contends that the proposed ten (10) parking spaces would NOT be sufficient for a car sales business or any other type of business that requires its owner fleet.

• Should the Shedden Road intersection improvements be undertaken by PWD, six (6) parking spaces would be lost.

• The applicant has indicated the use of chip and spray. The Planning Department would suggest asphaltic concrete. However, the Planning Department acknowledges that there is a potential for the road widening and improvement to a large portion of that area of the parking lot that is to be paved.

Summary The Planning Department has no serious concerns relating to the proposed general commercial use. However, there are ‘site design’ concerns that must be addressed. The Authority should consider whether the new applicant should be invited to appear before the Authority, as was requested of the previous applicant.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the submission of revised site plans addressing the Public Works Department’s concerns as noted below:

1) The provision of land for future road widening and to require the Shedden Road access to the site be closed off. The rights-of-way to the rear of the property should be used for access/egress. The applicant shall liaise with PWD and the Planning Department on this matter

46

7.03 KERRY BUSH Block 1D Parcel 64 (163/00) ($66,000) (NP)

Application for addition to existing house.

FACTS Location: End of Turtle Lane, off of Bonaventure Road, West Bay.

Zoning: Low Density Residential Background: Deferred by CPA on 7th June 2000, for letter from

neighbour regarding consent for variance.

Existing Use: House

Proposed Use: Second floor addition.

Parcel Size: 0.2 ac.

Site Coverage: 9.9%

Building Size: Existing – 870 s.f.

Proposed – 642 s.f.

Total – 1,512 s.f.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The proposal is to add a second floor to one of the two existing units. The existing house does not satisfy the required rear setback of 20’ and the proposed addition would be built the same distance from the boundary. In this instance a 15’ setback is proposed instead of the required 20’ setback.

The applicant has submitted the following request for a variance:

“Please find attached architectural drawings for submittal of an addition to a residence for our client Mr. Kerry Bush. We would also like to request variance for encroaching on the north setback boundary. Please note that this encroachment was initially present on the existing layout and was not intentionally done. We would also like to point out that we are aware that we have become significantly limited with the site area as the road proposed by Government on the east boundary takes up a significant amount of our client’s land and we were extremely mindful of not developing on that side to accommodate this. Due to the nature of addition for this project, we have opted to locate for structural purposes, the exterior load bearing walls, on the present exterior load bearing walls downstairs and were extremely careful not to do any unnecessary addition outside of the existing footprint. Our client will also like to make you aware of the recent growth in the family members residing within these premises and urge you to be tolerant in your decision as the additional space is greatly needed.”

47

However, it should be noted that the adjacent landowner (Block 1D Parcel 60) has not consented or been notified regarding the variance request.

PREVIOUS CPA DECISION The matter was deferred by the CPA in order to obtain the consent of the affected landowner.

NEW INFORMATION The owner of Block 1D Parcel 60 (affected landowner) has provided the following correspondence which indicates his objection to the variance:

“I am in receipt of your letter dated 06/13/00 Re: Letter of notification for addition to private home. Your request is acknowledged and I would be happy to agree to your request but unfortunately it is not possible for me to agree to your request at this time when there are no marked boundaries to your property. It would be very helpful if we both knew where the boundaries to your property actually are. Although you plan indicates certain boundaries this still is not valid until the land has been properly valuated by a surveyor. Once this is done then we would know exactly what we are dealing with. I know this is probably not the answer you want to hear, but for the sake of everyone concerned, I feel this would be the best way to go. May I suggest a very reputable surveyor, CSA Cayman Survey Associates Ltd. they are located in Cayman Business Park Unit D3. Thank you for your invitation to view your plans at the Planning Department, but I feel it would be premature to do so at this time until the property has been survey and clearly marked.” In response, the applicant has submitted the following letter of support:

“Points for objection to letter by Locksley Gould. 1. Site dimensions taken from Registry Map Extract as well as site analysis done

by Architect. 2. Fixed boundaries on Mr. Gould’s adjacent property can just as easily be

determined by himself by impacting his own lot. 3. We have made all necessary compromise by making sure not to over extend

the existing building boundary. 4. I feel that this objection by Mr. Gould is unnecessarily unfair because of a

grudge which might have manifested due to objections made on our behalf to the development of apartments by him.

5. Please be aware that the existing building have been there approx. 25 years.

48

6. Be aware that the development is not a duplex but strictly for private residence in which the amount of rooms proposed will satisfy this need and we have not taken any advantage of any unnecessary expansion.”

The following letter was submitted by the applicant’s mother:

“Thank you for your letter dated June 21st 2000. Please be advised that I, Gwendolyn Bush, am the owner of the existing residence in the North West Point area, which is located at the above Registry Map reference. Further, please note that I share the existing residence with my daughter, Kerry Bush-Linwood, her husband Andy Linwood and their 21 month old daughter, and that with four persons in occupancy we are experiencing overcrowding and discomfort. Also, please be advised that my daughter and her husband wold like to construct their own residence, but due to the existing land costs, they are unable to do so since their salaries do not quality them for a mortgage. Which will enable them to purchase land (approximately CI$40,000.00), as well as cost of construction of residence at today’s prices. My residence was constructed over twenty four (24) years ago and like many families I am seeking to undertake renovations and additions which will result in my family being able to enjoy the modern way of life which I consider to be reasonable. The proposal for the addition of a two story to the house will enable my daughter and her husband more privacy without me having to increase my site coverage, which will be even greater at the completion of the government road. The government road will occupy approximately one thousand and thirty five (1,035) square feet of my property along the eastern boundary. Finally, please be aware that upon completion of said road, the front of my property will be effectively relocated at my eastern boundary rather than at the southern section over which I now have to provide a twelve (12) feet vehicular right-of-way which is the access to parcel No. 357. With all these factors considered, I therefore ask that my proposal be given approval at your next meeting. I thank you for your time and I look forward to a favourable reply from you at your earliest convenience.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The Department will note that the affected landowner has not provided his consent for the setback variance. However, it appears that the affected landowner is more concerned with the property boundary and the completion of a survey.

The Department is of the opinion that the 5’ setback variance is a reasonable one, especially in view of the fact that the first floor has been in existence for many years, and that the proposed addition does not further encroach on the setback.

As a final note, the Department acknowledges an error which described the existing structure as a duplex. This assessment was based upon the fact that two

49

doors were present on the front elevation. The Department would confirm that only one kitchen is situated in the structure and that it is a house.

PREVIOUS CPA CONSIDERATION The application was previously considered on 5th July 2000. At that time the matter was deferred in order to allow the applicant and objector to address the Authority in person. The matter was originally to be considered on 16th August, but the applicant was not on the island at that time.

NEW INFORMATION Due to the concerns of the objector regarding a survey, the Department was able to view and copy a Government Survey completed in 1992 pertaining to some road improvements in the area. That survey depicts the subject parcel of land as well as the new road corridor.

Regarding the existing house, the survey depicts a rear setback of ten (10) and eleven (11) feet. The site plan on file indicates a setback of fourteen (14) feet eleven (11) inches. At a minimum, the site plan should be corrected.

The objector has provided an additional letter as follows:

“Thank you for the site visit today. I would like to inform you that I will not be on the Island on 16th August for the meeting at Planning Department to discuss the above mentioned project. In regards to the request to add on upstairs to the existing property, I would like to state that I still have no objection to the addition being made as long as proper boundaries are established and marked. I have viewed the site plan and the existing boundaries on the plan are incorrect as I see it in proportion to the actual location of the house. Please convey this information to all concerned and I will liase with you upon my return to the Islands.” In addition, the applicant has submitted the following letter:

“Thank you for your letter dated June 21st 2000. Please be advised that I, Gwendolyn Bush, am the owner of the existing residence in the North West Point area which is located at the above Registry Map reference. Further, please note that I share the existing residence with my daughter, Kerry Bush-Linwood, her husband Andy Linwood and their 21 month old daughter, and that with four persons in occupancy we are experiencing overcrowding and discomfort. Also, please be advised that my daughter and her husband would like to construct their own residence but due to existing land costs are unable to do so since their salaries do not qualify them for a mortgage which will enable them to purchase land (which is approximately CI$40,000.00) as well as cost of construction at today'’ prices.

50

My residence was constructed over twenty six (26) years ago and like many other families I am seeking to undertake renovations and additions which will result in my family being able to enjoy the modern way of life which I consider to be reasonable. The proposal for a two storey addition will afford my daughter and her husband more privacy without me having to increase my site coverage which will be even greater at the completion of the government road; the government road will occupy approximately one thousand and thirty five (1,035) square feet of my property along it’s eastern boundary. Finally, please be aware that upon completion of said road, the front of my property will be effectively relocated at my eastern boundary rather than at the southern section over which I now have to provide a twelve (12) feet vehicular right-of-way which is the access to parcel No. 357. With all these factors considered, I therefore ask that my proposal be given approval at your next meeting. I thank you for your time and I look forward to a favourable reply from you at your earliest convenience.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking a variance of between 9 and 10 feet for the rear setback. Given the location of the objector’s house, the Department sees no reason to refuse the variance.

The applicant Kerry Bush and her brother Roy Bush appeared before the Authority at 2:10 pm. The objector did not appear.

The Authority welcomed them and asked whether a revised site plan can be presented to the neighbor in order to obtain his consent.

Ms. Bush stated that he would probably still object.

The Authority indicated that there were setback concerns. The side setback requirement for a one story structure is 10 ft. and 15 ft. for a two story building.

Mr. Bush asserted that PWD was proposing a road very near to the building in one direction and the open area in the other direction on the property had a lot of fruit trees that his sister wanted to keep. This limited her options.

The Authority inquired whether the 2nd storey could be slipped back 20 ft. or whether the neighbor would consent.

The applicant stated that the neighbor had pushed down the common boundary marker. Originally he had no problem with the extension, but he wanted a boundary definition. He has objected on privacy grounds, but his house is a good ways off. She asserted that he advised someone else to trespass through her property.

The Authority asked whether the applicant would consider re-establishing the common boundary.

Ms. Bush said that she could do so.

51

The Authority thanked the applicant and her brother for appearing.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application for the submission of the following:

1) A survey drawing showing the re-established common boundary with the property to the north and a revised site plan based upon that survey.

7.04 EDUARDO SANCHEZ Block 4E Parcel 127 (208/97-B) ($20,000) (A. R.)

Application to amend planning permission (CPA/22/98 Item 7.02) granted on July 15, 1998 for twenty-two (22) apartments.

FACTS Location: On Town Hall Road, West Bay

Zoning: Low Density Residential. Notice Requirements: Notices were not required for this amendment.

Background: July 15, 1998 (CPA/22/98 Item 7.02) CPA granted permission for this apartment development, after being deferred on two other occasions.

Existing Use: Apartments, under construction

Proposed Use: Apartments

Parcel Size: 2.75 acres or 119,790 ft2

Site Coverage: no change (10.74 %)

Building Size: Existing - 26,832.47 ft2 Parking Required - 22

Proposed - no change CPA Guideline - 33

Total - 26,832.47 ft2 Parking Provided - 33

Proposed Amendment - 56

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General Proposal The applicant is requesting planning permission to amend the layout of the approved site as follows:

1. Eliminate the six foot (6’) road widening land dedication: This is essentially a request to remove condition 6 of the approval which states:

“You shall contribute six (6’) feet along Town Hall Road for future widening.” The project was approved with, along Town Hall Road, a six foot (6’) land reserve for future road widening, a six foot (6’) sidewalk and a four foot (4’) landscape strip. The applicant has relocated Building E closer to the road

52

such that six feet (6’) have been eliminated, thus eliminating one of these listed requirements.

2. A four foot (4’) block wall (after-the-fact): While the Department is not in receipt of a Planning Application, the Authority must determine whether they will require an application, or issue enforcement and require the applicant to remove the wall.

This after-the-fact block wall has been placed along Town Hall Road, on the inside edge of the landscape strip, ten feet (10’) from the front property line. This means that this wall acts as a barrier, not allowing the Authority to obtain the land reservation for future road widening.

3. Block B reoriented: All setbacks have been complied with and the Planning Department has no serious concerns regarding this after-the-fact aspect of the application to amend.

4. Landscaping: The application to amend suggests that the landscaping indicated on this site plan is revised for approval. However, the Planning Department is not satisfied that the proposed new landscaping is sufficient. The Planning Department would content that it should include, at a minimum, the ficus hedge along the property boundaries between Parcels 126, 318 and 123, as was indicated on the original landscape plan.

5. Parking Layout: The parking area has been redesigned. The improved parking layout allows for 56 parking stalls, increased from the approved 33. The Planning Department would require the standard curbing, tire stops, etc. but generally has no serious concerns regarding this aspect of the application to amend.

6. Driveway Entrance Redesigned: It has been widened to include a landscaping island, thus separating the ingress and egress. The Planning Department has no serious concerns regarding this aspect of the application to amend.

Summary The Planning Department supports most aspects of this application to amend and feels that it will in fact improve the development as a whole.

However, the Planning Department is quite concerned that the land for future road widening is not longer available due to the construction of a block wall (four feet) without planning permission. This is a land reservation, merely a means to reserve the land for future widening. It would be considered good planning practice to maintain this reserve. At this stage, the Planning Department sees this as not being detrimental to the overall project and, as Building E is already started, would not adversely affect the location of the structure.

Land for future road widening can not be obtained across from the subject property, as it is already developed. As well, the applicant fought not to provide this land during its several appearances before the Authority prior to the final

53

approval of the development. The Planning Department is concerned that this after-the-fact wall is a means to circumvent providing the land reservation.

Decision: It was resolved to amend planning permission of July 15, 1998 (CPA/22/98 Item 7.02) as follows:

1) There shall be a four ft. (4’) wide sidewalk on the outside of the block wall and a landscape strip on the inside of the wall.

2) Landscaping shall be retained as previously approved.

3) All previous conditions of CPA/22/98 Item 7.02 (July 15, 1998) remain applicable, except as hereby amended.

The applicant is advised that the four foot (4’) after-the-fact block wall is allowed to remain. The applicant is also advised that a request for permission to occupy the development (C. O.) will not be considered until approval conditions (as amended) are satisfied.

7.05 KENROY LUMSDEN Block 4E Parcel 211(382/99) (BES)

Application for apartments (amendment to).

FACTS Location: Off Link Road and Powell Smith Road, West Bay.

Zoning: High Density Residential. Background: May 10, 2000 (CPA/15/00), the Authority adjourned the

above application to amend planning permission in order to allow the Department to obtain a legal opinion regarding access/egress issues.

The Department is in receipt of the Legal Department comments regarding the subject matter:

Decision: It was resolved to amend planning permission of CPA/10/00 to allow a one-way only at Link Road. The applicant shall install appropriate signage to ensure one way traffic flow. Two-way traffic will be allowed when link Road is widened.

7.06 J. & B. JUNGE AND NEW HUT FARMS LTD. Block 66A Parcels 35, 87, 90, 92 and 93 (379/99) (RS)

Application to amend planning permission CPA/13/00; item 2.01.

FACTS Location: At the end of High Rock Road, East Interior

Zoning: Agricultural/Residential

54

Background: CPA/13/00 – permission granted for 29 lots

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is now seeking to further subdivide one of the previously approved lots into a total of 4 new lots. The resultant lots will satisfy the minimum lot size requirement of 1.0 acre. A road reserve has been provided to allow for future access to the adjacent lands. It should also be noted that the applicant is undertaking a reparcelation of Parcels 33, 86 & 87 in order to allow for the subdivision of the 4 new lots.

Decision: It was resolved to amend planning permission of CPA/13/00; item 2.01, as shown on the revised subdivision plan, date stamped August 2, 2000.

All other conditions of CPA/13/00; 2.01 still apply.

7.07 CAYMAN COURTS DEVELOPMENT Block 13D Parcel 261 (MM/147/98) ($.00) (BES)

Application for excavation of marl to create a lake (2 acres).

FACTS Location: Off Harquail By-pass Road, George Town.

Zoning: High Density Residential

Notice Requirements: Section 18 (4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors and the application was advertised in the newspaper on September 16, and 23, 1998. No objections were received.

Background: October 21, 1998 (CPA/33/98), the Authority deferred the above application, for the following reasons:

1) The submission of excavation detail is to ensure maintenance of water quality and circulation.

2) You shall secure proper access to the site.

The applicant submitted excavation details on October 28, together with a letter addressing the Department of Environment concerns

November 25, 1998 (CPA/36/98), the Authority deferred the above application subject to revised plans regarding suitable alternative access road

AGENCY COMMENTS

Previous Comments from Director of Environment

55

“Having reviewed the above-referenced application, the Department of Environment provides the following comments. The DoE was under the impression that no access was allowed onto the Harquail By-pass Road. Should this application be approved, it would set a precedent for other applications requesting the same access component in the future. The applicant should be required to supply the following information. The quantity of fill required to grade the lot to 4 feet above mean sea level. The depth to which the 2-acre lake will be excavated and the quantity of fill expected from this excavation. Identify off-site sources and quantities of fill material in the event that the lake material is insufficient to fill the lot to the required grade. It is understood that the water table in this area is quite high. Septic tanks with deep well injection may have the potential for leaching sewage into the nearby lake, giving rise to an unsightly and environmentally deleterious situation. Therefore the sewage disposal plan for this development should be reviewed and approved by the Water Authority. The applicant should be aware of the proximity of this site to the landfill and treatment ponds to the east. Frequently a stench from the landfill and/or the stagnant wetland area surrounding both sides of the Harquail By-pass is present, especially as the prevailing winds are from the northeast.”

Chief Engineer (dated October 14, 1998) “As pre your memo dated October 12, 1998, PWD has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations. The application submitted is for excavation of a lake on the above referenced parcel. We are unable to comment on the excavation as we have not received enough information. We are however prepared to comment on the proposed access road as shown. This parcel is essentially landlocked. The new North-South arterial (including the section currently referred to as the Harquail Bypass) is intended as a limited access road. The road is currently built as two lanes but has an eighty (80) ft corridor reservation (four lanes and a median). The access road as shown on the applicants plan does not fit with the proposed access management scheme for the new North-South Arterial. Attached is a copy of PWD’s preliminary access management scheme for the area. At present the drawings show two main intersections; Marbel Drive and Courts Road. Marbel Drive is being shown as full intersection (right-turn included) and Courts Road as a left-on and left-off only intersection. PWD is currently investigating the possibility of switching these two intersections. In any

56

event the developers will have to negotiate legal access to parcel 261 via Marbel Drive or Courts Rd; Direct access to the Bypass is prohibited. Additionally, we are against any notion of the Harquail Bypass being used a temporary access for excavation activities on this site. It is recommended that the Authority defer Planning decision on the application until appropriate access has been established for the site.”

Water Authority “I refer to your memorandum dated 23rd September 1998 concerning the above-referenced site. With respect to the protection of ground water resources, the Water Authority has no objection to the proposed excavation as indicated on the site plan. On receipt of CPA approval, the developer is required to obtain a quarry permit from the Water Authority prior to commencing the proposed work. A quarry permit will be issued on receipt of the completed application form, proof of CPA approval, and payment of the appropriate fee, which is CI $0.02 per square metre surface area of the excavation.”

Chief Engineer (dated August 15, 2000) “As per your memo dated 8-Aug-00, PWD has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations. Following are PWD recommendations regarding the proposed development:

Storm Water Management and related issues The proposed method of storm water management shown is not satisfactory. Comments: There is no drainage plan shown on the plan. Curb the parking and driveway area. Construct a “hump” in the entrance/exit to prevent storm-water from entering/leaving the proposed development.”

APPLICANT’S LETTER (dated October 27, 1998) “In addition to the lake section drawing delivered today, we offer the following response to Department of Environment comments. We respectfully submit that access to the site off the Harquail By-pass road should not be a concern of theirs as they do not handle transportation matters; this is for the Public Works Department to address. For the Department’s information, no compensation has been offered to the property owner, Mr. Naul Bodden, for land now occupied by the by-pass road. It was possible to negotiate a wider access to his property with the owner of parcel 258 before the by-pass was constructed; however access on to the by-pass is the only alternative as shown on the site plan.

57

The lake can be serated with fountains and the prevailing winds to prevent the water from becoming stagnant. The D.O.E. recommended depth of 12’-0” below the water table will be maintained. It is my understanding that the Water Authority understands the problem with their sewerage treatment ponds and are considering replacing it with a more modern and efficient one. In any event, this is a problem for them to address, not only for this development but also because of the impact on existing developments.

APPLICANT’S LETTER (dated August 7, 2000) “As discussed, please review the proposed road access to the Harquail By-pass with the CPA. This plan has been prepared following discussions with PWD. After the last CPA meeting, our client attempted to purchase a 30’ strip from the adjacent parcel for access to Courts Road but without any success. PWD is now prepared to give our client access to the Harquail road as this portion of the road occupies our clients property."

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant has not amended the original site plan as submitted on September 7, 1998 to address the Authority’s concerns regarding the provision of a suitable alternative access.

The applicant is proposing to excavate 38,720 cu. yd. of marl to fill the above property. As noted in the Director of Environment’s memorandum, the Planning Department expresses the same concerns regarding the proposed lake in close proximity of the land fill and treatment pond east of the subject property.

Decision: It was resolved to defer the application pending additional information regarding the excavation.

7.08 L.E. BELL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. Block 22E Parcels 263 & 266 Rem 1 (291/91) (JAB/RS)

Application to amend planning permission CPA/011/92; item 3.4 granted on May 6, 1992 for a 139 lot subdivision, including a network of canals.

FACTS Location: Grand Harbour Development, Red Bay

Zoning: Neighbourhood Commercial, Marine Commercial, Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking to amend the planning permission granted on May 6, 1992 for 139 lots. The proposed changes include the following:

58

• The total number of lots will be reduced from 139 to 124.

• The subdivision lot layout will change slightly and many of the lots will be reduced in size. All lots will still comply with minimum lot size requirements.

• The road layout will also change slightly. Of note, is that the road traveling along the westerly property boundary will be shifted away from the boundary thereby widening the buffer between the adjacent Red Bay subdivision.

• The network of canals has, for the most part, been constructed and there are minor changes to the canal system, most noticeably in the southern portion of the subdivision.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The Planning Department has no concerns with the proposed amendments. The Authority is reminded that approval has been granted in the past for other minor amendments, including the elimination of several lots, the approval of a marina and a utility compound area. In light of the various amendments over the last few years, the applicant has now prepared a new, revised master subdivision plan that reflects all of the previous and proposed changes. The new master plan will supercede the previous plans so that it is clear from this point forward what has and what has not been granted planning permission. It is suggested that the applicant be reminded that any approval granted for the new master subdivision plan does not confer any subsequent approvals for any proposed physical development of any of the subdivision lots.

Decision: It was resolved to amend planning permission CPA/011/92; item 3.4 as shown on the new master subdivision plan.

The applicant is reminded that the approval granted for the new master subdivision plan does not confer any subsequent approvals for any proposed physical development of any of the subdivision lots.

7.09 CHARLES WATLER Block 14E Parcel 613 (080/90) (RS)

Application to amend planning permission (CPA/27/95; item 7.17), granted on August 23, 1995 for 16 apartments, in order to allow after-the-fact third floor lofts.

FACTS Location: Off Newport Avenue, leading to Walkers Road

Zoning: High Density Residential Building Size: Each of the 6 lofts = 290 s.f. (total = 1,740 s.f.)

59

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The applicant is seeking after-the-fact planning permission for third floor lofts in 6 apartments within Block C. The lofts will be accessed through spiral staircases and will not have closets or bathrooms. The after-the-fact lofts would appear to satisfy the Authority’s policy in that with the absence of closets and bathrooms, the lofts would not be considered bedrooms.

Decision: It was resolved to amend planning permission (CPA/27/95; item 7.17), in order to allow the 6 after-the-fact third floor lofts in Block C.

All other conditions of CPA/27/95; item 7.17 still apply.

7.010 IRVIN HASSELL SMITH Block 17A Parcel 8 (049/00) (044/86) ($2.5 million) (NP)

Application for new subdivision (20 lots) and amendment to the final phase Crystal Harbour.

FACTS Location: North and east of Crystal Harbour Subdivision

Zoning: Low Density Residential Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent landowners.

No objections were received

Background: Deferred by CPA on 29th March 2000 for discussions with Department. No action by applicant

Deferred by CPA on 10th May 2000 for a legal opinion


Proposed Use: Subdivision

Parcel Size: 16.43 ac.

AGENCY COMMENTS Comments from the Chief Environmental Health Officer, Chief Engineer and the Water Authority are noted below.

Director of Environment “Having reviewed the above-noted application, the Department of Environment provides the following for consideration.

1) Project Purpose and Need a) The project site is located in the vicinity of Crystal Harbour and

Safehaven, two canal developments in which large tracts of mangrove forest were removed, and where build-out had yet to occur. For this reason, the provision of additional lots in this area necessitating the

60

further destruction of ecologically significant tidal and coastal mangrove does not seem justifiable.

2) Affected Environment a) The project site comprises a mangrove peninsula situated in Governor’

Creek (see photo 1). Parcel 8 consists of important biological resources, primarily tidal red mangroves with prop roots above the water line and associated communities (see photo 2). However, a mixture of red and black mangrove stands covers much of the area, the red mangrove on the peninsular portion being a rare variegated variety. Site assessment confirms that the area is extremely wet (1-2 ft water depth), especially at proposed parcel 10 westward along the peninsula, indicating constant or partially flooded elevations. Given the extent of the floor litter, the peat depth is thought to be fairly significant.

b) The above and below-ground biomass of these tidal mangroves provides vital ecological functions. In addition, the peninsula forms a wider landmass than the areas immediately north and south of it, thereby providing greater protection from storms out of the east. This area is frequently used as an anchorage for boats within Governor’s Creek because of the protection afforded by these mangroves. In addition, the lush mangrove vegetation is visually appealing and contains hidden waterways which are increasingly explored and appreciated by boaters and kayakers (see photo 3).

c) This parcel is currently zoned Low Density Residential, however the Proposed Amendments (1999) to The Development Plan 1997 (Revision) shows a Mangrove Buffer rezoning. Given the i) rapid rate at which mangrove deforestation is occurring in Grand Cayman; ii) importance placed in the Development and Planning Regulations on protecting predominantly red mangrove; and iii) increasing recreational use of these mangroves by boaters and kayakers, the Department fully supports the proposed rezoning.

3) Design Alternatives a) Topographical information showing site elevations, drainage patterns,

peat depth, etc. is lacking, in addition to an estimate of fill required to grade the site to +4.0 ft MSL. Site investigation confirms an extremely wet site, tidally influenced with partial and full flooding moving east to west. Approximately 50 meters along a trace cut into the mangroves in the vicinity of proposed parcel 10, 6” to 1-ft of water and a substantial peat substrate was observed (see photo 4). The Department questions whether the applicant intends to remove the peat prior to filling. Fill quantities will obviously differ if the area is demucked or if peat remains on site. The CPA should now be aware of the on-going aggregate and fill study which aims to address the issue of fill demand and sources and associated impacts of local activities.

61

b) The aerial photo shows that during previous dredging by Crighton Properties a 50-ft buffer around the peninsula was retained. It is likely that with the approval of this application the applicant will apply for future dredging to accommodate vessels alongside parcels on the peninsula.

c) The Department is unclear whether the P.O.S. illustrated on the drawing is associated with this project or Crystal Harbour. Should the P.O.S. comprise one of the 20 parcels connected with this application, the Department recommends that it be relocated to the peninsula as the currently demarcated P.O.S. represents a previously modified, unvegetated area of no great significance to the public or to wildlife. By relocating the P.O.S. to all or a portion of the mangrove peninsula, the life support functions of the mangrove ecosystem would be maintained.

4) Environmental Consequences a) The project will incur a loss of at least 4 to 5 acres of tidal mangrove due

to filling of the peninsula along. The direct impact of deforestation and filling will be habitat loss for birdlife such as herons typically found roosting in this mangrove stand. The dense prop roots support a myriad of important marine organisms such as blue crabs and snapper fish observed during site assessment. Filling this area will permanently alter the mangrove ecosystem, destroying vital habitat and food sources, which may lead to migration and displacement of species to other areas and/or reduction in populations.

b) Displacement of fish stocks and/or bird populations has related impacts. Sudden environmental or ecological change resulting in forced migration to other areas which may already be experiencing overcrowding places increased ecological pressure on those areas. Overcrowding can effectively alter population dynamics of certain species due to increased competition for food, habitat and nesting resources. Competition ofter results in further displacement or a decline in numbers over a confined area, such as the scarce wetlands that remain along West Bay Peninsula.

c) By definition, ecology is the study of the interactions of living organisms with each other and environmental factors. Ecological change in one component will affect change elsewhere. When habitat and food sources are diminished, the food chain alters and can have deleterious effects on the production and health of a species or an entire ecosystem, especially if a species has been removed from the food chain. Thus the long-term impact of filling this mangrove tract is far-reaching from an ecological perspective.

d) Environmentally, the cumulative impacts of this and adjacent subdivisions at present and at build-out could be harmful given the potential for sedimentation from unvegetated lots, numerous leaking septic tanks, and fertiliser run-off from manicured lawns. These impacts effect water

62

quality by increasing the nutrient levels in a relatively enclosed water body such as Governor’s Creek.

5) Recommendations a) In the pursuit of a more sustainable approach to development in the

Cayman Islands, the Department has consistently recommended that sources and quantities of fill material be identified at the planning stage for subdivisions and/or large projects proposed in wetland areas. Prior to the determination of this application, the applicant should be made to submit such data so that the sustainability of this project and its wider off-site implications can be assessed.

b) If the CPA is minded to approve this application, the Department would suggest the incorporation of the following into planning permission as a means of mitigating impacts. i) Relocate the P.O.S. from parcel 26 REM 2 to the peninsular

portion of parcel 8. ii) Silt screens shall be installed throughout the entire landfilling

operation and remain in place until the water contained in the screens has settled and cleared to the same appearance as the water immediately outside of the screens. They shall be installed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Department of Environment and inspected and approved by the DOE prior to commencement of any coastal work.

iii) Stockpiled materials used in construction of future seawalls or bulkheads shall be suitably contained or stored in locations away from the water’s edge so as not to cause problems with leaching of sediments as a result of run-off from wave activity, rain and drainage.

iv) No excavation of the seabed around the peninsula shall be undertaken without grant of a coastal works licence from Executive Council. The applicant should be made aware that grant of planning permission does not guarantee grant of a coastal works license.”

Chief Engineer “As per your memo dated February 24th, 2000, PWD has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations. PWD recommends the CPA require the developer do the following:

Introduction PWD recommends to the CPA that in addition to the recommendations we have made in this memo, we would also like to provide more detailed information regarding the subdivision. So that we may do so, we would like the developer to

63

provide a more detailed subdivision plan, which would show horizontal and vertical information. In particular the following: Horizontal Centreline Curve data, Vertical Centreline profile data and the proposed placement of vertical drains.

Traffic Management and related issues As a part of traffic management for the subdivision, PWD is recommending mini-roundabouts be placed at each intersection (see attached for specifications).

Storm Water Management and related issues Vertical drains with catch basins should be placed at the following locations:

Lot #73, #91, #89, #85, POS, #112, #12, #9. These vertical drains are recommended based on the fact that a detailed intersection design had not been provided. (see attached for specifications). We are also recommending to the CPA they require the developer to provide such a design which should include a vertical profile for all roads in the subdivision as well as a proposed storm-water management plan. These and any other issues relating to the construction of the development should be to PWD standards. Please note any landscaping done in an intersection should confirm to all planning regulations.”

Water Authority “Please be advised that the above development is approved subject to complying with the following requirements:

• The developer will be required to provide water infrastructure for the entire subdivision. The water supply system must be approved by the Water Authority, and installed to the Authority’s specification and under the Authority’s supervision. Copies of these specifications are available at the Water Authority offices.

• The developer will be required to provide sewerage infrastructure for the entire sub-division. The sewage collection system must be approved by the Water Authority, and installed to the Authority’s specification and under the Authority’s supervision. Copies of these specifications are available at the Water Authority offices.

• Please be advised that the above development is situated within the area presently supplied with piped water by the Cayman Water Company. The Cayman Water Company should be contacted for a connection to their distribution system.

• Please be advised that the sub-division will not be approved until the developer has met the above requirements.”

64

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION The proposal is for a twenty lot subdivision. Nineteen of the lots are for residential purposes and one (Lot 12) is proposed to be used for a boat slip strata for lots 1 to 9. There is also a road reserve left for access to lands to the north (Block 17A Parcel 9). The residential lot areas range from a minimum of 21,000 sq. ft. to 52,000 sq. ft. The boat slip parcel would be 12,500 sq. ft. in area.

In addition to the above, the applicant seeks to amend the final Phase of the Crystal Harbour subdivision in two ways. Firstly, in order to satisfy Regulation 27, which details Lands for Public Purposes, it is proposed to increase the LPP parcel area for the final phase of Crystal Harbour by 5% of the area of the subject parcel (0.82 ac.). Secondly, because of the increase in the area of the LPP parcel, parcels 107 to 113 and the adjacent roadway are proposed to be slightly modified. As a result, the lot area of previously approved parcels 107 to 113 would be reduced but still meet the minimum requirements of the Regulations.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS As noted previously, the subject lands are zoned Low Density Residential. However, it should be noted that under the proposed amendments (1999) to the 1997 Development Plan, all of the lands situated west of the parcels 10 and 11 boundaries would be zoned “Mangrove Buffer”. As such, Regulation 17 generally prohibits development unless it can be demonstrated that the ecological role of the mangroves will not be adversely affected

With regard to the role of the mangroves in this location, the Authority should carefully consider the comments of the Department of Environment, specifically the sections titled “Affected Environment” and “Environmental Consequences”. In general, there are important biological resources (rare red mangroves) situated from proposed lot 10 westward, as well as heron habitat, significant blue crab populations, and red snapper habitat.

SUMMARY

In view of the comments of DOE and the proposed 1999 “Mangrove Buffer” zoning of the peninsular portion of the parcel (west of lots 10 and 11), the Department has no alternative but to recommend that proposed parcels 12 to 19 be left in their natural state until such time as a detailed environmental impact report is prepared. As an alternative, the Department has prepared a revised subdivision plan that would see the total number of lots remain unaffected (see overhead).

It should be noted that lots 12 to 19 represent 25.1% of the total land area. Perhaps the lands for public purposes for the final phase of the Crystal Harbour subdivision could be relocated to the peninsula.

A number of sections of the Development Plan 1997 support the Department’s position.

65

Section 2.3(b) states that consideration must be given to the type of mangrove that would be disturbed, to the ecological and biological effects and to whether the storm and hurricane protection of the Island would be affected. This section goes on further to note that new development in the mangrove areas may be subject to the environmental analysis provisions of Appendix 3 of the Development Plan. Such an analysis is intended to confirm whether:

a) an application site is suitable for the use and form of development proposed;

b) the development will not have a detrimental impact on the natural, human, and built environments of the area;

c) the scale, density, and design of development take proper account of a site’s physical and environmental characteristics.

Lastly, an environmental analysis would determine the exceptional circumstance that is present to warrant the destruction and removal of red mangroves (Section 3.8).

As a general comment, the Department questions the need to destroy red mangroves and wildlife habitat at a time when other phases of Crystal Harbour remain unsold, undeveloped, or unregistered. There appears to be no demand for additional waterfront lots in this area at this time. Thus, the amount of time required to produce an environmental analysis should not be an obstacle to the developer.

PREVIOUS CPA DECISION On March 29, 2000 the Authority deferred the subject application for the following reasons:

1. The Authority does not believe that the peninsula is suitable for residential development and that it should be maintained in its natural state. As a result, lots 12 to 19 should be deleted from the plan.

2. The Authority is not adverse to a relocation of the Lands for Public Purposes from the final portion of the Crystal Harbour subdivision to the peninsula portion of the subject lands.

The Authority also directed the applicant to discuss alternatives with Department Staff.

LETTER FROM APPLICANT The applicant’s Lawyer has submitted the following correspondence:

“We refer to your letter dated 10th April 2000 addressed to Irvin Hassell Smith in connection with the above application. We act on behalf of Crighton Properties Ltd. on whose behalf this application was submitted. We have now considered the terms of your letter with our clients and

66

would advise they are not prepared to consider any alternative schemes for this development. In those circumstances, we would be grateful if you would re-list this application, in its present form, for further consideration by the Central Planning Authority. My clients are anxious to obtain a final decision from the Authority in order that they can consider whether to pursue an appeal to the Planning Appeals Tribunal. We look forward to receiving your confirmation as soon as possible that the matter has been re-listed for final determination before the Authority.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS #2 As noted in the applicant’s letter from the lawyer, no formal discussions were held with Department Staff. Instead, the applicant requests that the CPA either approve or refuse the application as originally submitted.

The Department believes that the peninsula should not be developed. As detailed in our original planning report, there are numerous Laws and Regulations to support the recommendation. However, the Authority cannot refuse the application without paying heed to the rules of natural justice.

In this regard, the applicant has provided the following correspondence waiving their right to appear before the Authority:

“I refer to our telephone conversation this morning when you advised that if my clients wish to address the Central Planning Authority (“the Authority”) on their application it would not be possible for them to do so until early July 2000. You however, advised that the matter could be dealt with by the Authority tomorrow if my clients were prepared to waive their right to appear and address them on their application. A delay until July 2000 for a final determination of this matter is unacceptable to my clients. In those circumstances they are prepared to waive their right to appear and address the Authority.” The applicant requests a decision be made at this meeting.

On 10th May 2000, the CPA deferred the application in order to obtain a Legal Department opinion. The opinion has been provided and the Assistant Director will read the contents to the Authority.

CPA SITE VISIT The Authority conducted a site visit on 12th July 2000. It was agreed to adjourn the matter for further consideration.

PREVIOUS CPA DECISION August 2, 2000 (CPA/27/00; item 7.02) the Authority resolved to adjourn the application and reconsider it a later date for the following reason:

67

1) Section 2.3 of the Development Plan 1997, states, among other matters, that a careful balance must be struck between what is a valuable natural feature and a desirable development and that areas of particular concern include the wetlands, virgin forests, and beaches. In addition, the same section states that consideration must be given to the type of mangrove that would be disturbed, to the ecological and biological effects and to whether the storm and hurricane protection of the Islands would be reduced. Section 2.3 also notes the following:

a. New developments proposed in the mangrove areas or wetlands may be subject to the environmental analysis provisions contained in Appendix 3 and other relevant provisions in a manner which enables the Authority to be satisfied that –

(i) the application site is suitable for the use and form of development proposed;

(ii) the development will not have a detrimental impact on the natural, human and built environments of the area; and

(iii) the scale, density and design of development take proper account of a site’s physical and environmental characteristics.

In view of the above, the Authority has determined that you must submit a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement to address the environmental concerns of the Authority and the provisions of the Development Plan, 1997.

NEW INFORMATION Since the Authority’s decision to require an Environmental Impact Report, the Department has received a Notice of Appeal from the developer.

In addition, the applicant is also requesting the Authority to reconsider a revised application without prejudice.

LETTER FROM APPLICANT’S ATTORNEY “As you are aware, we act on behalf of Crighton Properties Ltd. and Criton Holdings Ltd., who are the proposed developers and contracting purchasers in regards to the captioned planning application respectively, which application is under appeal to the Appeals Tribunal, in respect of the Authority’s decision to require an environmental impact study. We write to inform you that our client now wishes, in the interest of expediting approval of its project, to make a revised application to the Central Planning Authority, without prejudice to the current application pending before the Authority, and we enclose herewith such application. In the premises, we would therefore ask that you list this application on the earliest available agenda and communicate the proposed date of hearing for the same to us at your earliest convenience.”

68

The revised application indicates a total of eighteen (18) lots instead of nineteen (19). In addition, the proposed parcel for boat slips has been shifted from the north side of the peninsula to the south side. Finally, the number of parcels situated on the peninsula has been dropped from seven (7) to six (6) and a fifty-foot wide mangrove buffer has been proposed for the peninsula part of the lands.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS The Department is of the opinion that the environmental and ecological value of the peninsula is high. Furthermore, the decision to require an EIR is easily defensible at the Appeals Tribunal. It is unfortunate that the developer is proposing an amendment at this late date and chose to ignore the Authority’s first decision to discuss alternatives with Staff.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application for the submission of a revised subdivision plan illustrating the following:

1) A sixty five foot mangrove buffer retained along the perimeter of the peninsula (except the access portion).

8.0 ENFORCEMENT

9.0 FINAL CERTIFICATES (OF FITNESS FOR OCCUPANCY)

10.0 MATTERS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

10.01 JOEL LAWSON “BY CONSENT” Based on the previous CPA discussion to revisit duplexes in the Prospect area, the Department sought the Authority’s authorization to settle the subject appeal by consent. Authorization was granted.

10.02 WET LAND COMMITTEE Mr. Attlee Bodden was nominated as Chairman and Mr. Rex Miller to be Deputy Chairman of the Committee. It is hoped that the final membership would be representative of a balance between all interests.

11.0 CPA MEMBERS INFORMATION /DISCUSSIONS

11.01 The Port Authority is to be written regarding the Authority’s concern with boats dumping sewage into the North Sound.

69

The meeting adjourned at 5:05 pm. The next regular meeting of the Central Planning Authority is scheduled for Wednesday, September 6, 2000 at 12:30 p.m. in the Planning Department’s Conference Room, Third Floor Tower Building.

Heber Arch Chairman

James W. Corcoran Executive Secretary

cc: All members of the Central Planning Authority Hon. Minister (E. A. & P.) Chief Immigration Officer Solicitor General Chief Engineer, PWD Chief Fire Officer Director, Department of Environmental Health Director, Department of Environment Managing Director, Caribbean Utilities Company

70

List of Applications Presented at CPA/29/00 4.01 CABLE & WIRELESS (CAYMAN) LIMITED BLOCK OPY PARCEL 89 (256/97) ($5,000) (AR) ........ 2 4.02 LA CASA DEL HABANO BLOCK OPY PARCEL 114 (048/80-B) ($3,488) (A.R.) ................................... 3 4.03 HOME GAS LTD. BLOCK 15B PARCELS 4, 5 & 6 (106/80) (RS) .............................................................. 4 4.04 C.I. GOVERNMENT (DOEH) BLOCK 20C PARCEL 45 (008/90) ($20,000) (NAW) ............................... 5 5.01 MCALLISTER WHITTAKER BLOCK 53A PARCEL 63 (063/89) ($3,000) (JAB) .................................. 6 5.02 RAUL GONZALES BLOCK 13D PARCEL 121 (369/91) ($8,000) (BES) .................................................. 6 5.03 MCFORD MCLEAN BLOCK 73A PARCEL 78 (066/00) ($3,500) (EJ)...................................................... 8 5.04 SWARA PROPERTTIES LIMITED / SUNSHINE LAND LIMITED BLOCK 13B PARCEL 59 (227/79) ($32,300) (AR) ................................................................................................................................................ 9 5.05 CARLOS WHITTAKER BLOCK 49A PARCEL 25 (261/00) ($3,000) (JAB) .......................................... 14 6.01 C.I. GOVERNMENT (SAVANNAH PRIMARY SCHOOL) BLOCK 28D PARCEL 271 (051/81) ($20,000) (RS) ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 6.02 C.I. GOVERNMENT (GEORGE HICKS HIGH SCHOOL) BLOCK 15B PARCEL 249 (304/82) ($26,000) (RS) ............................................................................................................................................................. 15 6.03 MINI WAREHOUSE TWO LIMITED BLOCK 12C PARCEL 263 (157/00) ($240,000) (A.R.) ............. 16 6.04 DELIDA SEYMOUR BLOCK 14CJ PARCEL 34 (263/00) ($4,000) (BES) ............................................... 22 6.05 CORBIERE INVESTMENT BLOCK 5B PARCEL 125 (391/97) ($2 MILLION) (BES) ............................. 23 6.06 PATRICK EVANS BLOCK 56C PARCEL 56 (001/97) ($500) (EJ) .......................................................... 28 6.07 NAUL BODDEN (“VILLAS ON THE GREEN”) BLOCK 27C PARCELS 736 & 739 (217/00) ($2,082,420 - $90/S.F.) (RS) ......................................................................................................................................... 28 6.08 MINISTRY OF SPORTS BLOCK 4E PARCELS 39 AND 41 (211/00) ($450,000) (NAW) ....................... 35 6.09 DAVID WATLER LYONS BLOCK 14D PARCEL 380 (243/92) ($45,000) (EJ) ...................................... 38 6.010 HEATH MCFIELD BLOCK 14C PARCEL 85 (044/98) ($100,000) (NAW) ............................................. 39 6.011 PALLAIS DE SIENGE BLOCK 69A PARCEL 94 (118/95) ($10,000) (JAB) ........................................... 40 7.01 RALEIGH GARDENS BLOCK 14D PARCEL 99 (001/00) ($50,000) (RS) .............................................. 41 7.02 MARIE CLAIRE FERNANDES BLOCK 114C PARCELS 136 AND 304 (214/99) ($20,000) (A.R.) ....... 42 7.03 KERRY BUSH BLOCK 1D PARCEL 64 (163/00) ($66,000) (NP) ............................................................ 46 7.04 EDUARDO SANCHEZ BLOCK 4E PARCEL 127 (208/97-B) ($20,000) (A. R.) ...................................... 51 7.05 KENROY LUMSDEN BLOCK 4E PARCEL 211(382/99) (BES) .............................................................. 53 7.06 J. & B. JUNGE AND NEW HUT FARMS LTD. BLOCK 66A PARCELS 35, 87, 90, 92 AND 93 (379/99) (RS) 53 7.07 CAYMAN COURTS DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 13D PARCEL 261 (MM/147/98) ($.00) (BES) ........... 54 7.08 L.E. BELL CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. BLOCK 22E PARCELS 263 & 266 REM 1 (291/91) (JAB/RS)57 7.09 CHARLES WATLER BLOCK 14E PARCEL 613 (080/90) (RS) .............................................................. 58 7.010 IRVIN HASSELL SMITH BLOCK 17A PARCEL 8 (049/00) (044/86) ($2.5 MILLION) (NP) .................. 59 10.01 JOEL LAWSON “BY CONSENT” ....................................................................................................... 68 11.01 THE PORT AUTHORITY IS TO BE WRITTEN REGARDING THE AUTHORITY’S CONCERN WITH BOATS DUMPING SEWAGE INTO THE NORTH SOUND. ............................................................................................................ 68

central planning authority · 1 central planning authority minutes for a meeting of the central...

Documents