Mcpa1503_per_FOI_Law

CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY



Minutes for a meeting of the Central Planning Authority held on May 14, 2003 at 12:30 pm. in

the Planning Conference Room, 3rd Floor Tower Building.

15th Meeting of the Year CPA/15/03



Mr. A.L. Thompson (Chairman)

Mr. Attlee Bodden (apologies)

Mr. Peter Campbell

Mr. Dean Evans (until 3:30pm)

Mr. Ernie Hurlstone (apologies)

Mr. John Hurlstone

Mr. Ray Hydes

Mr. Barry Martinez (except 3.024)

Mr. Steve McLaughlin

Mr. Rex Miller

Mr. Antonio Smith (except 2.01)

Mr. Fred Whittaker

Mr. Troy Whittaker

Mr. Kenneth Ebanks (Executive Secretary)

Mr. Robert Lewis(Assistant Director of Planning (CP))





1. Confirmation of Minutes

2. Adjourned Applications

3. New Applications

4. Enforcements

5. Development Plan Matters

6. Matters from the Director of Planning

7. CPA Members Information/Discussions









1

APPLICANTS THAT APPEARED BEFORE THE CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY





NAME REASONS TIME ITEM PAGE



Tideman Ebanks (CF) 1:20 3.030 85

Captain’s Bakery (BES) 1:45 2.02 6

Caribbean Utilities 2:45 3.022 69

Company (AB)

Lighthouse Pointe (AB) 3:42 3.04 29

Scott’s Equipment (RS) 4:10 3.017 61

Texaco Caribbean Inc. (EJ) 4:27 3.012 47

Strata Plan No. 73 (AB) 4:55 3.02 26



1.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES



1.01 Confirmation of Minutes of CPA/11/03 held on April 16, 2003.

Moved: Rex Miller

Seconded: John Hurlstone

Confirmed



2.0 ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS



2.01 FUTURE SPORTS CLUB Block 4D Parcel 3 (lot A) (F01-0368) (P02-0828)

($150,000) (JAB)

Application for a football field and basketball court.

Mr. Antonio Smith declared his interest and left the room.



FACTS

Location: Off Mount Pleasant Road, West Bay

Zoning: Medium Density Residential

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices served to adjacent property owners.

The application was also advertised in the newspaper on

October 4th and 11th 2002 respectively. Three (3)

objections were received (see “Objections” below).

Background: CPA/06/02; item 5.02(B) it was resolved to approve a two

(2) lot subdivision.

CPA/29/02; item 3.06 it was resolved to adjourn the







2

application for the sports complex to allow the applicant to

provide an alternative 30’-0” VROW.

Existing Use: Vacant

Proposed Use: Football field and basketball court

Parcel Size: Lot A = 3.509 acre



OBJECTIONS

Letter #1

“I hereby submit a formal objection to the Planning Department for the proposed

sport facility request from Future Sports Club. I Miguel Smith which is the owner

of Block 4D Parcel 377 strongly feel that access through a residential

development would only decrease the property value and make it a unsafe

neighbor hood. It is for these reasons that I object.

Thanking you in advance for your favorable consideration in this matter.”

Letter #2

“I hereby submit a formal objection to the Planning Department for the proposed

sport facility request from Future Sports Club. I George Smith which is the

owner of Block 4D Parcel 400 strongly feel that access through a residential

development would only decrease the property value and make it a unsafe

neighbor hood. It is for these reasons that I object.

Thanking you in advance for your favorable consideration in this matter.”

Letter #3

“I hereby submit a formal objection to the Planning Department for the proposed

sport facility request by Future Sports Club.

I Noel Williams which is the owner of Block 4D Parcel 402 strongly feel that

access through a residential development would decrease the property value also

make it a unsafe neighborhood, proposed entrance to the sports facility would be

located in front of my house.

It is for these reasons that I object. Thanking you in advance for your favorable

consideration in this matter.



LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT

“You will recall that our application and site plan provided two vehicular right-

of-ways; one to lot ‘A’ and a separate right-of-way to lot ‘B’.

The CPA approval letter refers to extending the R.O.W. from the East to lot ‘A’

and if this condition remains it is unlikely that the current landowner would

proceed with the sale of lot ‘A’ to Future Sports Club. This is because the logical

extension of the R.O.W. would divide lot ‘B’ down the middle thereby reducing its

use. It is probable that FSC would also have to pay costs of land for this R.O.W.

A simple solution (one that we have tried on many occasions) would be to extend







3

the R.O.W. serving lot ‘A’ into lot “B”. Unfortunately the person granting the

R.O.W. to lot ‘A’ and the landowner of lot ‘B’ are not on agreeable terms. Both

parties will not allow the other party to benefit in any way from this project.

Therefore we are asking that the CPA grant permission for two separate

vehicular right-of-ways as shown on our original application.

I trust that this is satisfactory but you may contact me if you have any questions.”



PREVIOUS PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting permission to develop parcel 3 lot A into a football

field and basketball court for “Future Sports Club”, submitted as phase 1 of a 2

phase project. Phase 2 will include the addition of a tennis court, changing room,

clubhouse and bleachers.

Access to the site is gained through a single 30’-0” wide ROW through parcel 383

to the south. The Department would note that when the Authority approved the

two (2) lot subdivision creating lot A (CPA/06/02, item 5.02(B), the applicant was

“advised that any further application for development will require the extension of

the vehicular right of way from the east to lot A.”

This was put in place to ensure that traffic would not have to pass through the

entire subdivision to the south to access the sports field. The proposal submitted

is contrary to this recommendation. Although the Department empathizes with

the applicant with regard to the reasons for using the ROW to the south, the

Department cannot support accessing the site from this point.

The Department would like to point out that the applicant is proposing to chip and

spray the parking lot and driveway and no solid waste facility or storm water

drains is shown on the site plan. The Department would recommend that the

Authority discuss the location and number of required access points and the lack

of garbage facilities and storm water drains.

It should be noted that the Department does not have an objection to the sports

field proposal, however it is the opinion of the Department that this proposed use

could be better served from the 30’-0” ROW to the east only. The ROW from the

south is located at the rear of the subdivision which would mean that cars

accessing the sports field would have to pass through the entire subdivision and

the Department does not support this scenario.

Messrs Danny Owens and Floyd Bush appeared before the CPA at 4:00 p.m.

at CPA/29/02; item 3.06 on behalf of the applicant. The objectors did not

appear.

The Chairman welcomed them and asked for a response to objections and that

the issue of access be addressed, along with objectors concerns.

Mr. Owens: Future Sports Club is a social club for the youth of West Bay. The

club is five years old. It has five players represented on a national squad. This

site is integral to the club’s plan. There were sixty-five notices to surrounding

landowners and only two or three objected. We are sensitive to concerns. We







4

have searched extensively for suitable land. This is the only suitable area

available. We need the southern access at least for construction purposes. An

alternate easement is being sought from Government over the Ed Bush complex.

CPA: What about access from the east?

Mr. Owens: The landowner will not agree to that. Also, the cost to build a road

from that location would be prohibitive. There is no problem with access from

the south. Mr. John Burke is willing to grant us an easement, subject to us

obtaining planning permission. The alternative access over Government land

would not interfere with the Ed Bush fields. The distance between the two Ed

Bush fields is about forty feet.

CPA: If access from the south is a service access only, how would you regulate

it?

Mr. Owens: A gate would be installed. Most players are under seventeen and

would not drive anyway. A good number of them would ride bicycles. There

should be no traffic issue.

Mr. Bush: The proximity to the Ed Bush complex is a plus. It would be easy to

extend utilities. This is one of the advantages of the site.

There being no further discussion, the Chairman thanked the applicant’s agents

for appearing. They left at 4:10 p.m.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• Rather than accessing through a residential subdivision, alternative access

should be explored.



Decision of CPA/29/02; item 3.06: It was then resolved to adjourn the

application, for the following reason:

1) Alternative minimum thirty feet (30) vehicular right-of-way to the subject lot

shall be provided prior to any further consideration of the application by the

Authority.



CURRENT PROPOSAL

The applicant is requesting the Authority to consider their application for a

football field and basketball court based on information provided in the following

two (2) letters:

Letter from Applicant #1

“Enclosed is a revised site plan showing an alternate means of access to the

property. We have met with Mr. Carson Ebanks, Principal Secretary in the

Ministry of Community Development, Women’s Affairs, Youth and Sports and he

is generally supportive of this scheme.

This proposal uses the previous vehicular access as a construction and

emergency service access only. This is to avoid the use of the subdivision roads

as the primary assess to the facility, which was objected to by three of the





5

neighbours. Once construction is complete, it is envisaged that the vehicular

access would be gated and locked.

The primary access will be a pedestrian access across the Ed Bush Football field

property. There is an existing pedestrian access already in place and we are

proposing that this be relocated in order not to run directly across one of the

existing fields, but to serve our property. Our club is primarily made up of the

youth of West Bay and most of them walk or ride to practice therefore the

pedestrian type access ideal for them.

We trust that this is satisfactory but you may contact me if you have any

questions.”

Letter from Applicant #2

“We have investigated a new road access as required by the CPA but has found

that it is cost prohibitive. A grant of easement over Block 4D Parcel 307 & 308

was applied for in 2000 but because of concerns of the C.I. Government

regarding the road going through a wetland area and our concern with the cost

associated with this we retracted the application.

A road in this location would be approximately 600 feet long and cost around

$150 - $200,000 which could not be justified based on the amount of use it would

get. In addition, our scarce funds are needed for the purchase and development

of the property.

Therefore, we are asking the CPA to favourably consider our application to use a

pedestrian R.O.W. and the service road as shown on our latest submission.

Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.”

The CPA further discussed the following:



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

conditions:

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.

2) The access from the south shall be used for emergency and construction

purposes only.

Provision must be made for the removal of waste associated with the approved

works.



2.02 CAPTAIN’S BAKERY (CAYMAN) LTD. Block 13E Parcel 2 (P03-0037)

(F95-0130(B)) ($8,000) (BES)

Application for after-the-fact signs at Capt.’s Bakery Restaurant

Appearance at 1:45









6

FACTS

Location: Captain’s Bakery on West Bay Road.

Zoning: Hotel/Tourism

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent landowners

and objections were received.

Background: February 21, 2001 (CPA/07/01 Item 6.13): CPA granted

permission for an addition to the former Taco Bell.

July 25, 2001 (CPA/24/01 Item 5.18 (c)): CPA adjourned

the storage building application for various reasons.

August 22, 2001 (CPA/26/01; Item 5.01 (a), CPA

approved storage and signs.

December 12, 2001 (CPA/38/01 Item 5.11(C)) CPA

modified planning permission of (CPA/26/01 item 5.01(A))

pursuant to Section 20 of the Development and Planning

Law, as follows:

a) The dome type sign/logo is out of character with

development in the area and it shall be removed.

b) Prior to a Final Certificate (C.O.) of Fitness being

issued the following shall be addressed:

i. Landscaping shall be in accordance with the

approved plan;

ii. All external signs on site must receive planning

permission;

iii. All illuminated signs on site must receive a Building

Permit.

c) That the objectors right of redress is Section 51(1) of the Development and Planning

Law.

January 9, 2002, the Planning Appeals Tribunal ruled as

follows:

“The decision of the Planning Appeals Tribunal is to allow

the appeal for the reasons set out herein. The appeal is

allowed pursuant to Section 51(1)(a) of the Development

and Planning Law (1999 Revision) on the ground that the

decision of the Central Planning Authority made on

January 9, 2002 was erroneous in law and is therefore

quashed.

November 14, 2002, the Planning Appeals Tribunal

dismissed the appeal with no order as to cost.

April 16, 2003 (CPA/11/03; Item 3.01), the Authority







7

adjourned the above application for the applicant and

objectors (or their agents) to meet and try to reach a

compromise.

Existing Use: Restaurant

Proposed Use: Signs

Parcel Size: 0.5 acre



OBJECTIONS

Letter #1

“I have received Registered notice (28/02/03) regarding the above development,

undertaken in contravention of the Planning Laws, who have previously been

instructed to remove unauthorized signage and have now applied for planning

permission for said signage.

I would like to reiterate my objection to the development on the following

grounds:

1) The lighting of the building, including the fit 'dome' on top of the building

is excessive and out of character with all other developments on \Vest Bay Road

and is in excess of what has come to be accepted as normal lighting for similar

fast-food restaurants. The signage, including that on the 'dome' is not in

proportion to the size and location of the building. Not even the Captain's Bakery

in Montego Bay, Jamaica has such excessive lighting and has maintained an

element of respect for surrounding buildings- no lit dome present. The dome is not

inherent to the image of the chain!

2) The startling image at the beginning of Cayman's premier tourist

destination, which can be likened to Disney or Las Vegas attraction, is not

conducive to the image of a sophisticated and up-market destination that the

Islands are striving to attain like the recent upgrades to the Port Authority,

George Town waterfront and Cinema Complex. The building has been decorated

in primary colours which are brash and out of keeping with the restrained and

Caribbean coloured decoration of many of the businesses on West Bay Road.

3) The cutting back of existing trees exposing neighbouring residential

properties to the development is very offensive. The properties have enjoyed and

maintained security and privacy at great cost to the benefit of the community and

residents. Such unwanted destruction, which was also against direct planning

directives, was clearly unnecessary and vent detrimental.

4) The proposed signs also contravene Government guidelines. Why grant an

exception to a business which by the looks of it is hardly profitable, has

continuing problems with Immigration Permits, cannot afford to replace damaged

signage and is creating dangerous bottleneck traffic at the be inning of West Bay

road.

I hope that the Planning Authority will take the necessary action to re-confirm its

original position to oppose the Signage Application and ensure that all







8

requirements are met to remove the fluorescent dome and neon signs.”

Letter #2

“I am writing this to protest the request by the Captain's Bakery to legalize after

the fact, their unattractive building and garish lighting. To the best of my

knowledge there is no other commercial building in all of the Cayman Islands

that so contaminates the character of this island. This eyesore is an insult to the

pleasant and complimentary way every other business in Cayman is required to

maintain its exterior. Cayman overall has demanded that its businesses present a

dignified and tasteful face to the public.

The lack of landscaping, the use of color and neon lights, the overall building

style all defy any sense of continuity of the planning process. In my opinion, the

total project is an insult to the intelligence of all that is truly Caymanian. Also, I

cannot imagine that a "bakery", which stays open until 3 a.m. on the weekends, is

a conforming use in a residential neighborhood.

While I am not Caymanian I admire and respect the efforts that have gone into

requiring development on Grand Cayman to maintain a reflection of the

Caymanian culture and uphold values we all hold dear. This bakery is an

aberration that should have never gotten off the ground. The Planning

Commission will be doing a public service by refusing to allow this eyesore to

continue to contaminate this island.

Please disallow the requests of this Las Vegas style business before you have

allowed it to set a precedent for others who would turn this lovely island into a

neon palace.”

Letter #3

“I have been coming to the Cayman Islands since the middle 1980's. I bought a

condo to retire in these beautiful islands. Today the island is developed to the

point where I wonder whether anything Caymanian remains that a Caymanian

would be proud to leave to future generations. The Captain's Bakery on West Bay

Road is an example of how your once tasteful island has gone overboard. I am

embarrassed when I drive past the bright yellow building with the chef winking at

all comers through the neon lights.

The garish colors stick out like a sore thumb. And who else and where else on the

island do you find neon lights-or even a dome? This is so disgusting to see at the

beginning of 7 Mile Beach, an area that has been dignified over the years by

tasteful condo over development. This gives the wrong impression. It is so out of

sync with the surrounding area that one has to wonder how this building got

permission to open in the first place.

I feel sorry for the poor bloke who lives in the condo next door if he/she has to be

at work in the early morning. The noise and the lights must make it terribly

difficult to go to sleep.

Please force the owners of the Captain's Bakery to respect existing planning and

zoning laws and sign, nuisance and noise ordnances as well. Planning should







9

deny this application.”

Letter # 4

“We find the signage at The Captain's Bakery to be very objectionable for a

variety of reasons. This type of signage seems completely out of character for

Grand Cayman. According to the planning department's guidelines, it is stated

that neon signage is discouraged. There are no other areas on this island that I

am aware of that is permitted to use the amount of neon signage that Captain's

Bakery has been allowed! The lights are so bright and the signs contain so much

neon that it literally illuminates our bedroom at night, even with the blinds drawn.

Suffice it to say, that we certainly do not require a night-light in our bedroom to

see our way around. The lights typically stay on until 1-2 am.

The big dome on top is also an eyesore. I have seen visitors to the island walking

by the Bakery stop, laughing & pointing, and then take pictures of the dome. I'm

sure this is not the type of signage that the Planning Dept. had in mind when

approving The Captain's Bakery signage application.

Thank you for your consideration regarding this matter.”

Letter #5

“I am writing to object to the construction of the Captain's Bakery on West Bay

Road. My family has been visiting the Cayman Islands since 1975 and has

witnessed significant changes since then. While it is assumed that changes are

undertaken specifically for the betterment of the island and to advance the

development of commerce and tourism, the development of this bakery is clearly

not an improvement but, in fact, a frightening suggestion that the planning

department may be letting development occur in a tasteless, uncontrolled way. I

sincerely hope this is not the case.

When I first noticed the bakery under construction/renovation I wondered why

planning would allow such a garish development. It is visually offensive - the

bright primary colours do not blend in with the surrounding, more aesthetically

pleasing buildings, nor do they blend with the beautiful natural colours with

which Cayman has been blessed. They actually create a visual jolt. This type of

development does not reflect Cayman's growing reputation as an up-market

destination for business and tourism. It is in common parlance, a "tacky"

intrusion. The fact that it was allowed at all makes one wonder under what policy

the planning department operates.

There has not been any effort on the part of the owners to mitigate the offending

sight of the garish structure and the overbearing, harshly lit dome which can be

seen a long distance away. There has been no attempt to landscape the ugliness

away by planting large hedges, trees or other foliage.

I understand that bowing to considerable pressure resulting from objections

received by it, the planning department instructed the bakery to remove the

signage but the bakery has not done so and in fact has now applied for planning

permission. To grant this permission would send the wrong message to everyone

including local residents, visitors and potential investors, about what the planning







10

department visualizes for the orderly development of Cayman as an up-market

and sophisticated destination.

While other fast-food franchises have been developed in Cayman none is as

distasteful or as overbearing as the Captain's Bakery. Perhaps the planning

department should study other up-market destinations in North America and the

Caribbean before granting planning permission to would-be developers. In some

municipalities in the U.S. planning by-laws prohibit the garish signage of some

fast-food chain restaurants. Freeport, Maine, is a good example. Another example

of tasteful planning by-laws is Bermuda. There, no fast-food chains even exist. I

am not advocating the abolition of fast-food restaurants in Cayman, I am

advocating the tasteful placement and construction of them, including more

subdued signage and calming landscaping. Certainly, the Captain's Bakery would

not have been allowed in either Freeport, Maine or Bermuda and it is certainly

out of place in Cayman, especially at the gateway to Seven Mile Beach with its

luxurious condominiums and hotels.

You can now mitigate the damage caused by this visual intrusion by upholding the

previous ruling requiring removal of the signage. It would have been a mistake

for planning to grant approval for the development in the first place; please take

this opportunity to reverse as much of the damage as possible by requiring at

least the removal of the unauthorized signs.

I look forward to many more trips to Cayman. With the proper developmental

controls and wise planning we have come to expect from the planning

department, Cayman can be allowed to grow as it must yet still retain the quiet

charm that has kept people like me coming back.”

Letter #6

“I am the registered owned of Apartment A7 at Poinsettia (Block 13E Parcel 1201-

17), which is situated adjacent to the Captain's Bakery. I have received notice by

registered mail of an application for planning permission for the purpose of a

Signage on Block 13E Parcel 2.

I wish to object to the application. The basis of my objection is as follows:

• the dome and signs are in direct conflict with the Planning Department's

Mission Statement which states its mission is "to ensure that all

development applications are processed----so that the physical

development of the Islands is aesthetically pleasing-----.

• the dome is a visual eyesore to the casual observer, never mind those of

us unfortunate to have to reside in the vicinity thereof The lighting therein

is excessive, with very bright lights on until 3am each night in what is

primarily a residential area and to the annoyance of residents in

Poinsettia.

• the value of my residential property and all others in Poinsettia where 1

live is threatened by the presence of the dome and signage at the Captain's

Bakery.







11

• the Cayman Islands Central Planning Authority's Guide To Submitting

Applications for Sign or Advertisement states that the design of the signs

and the colour should blend with the aesthetics on site and conform to the

designs of the surrounding buildings. The dome and signage do not

conform to the designs of the buildings either side of the Captain's Bakery,

namely Poinsettia Apartments and the former Sleep Inn, and in my opinion

the colours are excessive.

• the Guide further states that internally flashing, lit or neon signs are

discouraged. The dome and signage are in conflict with this guideline.

• the dome and signage are unnecessary, and are damaging to the positive

image of the Cayman Islands that the CI Government purports to support

in making Cayman a better place to live for Caymanians and residents

alike, and for tourists to visit and hopefully return.

I trust that you will take due consideration of the foregoing in your consideration

of this application by the Captain's Bakery, which application I may add seeks to

obtain retrospective planning permission in respect of conscientious and flagrant

non-compliance with the planning permission previously granted by your

department.”

Letter #7

“I attach my previous letter from last year regarding the 'Captains Bakery' on

West Bay Road.

As a follow up to my last letter, I notice that the aforementioned company is now

going to apply 'correctly' this time to have the dome and signage approved after

they have had it in place for so long, I also notice that the trees between the 2

properties have still not been replaced and I thought that the dome was supposed

to come down some months ago? What is happening?

One of the interesting things that I heard was that the 'Captains Bakery' must

have the dome, as it is part of their company logo. I find this very strange as I

took the liberty of visiting one of their original establishments in Montego Bay

when I was over there in November 2002. When I went there I immediately

noticed their colour scheme, which is much the same, but I have to say, I never

saw a brightly coloured dome on the roof or large neon sips! I also noticed that

their shop is in the middle of the central business district of downtown Montego

Bay, and not next door to a residential condo complex?

Why is it necessary to have visually disturbing and un-characteristic signage in

Cayman and not in Jamaica? This is not Jamaica, and Poinsettia Apartments are

not in downtown Georgetown.

Let us have the same lay out of shop that they have in Montego Bay and they can

have our neon-powered bakery.

Please, Please can the board come to some sensible agreement over this situation,

give Poinsettia some visual protection from the bakery business next door, allow

the visitors to Cayman to feel that they are in a peaceful, controlled and safe







12

environment and allow this company to operate, but under rules that makes

everyone happy.”

Letter #8

“I am writing as a concerned resident of Poinsettia, which is located next to the

yellow and red monstrosity that has appeared on West Bay Road.

I realise that planning has been approved for this, and as I thought it was a

bakery, I really had no objections, When I found out that the word 'bakery' is

translated somewhat differently to my own understanding of the word, into

meaning 'fast food, open all hours restaurant’- I was very upset. I thought that I

would just have to live with it.

Now I find that the owners of this property have been allowed to prune back the

trees entirely, so that there is no visual protection between our property and the

afore mentioned bakery? I urge you to come down at night to Poinsettia and

View our flood lit apartments, at least we won't have to buy security lights, and I

am also glad that my electricity bill will go down as we won't have to light my

rooms at night due to the ambient light we will be receiving!

All sarcasm aside, please can the planning department do something to protect

the living environment that we at Poinsettia live in? This is, in my mind, almost an

issue for the department of environment as this is called ‘visual pollution’ in

many countries. The fact that the barrier of the high bushes were removed has

made the issue 10 times worse, can we at least have these re-planted? Is there any

way we can have the lights on our side of the building turned off? 1 wonder what

this has done to the property value of our homes?

There must be something that we can do to all live in harmony together- surely?”

Letter #9

“As unit owner at the Poinsettia Condos, I wish to express in the strongest

possible terms my objection to the legal, optical and general inappropriateness of

the signage and design used for the above property.

Such development is certainly in conflict with the stated Planning Department's

Mission Statement of allowing "aesthetically pleasing" development in the Cayman

Islands.

In addition, the building possesses no Caribbean characteristics and with its

excessive dome and signage lighting is no more than a visual pollutant

Furthermore, in my opinion, this development has weakened the market value of

all surrounding property and as such is depriving the Government of higher levels

of stamp duty resulting from real estate sales in the direct vicinity to this

monstrosity.

My confidence in the CPA will be further reinforced with an immediate rejection

of all illegal aspects of the development and instruction to the developers to

replace with some more harmonising design appropriate to the beautiful island of

Grand Cayman.”







13

Letter #10

“I have already written to you, last year objecting to the development of the

Captain's Bakery on West Bay Road between Sleep Inn and Poinsettia

Apartments. I understand that this development, undertaken in contravention of

the Planning Laws, which has already been instructed to remove the unauthorized

signage, has now applied for planning permission. I would like to reiterate my

objection to the development on the following grounds:

1. The development is exceptionally visually obtrusive and is inappropriate

for its location, for its purpose and for the general visual development of

the island

2. No attempt has been made to mitigate the impact of the development on

surrounding residential / hotel properties. The building has been

decorated in primary colours which are brash and gaudy and out of

keeping with the restrained and Caribbean coloured decoration of many

of the businesses on West Bay Road.

3. The lighting and appearance of the building in its particular location, at

the start of Cayman's premier tourist destination, is not conducive to the

image of a sophisticated and up-market destination that so many of

Cayman's Government departments are striving to attain.

4. Existing foliage and trees have been severely cut back, thus exposing the

neighbouring properties to the road and to the development. Although

these have re-grown a little since they were first cut their retention in their

original state may have provided some mitigation of the visual effects of

the current building.

5. The lighting of the building, including the lit 'dome' on top of the building

is excessive and out of character with all other developments on West Bay

Road and is in excess of what have come to be accepted norms for lighting

for similar fast-food restaurants.

6. Signage, including that on the 'dome' is not in proportion to the size and

location of the building and is also in excess of what have come to be

accepted norms for signage for similar fast-food restaurants.

7. The proposed signs also contravene your own guidelines published on

your website under Sign or Advertisement, Submission Requirements in

the following ways:

a) Internally flashing, lit or neon signs are discouraged" (ref: the

internally lit dome, neon wording)

b) the maximum permitted size of a sign is 32 square feet' (ref: the

dome, which is considered signage)

c) the maximum permitted height of a sign is 20 feet, measured from

the finished grade to the highest point of the sign (clearly the dome

is higher than 20 feet).









14

d) the design of the sign(s) and the colour should blend with the

aesthetics on she and conform to the designs of the surrounding

buildings (my highlight)" (the design and the colour of the signs

are clearly not intended to harmonize with the designs of the

surrounding buildings in any way).

Re-development of derelict, abandoned or unused properties is to be welcomed,

however, it is not in the general public's interest, on our island which depends

largely on tourism, to allow developments of the sort that would not be out of

place in Las Vegas. It is incumbent on the Planning Department to exercise some

control over the development of the island and to ensure that it is of a standard

both structurally and visually that will enhance this island and the experiences of

those who live on it and visit it.”

Letter #11

“I believe that a planning application is pending for the Captain’s Bakery. I

would be grateful if my objection could be noted. As a frequent visitor to Grand

Cayman, I am more than familiar with the Captain’s Bakery, having driven past it

many times. Indeed having lived in Grand Cayman for six months in 2002, its

neon signage was a constant eye sore.

I regard the Bakery as an eye sore, not in keeping with that stretch of Seven Mile

Beach. No effort appears to have been made to blend the building with the local

environment.

I shall be on vacation for 2 months in Cayman later this year and will be staying

with a friend at Poinsettia, the development adjacent to the Bakery, hence have a

modest interest in planning being refused.”

Letter #12

“We are writing as local residents, property owners and members of the

Poinsettia Strata to express our objections to the recently submitted application

for planning permission (Signage) submitted by the Captain’s Bakery.

As residents and property owners adjacent to the premises in question, there are a

number of issues that we would like to bring to the attention of the Central

Planning Authority, and we are asking the board to take immediate action to

mitigate these issues.

Overview of events to date:

During the months of November and December 2001, the planning department

received numerous objections pertaining to the Captain’s Bakery; the majority of

these related to the unsightly nature of the dome, the inappropriateness of the

signage and the loss of landscaping. As a result of these objections, on December

12, 2001 the CPA (Central Planning Authority) modified the planning permission

as follows:

“a) i. The dome type sign/logo is out character with development in the area

and it shall be removed.









15

b) Prior to a Final Certificate (C.O.) of Fitness being issued the following

shall be addressed:

i. Landscaping shall be in accordance with approved plans.

ii) All external signs on site must receive planning permission.

iii) All illuminated signs on site must receive a building permit.”

Then on January 9, 2002, it again convened and it resolved to modify planning

granted “to accept the development as built”. In January 2002, the Poinsettia

Strata lodged an appeal against the decision of January 9, 2002. This appeal was

heard by the Planning Appeal Tribunal (“PAT”) on September 26, 2002, the PAT

found that the decision of January 9, 2002 was “erroneous in law”. The Bakery

then applied to the PAT to file a late appeal against the December 12, 2001

decision, the PAT turned down this request. We were now in a position where the

decision of December 12, 2001 was in effect, see conditions above. The Captain

bakery were given until the February 14, 2003 to apply for planning permission

for the illegal aspects of the signage. On February 14, 2003 they still had not

applied, they were given a further weeks extension and on February 21, 2003

made an application for planning permission (see section on issuing Section 18(4)

notices below).

Issuing of the Section 18(4) notices:

It would appear that the Captain’s Bakery did not comply with Section 18(4) of

the Development and Planning Law (1998 Revision) which requires that they use

a land register less than 60 days old. The notice sent out and dated February 21,

2003 were sent using an old land register. Planning has indicated that these were

re-sent on March 12, however, many have not yet been received.

Loss of landscaping/landscaping to be in accordance with the approved plans:

The December 12, 2001 decision required that the Captain’s Bakery comply with

all aspects of the planning permission, one of these conditions was that

“Landscaping shall be in accordance with the approved plan”. Landscaping is

not in accordance with the approved plans, nor have the Captain’s Bakery

applied for planning permission for deviations from the approved plans. The

severe pruning (ongoing) and the earlier removal of trees and foliage has

removed a natural buffer between the two properties. This landscaping had

provided a natural buffer and enhanced both properties. It is imperative to note

that the approved plans indicate the presence of trees/foliage between Poinsettia

and The Captain’s Bakery.

Light Nuisance:

On the roof of the premises is an illuminated dome like object. In the evenings

and into the early hours on the morning it is illuminated (see Signs below) and

has the effect of not only illuminating the surrounding area, but it shines through

the windows of nearby apartments (namely Poinsettia). The effects of the

illumination have been multiplied by the ongoing pruning of the bordering trees.

The unsightly reflection/glare of the illuminated dome and neon signs can be seen







16

on the exterior windows of the apartment complex.

Signs:

The road signs, awnings and window signage are a combination of illuminated

signs and neon lights. These types of signs are not only eye sores and

objectionable to all passers by, but are totally unsuited to the surrounding area.

The guidelines established for submitting an application for a Sign or

Advertisement is as follows:

“Illuminated signs require the approval of the Electrical Inspectorate prior to

installation.

Internally flashing, lit or neon signs are discouraged.

The design of the sign(s) and the colour should blend with the aesthetics on site

and conform to the design of the surrounding buildings.”

The December 12, 2001 decision makes reference to the following, that all

external signs on site must receive planning permission and all illuminated signs

on site must receive a building permit.

We appreciate that the West Bay is an area that supports residential dwellings as

well as commercial operations, and that the two can co-exist in harmony.

However, given the events of the past 16 months (see section above, Overview of

events to date), we are asking the Central Planning Authority to again review this

development, and we also strongly encourage you to take time to visit the

premises in question both during the day and at night.

Even at this stage, some 16 months after the December 12, 2001 decision, we feel

that with some remedial action taken now, there is potential to remove or mitigate

many of the concerns expressed above regarding the Bakery premises adjacent to

our property.

The planning department’s mission statement has been quoted above, in

reviewing this decision, we would ask you to make your decision in light of this

statement and the relevant legislation.

We await your response and actions, and would like the opportunity to attend any

meeting where this planning decision is under discussion.”

Letter #13

“I write to you in respect to the recent S 18(4) planning application that has been

submitted by the Captain’s Bakery.

As an owner of a condominium at the adjacent Poinsettia Development and as a

lover of our beautiful islands I feel that you must look seriously at some of the

objections I will outline. Firstly, the signs during the day and more so at night

are visually overpowering, brash, cheap, taudry and more akin to a strip club in

the states. The size and colour of the signs even before they are illuminated is

excessive. When illuminated they are even worse. As a neighbour, these

illuminated signs act to light up the surrounding area well into the early hours of

the morning, add to this an ever-present audio nuisance from the outside TV.







17

This blares until the wee small hours. I cannot open the blinds never mind the

windows! The effect is exaggerated by the ongoing pruning of the trees. The

owners at Poinsettia have at their own expense, planted some indigenous shrubs,

which we hope over time, will grow and bring to this area some degree of the

natural Cayman, which we know and love.

I am certain that the planning department has been misled by the developers of

this site and it is not too late to put the situation right. Planning departments

throughout the western world deal with fast food franchises on a daily basis and

even the biggest of these is forced to sell their wares in premises that are

sympathetic to the local environment. Is this development the message that we

wish visitors to remember after their trip to Grand Cayman?”

Letter #14

“I write to express my views on the appearance of the Captain’s Bakery. I have

followed the stories in the local media and was surprised that the dome and signs

were still on the premises. I now understand that the Captain’s Bakery is

applying for planning permission for these signs (& dome). The current signs and

dome are out of keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood.

I would like to object to the planning application.”

Letter #15

“I write to you in respect to the recent S 18(4) planning application that has been

submitted by the Captain’s Bakery, this notice is dated 12/03/2003, previously i

received an application on 1/03/2003 which was dated 21/02/2003. In relation to

the first application, these applications were sent out to old/dated addresses

which did not comply with Section 18(4) of the Development and Planning Law

(1998 Revision) which requires that a land register is less than 60 days old. This

error was communicated to the planning department by fax on 6/03/2003.

Planning indicated that they would request the Captain’s bakery to re-sent these

notices (information relayed to me by a neighbour).

I spoke with planning on 21/03/2003 and they indicated that on 12/03/2003

applications were to addresses on the current land register, as of 21/03/2003, I

was not in receipt of my copy. As of today’s date, I am still not in receipt of this

letter.

As an owner of a condominium at the adjacent Poinsettia Development and as a

lover of our beautiful islands I feel that you must look seriously at some of the

objections I will outline. Firstly, the signs during the day and more so at night are

visually overpowering, brash, cheap, taudry and more akin to a strip club in the

states. The size and colour of the signs even before they are illuminated is

excessive. When illuminated they are even worse. As a neighbour, these

illuminated signs act to light up the surrounding area well into the early hours of

the morning, add to this an ever-present audio nuisance from the outside TV.

This blares until the wee small hours. I cannot open the blinds never mind the

windows! The effect is exaggerated by the ongoing pruning of the trees. The

owners at Poinsettia have at their own expense, planted some indigenous shrubs,







18

which we hope over time, will grow and bring to this area some degree of the

natural Cayman, which we know and love.

I am certain that the planning department has been misled by the developers of

this site and it is not too late to put the situation right. Planning departments

throughout the western world deal with fast food franchises on a daily basis and

even the biggest of these is forced to sell their wares in premises that are

sympathetic to the local environment. Is this development the message that we

wish visitors to remember after their trip to Grand Cayman?”

Letter #16

I am writing with respect to the recent S 18(4) planning application that was

submitted by the Captain’s Bakery and dated 12/03/2003. I had previously

received an application on 04/03/2003 which was dated 21/02/2003.

In regard to the first application, these application were sent out to old/dated

addresses which did not comply with Section 18(4) of the Development and

Planning Law (1998 Revision) which requires that they use a land register less

than 60 days old. This error was communicated to the planning department by

fax on 6/03/2003. Planning indicated that they would request the Captain’s

Bakery to re-send these notices. On 21/03/2003 I spoke with the planning

department and they indicated that on 12/03/2003 applications had been sent to

addresses on the current land register. As of March 21st I was not in receipt of

my copy. It was not until the week ending 25/03/2003 that I received my copy.

The purpose of this letter is to object to the planning application that has been

submitted for signage and also to address a number of other issues in relation to

the planning permission. As an owner and resident in the adjacent property, it is

both the visual appearance and illumination caused by the signs which I am

objecting to.

The application for signage is to include the illuminated dome like object, road

signs and illuminated awnings.

The “Guide to Submitting Applications For Sign or Advertisement” as issued by

the Central Planning Authority provides amongst others guidelines the following:

“Illuminated signs require the approval of the Electrical Inspectorate

prior to installation.

Internally flashing, lit or neon signs are discouraged.

The design of the sign(s) and the colour should blend with the aesthetics

on site and conform to the design of the surrounding buildings.”

The plans relevant to this planning application are the same as those that were

applied for in 2001 and are the same plans that were objected to in December

2001. They (the Captain’s Bakery) have made no attempt to modify the signs to

make them aesthetically pleasing or more suitable to the surrounding area and

buildings.

The signs, both during the day and night are extremely visual and gaudy. The







19

size and colour of the signs even before they are illuminated is excessive. When

illuminated they are even worse. As a neighbour, these illuminated signs act to

light up the surrounding area into the early hours of the morning. The effect has

been exaggerated by the ongoing pruning of the trees, which before they were

severely pruned in November 2001 had provided some form of natural buffer.

In a attempt to mitigate the effects of the lighting, the Poinsettia Strata has

planted some shrubs which we hope over time will grow and provide some degree

of a natural buffer.

Landscaping

Landscaping is an issue that does not seem to have been addressed in this or any

other planning application. The current landscaping is not in agreement with the

landscaping on the plans.

Other fast food franchises and signage:

While I was in Chamonix – France recently, I came across a McDonald’s fast

food restaurant. Unlike most of the McDonald’s restaurants that we are familiar

with, this one was not brandishing the illuminated logo, but instead it was subtlety

blended into the existing type of buildings. Despite being a fast-food restaurant

chain, it did not detract from the surrounding buildings or streets. The fact that it

did not display the typical oversized “golden arches” (the McDonald’s franchise

logo) did not seem to have any negative effect on business, as it was consistently

busy serving customers. A photograph is attached for your reference.

Planning Department’s Mission Statements:

”To ensure that all development applications are processed efficiently,

courteously, unbiased and in accordance with the development plans and

associated legislation so that the physical development of the Islands is

aesthetically pleasing, environmentally friendly, sustainable, technically sound,

promotes a strong economy, and provides an unparalled quality of life for

existing and for future generations”

The Planning Department’s Mission Statements, as quoted above, as well as

“Guide to Submitting Applications for SIGN OR ADVERTISEMENT” are the

reference tools used by objectors when appealing for change in a situation such

as this, with respect to the Captain’s Bakery we ask you to take into consideration

this guidance and ensure that the decision arrived at in the planning application

process complies with these guidelines.

At the next meeting of the CPA, I urge you to please consider the points that have

been raised in this letter. The Cayman Islands are a beautiful place to live, and

the are also islands that rely heavily on tourism, especially the higher end of the

tourist market. Developments should be undertaken to enhance the beauty of the

islands, to encourage tourism, and to encourage appreciation in real estate

values. If developments are allowed to go unregulated, then we will not only

loose many of the positive forces that the economy requires to thrive, but we also

contradict the own Mission Statements of the Central Planning Department.”









20

Letter # 17

“As an ex-resident of the Cayman Islands, who fell in love with the beauty of the

islands after almost four years resident there, I am upset and concerned at the

lack of planning being shown in respect of the dome on the Captain's Bakery.

Whilst I have no issue with the business itself and acknowledge its contribution to

the Cayman Islands economy, I do object 10 the lack of planning and disregard

shown by allowing the dome to be placed there. Specifically, large illuminated

signs and domes are not in keeping with the surrounding area., with the dome

being visually obtrusive, excessive and inappropriate for its location.

The Cayman islands have a rich culture and a unique architecture. Please

preserve it.”

Letter # 18

“I write to object to the ugly monstrosity of signage on, the Captain's Bakery

roof, the illuminated awnings and the neon road signs, in the strongest way

possible.

My family and I settled into this fair-island in 1972 and have witnessed the

disappearance of Cayman's culture in the past 30 years in the name of progress.

This itself is sad but fairly predictable and grudgingly acceptable, except for this

horrendous structure, totally out of place at the start of our Seven Mile Beach.

On an early night these vulgar lights shine directly into my front door and

bedroom windows until 1:30am, the weekends until 3:00 am, add to this the noise

of the outside television, customers cars with the radio blaring out and the variety

of cooking smells and I have a problem.

As well as the deterioration of the neighborhood the bakery is having a

detrimental effect on the-resale of Poinsettia Condominiums in this depressed real

estate atmosphere. Five apartments are presently up for sale and have attracted

nobody, despite 10-20% discounted prices,

Please restore my faith in good government and insist that these eye sores are

removed without delay, while upholding the principles of the Planning

Department Mission Statement and Guidelines for Signage.”

Letter # 19

“I have been led to believe that the abovementioned business has reapplied for

planning permission for all its signage. I am a tenant of Poinsettia and I find the

current signage particularly unpleasant to view. it appears as a lighthouse when

one views it from afar and is not in keeping with the character of the surrounding

buildings.

A signage of this character cannot be in the best interest of the Cayman Islands as

an expensive and prime tourist destination.

I am sure that a more pleasing signage can be used to attract customers and

maintain the required image that the Cayman Islands portray to its visitors.







21

Please consider the above when reviewing the planning reapplication so that we

can maintain the upmarket appeal of this island.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENTANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting permission for nine (9) after-the-fact signs, as follows:

• Two large, two-sided awning signs, one on each side of the building (4

signs faces total).

• Three door awnings, one on each side of the building and one on the front

of the building (three sign faces total).

• One main identifier sign.

• One rooftop (dome) sign.

The Planning Department has the following concerns:

• One main identifier sign: The size of the sign, as follows:

• The “face” of the sign is 10ft x 8ft or 80 sq. ft. This contravenes the

Authority’s general guideline of 32 sq. ft.

The “topper” on this sign ‘face’ adds an additional (approximate) 12 sq. ft.

The height of the sign is 24 feet. This contravenes the Authority guidelines of

20ft.

• One rooftop (dome) sign: The design of the sign, similar to a chef’s hat, is

not considered aesthetically pleasing. The total height, above the building,

is 12ft and the width across (diameter) the front is 18ft. This creates a

minimum surface (appearance) size of (12ft x 18ft) 216 sq. ft. This size

will overpower the view of the building and is absolutely not in keeping

with the Authority’s general preference for signage throughout the Island.

The following individuals appeared before the Authority at 1:45 p.m.

For the Applicant For the Objectors

Jeff Webb Robert Jones

Waide DaCosta Melanie Harris

Peter O’Neil

Alex Goulden

Louise Logue

David Logue

David Carmichael



Mr. DaCosta: We offered to limit hours of operations, but that was not good

enough for the objectors. No common ground was found. The Captain was very

disappointed. If mechanically possible, the roadside sign could be realigned. Our

efforts to compromise have been rejected.

Mr. Jones: I was not at the meeting with Mr. DaCosta. My clients object to all

signs. Our proposals were not accepted. The only compromise offered by the







22

Captain was to switch off the dome lighting at midnight. We object to the

illumination, size and number of signs. If illumination and size issues were

addressed, that would solve most of the problems expressed by my clients. We

should not be expected to accept the signs simply because the applicant has

permission to install landscaping. Landscaping has been severely trimmed to my

client’s detriment.

The primary issues are the dome and main identifier signs. The latter is 92 sq. ft.

in area rather than the 32 sq. ft. maximum allowable per the Planning

Department’s guidelines. If that sign was realigned 90o it would be more

acceptable.

CPA: What type of lighting is on the main identifier sign?

Mr. Webb: It is fluorescent lighting trimmed with neon.

Mr. Jones: The Captain will not compromise on the dome. He wants to keep it.

The dome is a main issue with my clients.

Mr. Webb: If illumination is a problem, why does the dome have to come down?

Is it the colour, or is it something else? There were three applications without

objections. Why objections now after two years? The dome does not have any

letters, so it is not a sign. It is lit by fluorescent lighting. We can dim its lights at

night and cut them off at midnight.

Mr. Jones: My clients do not find this acceptable. The size of the signs and their

aesthetics are objectionable. All signs are not needed. There is no other

development like this in Cayman. Again, planning guidelines appear to limit sign

sizes.

Mr. Webb: We spent $3 million on this development and we cannot see how it

can possibly devalue property in the area. The building was a dilapidated drug

house. We rehabilitated the site and now I am being told that my money is no

good.

Mr. Jones: My clients are pleased with the business but the signs don’t meet

planning guidelines. If they did, there would be no objections. Other countries

have ordinances limiting or prohibiting franchise appearance.

CPA: Is the dome lit equally on all sides?

Mr. Webb: The back of the dome has less illumination than the front.

CPA: Can a portion of the dome be blacked out?

Mr. Webb: Yes.

CPA: Are existing franchise signs characteristic of the area?

Mr. Jones: My clients do not think so.

Mr. Webb: We can dim part of the dome. They don’t like how it looks and want

it to come down. I like the dome and paid dearly for it. The landscaping has

grown and was retrimmed.

Mr. Goulden: We don’t want to close down the business. All we want is a





23

compromise. Turning off the dome at midnight is not acceptable. That is too late.

Ms Harris. : There are numerous objections to the aesthetics, particularly of the

dome which does not represent anything in Cayman. It is more a Las Vegas type

appearance. If we had known up front about the dome, we would have objected

then.

CPA: How many franchises exist?

Mr. Webb: There are six in Jamaica and one in Fort Lauderdale.

Mr. DaCosta: The whole development concept including the dome was

approved without objections.

Mr. Webb: The existing building had signs.

There being no further discussion, the Chairman thanked all for appearing. They

left at 2:22 p.m.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The Authority made efforts to have the applicant and objectors arrive at a

compromise. Both parties had indicated that they would try to do so. Based

on today’s representations, it appears that a compromise is not possible.

• The dome is considered a sign.

• The illumination at the site and in particular the dome is out of character with

the area. The illumination of all signs should be reduced by 50%.

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

condition:

1) The internal illumination of all exterior signage shall be reduced a

minimum of 50%. The applicant shall liaise with the Department on this

matter.

The Authority wishes to remind any aggrieved party of the right to appeal

pursuant to Section 51(1) of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision),

as amended in The Development and Planning (Amendment) Law, 2002. 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, along

the prescribed CI$50.00 filing fee, in the offices of the Permanent Secretary,

Planning, Communications, Works & Information Technology within the fourteen

(14) day period as stipulated in Section 51 (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.



3.0 NEW APPLICATIONS







24

3.01 LOUIS & SANDRA SOLOMON Block 13D Parcel 376 (F03-0060) (P03-0135)

($180,000) (EJ)

Application for a duplex (2x2).



FACTS

Location: Corner of Woodpecker Close and Cypros Road, Louis

Solomon Subdivision, off Eastern Avenue, George Town

Zoning: High Density Residential

Background: N/A

Existing Use: Vacant

Proposed Use: Duplex

Parcel Size: .21 Acre (9,147 sq. ft.)

Site Coverage: 24.10% (40% allowed)

Building Size: Existing – 0 Parking Required - 2

Proposed – 2204 sq. ft. Parking Proposed - 4

Total – 2204 sq. ft.



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting the Authority’s permission for the proposed two by

two bedroom, single storey duplex.

The proposal meets all planning requirements for coverage, density, lot size, lot

width, parking and all setbacks.



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

conditions:

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.

3) The parking lot shall be finished with concrete.

The applicant is reminded that the finished floor level should be at least five feet

(5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two ft (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].

The applicant is also reminded that a TV dish, fence, pool or sign is subject to a

separate application.

Provision must be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction







25

and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction

period.

The applicant shall provide adequate number of sanitary facilities during the

construction stage.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to

occupying the building.



3.02 PROPRIETORS OF STRATA PLAN NO. 73 Block 13B Parcel 193 (FA80-

0184) (P03-0307) (P03-0311) ($1,000) (JAB)

Application for a rope fence with signage.

Appearance at 4:55



FACTS

Location: Turtle Beach Villas beachfront, Seven Mile Beach

Zoning: Hotel Tourism

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent landowners

and two (2) objections were received (see “Objections”

below).

Proposed Use: Rope and wood fence with five (5) private property signs



OBJECTIONS

The following letter was submitted by two (2) different objectors.

Letter #1

“This letter is to object to the fencing of the beach and to the signs along the

beach on the following grounds:

1. Although the guests of Comfort Suites have the right of way to the beach and

the general public has the right of way thru our property to the beach, the

proposed fence would limit the movement and enjoy ability of people up ad

down the beach in this area.

2. The depth of the beach west of the proposed fence to the sea in front of this

property (known as Turtle Beach) and the Marriot is misrepresented on the

site plan. Everyone knows the Marriot has little to no beach and the proposed

fence is represented in the same location as the Marriot seawall.

3. Fences of this nature have been turned down and enforced against in the past.

The CPA should not entertain an application of this nature.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting permission to erect a 3’-6” high rope and wood fence

with five (5) “private property” signs on the beachfront of the Turtle Beach Villa

condominium development. The Department would like to point out that we have







26

no objection to the proposed location of the proposed fence as it is a logical

extension from the Marriot seawall and the existing Turtle Beach pool deck.

However, the Department does not support fences and signage of any kind along

Seven Mile Beach and this is evident by the fact that similar applications have

been refused in the past and if deemed to be after-the-fact, enforcement action

taken. The Department empathizes with the applicant with regard for the need to

demarcate and protect their private property; however, the Department does not

endorse the way in which they are trying to achieve it. The Department is of the

opinion that fencing the beach and private property signage is not the image that

the Cayman Islands is trying to portray and therefore the applicant should seek an

alternative way of demarcating and protecting their private property.

An Enforcement Notice was appealed to the Summary Court regarding a rope

fence. The Court upheld the Enforcement Notice and found the appellant guilty.

The following individuals appeared before the CPA at 4:55 p.m.

For the Applicant For the Objectors

Burns Connoly Burns Rutty

Charles Quinn

Dr. Kirnum

Eustace Spence



Mr. Connoly: The Magistrate’s ruling affirmed my client’s private property

rights. The fence has been erected on and off for eighteen years. We are trying to

protect the privacy of our development. Neighbours chairs are being placed on

our client’s property. The property is being abused. Sand in this area moves back

and forth. The fence is similar to that of the Governor’s. The main purpose is to

identify private versus public space.

Dr. Kirnum: I first visited the Cayman Islands in 1972. We purchased at this

property in 1985. We spend three to four months here annually, spending our

money on food, transportation, etc. Over the years the fence has been replaced

several times. It’s purpose is to minimize trespassing. The land is subject to

severe abuse. The fence helps to solve that problem.

Mr. Conolly: When the application for the fence was made, we were told by the

Department that it would not pass. That is perturbing to me. We ask the

Authority’s consideration for a non impact fence that protects the privacy of my

clients.

CPA: How many units are at Turtle Beach?

Mr. Conolly: There are twenty-three units.

Mr. Rutty: The Magistrate’s ruling affirmed that the fence was subject to

planning permission and never had it. The fence keeps washing out because it is

erected too close to the sea. We have a general objection to the fence.

Caymanian easement rights need to be protected. We made our public easement

at Comfort Suites accessible. This fence will set an undersirable precedent.

Caymanians should be free to access the beach. The easement was blocked by







27

Turtle Beach.

Mr. Conolly: There was a gate between Turtle Beach and Comfort Suites.

Mr. Quinn: The easement has never been blocked.

CPA: How much beach exist between the intended fence location and the sea.

Mr. Rutty: There is no room for a fence. The water is too close.

Mr. Conolly: As you know, water has reached the wall. The right-of-way as

illustrated on the site plan is not blocked. It is left open. If the fence has been in

place over three years, it should be outside the CPA’s jurisdiction. There is

walking room between the fence and the sea. The right to privacy of my clients

should be considered.

There being no further discussion, the Chairman thanked all for appearing. They

left at 5:15 p.m.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The Magistrate’s ruling affirmed that the fence was subject to planning

permission each time it was erected.

• Public access rights to and along the beach must be protected.

• The fence would further restrict public access along the beach.



Decision: It was resolved to refuse planning permission, for the following

reason:

1) Due to its proposed setback the fence would further restricts access along

Seven Mile Beach, contrary to Part 2.3(c) of the Development Plan 1997.

The Authority wishes to remind the applicant of the right to appeal pursuant to

Section 51(1) of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision), as

amended in the Development and Planning (Amendment) Law, 2002. 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 along

with the prescribed CI$50.00 filing fee, in the offices of the Permanent Secretary,

Planning, Communication, Works & Information Technology within the fourteen

(14) day period as stipulated in Section 51(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.



3.03 GEORGE EBANKS Block 4B Parcel 323 (F03-0133) (P03-0345)($6,000)

(JAB)

Application for a five (5) lot subdivision.









28

FACTS

Location: Off Finch Drive, West Bay

Zoning: High Density Residential

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served to adjacent property

owners and no objections were received

Existing Use: Vacant

Proposed Use: Subdivision

Proposed Lot Sizes: Lot A =34,850 sq. ft.; Lot B = 7,970 sq. ft., Lot C = 16,300,

Lot D (road parcel) = 7,300 sq. ft., Lot E (road parcel BP

303) = 15,480 sq. ft.



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting permission to subdivide parcel 323 into five (5) lots,

A-E. Lots A, B, and C are the proposed development parcels and meet minimum

lot size requirements. Lots D and E are proposed road parcels, lot D is proposed

to be a continuation of road parcel 601 and is proposed to be 30’-0” wide. Lot E

is also a road parcel and is dedicated for BP 303 a continuation of Finch Drive

which passes through the property. The Department has no objection to this

proposal.



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

conditions:

1) Lot D (road parcel) shall have a minimum of a 30’ demarcated road parcel

and shall be constructed with asphaltic concrete and approved by the

Director of Planning prior to the lots being registered. The applicant shall

liaise with the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, at

predetermined stages of road construction to ensure compliance with the

requisite standards. Failure to do so may render the project unacceptable.

2) The surveyor’s final drawing shall be submitted to the Planning

Department for approval prior to the survey being registered.



3.04 LIGHTHOUSE POINTE Block 10A Parcel 69 Rem 1 (F03-0043) (P03-0091)

($6,500) (JAB)

Application for a community gate.

Mr. Fred Whittaker declared his interest and left the room.

Appearance at 3:45



FACTS

Location: End of Yacht Drive, CI Yacht Club, off West Bay Road

Zoning: Low Density Residential







29

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent landowners

and two (2) objections were received (see “Objections”

below).

Proposed Use: 8’-0” high community gate



OBJECTIONS

Letter #1

“We hereby submit our objection to the above noted planning application.

Our view is that it is not necessary to have a gated community at this location and

we do not understand the need for gates. In addition we do not see how proper

gates would be installed unless they are wired to every household and can be

accessed by coded numbers. This is not the concept we were told about and

anything short of this is, in our view, dangerous as emergency vehicles will have

difficulty accessing as well as the usual service vehicles.

There are only 8 actual homes in this location within the gates. We do not see

how the homeowners who wish to have these gates can possibly obtain planning

permission without dealing with all of the owners in the Yacht Club.

If the issue is security we do not see how gates can possibly increase security.

These lots are surrounded by water and anyone seeking to break and enter is

certainly not going to be discouraged by the gates.

The area is a popular place for joggers and cyclists. Installing gates would

interfere with those activities, which are enjoyed by many, simply to

accommodate the whims of a few. Gates are premature, costly and not necessary

in our opinion. We object.”

Letter #2

“We refer to the “Notice of Application for Planning Permission”, dated 3rd April

2003, regarding the installation of community gates at the entrance to what is

known as ‘Lighthouse Pointe’.

We object to the proposed installation of gates on the following grounds:-

Recreational Use

The Yacht Club Development is used extensively by joggers, walkers and cyclists

because it represents a safe, relatively traffic free environment. The installation

of gates will act as both a visual and physical barrier to all of these recreational

users.

Security

We can only assume that certain residents believe the gates necessary for security

reasons. We would disagree. We have owned property in Lighthouse Pointe for

five years and are not aware of any attempted break-ins during that time. Whilst

we acknowledge that opportunist crime is on the increase, we believe that

Lighthouse Pointe, being 1-1/4 miles from the main road, does not represent fair

game for opportunists.





30

Road Safety

Again, we can only assume that certain residents believe the gates necessary for

road safety reasons. Having two young children of our own, the subject of road

safety is close to our hearts. However, we firmly believe the installation of 2 – 3

speed bumps, one at the entrance and 1 – 2 equidistant between the entrance and

roundabout would be a more acceptable solution to the road safety issue.

Isolation

Finally, if the gates are to be installed as a means of isolating Lighthouse Pointe

from the local community, we would disagree. Why change what we have found

to be an extremely pleasant, trouble free living environment?”



LETTERS OF SUPPORT

Letter #1

“I am writing to add my support to this application. We would very much like to

have a gated entrance to Lighthouse Pointe for several reasons.

Firstly, to stop people from hand-line fishing from Lighthouse Pointe. In the past

I have had to go and ask people to extinguish small fires they have set and to

collect litter and bottles left abandoned. In spite of changes to the law people still

hand-line fish from this area because it is somewhat out of the way.

Secondly, learner drivers. Many times we have people learning to drive in our

neighbourhood, without the proper learner plates. This is dangerous for our

children.

Thirdly, late night rendezvous. Cars come and park on the vacant lots late at

night looking for a quite spot. This is a family neighborhood and these people

should know better.

All but one house at Lighthouse Pointe has children. There is no sidewalk or

pavement for them to play or ride their bicycles. The only place is the street.

Having the gates will permit only residents and guests access.

Access will not be an issue with a special code (say *911) for emergency vehicles.

I truly hope that this application meets with your approval.”

Letter #2

I have resided in the Yacht Club for 3 years. Over that time I have noticed a

marked increase in traffic, particularly speeding vehicles. I feel that the situation

has escalated to the point that I am reluctant to allow my daughter to play near

the road even if she is escorted.

In my opinion, the addition of a gate at the entrance of Lighthouse Pointe will

greatly reduce the risk of an accident caused by a speeding car and will not

impair the flow of traffic since the gate would be at the end of the Yacht Club

Drive.

We appreciate your consideration to this matter.”







31

Letter #3

“We are the owners of Block 10A Parcel 113, this is to acknowledge that we

support the construction of the community gate for Lighthouse Pointe.”



LETTER FROM APPLCANT

“This is to inform you that the Lighthouse Pointe Residents at Yacht Drive in

Cayman Yacht Club is applying for a proposed community gate. Please find

attached proposed gate perspective and location plan. The construction of the

gate will be where the existing columns are which was built for the purpose of

having a gate on the first place.

The gate will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and will be closed at night.

May the above request be considered and approved by your office.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting permission to erect an 8’-0” high community gate near

the end of Yacht Drive. The Department would like to point out that similar

applications for community gates have been approved in the past, such as Canal

Point, Vista Del Mar and Crystal Harbour. The Department has always objected

to the gates. There are other means of addressing the issues “sleeping

policemen”, the RCIP, installing sidewalks etc. As can be seen in the letters

above, some residents support the gate application and some residents are against.

Messrs. Ian Dawson-James and Peter Broadhurst appeared at 3:43 p.m. for

the applicant and objectors respectively.

Mr. Dawson-James: The gate is needed for various reasons. We would like our

kids to feel and be more secure when they are playing on the street, as there is no

other place to play. We would also like to discourage incidental traffic such as

learner drivers, late night lovers and illegal hand line fishing. There was even a

bonfire in dry season. To allow easy emergency entry there would be no coded

access. The gate will open automatically when anyone drives up.

CPA: There appears to be sixteen lots at Lighthouse Pointe. How many

proprietors object?

Mr. Broadhurst: There are at least two objectors. I don’t know where or how

the applicant obtained the authority to apply for the gate.

Mr. Dawson-James: I am an owner. We owners discussed the issue of a gate.

Two posts were already in place for years now. I was asked to appear before the

CPA by the original applicant.

Mr. Broadhurst: Objections are on several grounds. There is no strata

association, so the authority of the applicant to apply is questionable. How will

the gate be paid for? People use the area for recreational purposes and the gate

will restrict such activity. That is not desirable. The gate will do little or nothing

for security. Kids use the entire area for recreation. If gates are to be installed, all

lots should have access. There is no turnaround space at the gate.







32

Mr. Dawson-James: That is why there is no keypad access. The gate would not

be locked.

There being no further discussion, the Chairman thanked all for appearing. They

left at 3:55 p.m.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• There was no evidence that all subdivision proprietors wanted the gate. There

is evidence that at least two proprietors object to the gate.

• The gate is unlikely to be a significant security deterrent mechanism, as lots

have open canal boundaries.

• The lack of turnaround space at the gate is a concern. This violates

Regulation 24(b). There is no satisfactory turning means for motorists at the

gate.



Decision: It was resolved to refuse the application, for the following reasons:

1) There is no vehicular turning space at the proposed gate in contravention

of Regulation 24(b).

2) The Authority did not find that the reasons proposed for the gate had

sufficient merit to warrant planning permission.

3) The Authority found objections to the gate valid.

The Authority wishes to remind the applicant of the right to appeal pursuant to

Section 51(1) of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision), as

amended in the Development and Planning (Amendment) Law, 2002. 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 along

with the prescribed CI$50.00 filing fee, in the offices of the Permanent Secretary,

Planning, Communication, Works & Information Technology within the fourteen

(14) day period as stipulated in Section 51(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.



3.05 PEDRO CASTLE Block 32E Parcel 50 (F95-0190) (P03-0253) ($40,000) (RS)

Application for a bar extension, store room, porch extension, gazebo and deck

extension.



FACTS

Location: Pedro St. James, Savannah

Zoning: Institutional









33

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices and 2 advertisements and no

objections received.

Background: No prior CPA action on this application

Existing Use: Pedro St. James (restaurant, bar, “nightclub” attractions,

etc.)

Proposed Use: See above

Parcel Size: 7.6 acres

Site Coverage: Building = 4.4 %

Building Size: Proposed – 1,088 sq. ft.



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking various additions to the existing visitors center complex.

The proposal would generate a need for a further 6 parking spaces, however, there

are 60 existing spaces and this would more than comply with minimum

requirements during normal operational hours. However, during events (private

and public) the 60 spaces are inadequate. Another key issue for the Authority’s

consideration is that of seaside setbacks. The existing shoreline is a high,

ironshore bluff. The setbacks of the existing structures to the bluff range from 12’

to 32’. The proposed additions would result in setbacks of between 3’ to 5’ from

the edge of the bluff. The Authority should consider whether these minimal

setbacks are acceptable with respect to the following:

• Adequacy of parking spaces.

• The visual appearance from the sea.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The applicant should be advised that additional parking will be required for

any future development



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

conditions:

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.

Provision must be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction

and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction

period.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to







34

occupying the building.

The applicant is advised that additional parking will be required for any future

development (excluding the subject application).



3.06 INDONESIAN INVESTMENTS LTD. Block 14E Parcel 12 (F75-0105) (P03-

0330) ($10,000) (RS)

Application to fill an existing salt water pool/basin.



FACTS

Location: Coastline Towers on South Church Street, George Town

Zoning: Beach Resort Residential

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served to adjacent property

owners and no objections were received.

Background: CPA/10/00; permission granted to improve the salt water

pool/basin; to construct a walkway over the ironshore and

to erect a 20” high aluminum railing on top of an existing

16” high wall.



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

As noted above, in 2000, the Authority granted permission to allow the landowner

to “improve” the existing salt water basin. The improvement involved minor jack

hammering of the ironshore and the installation of a pvc pipe connection through

the ironshore plug to the sea. The purpose of the exercise was to improve the

flushing of the basin in order to prevent stagnant water and the breeding of

mosquitoes.

The applicant is now indicating that this previous exercise was not successful and

did not solve the problem of stagnant water and mosquito breeding. In an effort

to find a final solution to the problem, the applicant now intends to fill the basin

and then pour a concrete slab over the top. Although not indicated by the

applicant, the slab would/could act as a patio deck over the ironshore. The

Authority should consider the following issues:

• Whether it is appropriate to fill the existing natural feature.

• Whether the setbacks of the potential deck from the ironshore ranging

from 19’ to 56’ are acceptable.

The CPA further discussed the following:

The application appeared acceptable.



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







35

accordance with the approved plans



3.07 WATER AUTHORITY - CAYMAN Block 58A Parcel 51 Rem 1 (F02-0214)

(P03-0342) $6,000 (RS)

Application for a two lot subdivision.



FACTS

Location: Botanic Road

Zoning: Low Density Residential

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices served to adjacent property

owners and no objections were received

Background: No prior CPA action on this application

Existing Use: Vacant

Proposed Lot Sizes: Lot A = 15 acre; Lot B = 29 acre



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The subject lands front on a public road, Botanic Road, and the applicant is proposing to

subdivide a new parcel of 15 acres (lot A), leaving a remainder parcel of 29 acres (lot B). The

applicant has indicated that the intended use of lot A is for a future water production and storage

facility. This proposed use will, of course, require a separate application for planning permission

including the requisite notification and polling of adjacent land owners and advertisements in the

newspaper. As the current subdivision proposal more than complies with minimum

requirements, any issues pertaining to the future water production facility should be reserved

until an application for such a use has been submitted. Further, as approval of a subdivision does

not confer any expectation for approval of a future land use application, the Department has no

particular concern with the current proposal for a two lot subdivision.



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

condition:

1) The surveyor’s final drawing shall be submitted to

the Planning Department for approval prior to the survey

being registered.

The applicant is reminded that approval of the subdivision does not confer any

future approval for development of the subject lots. Separate applications for

planning permission are required for any development of the lots.



3.08 MALYK/ HOUSTON Block 24B Parcel 17 (F96-0153) (P03-0361) ($0) (CF)

Application for after-the-fact additions to a duplex and an after-the-fact cabana.



FACTS

Location: Viers Close, Off Whirlwind Drive, Spotts









36

Zoning: Low Density Residential

Background: CPA/23/96; Item 2.5 – approval for four bedroom duplex

and pool

CPA/04/97; Item 9.01– approval to issue C.O.

December 6th, 2002 – admin. approval for storage addition

Floor Area: Existing approved - 3,243 sq. ft.

After-the-fact: 994 sq. ft.

Site Coverage: (Including after-the-fact structures and additions): 24.87%



LETTER FROM APPLICANT

“Please be advised that we as owners of Block 24B Parcel 17 are requesting a

two (2) foot variance to allow for a structure that is in existence on our land.”



LETTER FROM ADJACENT LANDOWNER

“Please be advised that as landowners adjacent to Block 24B Parcel 17, we are

not adverse to the existing structure “cabana” that is existing.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking planning permission for an after-the-fact cabana and

after-the-fact additions to a duplex.

When a Strata Plan was submitted to the Department to be signed by the Director

of Planning, the as-built additions were brought to the Department’s attention.

Accordingly, the applicant was advised that the additions would have to be

approved by the Central Planning Authority prior to the Strata Plans being

approved.

The nature of the additions has been by way of turning attic/roof space into

habitable area with a balcony extending over the ground floor patio area. A site

visit confirmed that the converted attic space is being used as a storage area/den

and no additional plumbing or electrical has been added.

The after-the-fact cabana is a 12’-0” x 12’-0” wooden structure which is hardly

visible since there is extensive mature vegetation on the site. However, it only has

eight feet (8’-0”) setbacks from both the road and adjacent property. Accordingly,

the applicant is requesting a variance of two feet (2’-0”) on the setback from the

side boundary and has included a letter of consent from the adjacent landowner.

Since the after-the-fact additions are within all of the allowances under

Regulation 8 (8) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision),

the Department’s major concern with the development is the “build and apply

later” attitude that is becoming prevalent.



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

conditions:







37

1) The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief

Building Control Officer for the after-the-fact additions to the duplex.

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.



3.09 GODFREY VASSELL Block 43E Parcel 91 (F03-0162) (P03-0410) ($64,000)

(CF)

Application for an after-the-fact house.



FACTS

Location: Sitwell Road, Belford Estates, Bodden Town

Zoning: Low Density Residential

Existing Buildings: Existing residence (under application)

Parcel Size: 0.23 ac (10,018.8 sq. ft.)

Required - 12,500 sq. ft.

Site Coverage: 8.38%

Building Size: 840 sq. ft (existing) Parking Required - 1

Parking Proposed - 1



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking planning permission for a two-bedroom, after-the-fact

timber house on the subject lot. It should be noted that this is an older subdivision

and there are quite a few existing undersized lots in the area. The development

meets all other requirements under Section 8 (8) of the Development and Planning

Regulations (1998 Revision).



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

conditions:

1) The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief

Building Control Officer.

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) on

completion of the building.









38

3.010 MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY SERVICES Block 7C Parcel 11 (F03-0082)

(P02-0193) ($450,000) (CF)

Application for a public park.



FACTS

Location: English Point, near Smith Cove, South Sound

Zoning: Beach Resort Residential

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent landowners

and no objections were received.

Existing Buildings: (Existing structures to remain) 5,799 sq. ft.

Proposed Buildings: 864 sq. ft. (cabanas) 3,100 sq. ft. outdoor dining area

Footprint: (Proposed cabanas and existing houses) 6,664 sq. ft.

Parcel Size: 3.50acres (152,460 sq. ft.)

Site Coverage: 4.3% (buildings), Parking - 6%, Total: 10.45%

Parking Required: Recreational facilities - 19.16 spaces (Planning Guidelines)

15.32 spaces (ITE recom.)

Outdoor Theatre - 43.33 spaces (Planning Guidelines)

67.5 spaces (ITE recom.)

Superintendents Quarters -1 space

Total - 63.49 spaces with 3 handicap spaces (Planning

Guidelines)

83.82 spaces with 4 handicap spaces

(ITE recom.)

Parking Proposed: 22 spaces (includes 1 handicap space)



AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Chief Environmental Health Officer, Water Authority and

Chief Engineer are provided below.



Chief Environmental Health Officer

“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:

1. The applicant should submit further information on the type of food

preparation proposed before adequate comments can be made on the design

of the kitchen and an assessment made as to whether the proposal meets the

department’s guidelines for the type of food preparation facility proposed.

2. The onsite site solid waste facility must be designed to accommodate a front-

end loading vehicle.









39

3. The minimum internal dimensions of the facility should be 10 ft by 10 ft.

4. If gates are installed on the enclosure they must be provide 10 ft clear space

to allow access to facilitate servicing of the container.

5. Provision must be made for accessing the enclosure from inside the park.

6. The enclosure must be designed and located in accordance with the

department’s guidelines.”



Water Authority

“Please be advised that this development will be approved upon compliance with

the following requirements:

• The developer shall provide an on-site aerobic wastewater treatment system

with a treatment capacity of at least 5,000 US gallons per day (gpd). The

required capacity is based on the following:

• In addition, two grease interceptors shall be installed in series, with a liquid

volume of at least 1,250 US gallons each, to treat the wastewater from the

kitchen sinks prior to discharging into the treatment system. The grease

interceptor shall be constructed in accordance with the Water Authority

standards.

• The treatment system shall be designed to produce an effluent quality of 30

mg/l BOD5 and 30 mg/l Suspended Solids.

• Prior to installation, the developer shall provide detailed information on the

proposed treatment system to the Water Authority for approval.

• Adequate area shall be reserved for the treatment system. The location shall

comply with the minimum setback requirements of the Planning Department.

Special consideration shall be given to the elevation of the treatment system,

relative to the elevation of the local water table.

• All treated effluent shall be discharged into a disposal well. The disposal 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 system shall be at an elevation to allow gravity-flow discharge

of the treated effluent into the disposal 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 system. 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 system 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 Water Authority’s supply







40

system upon request by the owner.”



Chief Engineer

“PWD has no objection to this proposal.”



Response to Agency Comments

The Planning Department is in agreement with most of the comments made by the

various departments. Should the application be approved, these comments should

be taken into consideration as conditions prior to the issuance of a Final

Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy).

The comments made by the Chief Environmental Health Officer regarding the

kitchen facilities were further discussed based on the intended use of the kitchen

(to be leased for private functions as opposed to a full commercial kitchen). The

applicant was made aware of those comments regarding the solid waste facility

and asked to provide revised plans to address the various requirements.

The Department also further liaised with the Chief Engineer in pointing out that

the proposed sidewalk had been shown within the demarcated forty feet (40’-0”)

road boundary. The Chief Engineer confirmed that they would not allow the

sidewalk in the forty feet (40’-0”) corridor unless there was approval by the

Ministry of Planning, Communications, Works and Information Technology to

allow the sidewalk to remain as proposed. The applicant was also made aware of

this concern and was left to contact the requisite Ministry in order to address the

situation.



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking planning permission to develop a public park comprised

of six cabanas, an outdoor theatre, outdoor dining areas and a children’s

playground tied together with landscaping and pathways. Two existing residences

are proposed to remain on the site, one as the superintendents quarters while the

other is to be renovated for recreational facilities to include a kitchen, offices,

storage and public restrooms.

All existing and proposed structures satisfy setback requirements. However, the

original drawings that were submitted did not detail various issues including:

• Storm water drainage collection

• Pavement type

• Specific layout of overflow parking area and

• Details of locations and types of sewage disposal

As such, the Department met with the agent to discuss the various concerns. It is

intended that landscaping at the front of each parking space would aid in the

collection of storm water while the driveway slopes appropriately to divert water

to these areas.

There are existing septic tanks on the site which currently serve the existing

residences. These are intended to remain and will be shown on a revised drawing







41

along with a more specific layout for the overflow parking area and annotations

regarding the proposed pavement type. While detailing the overflow parking area

and addressing the comments regarding the solid waste facility, the applicant

would also need to finalize the width of the second gated entry. Since the original

drawings do not show enough width for two-way traffic, this access would either

have to be designated as a one way entry or exit or widened to a minimum of

twenty-two feet (22’).

It was anticipated that most of these issues could be addressed sufficiently. The

Department’ two main concerns were the proposed location of the sidewalk and

the proposed number of parking spaces.

The applicant has agreed to show the sidewalk within the property boundaries for

the time being. Should the Ministry agree to allow the sidewalk within the

demarcated road boundary, given PWD’s recommendations on whether it is

anticipated to widen the road in this area, the applicant would relocate the

sidewalk to the original location.

The parking spaces calculated are based on a similar use of a recreation hall for

the recreational facilities (1/200 sq. ft.), one space minimum for the

superintendent’s quarters and a 260 seat capacity (based on the dimensions of the

outdoor theatre) using guidelines for a movie theatre. Based on these numbers and

should the theatre be occupied to its maximum capacity, it is clear that the

proposed parking would not be sufficient. It is not the intention of the Department

to require extensive parking that would turn the proposed park into a parking lot.

In the hopes that a reasonable number for parking spaces can be reached, the

Department has therefore provided a comparison on parking requirements

between the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision) guidelines

and ITE recommendations for the Authority’s review.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The proposed development should improve the condition of the site.

• The site plan should be revised at an appropriate scale to address the

alignment of the garbage skiff, the gate setback a minimum of fifteen feet

from the front property boundary, the setback deficiency of a cabana, and lack

of reversing space for parking space number 15.



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

conditions:

In addition to Building Permit requirements, conditions (1-2) listed below shall be

met before a Building Permit can be issued.

1) The applicant shall submit a revised site plan at an acceptable scale (1/20

or 1/30) illustrating the following information at a minimum:

a) The solid waste facility realigned to eliminate conflicts with

parking spaces.

b) All cabanas setback a minimum of fifteen feet (15’) from the side







42

property boundaries.

c) Access/reversing space for parking space number 15.

d) The entry gate must be shown recessed a minimum of fifteen ft.

(15’) from the property boundary line.

2) The applicant shall submit a landscape plan that shall be subject to review

and approval by the Director of Planning.

3) 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.

4) 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 (5-27) shall be complied

with before a final Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

5) The onsite site solid waste facility must be designed to accommodate a

front-end loading vehicle.

6) The minimum internal dimensions of the solid waste facility shall be 10 ft

by 10 ft.

7) If gates are installed on the solid waste enclosure they must be provide 10

ft clear space to allow access to facilitate servicing of the container.

8) Provision must be made for accessing the solid waste enclosure from

inside the park.

9) The solid waste enclosure must be designed and located in accordance

with the Department’s guidelines.

10) The applicant shall provide an on-site aerobic wastewater treatment

system with a treatment capacity of at least 5,000 US gallons per day

(gpd) based on the capacity chart as per the Water Authority.

11) In addition, two grease interceptors shall be installed in series, with a

liquid volume of at least 1,250 US gallons each, to treat the wastewater

from the kitchen sinks prior to discharging into the treatment system. The

grease interceptor shall be constructed in accordance with the Water

Authority standards.

12) The treatment plant shall be designed to produce an effluent quality of 30

mg/l BOD5 and 30 mg/l Suspended Solids.

13) Prior to installation, the applicant shall provide detailed information on the

proposed treatment system to the Water Authority for approval.

14) Adequate area shall be reserved for the treatment system. The location

shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the Planning









43

Department. Special consideration shall be given to the elevation of the

treatment system, relative to the elevation of the local water table.

15) All treated effluent shall be discharged into a disposal well. The disposal

well shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Water 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.

16) The treatment system shall be at an elevation to allow gravity-flow

discharge of the treated effluent into the disposal 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.

17) The treatment system shall have easy access for operation, maintenance

and inspection.

18) The main ingress/egress point a minimum of 22’ with 15’ internal radius

curves drawn on each side of the driveway to allow for proper vehicular

turning movement.

19) The parking lot and driveway aisles shall be surfaced with crusher run

and tire stops shall be provided for each parking space.

20) The building and environs shall facilitate usage by the handicapped,

including handicapped ramps and parking. The handicapped parking

space(s) shall be marked with an identifying sign at the face of the stall.

21) Curbing shall be provided for the parking areas to control storm water

runoff.

22) 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 shall be provided. Construction of the sidewalk, drain and

driveway shall be in accordance with the Public Works Department

standards.

23) Prior to construction of a sidewalk the applicant shall liaise with the

appropriate agency to remove any object(s) that would impede or obstruct

pedestrian or vehicular movement. This includes, but is not limited to

Caribbean Utilities Company, Cable & Wireless, Water Authority,

Cayman Water Company and Public Works Department.

24) A storm water drainage system, complete with construction details, as

approved by the Public Works Department, shall be installed on site to

accommodate storm water runoff and roof runoff.

25) No storm water can be disposed of into the existing canal, lake, pond or

sea unless treated in a manner approved by the Environmental Health

Department.







44

26) The applicant should make the necessary arrangements to provide the

following during the construction period:

a) adequate sanitary facilities (one toilet for each 15 persons),

b) adequate supply of potable water (including drinking water),

c) well equipped first-aid kit

27) The applicant shall provide for removal of solid waste including

construction and demolition waste from the site on a regular basis during

construction period. (For disposal of hazardous and/or toxic substances

please contact the Department of Environment).

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to

occupying the building.

The applicant is reminded that a TV dish, fence, pool or sign is subject to a

separate application.



3.011 ENA V. FORBES Block 72B Parcel 45 (F91-0137) (P03-0243) ($69,750) (BES)

Application for loft addition to an existing house.

Appearance at 4:40



FACTS

Location: John McLean Drive, East End

Zoning: Medium Density Residential.

Background May 15, 1991 (CPA/12/91; Item 2.9), the Authority

granted planning permission for dwelling house with

conditions.

Proposed Use: Same as above

Parcel Size: 30,671 s/f

Site Coverage: 12.1%

Building Size: Existing - 3,704 sq. ft.

Proposed - 930 sq. ft.

Footprint - 3,704 sq. ft.

Total - 4,634 sq. ft.



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting planning permission to construct a loft addition to an

existing dwelling house, which would consist of three-bedrooms. In support of

the application, the applicant has submitted a letter of variance and letter of

consent from the affected landowner as follows:









45

LETTER OF VARIANCE

“We have submitted an application for our client Mr.& Mrs. Dalton Dunkley for

the proposed addition to create a loft area which consist of three bedroom and 3

bathroom on the above mentioned parcel, with the setbacks of the property line

being less than the minimum required by the Development and Planning

(Amendment) Regulations, 1997. On the south boundary the setback is presently

4' - 3 " (15’ - 0") and the west (rear) boundary 3’ - 4" (20' - 0") and the east

(front) boundary the setback at present is 19' - 8" (20' - 0"). With this residence

being an existing building we request a Variance of the east, west and south

setbacks to permit the proposed addition to the said building.

We would appreciate the Board's favorable response to our request.”



LETTER FROM AFFECTED LANDOWNER

“I wish to advise that my property adjoins that of Mr. Mrs. Dunkley (72B 45) to

the West.

I am aware of their plans to add on upstairs of their existing home and do not in

any way object to these plans

For any further information, I may be contacted via phone number 947-7415.”

Although the applicant has obtained approval from the affected proprietor

(72B/47), the Department is concerned that the proposed setbacks would set a

precedent for similar applications if the Authority sees fit to approve the

application.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• Due to its design, the development proposed would have negligible additional

impact on the property or surrounding area.

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

conditions:

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.

Provision must be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction

and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction

period.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to

occupying that part of the building.









46

3.012 TEXACO CARIBBEAN INC. Block 14CJ Parcel 122 (F03-0105) (516/90)

(P03-0268) ($3,855) (EJ)

Application for 6’ chain link fence.

Appearance at 4:27



FACTS

Location: Shedden Road, George Town

Zoning: Commercial

Background: July 20, 1977 the Authority approved a temporary gas

station.

August 3, 1977 the Authority approved a service station.

January 9, 1991 (CPA/01/91; item 7.3) the Authority

approved the renovations of existing service station.

October 16, 1991 (CPA/26/91; item 4.3) the Authority

approved four signs.

October 16, 1991 (CPA/26/91; item 4.2) the Authority

amended planning permission to relocate a trash enclosure.

Existing Use: Texaco Gas Station

Proposed Use: Fence

Parcel Size: .3803 (16,565 sq. ft.)

Site Coverage: N/A

Building Size: N/A



LETTER FROM APPLICANT’S AGENT

“On behalf of Texaco Caribbean Inc., we submit this letter in an effort to clarify

the concerns of the Planning Department, specifically E. Jackson planner for the

project.

We wish to request, that the CPA, consider the proposed new six foot (6’) chain-

link fence due to the following reasons:

1. Security

Currently, the site is not fenced, and during the course of the night the site has

intruders from the adjacent properties, which are primarily nightclub

oriented. The proprietor of the Texaco Station has complained to the head

office, due to the fact that he cannot control the situation at night with the

present security measures. Even though the situation may be handled by

removing the nuisance (persons) from the site, the disruptive persons continue

to loiter with the added annoyance of lour car stereos on the boundary lines

(meanly the two sides and rear) of the station. A six-foot (6’) fence would aid

in preventing this problem by discouraging loitering. The reason for a six-







47

foot (6’) fence is to discourage individuals from jumping the fence from

adjacent properties onto the Texaco site as ease of means. Also, it will

increase security on the property and encourage additional customers to

utilize the station at night.

2. Parking

In addition, customer’s from the adjacent properties is utilizing the parking

spaces on the Texaco site as ease of means. This in return prevents and

discourages customers to use the Texaco station. A six-foot (6’) fence would

discourage cross-site parking (patrons & employees of adjacent properties)

from using the parking spaces and encourage potential customers to visit this

station.

In general, a six-foot fence will increase security dramatically, especially at the

rear of the station and prevent misuse of the existing parking. Furthermore, this

fence may increase a peace of mind (comfort zone) to female customers,

especially at night.

We look forward to your approval of this project. Please do not hesitate to

contact our office should you have any questions or require additional

information.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking the Authority permission to locate a six-foot green pvc

coated galvanized fence around the perimeter of the subject parcel. The proposed

fence would encircle the property on the northern side boundary around the

western rear boundary to the southern side boundary adjoining the sidewalks on

the road edge.

The Department is of the opinion that the proposed would set precedent for the

area. This type of fencing does not contribute to the urban fabric and will detract

from the amenity of the area.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The fence appears out of character for the area. Eight feet chainlink fences are

more suitable to certain industrial areas. The fence height would be setting an

undesirable precedent for the area.

Ms. Cindy O’Hara and Ms Sarah Jam appeared before the CPA on behalf of

the applicant at 4:27 p.m.

Ms. O’Hara: There are serious security concerns at this site, especially at night.

There are loiters. Security runs them away but they return. A 3’ fence is not

being considered because it is easy to hop over. Nightclub patrons use my

client’s parking lot to the detriment of potential customers. The fence is needed

to stop these type of activities.

Ms. Jam: Security is a concern. In addition to the nightclub, there is a garage

next door.









48

CPA: Why not consider a hedge?

Ms. O’Hara: A hedge is ok, but this is an immediate problem. The neighbours

are using my client’s property to park.

CPA: Six ft. fences are not encouraged in commercial areas.

Ms. O’Hara: The open boundary is a problem. The fence will be a deterrent to

the parking problem.

CPA: Would you accept a 4’ fence with a hedge?

Ms. O’Hara: A hedge takes too long to grow, an immediate solution is needed.

A 6’ fence would not be jumped. Friday nights tend to be the worse night of the

week for my clients in respect of the issues mentioned.

There being no further discussion, the Chairman thanked Ms. O’Hara and Ms.

Jam for appearing. They left at 4:36 p.m.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The proposed fence height would be out of character with the area and the

Authority’s guidelines for fences/walls in commercial zones.



Decision: It was resolved to refuse planning permission for the following

reason:

1) The proposed fence is out of character with the area and does not

contribute to an aesthetically pleasing and functional urban environment.

2) The Authority is not convinced that the fence will be a deterrent to others

parking their vehicles or loitering on this site.

The Authority wishes to remind the applicant of the right to appeal pursuant to

Section 51(1) of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision). 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 along

with the prescribed CI$50.00 filing fee, in the offices of the Permanent Secretary,

Planning, Communication, Works & Information Technology within the fourteen

(14) day period as stipulated in Section 51(1)(b)(ii).

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.



3.013 THOMPSON RESORTS Block 73A Parcel 39 (FA81-0340) (P03-0259)

($304,000) (CF)

Application to modify planning permission.









49

FACTS

Location: Colliers, East End

Zoning: Hotel/Tourism

Background: CPA/21/00; Item 2.01 application for existing timeshare

development deferred

CPA/27/00; Item 7.12 approval for timeshare

development, pool and tennis court

CPA/13/01 Item 7.06 modification approved

CPA/23/01 Item 7.06 modification approved

CPA/38/01 Item 5.04 (C) modification approved

Existing Use; Phase I condominiums (under construction)

Proposed Use: Phases II and III condominiums

Parcel Size: 4.96 acres (216,057.60 sq. ft.

Site Coverage: 14.84%, Parking: 15.28%, Total = 30.12%

Density: No. of dwelling units allowed: 99.2

Proposed: 53

No. of bedrooms allowed: 173.6

Proposed:106

Building Size: Approved - 97,208 sq. ft

Proposed: 2,642 sq. ft.

Parking: Existing (Phase I): 21 spaces

Required: 79.5 (1.5/unit), 4 handicap spaces

Proposed: (total) 89 spaces (including 3 handicap spaces)



LETTER FROM APPLICANT

“I enclose herewith my drawings illustrating the above project.

After review by Mr. Kenneth Ebanks, Director of Planning, and upon his request,

I have removed the Firelane originally shown on my plans and running North to

South on the seaside of the building.

Thus leaving access to three sides of the buildings.

The question of landscaping having arisen in our discussion on the project, I

would point out that there is actually more area of landscaping at the front of the

buildings on the road side, and thus immediately visible from the road as well as

taking up considerable area.

I have situated these condensers under the building in the basement area,

providing large thermostatically controlled extract fans to provide any cooling







50

needed during their operation.

I would be obliged for the consideration of the Central Planning Board over this

project.”



AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Chief Fire Officer, Chief Environmental Health Officer,

Water Authority and Chief Engineer are provided below.



Chief Fire Officer

“The drawings submitted to us by Thompson Resort Ltd. for the construction of

condominiums on Block 73A Parcel 39 have been reviewed.

I regret to advise that the drawings does not comply with section 311.3 of the

Building Code which requires access for fire vehicles on three sides of the three

storey structure, therefore, we are unable to approve or further comment until the

matter has been resolved.”



Chief Environmental Health Officer

“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:

1. The department has no objections to the proposals contained in this

application.

2. The design specifications for the swimming pools must be submitted for

review and approval.

3. All onsite solid waste facilities must be designed in accordance with the

DEH’s guidelines.



Water Authority

“Please refer to a memorandum sent to Planning 25 May 2000 regarding this

development.

Please be advised that this modified development will be approved upon

compliance with the following requirements:

• The developer shall provide an on-site aerobic wastewater treatment system

with a treatment capacity of at least 11,925 US gallons per day (gpd). The

required capacity is based on the following:

NOTE: The required capacity of an aerobic wastewater treatment system for the

original proposal (referred to in 25 May 2000 memorandum) was based on the

following:

2-story building with (14) 2 bedroom apartments

2-story building with (12) 2 bedroom apartments

3-story building with (24) 2 bedroom apartments

(50) 2 bedroom apartments @ 225 gpd / 2 bdr = 11,250 gpd







51

The proposed modifications submitted through Planning on 7 April 2003, affect

this requirement as follows:

2-story building with (14) 2 bedroom apartments (under construction)

3-story building with (18) 2 bedroom apartments

3-story building with (21) 2 bedroom apartments

(53) 2 bedroom apartments @ 225 gpd / 2 bdr = 11,925 gpd

• The treatment system shall be designed to produce an effluent quality of 30

mg/l BOD5 and 30 mg/l Suspended Solids.

• Prior to installation, the developer shall provide detailed information on the

proposed treatment system to the Water Authority for approval.

• Adequate area shall be reserved for the treatment system. The location shall

comply with the minimum setback requirements of the Planning Department.

Special consideration shall be given to the elevation of the treatment system,

relative to the elevation of the local water table.

• All treated effluent shall be discharged into a disposal well. The disposal 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 system shall be at an elevation to allow gravity-flow discharge

of the treated effluent into the disposal 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 system. 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 system shall have easy access for operation, maintenance,

inspection and sampling. It is strongly suggested that the system be installed

in a secure manner to prevent tampering or accidents.

The 25 May 2000 memorandum indicated that the proposed development was not

within the area served by the Water Authority’s piped water supply system. Since

that time, the piped water supply has been extended to the proximity of this

development. The developer shall contact the Water Authority to request

connection to the system.



Chief Engineer

“PWD has no objection to this proposal. Standard conditions regarding

sidewalks, drainage and parking should apply.”



Response to Agency Comments

The Planning Department is in agreement with most of the comments made by the

various departments. Should the application be approved, these comments should







52

be taken into consideration as conditions prior to the issuance of a Final

Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy).

The comments made by the Fire Officer prompted a meeting between the agent,

the Chief Fire Officer and the Department in order to further discuss how the

matter could be resolved.



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking to modify planning permission by way of adding three

(3), two-bedroom condominium units to an approved fifty-unit (50) condominium

development.

The first phase of the development is currently under construction and contains

fourteen (14) two-bedroom units. This modification applies to phases two and

three which were originally approved with thirty-six (36) two bedroom units. The

proposed development meets all density requirements under Section 9 (1) of the

Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision).

There were two main issues which the Department focused on. These were the

proposed amount of parking (asphaltic area) versus landscaped area and the

response from the Chief Fire Officer regarding sufficient access to the building in

the case of emergencies.

The Department had hoped to see additional basement parking in order that more

landscaping could be incorporated along the road frontage of the parcel. However,

due to existing levels of the land and requirements of slope by the Public Works

Department, the parking area and driveways needed to be a certain distance from

the existing main road. The parking area also accesses garages in the basement of

the building but since existing dimensions and height restrictions of the basement

level could not allow any additional parking, it was not possible to relocate any

additional parking to the basement. It should be noted that the area of the

basement that is only six feet (6’) in height is proposed to be used to conceal all of

the mechanical (air conditioning) equipment for the proposed development.

A meeting with the Chief Fire Officer confirmed that although technically, three

sides of the building were accessible, these sides were not sufficient in allowing

satisfactory emergency vehicular access to the proposed three storey structure (by

way of extended ladder from a fire emergency vehicle). Since the width of the

building along the oceanfront is just over four hundred and twenty feet (420’), the

Chief Fire Officer, in this particular instance, would require vehicular access (20’

fire lanes) along the road, beachfront and one side elevation. Instances of fire

lanes which are hidden by the use of a matting device placed underneath the sand

and able to sustain the weight of a fire emergency vehicle were identified as

currently being used successfully in some developments along the West Bay

Beach.

The Department does not support having the fire lane on the beach as it places a

“structure” within the setbacks. If the building is too long then it is recommended

that it be shortened or broken up.









53

The CPA further discussed the following:

• Based on the Cayman Islands Building Code, the application as proposed is

acceptable.

• The Chief Fire Officer has not referenced any legal document to back up the

Fire Department’s recommendation.



Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission of CPA/27/00; Item

7.12, subject to the following conditions:

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.

Additionally, once construction has started, conditions (3-12) shall be complied

with before a final Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

3) The design specifications for the swimming pools must be submitted for

review and approval.

4) All onsite solid waste facilities must be designed in accordance with the

DEH’s guidelines.

5) The applicant shall provide an on-site aerobic wastewater treatment

system with a treatment capacity of at least 11,925 US gallons per day

(gpd). The required capacity is based on the following:

• 2-story building with (14) 2 bedroom apartments (under construction)

• 3-story building with (18) 2 bedroom apartments

• 3-story building with (21) 2 bedroom apartments

• (53) 2 bedroom apartments @ 225 gpd / 2 bdr = 11,925 gpd

6) The treatment system shall be designed to produce an effluent quality of

30 mg/l BOD5 and 30 mg/l Suspended Solids.

7) Prior to installation, the applicant shall provide detailed information on

the proposed treatment system to the Water Authority for approval.

8) Adequate area shall be reserved for the treatment system. The location

shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the Planning

Department. Special consideration shall be given to the elevation of the

treatment system, relative to the elevation of the local water table.

9) All treated effluent shall be discharged into a disposal well. The disposal

well shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Water Authority’s

standards. The elevation of the discharge pipe for the treated effluent into







54

the disposal well shall be a minimum of two feet above the elevation of

the local water table.

10) The treatment system shall be at an elevation to allow gravity-flow

discharge of the treated effluent into the disposal 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 system. 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.

11) The treatment system shall have easy access for operation, maintenance,

inspection and sampling. It is strongly suggested that the system be

installed in a secure manner to prevent tampering or accidents.

12) The 25 May 2000 memorandum indicated that the proposed development

was not within the area served by the Water Authority’s piped water

supply system. Since that time, the piped water supply has been extended

to the proximity of this development. The applicant shall contact the

Water Authority to request connection to the system.

Provision must be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction

and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction

period.

The applicant shall provide adequate number of sanitary facilities during the

construction stage.

The applicant is reminded that the finished floor level should be at least five feet

(5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two ft (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].

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.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) from the

Central Planning Authority prior to occupying the building.



3.014 DARVY WHITTAKER Block 28C Parcel 78 (F00-0373) (P03-0388) ($0) (EJ)

Application for front setback variance.



FACTS

Location: Poinciana Drive in Savannah.

Zoning: Low Density Residential

Background: December 05, 2000 the Department administratively

approved a three-bedroom house.

March 21, 2001 (CPA/10/01; item 6.11) the Authority

approved a three-bedroom house.







55

Existing Use: House under construction

Proposed Use: Variance setback from road.

Parcel Size: .2841 acre (12,375 sq. ft.)

Site Coverage: 24.83%

Building Size: Existing – 3073 sq. ft. Parking approved - 2

Proposed – 0 Parking existing - 2

Total – 3073 sq. ft.



LETTER FROM APPLICANT

“I requested and was granted a site variance on the 25th April 2003 for the

footing of my house, which is being built at Block 28C Parcel 78 with Permit No.

B01-0202. The footing didn’t pass inspection because one point of the garage,

which is parallel to the road, is only 18 feet 5 inches away from the side of the

road. However the other end of the garage, which is also parallel to the road is

23ft plus from the roadside.

The front portion of my parcel of land is located next to slight bend in the road

causing it to have a curvature like shape thus resulting in a slight portion of the

garage being a bit closer to the road side than required by law. As a result of the

above mention reason I would like to request a variance in order to resume

building without having to undo the majority of work already completed on the

house so far.

Your prompt attention and leniency in this matter is greatly appreciated.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting a variance from the Authority for the front (road)

setback.

As mentioned in the applicant’s letter, the (carport) foundation was built 18ft 5

inches instead of the required 20ft from the road, which was discovered on the

footing inspection by the Department.

The Department notes the following:

1. The affected (north-western) front boundary tapers back.

2. The request is for 1ft 7inchs and all other setbacks have been complied with.

3. Other than the foundation, the proposed carport is not of a solid structure but

of wood lattice.

The Authority is reminded of its policy regarding main entrance as front and rear

of property and Regulation 7 (8) Notwithstanding sub-regulation (1), regulation 8

(6), (7) and (8), and regulation 9, the Authority may grant permission to carry out

development that does not comply with all or any of those provisions if the

Authority is satisfied-









56

(a) that an exceptional circumstance exists; and

(b) that there is a sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.

The proposal meets all planning requirements for aesthetics, scale, massing,

building height, density, lot size, lot width and parking.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The CPA found that an exceptional circumstance exists and that there is

sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.



Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission to accept the revised

front building setback, subject to the following:

All previous conditions of March 21, 2001 (CPA/10/01; item 6.11) are still

applicable.



3.015 HANK & FIONA BODDEN Block 43E Parcel 63 (F00-0225) (P03-0285)

($130,000) (BES)

Application for two-storey house.



FACTS

Location: Sitwell Road, Belford Estates Subdivision, Bodden Town

Zoning: Low Density Residential

Background: August 2, 2000 (CPA/27/00; Item 6.02), the Authority

granted planning permission for permanent house and an

after-the-fact house. The temporary house was approved for

one year only.

Existing Use: After-the-fact temporary house

Proposed Use: Same as above

Parcel Size: 0.30 ac. (13,068 ft2)

Site Coverage: 24.9%

Building Size: Proposed Permanent House - 4725 s/f



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting planning permission to construct a permanent

dwelling house while living in a temporary house during the construction of the

permanent house. As indicated on the site plan, the after-the-fact temporary house

is intended to be removed off the property before a certificate of occupancy is

issued for the permanent house. If approved the Department would suggest that

the temporary house be approved for one-year, which would put the applicant on

notice that the permanent dwelling house should be constructed within a year.



Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission for the after-the-fact







57

temporary house for one year only.

It was further resolved to grant planning permission for the permanent dwelling

unit, subject to the following conditions:

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.

3) The after-the-fact temporary house shall be removed from the site no later

than one year from the date of this planning permission..

The applicant is reminded that the finished floor level should be at least five feet

(5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two feet (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].

There shall be no electrical connection for the main permanent dwelling unit

until the after-the-fact temporary house is removed from the site.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to

occupying the permanent dwelling unit.



3.016 UBW LTD. Block 14BH Parcels 78 and 79 (F02-0056) (P03-0372) ($0) (BES)

Application to modify planning permission for relocation of the sidewalk.



FACTS

Location: Goring Avenue, George Town

Zoning: General Commercial

Background: May 8, 2002 (CPA/12/02; item 5.01(D)) the Authority

granted planning permission for an office building on the

subject property with conditions.

July 31, 2002 (CPA/19/02; item 5.15 (C)), the CPA

modified planning permission (CPA/12/02; item 5.01(D))

to accept revised building elevations.

December 4, 2002 (CPA/31/02; Item 3.30), the Authority

adhered to the original decision, for the following reasons:

1) The approved elevations of (CPA/19/02; item 5.015(C))

are more aesthetically acceptable than the proposed

modifications.

2) All previous conditions of (CPA/12/02; item 5.01(D))

remain applicable.

The CPA further discussed the following:









58

1) The revised building elevations were considered less

aesthetically acceptable than the approved elevations.

January 22, 2003 (CPA/03/03; item 3.19), the Authority

modified planning permission to allow for revised building

elevations.

March 4, 2003 (CPA/06/03; Item 3.16), the Authority

modified planning permission to allow the relocation of the

handicapped parking space.

Proposed Use: Same as above

Parcel Size: 1.7 acre (74,052 sq. ft.)

Parking: Required 102

Proposed 125



LETTER FROM APPLICANT

“This application is in reference to our conversation last week regarding the

setback of the curb line to the above property. It has been revised to 5’0” from

the 6’0” setback, shown on the approved plans. This was done at the request of

PWD’s Mr. Peter Ogden, see attached letter.

The letter also refers to the pavement on the southern end of the property.

This has been set back by 5’0” from no set back, shown on the approved plans, to

accommodate a future roundabout at the Goring Ave/Walkers Rd intersection.

The curb design has been revised from 6’ high to 7 ½” high, also at the request of

Mr. Peter Ogden.

The CUC poles will remain as they are. This was agreed to between Mr. Peter

Ogden and Mr. Alan Patino of CUC on site on 10 April 03.

Also included in this package are 3 copies of the Revised site layout Drwg A1.1.

Rev. F. The levels shown along Goring Ave and the property driveway entry and

exit locations are the levels received from the PWD for their revised design.

Please review the revised site plan and confirm your approval at your earliest

convenience. Mr. Ogden and myself are available for any queries you may have.

The contractor is due to commence work in this area in the following 2 weeks.

We would like to have approval by 25 April 03 at the latest if possible.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.”



LETTER FROM PWD

“We are pleased to confirm our conversation of 8th April 2003.

Mr. Ugland has offered to finance the repairing of Goring Ave. in order to

enhance the ambiance of the area around the UBW Building in particular, and

the surrounding expanding business area in general. We are aware that the road







59

varies in width and that the longitudinal slopes are in some places almost flat,

and others quite steep. In order that Mr. Ugland’s offer is not wasted in any way,

we have undertaken to review the design of the road from end to end. Lands &

Survey have already provided us with a recent survey of the existing topography.

The neighbouring development, Kirk Harbour Centre, has agreed with Planning

Dept. to set their kerb line 5ft. 0 inches inside their property boundary. They have

asked PWD to provide them with future proposed road levels in order that they

can show the proposed kerb elevations on their drawings.

We note that your Drawing A1.1 shows a kerb line 6ft-0 inches inside the

property boundary. We request that this be reduced to 5ft. 0 inches. We also

request that the 5ft. offset be continued through to Walkers Road, whereas the

existing drawing shows the last 100 ft. closer to the property boundary line. This

would assist us to enhance the design of the Goring Ave./Walkers Rd. junction. If

you send us a copy of the revised drawing, we will mark on it our revised

suggested top of kerb elevations to suit the overall design of the road. We will

take care that the changes are small enough that they do not affect the internal

design of the car park.

The electricity supply pole is very close to the northern exit, and we understand

that you already approached Alan Patino of CUC to have this changed to an

underground supply from across the road. We approve this change and will

assist CUC with the arrangements for the road crossing.

We realize that you will require Planning Permission for the proposed changes.

Please feel free to use a copy of this letter when you approach the Planning

Dept.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting planning to modify planning permission of May 8,

2002 (CPA/12/02; item 5.01(D)) to relocate the sidewalk 5-ft inside the

applicant’s property to allow for road widening of Goring Avenue. As indicated

on the revised site plan, parking spaces # 48, 54, and 55 are not functional, and

therefore, the Department would recommend that the said parking spaces should

be omitted and the area landscaped. Other than the above-mentioned parking

spaces, the Department has no objection to PWD request regarding the relocation

of the sidewalk for road widening of Goring Avenue.



Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission of CPA/12/02; Item

5.01 (D), to allow the relocation of the sidewalk inside the said properties as per

the revised site plan date stamped by the Department on April 28, 2003, subject

to the following:

All previous conditions of (CPA/12/02; Item 5.01 (D)) still apply.

The applicant is reminded that signs are subject to a separate application.









60

3.017 SCOTT’S EQUIPMENT Block 51A Parcel 5 (FA81-0439) (P02-0991) (P02-

1024) ($400,000) (RS)

Application for a subdivision (13 lots) and excavation (230,000 cubic yards).

Appearance at 4:10



FACTS

Location: East of Midland Acres subdivision in Breakers

Zoning: Low Density/Residential

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served to adjacent

property owners, notice of the application was

advertised four times and the applicant has satisfied

the applicable polling requirements

Background: No prior CPA action on this application

Existing Use: Vacant

Proposed Use: Proposed residential subdivision and excavation

Parcel Size: 25.4 acres

Excavation Size: 230,000 cubic yards (192,000 cu yds to be removed

from the site)

Proposed Lot Sizes: All lots exceed the minimum 12,500 sq. ft

requirement with the lots ranging from 34,000 sq.

ft. to 68,000 sq. ft.

Lands for Public Purpose: 5%



POLLING

The applicant was required to poll those persons residing within a 1500’ radius of

the property and 54.13% of those persons provided their consent to the

application, therefore the applicant has complied with the applicable polling

regulations. In addition, the applicant advertised notice of the application four

times in the newspaper.



BACKGROUND

The applicant, under the name of Tarpon Springs, has had planning permission to

excavate the adjacent property (51A 3) since the 1980’s. On September 27, 2000,

further permission was granted for subdivision of 82 lots and the excavation of an

additional 450,000 cubic yards of material from 51A 3. The applicant has now

indicated that supplies are being depleted and an additional fill source is required.

As a result, the applicant has now submitted an application to excavate 230,000

cubic yards from the current subject lands, 51A 5, together with an application for

the subdivision of 13 lots.









61

AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Water Authority, Chief Engineer and Department of

Environment are provided below.

Water Authority

“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. Under

the Water Authority Law, the developer is required to obtain a quarry permit for

this excavation. A quarry permit will be issued upon receipt of the following:

1. Proof of Planning permission.

2. A completed quarry permit application form.

3. The quarry permit fee payable to the Water Authority. The fee for a quarry

permit is $0.02 per square metre. The fee for the proposed excavation of 10.2

acres will be $826.48 .

4. Proof of third party liability insurance, if blasting will be carried out for this

excavation. All blasting at the quarry shall be carried out in strict accordance

with the directives of the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department.

5. The quarrying operation shall be carried out in a manner that ensures that no

contaminants are introduced into the groundwater. All fuel and lubricant

storage containers shall have secondary containment with a volume of at least

1.1 the volume of fuel or lubricant stored.

With respect to water supply infrastructure the above development is approved

subject to complying with the following requirements:

1. 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.

2. The developer shall request to have the sub-division connected to the Water

Authority’s public water supply system. This request will be acted upon after

the piplelines on the sub-division have been installed in accordance with the

Water Authority specifications and have passed all tests specified in the

specifications.”



Chief Engineer

“As per your memo dated December 3, 2002 PWD has reviewed the above

mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and

recommendations.

PWD has just completed an official gazette of a fifty (50) foot road corridor

through this area. The applicant’s proposal should be revised to reflect the

proposed road corridor.

Subdivision Design





62

Revise the curve radii at all sharp bends. All sharp bends should have a minimum

centerline radius of 100 ft.

Provide traffic calming circles at locations between lots 7 & 8 and lots 29 & 32.

The intersection at lot 33 cannot exist as a four way unsignalised intersection due

to the increased number of turning conflicts. The simple solution is to create a

small to medium sized roundabout at this location.”



Department of Environment

“Further to review of the above-noted application, the Department’s Technical

Review Committee provides the following comments for consideration.

1. It is the committee’s understanding that no new excavation projects are to be

granted under the current moratorium placed on excavation. This follows the

recommendations of the Aggregate Advisory Committee (AAC) and the

recommendations of the CH2MHill report which was tabled in ExCo. In this

tabling of the report, the Honourble Minister for Tourism, Environment,

Development, and Commerce stated that “it is government’s intention to

utilize the recommendations made in the report to inform policy development

on all issues relating to aggregate and fill. This will include development of a

policy on the approval of new quarries and excavations which will be

handed on the Central Planning Authority for implementation.” This policy

is currently being reviewed by the AAC.

The Committee, therefore, recommends that no new excavations be approved until

policy is developed and the need for additional quarries and excavations is

evident.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

• Previously, the Authority had adjourned consideration of all excavation

applications pending details from Government regarding the implementation

of the CH2MHILL Study respecting fill and aggregate sources for Cayman.

The comments from DOE have provided some insight as to the current

position of Government on excavations, but the Authority must give its

consideration to this matter.

• The access to the subject property from the main road is via a 20’ wide right-

of-way. Typically, the Authority requires a 30’ wide right-of-way for new

subdivisions. It should be noted, however, that approval was granted for 82

lots and an excavation on the parcel to the north and this adjacent

development was approved using the 20’ wide right-of-way. The Authority

must consider whether the existing 20’ right of way is acceptable as an access

way to the proposed subdivision. At a minimum, the proposed north/south

subdivision road should be revised to show the 20’ right of way within the 30’

road reserve.

• The subdivision plan has been designed to allow for the requirements of PWD

with respect to the 50’ road corridor and future roundabout. The plan has







63

been revised to eliminate one subdivision road and therefore turning radii are

no longer an issue. The details of constructing the roundabout will have to be

sorted out between the applicant, PWD and the adjacent landowners. In

addition, the existing east/west right of way must be relocated to the 50’ road

reserve.

Messrs. Anthony Scott, Arney Scott and Patrick Broderick appeared before

the CPA at 4:10 p.m.

CPA: The Department will be sending a letter to the Minister responsible for

environment regarding the CPA urgently needing a directive on excavations as a

result ofteh CH2MHILL Report. We will try to have an answer in two weeks.

Mr. Anthony Scott: The CH2MHILL Report has been published almost a year

now. The report recommends pilot excavations to a depth of 20-25 feet, rather

than 12 feet. We are willing to participate in the pilot project. Twelve feet is not

adequate for inland mining. A few mining projects were approved since the

Government’s moratorium. Some excavations were started after the moratorium.

Mr. Arney Scott: I believe that two permissions were granted when the report

was being done.

CPA: In September of 2000 the CPA decided not to approve anymore

excavations until a Government directive was received. The applications were

approved between September and December of 2000. No excavations have been

approved since then.

There being no further discussion, the Chairman thanked all for appearing. They

left at 4:25 p.m.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The status quo should remain. The application should be adjourned pending a

directive on inland excavation policy from the Governor in Council.

• Such a directive is urgently needed by the CPA.



Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application pending receipt of Executive

Council’s policy on new quarries and excavations.



3.018 SAFEGUARD SECURITY Block 28C Parcel 165 REM.1 (F01-0296) (P03-

0235) (P03-0233) ($55,000) (BES)

Application for a 260’ radio antenna, generator/equipment building and kennel

extension.



FACTS

Location: On Ranch Road, Savannah

Zoning: Low Density Residential

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

The application was also advertised in the newspaper on







64

March 25 and April 1, 2003. No objections were received.

Existing Use: Dog kennels

Proposed Use: Same as above

Lot Size 160,435 s/f

Site Coverage 5.2%

Building Existing – 7,351 sq. ft.

Proposed - 951 sq. ft.



AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Chief Fire Officer, Chief Engineer, and Chief Environmental

Health Officer are noted below. The Department is awaiting comments from the

Civil Aviation Authority and M.R.C.U.



Chief Fire Officer

“Approved for Planning Permit only.”



Chief Engineer

“As per your memo dated April 9, 2003 PWD has reviewed the above-mentioned

planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations.

PWD has no objection to the proposal.”



Chief Environmental Health Officer

“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:

1. The proposed generator room should be designed to ensure that there is no

significant increase in the ambient noise level resulting from the use of the

generator.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

General Proposals

The applicant is applying to “renew” planning permission for a communication

tower (260-ft) and requesting permission to erect generator/equipment building

and an addition to an existing kennel at the above-mentioned property. As

illustrated on the site plan, the radio antenna would be setback 56-ft from the

boundary and 80-ft from the south lot line respectively.

In a previous application for a communication tower, the Director of M.R.C.U.

requested that the proposed antenna must be illuminated with two electric lamps

affixed within one foot of its highest point in accordance with the Aerial

Protection Law, 1974. Similarly, the Director of CAA recommended that the

applicant provide WGS-84 coordinates (latitude/longitude of the mast location to

the Civil Aviation Authority.









65

With regards to the proposed kennel addition and ancillary building, the ancillary

building would be setback 83’-3” from the western property line and 110-ft from

the southern boundary. The proposed kennel extension would be attached to an

existing kennel and setback 137-ft from the western lot and 136.5-ft from the

southern property line.

In respect of the Chief Environmental Health Officer comments, the Department

is support of the CEHO concerns that the generator room should be designed to

ensure that there is no increase in the ambient noise level resulting from the use of

the generator. A site visit was conducted to measure the ambient noise level and

it was observed that the existing noise level at the subject site is less than 30

decibels as noted on the Department’s sound dcb meter.

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

1) Comments shall be obtained from the Information & Communications

Technology Authority.



3.019 DUKE PROPERTIES LTD. Block 59A Parcel 239 (F01-0314) (P03-0377) ($0)

(RS)

Application for after-the-fact modification of planning permission CPA/18/02;

4.02 granted on July 17, 2002 for a duplex.



FACTS

Location: Midland East, near Tangelo Lane and adjacent to Heritage

Beach

Zoning: Low Density Residential with Scenic Coastline Overlay

Background: CPA/33/01 – adjourned to invite in the applicant

CPA/37/01 – adjourned for lot size and mass/scaling

CPA/18/02 – duplex approved

Existing Use: Duplex



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant recently submitted strata plans for the existing duplex. Upon

reviewing the plans, the Department noticed that the westerly entrance porch did

not comply with the required 20’ setback from the road. The applicant’s surveyor

has confirmed that the actual setback ranges from 16.8’ to 18.6’. The applicant is

now requesting a setback variance and has submitted the following letter:

“Please accept this letter as a request for a variance to the front setback to allow

the above porch to remain as shown on the drawings provided, for the following

reasons:

• The porch is cantilevered from its structural foundation, which is in

accordance with the approved drawings.

• The porch is 36ft from the edge of the carriageway. There is a 20ft shoulder

between the carriageway and the boundary of 239, which is proposed for







66

pedestrian & bike enhancement as well as for utilities. The location of the

porch will have no negative impact on the future of the shoulder mentioned.

I trust that the information provided will be adequate for the approval of this

application.”

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The CPA found that an exceptional circumstance exists and that there is

sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.



Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission of CPA/18/02to accept

revised front (roadside) building setbacks as shown on the site plan date stamped

by the Planning Department May 7, 2003, subject to the following:

All other conditions of CPA/18/02 are still applicable.



3.020 GRACE WOOD Block 27C Parcel 472 (F03-0146) (P03-0374) ($180,000) (CF)

Application for a four bedroom house.



FACTS

Location: Bergman Lane, North Sound Estates, Savannah

Zoning: Low Density Residential

Parcel Size: 0.2737 acre (11,922.37 sq. ft.)

Site Coverage: 26.84%

Proposed Building: 3,700 sq. ft.

Footprint: 3,200 sq. ft.



LETTER FROM APPLICANT

“On behalf of my client, I am requesting special permission for a Variance of site

coverage to construct the above proposed structure.

Your approval on this matter will be greatly appreciated.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking permission to construct a four bedroom, single family

residence. Since the land is currently zoned Low Density Residential, Section 8

(8) (h) only permits a maximum site coverage of twenty-five percent (25%). The

applicant is therefore requesting a variance of 1.7% on the site coverage in order

to allow the proposed development as submitted.

The Department has noted that the proposed site is located within an older,

existing subdivision which is comprised of undersized lots with regards to current

zoning and is currently included within the Proposed Amendments (2003) to the

Development Plan 1997 (Revision) to be rezoned to Medium Density Residential.

However, should this recommendation be accepted and the zone changed, the







67

proposed site coverage would still exceed the allowable density of twenty-five

percent (25%).

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The CPA found that an exceptional circumstance exists and that there is

sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.



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

conditions:

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 is reminded that 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].

Provision must be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction

and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction

period.

The applicant shall provide adequate number of sanitary facilities during the

construction stage.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to

occupying the building.



3.021 BEVERLY HYMAN Block 15C Parcel 211 (F03-0155) (P03-0397) ($355,000)

(CF)

Application for a seven-bedroom duplex.



FACTS

Location: Off Outpost Street, South Sound

Zoning: Medium Density Residential

Parcel size: 0.3098 acre (13,494.88 sq. ft.)

Required - 10,000 sq. ft.

Site Coverage: 19.45%

Proposed Building: 5,042 sq. ft.

Footprint: 2,625 sq. ft.

Bedrooms: Allowed - 3.72 Parking Required - 3

Bedrooms: Proposed – 7 Parking Proposed - 3





68

LETTER FROM APPLICANT

“We are hereby requesting a variance on the number of bedrooms in order to

construct the development as proposed.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking permission for a duplex consisting of one five-bedroom

unit and one two-bedroom unit. In accordance with the Planning Regulations,

Section 8(7), the number of bedrooms allowed would only be 3.72. The applicant

is therefore seeking a density variance to allow for seven bedrooms.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The aesthetics of the building is considered of a high standard.

• The CPA finds that an exceptional circumstance exists and that there is

sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.



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

conditions:

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 is reminded that 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].

Provision must be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction

and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction

period.

The applicant shall provide adequate number of sanitary facilities during the

construction stage.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to

occupying the building.



3.022 CARIBBEAN UTILITIES COMPANY LTD. Block 5C Parcel 70 (F03-0072)

(P03-0160) (P03-0161) ($515,000) (JAB)

Application for substation with 8’ fence.

Mr. Barry Martinez declared his interest.

Appearance at 2:45









69

FACTS

Location: Off Willie Farrington Drive and Hydesville Close, West

Bay

Zoning: Low Density Residential

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

The application was also advertised in the newspaper on

28/3/03 and 4/4/03. Objections were received (see

”Objections” below)

Existing Use: Vacant

Proposed Use: Substation

Parcel Size: 2.18 acre (94,960.8 sq. ft.)

Building Size: Proposed – 3,250 sq. ft. Parking Proposed - 7



AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Water Authority, Chief Engineer and 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:

• The developer shall 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 disposal well. The disposal

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 local water table elevation.

Please be advised that this property is situated within the area supplied with

piped water from the Cayman Water Company. The Cayman Water Company

should be contacted for a connection to their distribution system.



Chief Engineer

“As per your memo dated March 12, 2003 PWD has reviewed the above-

mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and

recommendations.

PWD has no objection to the proposal.”



Chief Environmental Health Officer

“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:

1. The department has no objections to the proposals contained in this





70

application.”



OBJECTIONS

Letter #1 (signed by six objectors)

“We the undersign understand the need for Caribbean Utility Company Ltd. to

have Substation Plant erected throughout the Island however we do not agree

with this plan as proposed on 5C Parcel 70.

It must be realized that this is a quaint and quiet residential area and has always

been this way. What is not being proposed will turn the area into a noisy

industrial Depot with storage facilities with any and all materials of their (C.

U.C.) choice. We know that if this proposal is approved as is, there will be no

one to Police the premises to ensure what is done or placed there. If this

proposal is approved it will become very unsightly and noisy as people will

access the property day and night to work, retrieve and return materials and

equipment.

This Substation as proposed will reduce the value of very valuable properties in

the immediate and surrounding areas as it is on one of the busiest roads in West

Bay and can be seen by all current and future developers.

We are willing to accept the Substation once:

1. All equipment is housed into a building that is in keeping with the old

Caymanian tradition and all wire entry into the building is placed

underground.

2. That all hedges are placed at least fifteen feet (15ft.) from all boundaries, and

no hedge with large root structure (such as ficus) be used.

3. That all Fences do not exceed a Height of more than six feet (6ft.)

4. That all boundaries along all roads have a walkway (sidewalk) of six feet

(6ft.) width.

5. That the property is landscaped to reflect a residential area.

We are unwilling to accept:

1) That the property be used for any kind of outside (Depot) storage of cables,

drums, vehicles, poles etc.

We are submitting pictures of some of C. U. C’s current Substations. Some of

these Substations have been in existence for many years and poorly kept. You will

see that where they now store materials, the area is very unsightly. There is no

reason to believe that the now proposed storage area will be maintained in a

manner that will not reduce land values or rental properties in the area. The

noise from the workers, equipment and radios will also disturb this quaint and

quiet residential area.

The Cayman Islands are very small and there is no reason why their large storage

area located at their main plant cannot continue to serve the Island needs.”









71

Letter #2 (signed by two objectors)

“On review of C. U. C.’s application with regard to building a sub-station and

storage area at West Bay South Block 5C Parcel 70 we wish to make the

following objections:

1. Re-zoning

This type of development constitutes a Heavy/Light industrial use. This

application should be required to go through the re-zoning process. We are

aware of the need for these services and the lack of industrial zones. However

with minor changes we could support this application.

2. Sidewalk Set-back

We should suggest that this plan be reviewed taking into consideration the

traffic problems along Willie Farrington Drive onto West Bay Road. C.U.C.

should be required to set back their side walk to facilitate road realignment

along the northern boundary of Parcel 70. It will be necessary for P.W.D. at

a future date to make improvements along Parcel 17, 40, 42 & 44. This would

help minimise traffic accidents in the area of Elizabeth Street/Willie

Farrington Drive junction and also at the intersection of Willie Farrington

Drive and West Bay Road – opposite Republix Foster’s Food Fair. In

considering this application the C.P.A. should ensure future and existing road

corridors are reserved. See attached Government Registry Map which

highlights our concerns.

3. Security Fence Set Back

The 8 ft. high chain link fence with 30 inch boundary landscaping set back

along parcels 280, 183 & 184 will not serve its intended purpose which is to

create a proper landscape buffer between these parcels. The fence should be

set back 10 ft. as shown on the site plan West side boundary. Future land use

development on parcel 280, 183 & 184 will be threatened and not conducive

or attractive for low density development in the future. If this landscape

buffer is not properly established and maintained by C.U.C. this will result in

financial loss to adjacent land owners. This landscaping must be of a high

degree and not shrubby or in some cases none existent as can be seen at other

C.U.C. residential sites where a high degree of landscaping was required

prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, i.e. South Sound, West Bay

and Bodden Town sub-stations, where approved landscaping was never

properly established.

4. Elevation & Site Plan

There is a discrepancy with regard to the east elevation plan, as it does not

conform to the site plan. This needs to be corrected to correspond with the

site plan which would then be acceptable.

5. Entrance Gate – Main Road

The entrance gate on Willie Farrington Drive appears to be too close to the

main road not allowing sufficient space for large utility service vehicles







72

entering and exiting while having to open and close the gate.

We trust you will find these comments useful as it is not intended to cause harm to

this project, but rather to improve the planning process and ensure all parties

concerned benefit from this development.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting permission to construct a CUC Substation and 8’-0”

fence with a potion of the property to be used as a storage yard. The Department

is aware of the need for Caribbean Utilities to construct additional substations

throughout Grand Cayman in order to offer the level of service / infrastructure

that is required. A number of similar facilities have previously been approved and

the Department has no objection to this proposal. However, it is recommended

that the parking and driveway areas be surfaced with asphalt instead of the

proposed chip and spray.

This application also includes space on the property for a storage yard. Although

the location of the storage yard is behind the proposed substation, the Department

has concern with this type of use in a residential zone, from an aesthetic as well a

neighbourhood compatibility point of view. The Department would like to point

out that a number of temporary storage yards have also been approved in the past

and recent investigation has shown that those sites are not kept to a high standard.

The Authority should discuss whether this type of storage is appropriate for this

area. If the Authority deems it appropriate the Department would recommend

that extensive landscaping, similar to that required for the Cable and Wireless

facilities be incorporated to buffer this use from the surrounding neighbourhood.

The following individuals appeared before the CPA at 2:45 p.m.

For the Applicant For the Objectors

Les Tinney Dalkeith Bothwell

Brian Eccles Clarence Bothwell

Cindy Savage



Mr. Dalkeith Bothwell: I hope that the plans on display are the same as these I

reviewed. A 3’ setback is inadequate to properly screen the development from the

neighbours. The area is zoned low density residential, so this type of use requires

a rezone. An 8’ fence is not pleasant to look at. The gate at Willie Farrington

Drive needs to be recessed. There is a discrepancy between the site plan and the

building elevations. The elevation labeled east should in fact be west.

The storage facility makes this a heavy industrial use. The neighbours properties

need to be protected. A high degree of landscaping is needed. The 8’ chainlink

fence should be setback at least 10’ from property boundaries. One turning radius

should be improved.

Mr. Clarence Bothwell: I don’t object to the building, provided its aesthetics is

acceptable. No 8’ fence is needed. A security agency could be hired to take care

of security. The site will become unsightly due to the storage component. The







73

site should be similar to the one near Agape Church. The unsightly conditions of

storage will devalue surrounding property. Tenants of apartments next door have

to wake up to unsightly conditions. There has been no application for a rezone.

The CUC site at Batabano is only about six months old and it is already unsightly.

Emergency situations will cause more. I don’t object to the substation, just the

storage. There are photographs proving how unsightly CUC storage yard are

kept.

Mr. Eccles: The substation is part of a network of ongoing development. The

appearance is suitable for residential areas. There is no objection to the

appearance and quality of landscaping at substations. The buildings are not kept

in an untidy manner. Storage is needed in West Bay as part of hurricane

preparedness efforts. CUC will donate part of the property to widen the road to

the south for the benefit of area residents. The fence at Willie Farrington Drive is

to be setback 10’ from the new boundary. The chainlink fence near the north and

east boundaries is to be setback 3’ to allow for maintenance. My client prefers

not to give up 10’ to 15’ of valuable land for any fence setback at these

boundaries.

Mr. Tinney: The site will not be used for storage initially. We can come back to

request the storage use. We do not need an area to store vehicles under hurricane

threat situations. The site shown by the objectors photographs is that of

construction site, which is different from this site.

CPA: Would you consider setting back the fence further to provide more

landscape screening?

Mr. Tinney: The hedge can grow in the fence. The additional setback is not

necessary.

Mr. Clarence Bothwell: From experience, anything moved as a result of

hurricane threats normally stay at the site. A viable alternative is for staff to take

vehicles home.

Mr. Tinney: We can’t take the equipment home. Some is too big. We have been

and will continue to be good neighbours. There are no environmental concerns

and the building is aesthetically pleasing.

Mr. Dalkeith Bothwell: If storage is contemplated, it should be applied for.

There being no further discussion, the Chairman thanked all for appearing. They

left at 3:15 p.m.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• In the interest of clarity the site plans should illustrate “CUC Storage Yard”.

• The aesthetics of the building appear suitable to the area.

• The chainlink fence should be setback 8’ from the property boundaries with

landscape screening on the outside.

• The gate at Willie Farrington Drive should be setback a minimum of 30’ from

that property boundary (after road widening).







74

• The premises should be used for storage only on occasions of

hurricane/tropical storm threats.

• Discrepancies between the site plan and building elevations should be fixed.



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

conditions:

In addition to Building Permit requirements, conditions (1-4) listed below shall be

met before a Building Permit can be issued.

1) The applicant shall submit a revised site plan illustrating the following

information at a minimum:

a) The proposed eight feet (8’) chainlink setback a minimum of eight

feet (8’) inside the property boundaries. Said fence shall be shown

screened from view from adjacent lands by landscaping.

b) The gate at Willie Farrington Drive setback a minimum of thirty

feet (30’) from the property boundary (after road widening).

c) The reference to storage yard removed.

2) The lot shall be filled in such a way as to deter stormwater runoff from

effecting adjacent parcels, this can be achieved by grading the fill material

to contain all stormwater runoff on Parcel 70 in central drainage locations.

Prior to filling the site the applicant shall submit a drainage plan prepared

by a registered land surveyor, indicating proposed spot heights at regular

intervals, including the finished grade of constructed access road (s), this

plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning.

3) The applicant shall submit a landscape plan which shall be subject to

review and approval by the Director of Planning.

4) Revised plans shall be submitted resolving minor incompatibilities

between the site plan and building elevations.

5) 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.

6) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central

Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in

accordance with the approved plans that you will receive when all of the

above conditions are complied with.

Additionally, once construction has started, conditions (7-9) shall be complied

with before a final Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

7) The applicant shall provide a septic tank with a capacity of at least 750 US

gallons. The septic tank shall be constructed in strict accordance with the

Water Authority’s standards.

8) All treated effluent shall be discharged into a disposal well. The disposal







75

well shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Water Authority’s

standards.

9) The elevation 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 this property is situated within the area supplied with piped

water from the Cayman Water Company. The Cayman Water Company should

be contacted for a connection to their distribution system.

The applicant is advised that temporary storage only is allowed for hurricane

threat situations.

The applicant is reminded that a TV dish, fence, shed or sign is subject to a

separate application.

Provision must be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction

and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction

period.

The applicant shall provide adequate number of sanitary facilities during the

construction stage.

The applicant is also reminded that the finished floor level should be at least five

feet (5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two ft (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].

To prevent potential delays and save money, the applicant may wish to coordinate

with the following agencies prior to commencing any construction: Cable &

Wireless and the Cayman Water Company and/or the Water Authority -

Cayman.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to

occupying the building.



3.023 JOYCE ANN SEYMOUR Block 25B Parcel 133 (F03-0135) (P03-0348)

($369,880) (EJ)

Application for a duplex (4x4).



FACTS

Location: Corner of Orange Drive & Mahogany Way, Prospect

Zoning: Low Density Residential

Background: N/A

Existing Use: Vacant

Proposed Use: Duplex

Parcel Size: .25 acre (10,890 sq. ft.) (13,500 sq. ft. required)

Site Coverage: 24.78%

Building Size: Existing – 0 Parking required - 2







76

Proposed – 5284 sq. ft. Parking proposed - 2

Total – 11,581 sq. ft.



LETTER OF VARIANCE FROM APPLICANT

“We are asking for a variance of 2,610 SF. to the above property to meet the

13,500 SF. that is normal required for duplex buildings. Taking into

consideration the fact that the proposed area and its lot sizes are old specs. We

would be very grateful for the granting of the variance. Thank you for your

attention concerning this matter.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting the Authority permission for the proposed four by

four-bedroom duplex. Each unit is proposed with two bedrooms, foyer and office

on the ground floor and two bedrooms, three bathrooms, family room and kitchen

on the second floor.

The Department would like to bring to the Authority’s attention the following:

• The subject lot is undersize existing at 10,890 ft2 (2,610 ft2) below the

required 13, 500 ft2 for low-density residential zoning, which the applicant is

seeking a variance for, and the department would like to remind the Authority

that the Prospect Park area is saturated with duplex and apartments on

undersize lots.

• Regulation 8(8)(a) states that the maximum density is two three-bedroom

duplexes per acre, (3x3 bedroom); the applicant has proposed a four by four

(4x4 bedroom) duplex.

The Authority is also reminded of Regulation 7 (8) Notwithstanding sub-

regulation (1), regulation 8 (6), (7) and (8), and regulation 9, the Authority may

grant permission to carry out development that does not comply with all or any of

those provisions if the Authority is satisfied-

(a) that an exceptional circumstance exists; and

(b) that there is a sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.

The proposal does meet planning requirements setbacks, lot width and parking.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The CPA finds that an exceptional circumstance exists and that there is

sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.



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

conditions:

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.









77

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.

Provision must be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction

and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction

period.

The applicant shall provide adequate number of sanitary facilities during the

construction stage.

The applicant is reminded that the finished floor level should be at least five feet

(5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two ft (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy prior to

occupying the building.



3.024 BRUCE OAKLEY Block 33E Parcel 85 (F97-0228) (P03-0366) ($40,000) (CF)

Application for a pool.



FACTS

Location: Off Water Cay Road, Rum Point, Cayman Kai

Zoning: Low Density Residential

Background: CPA/25/97 Item 7.10 approval for three-bedroom house

and pool

Site Coverage: 24.97%

Parcel Size: 0.3098 acre (13,494.88 sq. ft.)

Building Size: 3,892 sq. ft. (existing residence)



LETTER FROM APPLICANT

“I am applying for a variance for the construction of a swimming pool on the

block and parcel mentioned above and as per submitted drawings. I ask for the

grant of this variance for the following reasons:

1. Please note a mature coconut tree about 21 feet from the high water mark on

the northeast corner of the drawing. Then note where the beach had eroded

from the very high tide we had somewhere around Christmas. The beach at

Kaibo was covered almost to the bar but yet the water still did not reach the

coconut tree. And from that coconut tree we still have 28 feet to one part of

the pool, which is much more than some existing pools in the area.

2. There are several pools in the area that are much closer to the water than we

are asking for. I have enclosed photos of two such pools. One is 28 feet from

the water and the other 44 feet from the water.

3. The beach in question faces the interior of the island and is not open the sea







78

like most of the seven mile beach.

4. The pool deck will be supported by a retaining wall which will be almost 4’

above sea level adding further protection for the pool.

5. And last, there simply is no where else on the property to put it. The area on

the drawing is the best location keeping the pool the furthest away from the

sea while offering the most protection.

In looking at the pools around Cayman Kai, it was actually harder to find a pool

that was 75’ away from the sea than one that was not. They all seem to encroach

on the sea, some more than others. In my particular case I feel the pool can easily

be installed with out any future problems. So with all of these things in mind, I

once again ask you to please consider the grant of a variance. Thank you in

advance for your cooperation and I look forward to hearing from you soon.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking approval for a pool addition to an existing single family

residence. The proposed pool is located just forty-four feet (44’) from the high

water mark not including the proposed four feet (4’) pool deck. As such, the

applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct the pool as proposed.

It should be noted that the reference to a pool when the house was approved was

actually a hot tub and within the seventy-five feet (75’) setback along with the

three-bedroom house.

The up-to-date high water mark survey would concur that the shoreline has

decreased in this area since the house now remains sixty-seven feet (67’) from the

HWM when it was seventy-five feet (75’) from the HWM at the time of approval.

The Department made a site visit to the area in order to see whether there were

any other existing pools within the HWM setback that may serve as precedence.

In a few cases with both private residences and apartment developments, there

were pools, gazebos and other ancillary structures within the seventy-five feet

(75’) setback which have not received any irreparable damage since construction.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• The CPA finds that an exceptional circumstance exists and that there is

sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.



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

conditions:

1) The applicant is required to obtain Building Permits from the Chief

Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the

issuance of Building Permits.

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







79

above condition is complied with.

3) The swimming pool deck width must not be less than 4’-0” in any area.

4) Pool chemicals are to be stored in accordance with DOE’s guidelines.

5) Make provisions for a lip to divert roof runoff away from the pool.



3.025 JOAN MCCARTHY Block 4B Parcel 624 (F03-0157) (P03-0400) ($127,878)

(EJ)

Application for a duplex (2x2).



FACTS

Location: Anise Lane, West Bay.

Zoning: High Density Residential

Background: N/A

Existing Use: Vacant

Proposed Use: Duplex

Parcel Size: .22 acre (9,583 sq. ft.) required (6,500 sq. ft.)

Site Coverage: 32.63%

Building Size: Existing – 0 Parking required - 2

Proposed – 2,121.25 sq. ft. Parking proposed - 2

Total – 2,121.25 sq. ft.



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting the Authority permission for the proposed two by two-

bedroom duplex.

The proposal meets all planning requirements for aesthetics, scale, massing,

building height, density, lot size, lot width, parking and all setbacks.



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

conditions:

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.

3) The parking lot shall be finished with concrete.

The applicant is reminded that a TV dish, fence, pool or sign is subject to a







80

separate application.

Provision must be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction

and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction

period.

The applicant shall provide adequate number of sanitary facilities during the

construction stage.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to

occupying the building.



3.026 CAYMAN PREP & HIGH SCHOOL Block 14D Parcel 403 (F00-0205) (P03-

0267) ($870,000) (RS)

Application for school classroom building and toilet block.



FACTS

Location: Off Smith Road, near Bobby Thompson Way, George

Town

Zoning: Medium Density Residential

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices and two advertisements – no

objections were received.

Background: No prior CPA action on this application

Existing Use: School

Proposed Use: School

Parcel Size: 2.992 acres

Site Coverage: 22.3%

Building Size: Existing - 21,190 sq.ft. Parking Existing - 64

Proposed – 15,400 sq.ft. Parking Required - discretionary

Total - 36,590 sq. ft. Parking Proposed – no change



AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Chief Fire Officer and Chief Environmental Health Officer

are provided below.



Chief Fire Officer

“Approved for planning permit only.”



Chief Environmental Health Officer

“The department has no objections to the proposals contained in this

application.”









81

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The Department has no particular concerns with the proposed development, as it

complies with all setback, site coverage and parking requirements. However, the

Department feels it is important to raise the issue of secondary ingress and/or

egress to the site. (It is important to note that PWD has not provided any

comments on the current application). Presently, all access to the site is via Smith

Road. At peak a.m. and p.m. hours when children are being dropped off and

picked up, traffic can become quite congested in the area. In addition, the

recently approved Frank Hall Homes development on parcel 98 will further add to

the traffic congestion problem in the immediate area. The subject lands, parcel

403, are owned by the Crown, although leased by the Cayman Prep School.

Given that the Crown does have a vested interest in the lands, the Department

suggests that the following alternatives (see attached drawings) could be explored

in an effort to mitigate traffic problems. It must be noted that these options would

require the co-operation of several land owners in order to secure the necessary

right-of-ways.

1. As a condition of approval of the Frank Hall Homes development on parcel

98, the LPP parcel was required to be situated adjacent to the rear property

line of parcel 403. The LPP could potentially be utilized as an access way that

would allow traffic to leave the Prep school through the parking area and exit

via Hope Drive to Smith Road. The drawback to this option is that the traffic

leaving the school would merely be diverted a few hundred feet to the west

along Smith Road and would not really assist in alleviating traffic congestion.

2. Through the process of approving the various phases of the Raleigh Gardens

developments, the Crown acquired parcel 427 which is adjacent to the subject

lands. Again, it could be possible to allow traffic to leave the Prep school

parking area, cross parcel 427 leading to the access road for Raleigh Gardens,

which in turn connects to Bobby Thompson Way. The drawback to this

option is that peak hour turning movement from the Raleigh Garden

developments are already become somewhat difficult and introducing

additional; peak hour traffic from the Prep school will only exacerbate this

problem.

3. If possible, an access could be secured from the Prep school parking area

directly west across the adjacent property leading directly to Bobby

Thompson Way. A benefit of this option is that it would require the approval

of only one land owner. The drawback is that it would introduce another

access point onto Bobby Thompson Way in between a major intersection and

the entrance into the Raleigh Gardens developments. This additional access

point in this location could cause more traffic problems than it would solve.

It would appear that there are drawbacks to each of the options identified above,

but they have been provided to allow the Authority to consider the matter in as

thorough a manner as possible.

The CPA further discussed the following:









82

• All access/egress scenarios pose certain benefits and detriments. None would

significantly improve the traffic conditions of the area. The application as

submitted is acceptable.



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

conditions:

In addition to Building Permit requirements, condition (1) 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.

2) 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.

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.

Additionally, once construction has started, conditions (4-12) shall be complied

with before a final Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

4) The proposed additions will require an additional 2,000 gpd treatment

capacity aerobic wastewater treatment system.

5) The treatment system shall be designed to produce an effluent quality of

30 mg/l BOD5 and 30 mg/l Suspended Solids.

6) Prior to installation, the applicant shall provide detailed information on the

proposed treatment system to the Water Authority for approval.

7) Adequate area shall be reserved for the treatment system. The location

shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the Planning

Department. Special consideration shall be given to the elevation of the

treatment system, relative to the elevation of the local water table.

8) All treated effluent shall be discharged into a disposal well. The disposal

well shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Water 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.

9) The treatment system shall be at an elevation to allow gravity-flow

discharge of the treated effluent into the disposal 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 system. 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.







83

10) The treatment system shall have easy access for operation, maintenance,

inspection and sampling. It is strongly suggested that the system be

installed in a secure manner to prevent tampering or accidents.

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) A stormwater drainage system, complete with construction details, as

approved by the Public Works Department, shall be installed on site to

accommodate stormwater runoff.

Provision must be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction

and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction

period.

The applicant is reminded that the finished floor level should be at least five feet

(5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two ft (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].

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.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to

occupying the building.



3.027 NIVEN WOOD Block 24B Parcel 25 (FA89-0415) (P03-0367) ($385,000) (CF)

Application to modify planning permission.



FACTS

Location: Off Marina Drive, Spotts

Zoning: Low Density Residential

Background: CPA/27/89 Item 6.5 approval for residence.

CPA/33/97 Item 7.07 application for two one bedroom and one

two bedroom apartments deferred.

CPA/35/98 Item 7.08 approval for revised three unit apartment

building.

Existing Use: Unfinished three unit apartment building and existing building

(which would need to be demolished in order to build new

structure)

Parking: Required - 4

Completed - 0



LETTER FROM APPLICANT

“I hereby refer to your letter of April 11, 2003, your reference F89-0415.







84

As conveyed previously, the reason for phasing my development is basically due

tot he downturn in the local economy and particularly in the apartment rental

market. My initial intention was to complete the project in one phase. I have

always intended to live in one unit and rent the remaining two units. The reason

for requesting an amendment to phase the development is to allow me to complete

a unit for me to occupy and to allow me the opportunity to continue and complete

the remaining units in a manner consistent with my financial means.

I trust that you will respond favourably to my application”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking to modify planning permission by way of phasing a

three-unit apartment development so that each dwelling unit may be built

separately.

Prior to the submittal of the applicant’s letter as included above, the Department

addressed the applicant by way of a letter regarding the proposal to phase the

development. The Department clearly pointed out that the completion of small

projects one unit at a time was discouraged although the proposal could be

reviewed by the Central Planning Authority should the applicant wish to apply to

modify planning permission.

Since phasing the development would require separate certificates of occupancy

to be applied for where only one building permit was issued. The building permit

is still valid for the development (while only two concrete block walls and the

foundation have been built so far), the Chief Building Control Officer confirmed

that a phased development would not be acceptable under the circumstances

given.

The CPA further discussed the following:

The applicant’s request is considered acceptable.



Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission to accept the phasing of

apartments, subject to the following:

All previous conditions of CPA/35/98 Item 7.08 are still applicable, except as

hereby modified.



3.028 TIDEMAN CROMWELL EBANKS Block 49B Parcel 157 (FB96-0351) (P03-

0204) ($3,500) (CF)

Application for a two (2) lot subdivision.

Appearance at 1:20



FACTS

Location: Off Hutland Road, North Side

Zoning: Neighbourhood Commercial









85

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent landowners

and no objections were received

Background: CPA/38/96 Item 2.1 approval for three-bedroom house.

February 28, 2000 administrative approval for house (now

on parcel 157 since subdivision).

CPA/29/98 Item 5.03 two lot subdivision approved.

CPA/11/03 Item 3.06 application adjourned due to

substandard lot size.

Existing Use: Existing single family residence with storage shed

Proposed Use: Residential

Proposed Lot Sizes: Lot A – 70,175 sq. ft., Lot B – 12,540 sq. ft.



LETTER FROM APPLICANT

“Parcel Lot 49B P157

Sir I here by appeal to you on behalf of my youngest daughter and her four

daughters age 13, 12, 7, 5. I purchased land for my children to build their own

house in the year 1948. My child as this time is forbidden to build planning

forbids. Due to zoning, I am now humbly appealing to you Sir to have compassion

on this situation and grant my request. I had each child loted out as a family

square 110 by 110 lot. This property is not intended to ever be commercial with in

the next Century. Sir you can reason with me, if you will, and I have confidence

that you will and for so doing I will for ever pray.

Thanking you Sir, in anticipation”

At the end of the letter, there is a notation stating,

“Each lot is gifted by natural love and affection”



SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is asking the Central Planning Authority to reconsider their

proposal to subdivide land that has belonged to the family since the 1940’s. It is

the understanding of the Department that there are no intentions in the near future

to develop the land commercially. The applicant claims that he was never aware

of the land becoming commercially zoned (as far back as the Development Plan

of 1977) since the land was originally bought with the intention to subdivide it

and share it equally amongst his children.

It should be noted that approval was granted on October 6th, 1998 by CPA/29/98

for a two-lot subdivision (S/048/98) of the original parcel 64 into what exists now

as parcels 156 and 157. At the time, parcel 64 was zoned Neighbourhood

Commercial and Lot ‘A’ (now parcel 157 to the northwest corner of parcel 156)

was proposed and approved at 14,300 s.f. in size with a reminder that future

subdivisions of the site may necessitate improvements to the access from

Craddock Drive (now Hutland Road).







86

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking permission to subdivide an existing lot into two lots, A

and B. There is an existing house on Lot A with a storage shed to its east which

are both intended to remain on the site. There is also another existing storage shed

to the north-east of the residence which the applicant says may be easily relocated

or removed since it lies in the path of the proposed sixteen feet (16’-0”) right-of-

way over Lot A to access Lot B.

The Department has two main concerns with this application. Firstly, the

subdivision would result in Lot B being an undersized parcel with regards to the

current zoning. Should the Board allow an undersized lot in a Neighbourhood

Commercial zone, it would be difficult, at a later stage, to stop the lot being

developed for any commercial purposes that are permitted in such a zone.

Secondly, there is issue to the width of the proposed right-of-way over Lot A to

access Lot B. Should Lot B be developed for commercial purposes in the future, a

minimum twenty-two feet (22’-0”) vehicular right-of-way would need to be in

place. It should be noted at this time that the existing access from this site to

Hutland Drive is only between twelve feet (12’) to sixteen feet (16’) wide. Should

any commercial development take place on the present parcel or the future

proposed lots, this access to the main road would need to be widened to a

minimum of twenty-two feet (22’) to allow satisfactory two-way vehicular access.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• As this was a family subdivision, the CPA does not have an issue with

allowing residential sized lots. The area should be rezoned to residential. The

CPA will recommend such an action through the Development Plan review

process.



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

conditions:

1) The structure located within the right-of-way shall be removed.

2) The surveyor’s final drawing shall be submitted to the Planning

Department for approval prior to the survey being registered.

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.



3.029 CABLE & WIRELESS Block 9A Parcel 8 (F02-0356) (P03-0416) (JAB)

Application to modify planning permission to remove condition #1 of CPA/05/03,

item 2.09. for an antenna mast, fence and utility building.



FACTS

Location: Cayman Water Company site, West Bay

Zoning: Low Density Residential







87

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on immediate adjacent

property owners

Background: CPA/04/03; item 3.014 application was adjourned.

CPA/05/03; item 2.09 application approved with

conditions.

CPA/07/03; item 3.18 condition #5 of CPA/05/03; item

2.09 was amended.

LETTER FROM APPLICANT’S AGENT

“We refer to the telephone message from Mr. Adrian Bodden on 25th April, 2003.

Mr. Bodden referred to the letter of Planning Approval dated 26th February, 2003

stipulating that the mast be set back 90’ from ALL boundaries.

We hereby request a variance to that particular condition for the following

reasons:

1. It was our understanding from the CPA meeting on 19th February, 2003 that

the CPA’s intention was to require a 90’ setback from the north boundary on

account of objections to the application from the owner of Block 9A Parcel 8.

2. The objector has reviewed to revised location of the mast and has no

objection to this location.

3. We have met with Cayman Water Company to discuss alternate locations for

the mast on the site. The new position is the only other location that is

acceptable to Cayman Water Company.

4. The CPA has granted approval to such masts in several other locations with

front setbacks of as little as 20’.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require further information.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting permission to amend or remove condition #1 of

CPA/05/03; item 2.09 for the reasons stated above. The Department would point

out that this condition was put in place to respond to the concerns of an objector

from an adjoining parcel.

The applicant has since submitted plans showing an alternate location for the

proposed facility, which seems to be in an appropriate location, however the new

location does not satisfy the requirements of condition #1 which states “The

antennae shall be setback a minimum of ninety feet (90’) from the boundaries.”

The Department would like to point out that a number of these proposals have

been approved, but this application was the only one to receive this condition.

The Department would note that this revised proposal was shown to the objector

and no additional comments have been received.

The CPA further discussed the following:









88

• The conditional permission should remain as is.



Decision: It was resolved to adhere to the decision of CPA/05/03; item 2.09 and

require the antenna to be setback a minimum of 90’ from property boundaries.



3.030 ELIZABETH SHERIEFF Block 57E Parcel 28 (F95-0330) (P03-0242) ($3,500)

(CF)

Application for a two (2) lot subdivision.



FACTS

Location: Off Frank Sound Road, North Side

Zoning: Neighbourhood Commercial

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

landowners and no objections were received

Background: CPA/02/96 Item 7.7 application for bathrooms,

changing rooms and a-t-f septic tank deferred.

CPA/04/96 Item 6.3 application for same deferred.

CPA/31/99 Item 6.08 additions to existing gas

station and replacement of fuel tanks approved.

CPA/06/00 Item 7.02 application to amend

planning permission deferred.

CPA/08/00 Item 7.01 application for canopy and

signage approved.

CPA/09/00 Item 10.02 planning permission for

canopy and signage amended.

CPA/10/01 Item 4.01 application for temporary

banner sign adjourned due to size of sign.

Existing Use: Mixed – residential and commercial

Proposed Use: Same

Proposed Lot Sizes: Existing - undemarcated – roughly 0.49 acre

(21,400 sq. ft.), Lot A +/- 10,000 sq. ft., Lot B +/-

11,000 sq. ft.



LETTER FROM APPLICANT (No. 1 – dated March 27th, 2003)

“The attached application with a cheque for CI$120.00 submitted for

consideration by the Central Planning Authority for permission to subdivide the

above parcel to create two (2) new parcels, Lot A and Lot B as shown on the

attached plot.

This property comprises both residential and commercial buildings. There are

two homes and a gas station on it. The proposed subdivision seeks to assist the







89

family to divide the property with respect to some beneficiary interest and

improved management of the property assets.

The attached plots show the relationship between the three substantial buildings

existing on this parcel. However, the relationship to the Registry Map is less

accurate and two (2) boundaries are undemarcated. Thus the approximate area of

0.48 acre was computer from the Registry Map. The proposed subdivision

boundary creates two lots, “A” and “B” about 10,000 square feet each, in a

Neighbourhood Commercial zone, with a minimum setback of 19 feet to the

adjacent buildings.”



LETTER FROM APPLICANT (No. 2 – dated April 2nd, 2003)

“The attached application with a cheque for CI$120.00 is submitted for

consideration by the Central Planning Authority for permission to subdivide the

above parcel to create two (2) new parcels, Lot A and Lot B as shown on the

attached plot.

This plot shows the proposed subdivision to separate the existing structures from

the vacant portion of the parcel at a minimum setback of ten (10) feet from the

most northern structure (a septic tank) on lot “A”. The distance from the septic

structure to the west boundary is determine at approximately twenty six (26) feet

from the boundary as obtained from the Registry Map. This distance would be

verified by the survey fieldwork. The easement to lot “B” would follow along the

west boundary as shown on the attached plot.”



LETTER FROM APPLICANT (No. 3 – dated April 21st, 2003)

“Further to our conversation concerning the above application, the attached

drawing provide further details of the existing structures on the subject parcel

and those on adjoining parcels 57E27 and 57E29, with which the boundaries are

undemarcated.

Those boundaries cannot be demarcated as represented by the Registry Map and

will have to be negotiated with the proprietors. Your guidance as to acceptable

setbacks would be appreciated.”



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is seeking planning permission to subdivide an existing

undemarcated parcel which is currently zoned Neighbourhood Commercial. The

resulting lots would be undersized in accordance with the minimum lot size

(20,000 s.f.) required for Neighbourhood Commercial development.

A site visit by the Department confirmed that there were many existing structures

on the site which were not included on the original drawings submitted. In order

to make a more informative assessment as to the existing level of development on

the site as well as the implications of the proposed subdivision, the applicant was

required to submit revised drawings to show all existing structures on the subject

site. The applicant was also advised that the inclusion of any possible information









90

regarding existing structures on the adjacent lots that could be seen to have a

direct influence on the proposal to subdivide would be much appreciated.

Since the boundaries of the subject parcel are undemarcated, the revised drawings

are a nearly accurate representation of all of the existing structures on both the

subject parcel as well as some of the adjacent parcels. Should the parcel be

subdivided, Lot A would remain to be developed with an existing residence and a

commercial structure at the most north-eastern end of the lot (on the main road) at

around twenty-eight percent site coverage. Lot B would remain to be developed

with another existing residence and a small storage structure as well as part of the

existing gas station and convenience store with existing site coverage of

approximately twenty-seven percent. The proposed location of the boundary to

divide both lots would leave setbacks of roughly twenty-one feet (21’) and

eighteen feet (18’) to the existing houses.

Since the site has already been developed and due to the shape of the land, the

Department would seem to have no major concerns with the nature of the

proposed subdivision. A subdivision to propose two separate parcels would

actually leave each parcel with ample road access and existing buildings which

could still be further developed for Neighbourhood Commercial purposes.

The Department notes that if the site were to be developed for commercial

purposes, as a whole, it would be impossible to provide a throughway of traffic

from the southern area of the site to the northern area since, in some areas, the

land is as narrow as twelve feet (12’) from existing structures to the side

boundaries.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• Due to the orientation of proposed lots, the application appears acceptable.

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

conditions:



1) The surveyor’s final drawing shall be submitted to the Planning

Department for approval prior to the survey being registered.

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.



3.031 MOTION UNLIMITED Block 19E Parcel 144 (F94-0058)(P03-0363)

($100,000) (JAB)

Application to change a warehouse into a gymnastic studio.



FACTS

Location: Sparky’s Drive, across from the Cox Truss Plant, George

Town

Zoning: Heavy Industrial







91

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served to adjacent property

owners. No objections were received.

Background: April 6, 1994 (CPA/10/94; item 6.1) it was resolved to

grant permission for a warehouse. Not constructed.

December 8, 1999 (CPA/36/99; item 6.12) it was resolved

to adjourn the reapplication for a warehouse.

February 2, 2000 (CPA/05/00; item 7.06) it was resolved

to grant permission for the warehouse.

Existing Use: Warehouse

Proposed Use: Gymnastic studio

Parking: Existing – 11 spaces

Required – 59 spaces



AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Water Authority are noted below.



Water Authority

“Please be advised that this development will be approved upon compliance with

the following requirements:

• The developer shall provide an on-site aerobic wastewater treatment system

with a treatment capacity of at least 2,000 US gallons per day (gpd). The

required capacity is based on the following:





FIXTURE QUANTITY GPD/FIXTURE GPD

(assumes 4 peak use hours / day)

WC 5 120 600

BASIN 8 60 480

URINAL 2 40 80

SHOWER 4 120 480

SUBTOTAL 1640

10% of above for off-peak use 164

OFFICE/CLASS 1800 SF 0.15 GPD/ SF 270

TOTAL 2,074





• The treatment system shall be designed to produce an effluent quality of 30

mg/1 BOD5 and 30 mg/1 Suspended Solids.

• Prior to installation, the developer shall provide detailed information on the

proposed treatment system to the Water Authority for approval.

• Adequate area shall be reserved for the treatment system. The location shall

comply with the minimum setback requirements of the Planning Department.

Special consideration shall be given to the elevation of the treatment system,

relative to the elevation of the local water table.





92

• All treated effluent shall be discharged into a disposal well. The disposal 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 system shall be at an elevation to allow gravity-flow discharge

of the treated effluent into the disposal well. If the elevation of the wastewater

discharge pipe from the development is such that gravity-flow discharge into

the well is not possible, a pumping station will be required upstream of the

treatment system. Full details of any proposed pumping station (i.e., size of

wet and pump specifications) shall be submitted to the Water Authority for

approval.

• The treatment system shall have easy access for operation, maintenance,

inspection and sampling. It is strongly suggested that the system be installed

in a secure manner to prevent tampering or accidents.



LETTER FROM APPLICANTS AGENT

“We are making this application for a change of use to the warehouse on Block

19E Parcel 144 the proposed gymnastics academy.

The existing warehouse is 11,000sq.ft. The proposed renovation will involve

reception area, changing room facilities, restrooms, instructors area, managers

office, a kitchenette and study area. A staff of 3-4 instructors with a general

manager will run the facility. The children will range in age from 4-14 years of

age.

Existing parking (11 spaces) is sufficient to accommodate the staff. The only

external changes will be the addition of windows and doors (see A-04) with new

signage.

We hope that the Central Planning Authority looks favorably upon this request.



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting permission to change the use of a warehouse into a

gymnasium. The proposal includes the addition of changing rooms, restroom

facilities, offices and gym area on the first floor and a kitchen, play area, study

area and additional office space on the mezzanine level.

Although this use is proposed in a Heavy Industrial Zone, the Department is of

the opinion that this is a needed facility and is compatible with the surrounding

area.

With regard to parking the Department would like to point out that only eleven

(11) spaces (1space/1000 sq. ft.) exists onsite, however our Regulations state that

parking for a recreation hall be calculated at 1 space per 200 sq. ft.(9,086.8 sq. ft.)

and office and reception space be calculated at 1 space per 300 sq. ft. (3826.4 sq.

ft.) which would require a total of 59 spaces. The Department is of the opinion

that this number is excessive for a gymnastic school that caters to children

between 4 and 14 years of age with a staff of five. The Department is not







93

necessarily concerned with daily parking requirements; we are more concerned

with the amount of parking required when the gymnasium is open for a public

gymnastic event.

The Authority should discuss whether the existing parking(11 spaces) is adequate

for the proposed use or whether the applicant should obtain additional parking

offsite to accommodate “spill over” parking for special events. If the Authority

feels that additional parking is necessary the Department would support grass

parking instead of a hard surface.

The CPA further discussed the following:

• Excess parking is expected to occur on infrequent occasions. Parking

adequacy should not be an issue during normal operations.



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

conditions:

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.

Additionally, once construction has started, conditions (3-8) shall be complied

with before a final Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

3) The applicant shall provide an on-site aerobic wastewater treatment

system with a treatment capacity of at least 2,000 US gallons per day

(gpd). The treatment system shall be designed to produce an effluent

quality of 30 mg/1 BOD5 and 30 mg/1 Suspended Solids.

4) Prior to installation, the applicant shall provide detailed information on

the proposed treatment system to the Water Authority for approval.

5) Adequate area shall be reserved for the treatment system. The location

shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the Planning

Department. Special consideration shall be given to the elevation of the

treatment system, relative to the elevation of the local water table.

6) All treated effluent shall be discharged into a disposal well. The disposal

well shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Water 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.

7) The treatment system shall be at an elevation to allow gravity-flow

discharge of the treated effluent into the disposal well. If the elevation of

the wastewater discharge pipe from the development is such that gravity-







94

flow discharge into the well is not possible, a pumping station will be

required upstream of the treatment system. Full details of any proposed

pumping station (i.e., size of wet and pump specifications) shall be

submitted to the Water Authority for approval.

8) The treatment system shall have easy access for operation, maintenance,

inspection and sampling. It is strongly suggested that the system be

installed in a secure manner to prevent tampering or accidents.



4.0 ENFORCEMENTS



5.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN MATTERS



6.0 MATTERS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING



6.01 CHRISTINE FOY PANTON (TPO02-0003) Block 5B Parcel 140 (NAW)

Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for a group of trees in West Bay.



FACTS

Location: Block 5B Parcel 140 off of Marie Mollie Hydes Rd. in West Bay

southwest of the Church of God.

Background: On November 6, 2002 the Central Planning Authority Adjourned

the application for research on recommendations for the area by

the Development Plan Review Committee.



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The applicant wishes to preserve a group of trees including birch, sea grape, and

lion tongue. One birch tree is noted as being in excess of 100 years old. The trees

are outlined in black on the proposed plan.

It should be noted that the Department has left out the Lions Tongue as it does not

constitute a tree and may need to be trimmed back for various reasons related to

the maintenance or improvement to Mary Mollie Hydes Rd.

A Draft TPO was approved by the CPA on July 17, 2002 (CPA/18/02 Item 8.02).

The Draft TPO was issued on July 30, 2002. Letters were sent to the

applicant/landowner, Public Works Department, CUC, Cable and Wireless, Water

Authority Cayman, Cayman Water Company, The notice period expired on

August 27, 2002. No objections were received. The Review of the Development

Plan has proceeded to the Development Plan Tribunal stage and no amendments

to the plan are proposed to affect this area.



Decision: It was resolved to issue the Tree Preservation Order in accordance with

the schedule below.







95

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING TREE



PRESERVATION

(02/0003) ORDER 2003.





The Central Planning Authority, in pursuance of the powers conferred on it by

section 28 of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision), and after

complying with the provisions of the Development and Planning (Tree

Preservation Order) Regulations 1992, makes the following order –

Citation 1. The order may be cited as the Development and Planning

Tree Preservation (02/0003) Order, 2003.

Prohibition 2. A person must not cut down, lop or wilfully destroy the

tree/any tree comprised in the trees/ groups of trees/woodland

specified in Schedule 1, the position of which tree/groups of

trees/woodland is shown on the plan in Schedule 2 except –

(a) With the consent of the Authority and in accordance with the

conditions, if any, imposed on that consent; or



(b) (set out any other exemptions)





Application for

Consent 3. An application for the Authority’s consent under clause

2(a) must –

(a) be in writing; and

(b) state the reason why the consent is being sought; and

(c) detail the tree or trees to which the application relates by

reference, if necessary, to the plan in Schedule 2; and

(d) specify the operation for which consent is being sought.

Compensation 4. (1) Subject to subclause (2), a person who has suffered loss

or incurred damage as a consequence of –

(a) the refusal of any consent required under this Order; or

(b) the grant of such consent subject to conditions,

is entitled to be paid compensation by the Crown.

(2) Compensation is not payable under subclause (1) unless

the land affected by this order

(a) Is incapable of reasonably beneficial use; and

(b) Cannot, as a result of this order, be rendered capable of







96

reasonable beneficial use by the carrying out of any

development for which the Authority has granted permission or

has undertaken to grant permission.

(3) Compensation payable under subclause (1) shall be

assessed taking into account –

(a) any compensation or contribution which has been paid to the

claimant or any person in respect of the same tree or trees

under the terms of this or any other tree preservation order; and

(b) any injurious affection to any land of the owner which would

result from the felling of the tree or trees, the subject of the

claim.

(4) Sections 34 and 35 of the Development and Planning

(Revised) Law apply to claims under subclause (1).

Plan to prevail 5. If there is any ambiguity between any detail contained in

Schedule 1 and the plan in Schedule 2 the plan shall prevail.

SCHEDULE 1

Details of tree/trees/group of trees/woodland



COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3

No. on Plan Description Location

1 Group Birch and Sea Grape Trees Marie Molly Hydes Rd.





SCHEDULE 2

PLAN

[The plan must show in the case of a tree preservation order relating to –

(a) A specified tree – the tree circled in black; or

(b) Specified trees – the trees surrounded by a black broken line; or

(c) A group of trees – the group surrounded by a black line; or

(d) Woodlands – the woodlands surrounded by a continuos black line.]





Made by the Central Planning Authority this 14th day of May 2003.





Chairman

Central Planning Authority

__________________________________________________________________







97

6.02 ANDES PERRAULT APPEAL

The appeal was allowed and a written decision is expected in due course.



6.03 ROW IN BEACH RESORT/RESIDENTIAL ZONE

It appears that frontage referred to in the Regulations is that of the road. It is

recommended that the Regulations should be amended so that the 200’ applies to

the coastline.



6.04 VISTA DEL MAR DEVELOPMENT (RZ02-0006) Block 10A Parcels 49

REM1, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 66, 67, 192, 226 Block 9A Parcels 270, 130,

272 Block 10E Parcels 38, 39 (HP/RS)

Application to change the zoning from LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL,

NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMERICAL, and MANGROVE BUFFER to

HOTEL / TOURISM.



FACTS

Location: On the North Sound, adjacent to 74.90 acres of

Crown Property. It is north of the Cayman Islands

Yacht Club and Little Salt Creek.

Zoning: Low Density Residential, Neighbourhood

Commercial, Mangrove Buffer, and

Hotel/Tourism.

Existing Uses: Properties vacant. Dyke roads meander throughout.

extensive existing vegetation

Approved Development: A twelve (12) lot subdivision was approved on

December 22, 2000 (CPA/39/00; item 6.01) (F00-

348, AR).

Parcel Size: 273.8 acres.



BACKGROUND

The original site of 18 parcels was “reorganised” into 12 lots (CPA/39/00; 6.01),

as to make the site more attractive to developers seeking large parcels with ocean

frontage.

The site reconfiguration was as follows :





Parcels Acreage

A 18.34

B 25.00

C 38.31









98

D 3.80

E 154.72

F 9.13

G 3.48

H 2.21

J 4.90

K (LPP) Buffer 0.88

L (LPP) 3.23

M (LPP) (Road Reserve) 9.8

Total Area 273.80

(Source: CGMJ Ltd. Vista Norte Sub-division Plan, Sep. 00)



LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT

This letter was submitted with the application to rezone as reasons for the rezone

request by the applicant’s agent CGMJ Ltd.

“This 273.8 acre tract of uninhibited, raw land is made up of eighteen adjoining

parcels held under a single, free-hold, land title ownership by Vista del Mar

Development Ltd. Among its unique natural attributes lies a 2,500 ft. long

ironshore rocky bluff on its shoreline with the North Sound, without any

mangrove buffer zoning restriction, thus affording unobstructed views from the

bluff facing the dominant Northeast breeze. The rest of the property is 30% dry

land and is devoid of protective mangrove/ wetland issues. This property

represents the last tract of ocean-front land available along the West Bay

Peninsula for a major resort site. Such a development project, already under a

two-year design stage, is envisioned to become a resort of the highest

International standards which is bound to enhance the reputation of the Cayman

Islands as the Switzerland of the Caribbean.

Whilst the attached Master Plan is schematic, it does serve to support the request

for a re-zone to Hotels/ Tourism, by way of illustrating some of the component

parts of the intended resort, as follows:-

• 5 Star Hotel/ 450+ rooms.

• Condominiums/ ocean and golf course views.

• PGA Championship Golf Course/ (Arnold Palmer design).

• Marina and Quayside shops, restaurants.

• Golf Club House.

• Tennis Club.

• Convention Centre.









99

• Extensive Recreation areas.

In order to allow the development of the above, greater densities than those

permitted in the LDR zone will be required, particularly for the Hotel and

Condominium accommodations where height and room counts will be critical

issues.

You will see from the approval to subdivide (dated 27th December 2000), that the

18 hole Golf Course alone occupies 170 acres, and the balance of the activities

on site (marina, roads, residential lots, canal and commercial area etc), absorb

another 54 acres, thereby leaving only 51 acres which could be utilised at the

higher density and height allowance for Hotels and Condominiums. Road access

and links to West Bay Road and future by-pass further support this development.

The high amenity attributes of this parcel are already recognised as 14 of the 18

parcels are included in the 9% prime area for transfer tax, and the 7 storey height

limit line passes through the Southern portion of the property.

We can further support our application by pointing out the substantial financial

benefits which will flow to the Government and the community from a 300 Million

dollar development over a 12 year period. We can point out that the North side of

the Island will receive greater attention as a result of the marina/ boating focus

aimed at North Side and Rum Point, and we can also speak of the benefits which

International golf tournaments and conventions will bring to these Islands. In the

interests of brevity, we trust that these obvious benefits will be taken as read.

We believe this application to re-zone from LDR to Hotels/ Tourism to be

appropriate, allowing a development which will be consistent with the Ministry of

Tourism’s wishes that the Cayman Islands be promoted as a sophisticated and

World Class tourism destination.

We look forward to your favourable consideration and will be very pleased to

provide you with any further information which you may require.”



AGENCY COMMENTS

The application was circulated to PWD, WAC, DOT, & DOE on October 17,

2002 and MCRU on November 1, 2002. Comments were received from PWD,

WAC, & DOE. These are as follows:



Water Authority

“Please be advised that the Water Authority has no objections to the proposed

rezoning.

The Water Authority will stipulate requirements related to water and wastewater

when plans for construction at the site are submitted.”



Public Works Department

“Back in the late 1980’s when the MGTP was formulated it was not anticipated

that there would be a change in the law to allow 7 storey hotel/resort buildings.

The change creates significantly higher traffic demand. We should factor in





100

population, vehicle, commercial, and tourism growths because these will all

contribute to keeping the island trapped in a vicious land use cycle. West Bay

Road and the Bypass will seemingly not be enough to break the cycle and return

these roadways to normal levels of service.

PWD is not advocating that a rezone be denied. We’re simply pointing out that

collectively a rash of rezones coupled with the increase in the building densities is

seriously detrimental to the transportation network. We’ve seen at least three

other similar rezone proposals and recognize the potential for a return to highly

congested roadways. Undoubtedly tourism is a major revenue producer and

employer in Grand Cayman however the transportation network allows for the

efficient movement of goods and services relative to not only tourism but all other

sectors of the economy; The transportation network impacts all areas of the

economy and helps make tourism viable.”



Department of the Environment

“Further to review of the above-noted application, the Department’s Technical

Review Committee provides the following comments for consideration.

1. Due to the grand scale of this proposal the DoE requests that the applicant

provides detailed plans of the project in its entirety to be reviewed by the

government before rezoning is considered. Without examining exactly what

Vista del Mar Development Ltd. proposes for the area the government cannot

make a sound decision on rezoning. If the “wish list” that the development

has provided does not come to realization and zoning changes were hastily

made a large area of land would be removed from residential inventory.

2. The Tourism Recreation and Culture Special Issue Committee have stated that

the Hotel Tourism zoning on Seven Mile Beach should stay as it is, and have

even suggested a moratorium be placed on new hotels as a result of the large

number of rooms that presently cannot be filled. The SIC have suggested that

based on statistics the island is currently developing unsustainably. The SIC

have also noted that the construction of new developments is degrading the

tourism product.

3. The area itself is consists of mangroves and other associated wetland

vegetation. Elevations average 4 feet above sea level and soil types are

characteristic of wetland areas. The coastal ridge is unique. A limestone type

rock ridge geologically unique in the Cayman Islands forms the coastline.

This coastal area has been designated as an environmental sensitive area

because of the rare physical features as well as endemic flora and fauna

located in the area. All environmentally sensitive areas have a designated

100m buffer zone to ensure protection of immediate surroundings areas. This

100m buffer has been decided as the minimum buffer that can be provided

while still allowing for reasonable protection. The eastern properties have

been designated as areas of special historic interest to the National Trust.

4. The Department would like to reiterate the opening comments that an overall

plan would like to be reviewed and government allowed to comment on the







101

project in its entirety before a decision is made on rezoning the area. Natural

and historic features, and environmentally sensitive areas must be preserved.

Also, the overall benefit that rezoning will provide the community as a whole

must be weighed against the benefit to the developer alone.



Response to Agency Comments

The Public Works Department, while not recommending against the proposed

rezone, does raise a potential concern regarding traffic impacts. It is suggested

that these concerns were considered at the time of the subdivision application for

the subject property. The subdivision approval was granted on the basis that the

lands would be developed and allowances were made for future by-pass roads and

service roads on the recommendation at that time from PWD. It would now

appear somewhat late in the process to now declare that the previously endorsed

by-pass and service roads will not have the capacity for the development of the

subject property. In fact, the Department would suggest that the combination of

West Bay Road, the By-pass road and any ancillary service roads would appear to

have more than enough capacity in the near and mid-term future development of

the West Bay peninsula.

With respect to the comments from DOE, the Department concurs with the

position that more information is needed to properly review the rezone

application, as further detailed in the planning analysis of this report. Comments

have been provided that the coastal ridge is unique and should be provided.

Apparently, this area was to be designated with a Special Planning Area overlay,

through the current Development Plan review process, but that proposal is no

longer being considered.



PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

Development Features

The applicant’s agent has stated that it is the goal for this site to be utilised as a 5

star resort. Some common standard components of such a development include a

5 star hotel (450 rooms), condominiums with ocean and golf course views, a PGA

Championship Golf Course, a convention centre, marina, golf club house, tennis

club and extensive recreation areas. Based on these components it is estimated,

again by the applicant’s agent, that these amenities would be centred around the

general theme of an 18 hole, Golf Course occupying 170 acres. Additional

features would include a marina, roads, residential lots, canal and commercial

area and it is estimated that these features would utilise approx. 54 acres, with the

remaining 51 acres being used for Hotel/ Tourism development.

Issues/Concerns

Based on the general development theme proposed or sought, it is not clear to the

Department why the entire site of 273.80 acres is required to be rezoned to

Hotel/Tourism. The Department raises the following issues/concerns regarding

the proposal to rezone such a large amount of land to Hotel/Tourism:









102

1. The current allotment of Hotel/Tourism zoned land around the island in the

1997 Development Plan stands at 425 parcels representing 1177.7 acres. Of

this total 189 parcels or 678.9 acres are developed. If the proposed rezone is

allowed then this one development area would account for 23% of the island’s

Hotel/Tourism zoned lands. Based on a build out analysis of the site at the

present, less the LPP allotment of 13.91 acres, the site could accommodate

519 hotel sites and 16892 hotel rooms. This clearly exceeds the applicant's

estimate for a 450 room hotel, which would require only a 7 acre site to meet

the room density required. Further, the existing hotels on the Island have

experienced low occupancy rates over the last two years. The applicant has

not demonstrated in any detail the aspects of the proposed development that

are unique from existing resort developments to justify adding more hotel

rooms to an existing under-utilized inventory.

2. It is not clear whether a detailed planning analysis was ever done to justify the

amount and/or location of existing Hotel/Tourism zoned land and an argument

could be put forward that not all the existing vacant Hotel/ Tourism land is in

the most viable or desirable locations. The Department could accept this

premise with adequate justification and as a result could potentially endorse a

certain amount of new acreage to be rezoned Hotel/Tourism. However,

without the presentation of a Market Analysis or a Feasibility Study, the case

can not be made that this site is a viable site for a hotel development simply

because the property is large and fronts on the North Sound.

3. An additional argument put forward by the applicant, is that much of the

Hotel/Tourism land on the Island is not used for its intended purpose, as

significant acreage is used for golf courses (estimated to be around 350 acres).

As such, the total amount of Hotel/Tourism zoned land does not accurately

reflect the situation on the ground. The Department would agree that the

Hotel/Tourism zone is not the most suitable for golf courses and for this

reason sees no merit in rezoning an additional 170 acres of golf course to

Hotel/Tourism, as proposed under the current rezone application.

4. The applicant is seeking to have the entire site of 273.80 acres rezoned to

Hotel/Tourism as a means of providing “flexibility” for potential developers

looking to purchase such a site. It can be argued that zones other that

Hotel/Tourism would provide more flexibility for uses other than a hotel &

convention centre, for example, the Authority has vast discretion to allow a

variety of uses in residential zones, such as golf course and commercial

development. It should also be noted that the project as proposed could be a

candidate in the future for the Planned Unit Development policy area (PUD)

as currently being considered through the Development Plan review process.

Until such time as the PUD is available, however, a rezone of the entire parcel

to Hotel/ Tourism would not necessarily result in the most efficient use of the

land or a high quality development. Instead, such a rezone could be an

exercise in land speculation, at the risk of future proposed developments that

could be placed on hold due to the saturation of Hotel/ Tourism zoned land on

the market.







103

Based on the size of the parcel, and the lack of clear direction as to why a

rezoning of the entire site is required for the development of a 5 star resort on this

parcel, the Department recommends that this application be adjourned, for further

market analysis data or a feasibility study, along with a more detailed Master

Plan. This information is necessary for a complete and thorough review of a

proposal of this size, specifically with regard to impacts on traffic, the natural and

built environment, and the economy.



RECOMMENDATION OF CPA/31/02 ITEM 6.01

Adjourn the application for the following reason:

1) The applicant should submit a Market Analysis or Feasibility Study to the

Department along with a more detailed Master Plan, showing the locations of

proposed uses, to allow for a more comprehensive review of this application.



Decision of CPA/31/02 Item 6.01

At the meeting of the Central Planning Authority held on December 4, 2002 your

application was considered and it was resolved to recommend that the subject

parcels be rezoned to Hotel/Tourism.



FURTHER BACKGROUND

• The application was advertised in four issues of the Caymanian Compass on

the following dates:

Wednesday, January 15, 2003;

Friday, January 17, 2003;

Wednesday, January 22, 2003;

Friday, January 24, 2003.

• One objection was received on March 10, 2003, and the matter was turned

over to the Ministry of Planning, Communications, Works and Information

Technology, for transfer to a Tribunal for an enquiry.

• A Tribunal date of May 9, 2003 was set for hearing of the application.

• On May 9, 2003 the objection to the application was withdrawn.

• Matter returned to the CPA for consideration, by the Tribunal on May 13,

2003, as the objection is withdrawn.



Decision: It was resolved to submit the rezone request to the Ministry of

Planning, Communication, Works and Information Technology for forward

transmission to the Legislative Assembly.



7.0 CPA MEMBERS INFORMATION/DISCUSSIONS



7.01 WALKERS ROAD TEXACO





104

The applicant is required to comply with landscaping as presented in the

Powerpoint presentation at the CPA meeting when the application was approved



7.02 MIKE BROWN & ESSO STANDARD OIL LIMITED Block 14E Parcel 255

(F00-0319) (P02-0316) (P02-0317) ($1,000,000) (RS)

Application for gas station, convenience store and signs.



FACTS

Location: Corner of Boilers Road and Walkers Road, George Town

Zoning: General Commercial

Background: See below

Existing Use: Several old storage buildings

Proposed Use: Gas station

Parcel Size: 0.80 acres (34,848 sq. ft.)

Site Coverage: Building = 14.51%, Parking Lot = 34.15%, Total = 48.66%

Building Size: Existing – n/a Parking Existing – n/a

Proposed - 5,055 sq. ft. CPA Guideline – 10

BACKGROUND

June 5, 2002 (CPA/14/02; 5.06[C])

The Authority considered the application and refused planning permission for the

following reasons:

“1. The proposed gas station will be located in close proximity to a

school, church and other institutional compounds, and the fuel tanks

associated with the gas station may pose a health and safety problem to

these uses. The Authority takes this view in accordance with Part 1.2 of the

Development Plan 1997, which reads: “The general aim of the plan is to

maintain and enhance the quality of life in the Cayman Islands by effectively

directing development so as to safeguard the economic, cultural, social and

general welfare of the people, and subject thereto the environment”.

2. You have failed to demonstrate that fumes from the dispensing of

gas will not negatively affect occupants of adjoining properties.

3. Difficulties with turning movements at the acute angle of Boilers

Road will be exacerbated by the high level of traffic movements associated

with a gas station. Per Part 3.14 of the Development Plan 1997, “In making

decisions on planning applications, the likely requirements of land for new

public roads and road improvements shall be taken into account”. The

application does not address to the satisfaction of the Authority the

necessary improvement of the Boilers Road/Walkers Road intersection.”

The applicant appealed the Authority’s decision to the Planning Appeals Tribunal







105

and the Tribunal heard the matter on December 12, 2002 and ruled that “…the

decision of the CPA was unreasonable and should be set aside. However, the

Tribunal does not find itself in a position to impose conditions on the grant of

planning permission and refers the matter back to the CPA for imposition of those

conditions.”

April 16, 2003 (CPA/11/03; 3.02)

The matter was scheduled for consideration by the Authority as directed by the

Appeals Tribunal and the Authority adjourned the application for reasons related

to concerns about traffic issues and aesthetics.

April 30, 2002 (CPA/13/03; 2.02)

The matter was adjourned again to allow the Authority an opportunity to liaise

with the applicant and the previous objectors and to require the applicant to

submit revised plans for the canopy and the width of Boilers Road.



Decision: It was resolved to advise the applicant that in accordance with the

decision of the Planning Appeals Tribunal, the following conditions are imposed

on the planning permission granted by the Tribunal:

In addition to Building Permit requirements, conditions (1-2) listed below shall be

met before a Building Permit can be issued.

1) The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the following:

a) the deletion of the phone booths/signs; and

b) the sidewalk along Boilers Road setback 15 feet from the

centerline of the road.

2) The applicant shall submit a landscape plan which shall be subject to

review and approval by the Authority. At a minimum the landscape plan

should include:

• A legend identifying the names, quantity and size of the proposed

vegetative species in terms of gallons, height and trunk diameter. The

legend should also include any other hard landscape features, such as

walls, benches, fountains and ground cover materials such as mulch

and decorative rock.

• The size of the vegetative species should reflect the rate of maturity of

each species and the mass and scale of the associated buildings and

structures that the vegetation is intended to screen with a goal of

providing extensive and lush landscaping at the time of initial planting.

• At least 25% of the proposed landscape vegetation of a native or

endemic variety and must be identified as such on the landscape plan

legend.

• A variety of colour and texture in the vegetative species selected.









106

• Within the landscape strip adjacent to the sidewalk, one shade tree at

approximate twenty-five foot intervals.

3) 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.

4) 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 (5-17) shall be complied

with before a final Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

5) The applicant shall 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 Water Authority’s standards.

6) The applicant shall also provide a grease interceptor with a liquid volume

of at least 600 US gallons to treat the wastewater from the kitchen sinks

prior to discharging into the septic tank. The grease interceptor shall be

constructed in accordance with Water Authority standards.

7) 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.

8) 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.

9) The applicant shall provide the Water Authority with detailed information

so it can be determined whether the proposal meets WA requirements for

Underground Storage Tanks:

a) Removal of any existing underground storage tanks shall be done

in a manner that ensures that any remaining product in the tanks

and/or lines is collected and disposed of in an environmentally

sound manner.

b) All equipment shall be installed and tested by a manufacturer

certified contractor in strict accordance with the manufacturer’s

specifications.

c) Operation and maintenance of the Underground Storage Tank

System shall be carried out in accordance with the manufacturer’s

recommendations and specifications.

d) The following equipment shall be installed to prevent groundwater

pollution originating from the underground storage tank system:

i. Double walled tanks with interstitial electronic leak detection

and alarm system.







107

ii. Double walled piping between storage tanks to dispensers and

between filling point and storage tanks.

iii. Mechanical leak detection and shut-off for product pumps.

iv. Containment sumps below dispensers and pumps.

v. Overfill protection.

e) Monitoring wells shall be installed within the tank excavation and

at the station perimeter (exact number and locations to be

determined by the Authority). All wells shall be accessible for

inspection by the Authority.

f) Annual pressure testing of tanks and piping shall be conducted in

accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations.

g) The owner/operator of the facility shall have a written emergency

plan and cleanup equipment for spills. The plan shall be placed

where it is readily available at the site; it shall include telephone

numbers and instructions to deal with a spill in an environmentally

responsible manner.

h) The Authority shall be notified in order to carry out site

inspections at the following stages:

i. After removal of any existing underground storage tank

system before the new tanks are installed.

ii. Before backfill of the new underground storage tanks.

iii. Before backfill of the underground piping system.

iv. Final inspection at completion of mechanical and electronic

leak detection system.

10) The applicant shall provide an on-site solid waste facility in accordance

with the requirements of the Chief Environmental Health Officer.

11) Storm water drams shall be located in the parking lot with parking areas

sloped towards the drams

12) Roof water runoff should not be made to drain freely over the parking

areas or unto surrounding property. PWD recommends piped connection

to catch basins in or near the parking lot.

13) Curbing shall be provided around the parking area to prevent storm water

runoff onto surrounding properties

14) Construct a gentle 'hump' (entrance/exit ramp) at the driveway in order to

prevent storm water runoff from and/or onto the access road.

15) A six-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the property lines adjacent to

Boilers Road and Walkers Road, 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







108

Department standards.

16) The applicant shall construct a 6’ high concrete wall along the common

property boundary of Block 14E Parcels 99 and 256 for a minimum

distance of 160’ from Walker Road. Both sides of the wall shall be

suitably rendered to the satisfaction of the Authority.

17) The parking lot and driveway aisles surfaced with asphaltic concrete or

equivalent and tire stops provided for each parking space which must be

striped.

The applicant is reminded that the finished floor level shall be at least five feet

above mean sea level.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to

occupying the building.



7.03 FOI EXEMPTION PER SECTION 20 OF THE FOI LAW

This item of the Minutes is exempt per section 20(b) and (d) of the Freedom of Information Law, 2007,

which reads: “(b) its disclosure would, or would likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the

purposes of deliberation;” or “(d) its disclosure would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely to prejudice,

the effective conduct of public affairs. The Department shall investigate and take appropriate action.



7.04 PLANTER WALL AT ELIZABETHAN SQUARE

The Director of Planning is dealing with this matter. He has advised the relevant

person on an alternative of addressing drainage/flooding concerns simultaneously

with allowing for pedestrian access.



7.05 FOI EXEMPTION PER SECTION 20 OF THE FOI LAW

This item of the Minutes is exempt per section 20(b) and (d) of the Freedom of Information Law, 2007,

which reads: “(b) its disclosure would, or would likely to, inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the

purposes of deliberation;” or “(d) its disclosure would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely to prejudice,

the effective conduct of public affairs. The Department shall investigate and take appropriate action.



The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Central

Planning Authority is scheduled for Wednesday 28th May 2003 at 12:30 p.m. in

the Planning Department’s Conference Room, Third Floor Tower Building.



A. L. Thompson Kenneth S. Ebanks

Chairman Executive Secretary

cc: All members of the Central Planning Authority

Hon. Minister (P.C. W. & IT)

Chief Immigration Officer

Solicitor General

Chief Fire Officer

Chief Engineer, PWD

Chief Education Officer

Director, Department of Environmental Health

Director, Department of Environment

Managing Director, Caribbean Utilities Company







109

List of Applications Presented at CPA/15/03

1.01 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF CPA/11/03 HELD ON APRIL 16, 2003. .................................................2

2.01 FUTURE SPORTS CLUB BLOCK 4D PARCEL 3 (LOT A) (F01-0368) (P02-0828) ($150,000) (JAB)......2

2.02 CAPTAIN’S BAKERY (CAYMAN) LTD. BLOCK 13E PARCEL 2 (P03-0037) (F95-0130(B)) ($8,000)

(BES) .........................................................................................................................................................6

3.01 LOUIS & SANDRA SOLOMON BLOCK 13D PARCEL 376 (F03-0060) (P03-0135) ($180,000) (EJ) ...25

3.02 PROPRIETORS OF STRATA PLAN NO. 73 BLOCK 13B PARCEL 193 (FA80-0184) (P03-0307)

(P03-0311) ($1,000) (JAB) ......................................................................................................................26

3.03 GEORGE EBANKS BLOCK 4B PARCEL 323 (F03-0133) (P03-0345)($6,000) (JAB)............................28

3.04 LIGHTHOUSE POINTE BLOCK 10A PARCEL 69 REM 1 (F03-0043) (P03-0091) ($6,500) (JAB).......29

3.05 PEDRO CASTLE BLOCK 32E PARCEL 50 (F95-0190) (P03-0253) ($40,000) (RS)................................33

3.06 INDONESIAN INVESTMENTS LTD. BLOCK 14E PARCEL 12 (F75-0105) (P03-0330) ($10,000) (RS)35

3.07 WATER AUTHORITY - CAYMAN BLOCK 58A PARCEL 51 REM 1 (F02-0214) (P03-0342) $6,000

(RS)..........................................................................................................................................................36

3.08 MALYK/ HOUSTON BLOCK 24B PARCEL 17 (F96-0153) (P03-0361) ($0) (CF)..................................36

3.09 GODFREY VASSELL BLOCK 43E PARCEL 91 (F03-0162) (P03-0410) ($64,000) (CF) .......................38

3.010 MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK 7C PARCEL 11 (F03-0082) (P02-0193)

($450,000) (CF) .......................................................................................................................................39

3.011 ENA V. FORBES BLOCK 72B PARCEL 45 (F91-0137) (P03-0243) ($69,750) (BES)..............................45

3.012 TEXACO CARIBBEAN INC. BLOCK 14CJ PARCEL 122 (F03-0105) (516/90) (P03-0268) ($3,855)

(EJ) ..........................................................................................................................................................47

3.013 THOMPSON RESORTS BLOCK 73A PARCEL 39 (FA81-0340) (P03-0259) ($304,000) (CF) ..............49

3.014 DARVY WHITTAKER BLOCK 28C PARCEL 78 (F00-0373) (P03-0388) ($0) (EJ) ...............................55

3.015 HANK & FIONA BODDEN BLOCK 43E PARCEL 63 (F00-0225) (P03-0285) ($130,000) (BES) ..........57

3.016 UBW LTD. BLOCK 14BH PARCELS 78 AND 79 (F02-0056) (P03-0372) ($0) (BES)................................58

3.017 SCOTT’S EQUIPMENT BLOCK 51A PARCEL 5 (FA81-0439) (P02-0991) (P02-1024) ($400,000) (RS)61

3.018 SAFEGUARD SECURITY BLOCK 28C PARCEL 165 REM.1 (F01-0296) (P03-0235) (P03-0233)

($55,000) (BES).......................................................................................................................................64

3.019 DUKE PROPERTIES LTD. BLOCK 59A PARCEL 239 (F01-0314) (P03-0377) ($0) (RS) .....................66

3.020 GRACE WOOD BLOCK 27C PARCEL 472 (F03-0146) (P03-0374) ($180,000) (CF)..............................67

3.021 BEVERLY HYMAN BLOCK 15C PARCEL 211 (F03-0155) (P03-0397) ($355,000) (CF) ......................68

3.022 CARIBBEAN UTILITIES COMPANY LTD. BLOCK 5C PARCEL 70 (F03-0072) (P03-0160) (P03

-0161) ($515,000) (JAB)...........................................................................................................................69

3.023 JOYCE ANN SEYMOUR BLOCK 25B PARCEL 133 (F03-0135) (P03-0348) ($369,880) (EJ)...............76

3.024 BRUCE OAKLEY BLOCK 33E PARCEL 85 (F97-0228) (P03-0366) ($40,000) (CF) ..............................78

3.025 JOAN MCCARTHY BLOCK 4B PARCEL 624 (F03-0157) (P03-0400) ($127,878) (EJ) .........................80

3.026 CAYMAN PREP & HIGH SCHOOL BLOCK 14D PARCEL 403 (F00-0205) (P03-0267) ($870,000)

(RS)..........................................................................................................................................................81

3.027 NIVEN WOOD BLOCK 24B PARCEL 25 (FA89-0415) (P03-0367) ($385,000) (CF) ..............................84

3.028 TIDEMAN CROMWELL EBANKS BLOCK 49B PARCEL 157 (FB96-0351) (P03-0204) ($3,500) (CF)85

3.029 CABLE & WIRELESS BLOCK 9A PARCEL 8 (F02-0356) (P03-0416) (JAB) ........................................87

3.030 ELIZABETH SHERIEFF BLOCK 57E PARCEL 28 (F95-0330) (P03-0242) ($3,500) (CF) ....................89

3.031 MOTION UNLIMITED BLOCK 19E PARCEL 144 (F94-0058)(P03-0363) ($100,000) (JAB)................91

6.01 CHRISTINE FOY PANTON (TPO02-0003) BLOCK 5B PARCEL 140 (NAW) ......................................95

6.02 ANDES PERRAULT APPEAL .............................................................................................................98

6.03 ROW IN BEACH RESORT/RESIDENTIAL ZONE ..........................................................................98

6.04 VISTA DEL MAR DEVELOPMENT (RZ02-0006) BLOCK 10A PARCELS 49 REM1, 50, 51, 52, 53,

54, 55, 57, 58, 66, 67, 192, 226 BLOCK 9A PARCELS 270, 130, 272 BLOCK 10E PARCELS 38, 39 (HP/RS)98

7.01 WALKERS ROAD TEXACO .............................................................................................................104

7.02 MIKE BROWN & ESSO STANDARD OIL LIMITED BLOCK 14E PARCEL 255 (F00-0319) (P02

-0316) (P02-0317) ($1,000,000) (RS).....................................................................................................105

7.03 FOI EXEMPTION PER SECTION 20 OF THE FOI LAW…………………………………………...……..109

7.04 PLANTER WALL AT ELIZABETHAN SQUARE ..........................................................................109

7.05 FOI EXEMPTION PER SECTION 20 OF THE FOI LAW ........................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.









110

111