avenue. central planning authority...1 central planning authority minutes of a meeting of the...

1

Central Planning Authority

Minutes of a meeting of the Central Planning Authority held on July 3, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference Room, 1st Floor, Government Administration Building, Elgin Avenue.

14th Meeting of the Year CPA/14/19

Mr. A. L. Thompson (Chairman)(apologies)Mr. Robert Watler Jr. (Deputy Chairman)(apologies)Mr. Kris BergstromMr. Peterkin BerryMr. Edgar Ashton Bodden (except 2.10)Mr. S. T. (Tommie) Bodden (Acting Chairman)Mr. Joseph CoeMr. Ray Hydes (apologies)Mr. Trent McCoyMr. Rex MillerMr. Eldon RankinMr. Selvin Richardson (apologies)Mr. Fred Whittaker (apologies)Mr. Haroon Pandohie (Executive Secretary)Mr. Ron Sanderson (Deputy Director of Planning (CP))

1. Confirmation of Minutes2. Applications3. Development Plan Matters4. Planning Appeal Matters5. Matters from the Director of Planning6. CPA Members Information/Discussions

2

List of Applications Presented at CPA/14/19

1. 1 Confirmation of Minutes of CPA/12/19 held on June 19, 2019. ..........................32. 1 ALAN SILVERMAN Block 12C Parcel 260 (F18-0171) (P19-0601) (BES) .......42. 2 HERMAN CHARLERY Block 25B Parcel 643 (F19-0171) (P19-0244)

($325,000) (BES) .....................................................................................................62. 3 BEREA SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH Block 4E Parcels 118, 119

and 120 (F07-0318) (P18-0041) ($2 million) (JP) ..................................................92. 4 RUM POINT CLUB LTD. Block 33B Parcel 266 (F08-0420) (P19-0284)

($1,400) (CS) .........................................................................................................172. 5 KRIO GROUP LTD. Block 4D Parcel 20 (F19-0236) (P19-0383) ($400,000)

(EJ) .........................................................................................................................202. 6 GAYE RANDOLPH Block 25C Parcel 190 (F16-0002) (P19-0505) ($50,000)

(JP) .........................................................................................................................212. 7 PETER WATLER Block 64A Parcel 17 (F19-0270) (P19-0452) ($1,300,000)

(AS) ........................................................................................................................242. 8 PARADISE COFFEE BEAN Block 19E Parcel 139 (FA89-0292) (P19-0515)

(JP) .........................................................................................................................282. 9 MORRITT’S PROPERTIES (CAYMAN) LTD. Block 73A Parcel 110 (FA79-

0183) (P19-0552) ($50,000) (CS) ..........................................................................292. 10 MATTHEW TIBBETTS Block 13D Parcel 311 (F18-0523) (P18-1245)

($385,000) (MW) ...................................................................................................315. 1 BENDEL EBANKS Block 4B Parcel 49 (F19-0235) (P19-0382) (EJ) 355. 2 CRAIG SMITH Block 12D Parcel 59 (F17-0347) (P19-0582) (CS) ..................35

3

APPLICANTS THAT APPEARED BEFORE THE CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

APPLICANT NAME TIME ITEM PAGE

Alan Silverman (BES) 10:30 2.1 4Herman Charlery (BES) 11:00 2.2 6Matthew Tibbetts 11:30 2.10 31Berea SDA (JP) 1:00 2.3 9

1.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. 1 Confirmation of Minutes of CPA/12/19 held on June 19, 2019.

Moved: Trent McCoySeconded: Joseph CoeConfirmed

4

2. 1 ALAN SILVERMAN Block 12C Parcel 260 (F18-0171) (P19-0601) (BES)

Application for re-consideration of condition 1) of (CPA/21/18; Item 2.6). Appearance at 10:30FACTSLocation Canal Point Drive, next to Copper Falls SteakhouseZoning NCParcel Size 0.3614 acreProposed Use Food Truck CourtBACKGROUNDSeptember 19, 2018 (CPA/21/18; Item 2.6) – The Authority granted planning permission for jerk stand, two (2) mobile food trucks, covered seating area, bar, LPG tank, 4’ fence and sign with conditions.February 6, 2019 (CPA/03/19; Item 2.8) – CPA adhered to planning permission CPA/21/18; item 2.6.

Decision: It was resolved to adhere to planning permission CPA/21/18; item 2.6.

Reason for the decision:1. The Authority is of the view that commercial developments should be served

with parking areas that are surfaced with asphalt or concrete in order to ensure proper functionality and to prevent the degradation of the parking areas. The Authority is also of the view that the applicant did not provide sufficient reasons to persuade the Authority to deviate from the typical manner in which parking areas for commercial developments are surfaced.

LETTER FROM APPLICANT“On behalf of the Owners of the property Maria and Cort Kormos and as the Owner of the proposed development on Block 12c Parcel 260 we received a letter dated October 3, 2018 with (5) conditions that had to be met before permit drawings can be submitted to the Department of Planning. We have no issue with condition items 2-4. However we have an issue with part of condition number one (1) as defined below: Condition 1: The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing tire stops for accessible parking spaces only and the parking area curbed and surfaced with asphalt or concrete.

2.0 APPLICATIONSAPPEARANCES (Items 2. 1 to 2. 3)

5

We are trying to develop a green food truck court project that feels like one is in the islands. We agree and are willing to put in tire stops at accessible parking spaces only and curb the parking area however we feel that surfacing the parking area in asphalt or concrete is in contradiction with our green goals and making people feel as though they are at a Food Truck Court in the islands. We are willing to pave the accessible path for ADA patrons to exit their vehicle and enter our establishment. However, we would like to request approval to do Bituminous Treatment System (BST) or commonly referred to as Chip and Spray per the Civil drawings C100 General Notes and site plan C201 dated March 2019. We respectfully request that you remove the requirement to surface the parking lot in asphalt or concrete conditional requirement or include Bituminous Treatment System”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

GeneralThe application is for re-consideration of condition 1) of (CPA/21/18; Item 2.6) to change the parking lot pavement. The site is located on Canal Point Drive, next to Copper Falls Steakhouse/The Strand off West Bay Road. Zoning The property is zoned Neighbourhood Commercial.Specific Issue a) Condition 1) of (CPA/21/18; Item 2.6)

The applicant is seeking to modify planning permission to re-consider condition 1) of (CPA/21/18; Item 2.6), to pave the parking lot with chip and spray pavement instead of asphalt – the applicant’s reasons are noted in his letter above.

At 10:30am, Alan Silverman, Laura Silverman and Stace McGee appeared as the applicants. There was discussion regarding the application and summary notes are provided as follows:• Mr. McGee explained that the issue is not that they don’t want to pave, it’s

what they want to pave with. They feel a food truck court is supposed to be a relaxed area and they are often gravel. They don’t want the area to feel like a parking lot. They wish to put in concrete aprons with a gravel parking area. They want to be green and provide better drainage. They feel chip and spray is a compromise as it is more like gravel and not a sea of asphalt.

• The Authority noted that they will have a fixed restaurant and queried how that fits into the relaxed food court concept.

• Ms. Silverman noted that asphalt raises the issue of heat.

6

• Mr. Silverman agreed that there will be too much heat and they want this to be a green space, a Caribbean space.

• The Authority explained that asphalt is typically required because of maintenance, wheel movements tear up chip and spray.

• Mr. McGee explained that they could also use a product called gravel pave. He noted that if it is installed right it is ADA approved.

• The Authority noted that this is a low site and does flood and chip and spray could clog the drain wells.

• Mr. Silverman explained that they want to be as green as possible, they want a Caribbean place, they don’t want Florida.

• The Authority noted that food trucks are not Caribbean, they came from Florida.

2. 2 HERMAN CHARLERY Block 25B Parcel 643 (F19-0171) (P19-0244) ($325,000) (BES)

Application for dwelling house, after-the-fact containers storage building, after-the-fact 6’ chain link fence, after-the-fact land clearing by mechanical means.Appearance at 11:00FACTSLocation Mangrove Avenue, Prospect SubdivisionZoning LDRParcel Size 0.2292 acre or 9,983.9 sq. ft.Building Size 3,129 sq. ft. Building Coverage 19.2%Proposed Parking 2Required Parking 1

Decision #1: It was resolved to grant planning permission for the house, subject to the following conditions:1) The applicant is required to apply for a Permit from the Director of Planning.

Construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a 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.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to occupying the building(s).

7

If the existing grade level does not currently provide for it, the applicant is reminded that the finished floor level of all buildings should be at least five feet (5') above mean sea level.

Reason for the decision:1. The Authority considered the application and determined that planning

permission would be granted as the application complies with the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision).

Decision #2: It was resolved to grant planning permission for the storage containers/structure, subject to the following conditions:1) The applicant is required to apply for a Permit from the Director of Planning

within 6 months of the date of this decision.2) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning


The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Completion within 12 months of the date of this decision.



LETTER FROM APPLICANT“We hereby apply for the use of two 40’-0” shipping container as storage shed structures for storing shoes, garden tools, equipment’s and two small boats.”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS GeneralThe application is for a dwelling house, after-the-fact containers storage building, after-the-fact 6’ chain link fence, and after-the-fact land clearing by mechanical means. The site is located on Mangrove Avenue, Prospect Subdivision.Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential.Specific Issues a) After-the-Fact 6’ Chain Link Fence

The applicant has erected a 6’ chain link fence without planning permission. In paragraph 4.3.1 of the CPA’s Wall and Fence Guidelines which states that in residential and tourism related zones no fence/wall should not exceed 4’ in height.

8

b) After-the-Fact Storage ContainersThe after-the-fact containers are a result of an Enforcement Notice (CE19-0074) dated April 26, 2019. Additionally, the applicant had cleared the property by mechanical means without planning permission. As submitted, the containers would form the storage building. The Authority should determine if the size of the storage building is appropriate in a residential area.

At 11:00am, Mr. Charlery appeared as the applicant and Aaron Brown appeared as his agent. There was discussion regarding the application and summary notes are provided as follows:• Mr. Charlery explained that he bought the property with the fences there. He

advised that he is a professional athlete and has various pieces of gym equipment and has stored them in two containers for the last nine years.

• The Authority noted a concern with the containers devaluing the properties in the area. Mr. Charlery noted that he will fix up the outside as he doesn’t want them to look like containers.

• The Authority noted that the photographs show the containers on concrete piers and Mr. Charlery explained he will have an engineer make sure it is all to code.

• The Authority asked if he would be applying for an electrical connection and Mr. Charlery said he only needs a light and he could run a cord from the house. He noted that his house has been designed without a garage so he has no storage other than the containers.

• The Authority asked why he doesn’t just add a storage area to the house and Mr. Charlery replied that it is cheaper this way as he already has the containers.

• Mr. Brown explained that when it is completed, it won’t look like containers.

9

2. 3 BEREA SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH Block 4E Parcels 118, 119 and 120 (F07-0318) (P18-0041) ($2 million) (JP)

Application for a church.Appearance at 1:00FACTSLocation Town Hall RoadZoning LDRNotice Requirements Objectors Parcel Size 0.86 AC/37,293 sq. ft.Current Use Vacant Proposed Use ReligiousSite Coverage Permitted 40%Parking Required 50 SpacesParking Proposed 54 SpacesSite coverage permitted 40%Site coverage proposed 19.4%BACKGROUNDNo site history.

Decision: It was resolved to refuse planning permission, for the following reason:1) Per Regulation 14(2) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018

Revision), the applicant failed to demonstrate that the proposed church meets the needs of the community.

APPLICANT’S LETTERSLetter #1“The Cayman Island Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist is hereby requesting variance in regard to placing a church on the above-named lots of land which is zoned as a Low Density Residential, these lots owned by the Church. We would like to inform you all parking requirements are met and that if there is any concerned about noise the windows and doors that will be use will be noise proof not causing any disturbance to the surrounding community. The church congregation is an orderly set of people which we only have our main service on Sabbaths / Saturday and may be one or two short nigh service in the week. Having the Church in this location will not be causing any harm to any

10

neighbours or anyone in the nationhood but it will help to betterment the spiritual life of people living in west bay. We would like to inform you that there is other institutional and commercial business in the current vicinity such as Schools, Churches and Gas -Station etc.”Letter #2“The Cayman Islands Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is hereby requesting permission to construct a new temple in West Bay on Block 4E Parcels 118, 119, 120. Please note that we intend to merge these three pieces on lands into one. This proposed temple in the West Bay area is intended to house the Berea Seventh-day Adventist Church which was organized in 2013.This church has not had a permanent temple or housing sing its formation in 2013. This congregation has presently a membership of close to 150, and growing. The members are very much involved in the community, ministering to the needs of the people in that district. The members of the congregation are presently renting a temporary place of meeting, but they are outgrowing the space.When they have their own temple, it will make it easier for them to make their long term plans, as well as to be better organized to minister to the people in the district.Thanks very much for considering this request, we ask that you look in favour is granting permission to begin the process of constructing this new temple in the district of West Bay.”OBJECTIONSSee Appendix ‘A’AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the National Roads Authority, Water Authority, Fire Department, Chief Environmental Health Officer and Department of Environment are noted below.National Roads Authority “Road Capacity IssuesThe traffic demand to be generated by the above proposed development of 11,470 sq. ft. has been assessed in accordance with ITE Code 560 - Church. The anticipated traffic to be added onto Town Hall Road is as follows:

Expected Daily Trip

AM Peak Hour Total Traffic

AM Peak 16% In

AM Peak 84% Out

PM Peak Hour Total Traffic

PM Peak 67% In

PM Peak 33% Out

100 6 4 2 NA NA NA

Based on these estimates, the impact of the proposed development onto Town Hall Road is considered to be minimal.

11

Access and Traffic Management IssuesOne-way driveway aisles with diagonal parking shall be a minimum of twelve (12) to sixteen (16) ft wide.Two-way driveway aisles shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) ft wide.Entrance and exit curves shall have no less than fifteen (15) feet radius curves, and have a width of twenty- four (24) ft.A six (6) foot sidewalk shall be constructed on Town Hall Road, within the property boundary, to NRA standards. Please have applicant revise site to show sidewalk.Tire stops (if used) shall be place in parking spaces such that the length of the parking space is not reduced below the sixteen (16) feet minimum.Stormwater Management IssuesThe applicant is encouraged to implement state-of-the-art techniques that manage stormwater runoff within the subject parcel and retain existing drainage characteristics of the site as much as is feasible through innovative design and use of alternative construction techniques. However, it is critical that the development be designed so that post-development stormwater runoff is no worse than pre-development runoff. To that effect, the following requirements should be observed:• The applicant shall demonstrate, prior to the issuance of any Building

Permits, that the Stormwater Management system is designed to embrace storm water runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 2 inches per hour for one hour of duration and ensure that surrounding properties and/or nearby roads are not subject to stormwater runoff from the subject site.

• The stormwater management plan shall include spot levels (existing and finished levels) with details of the overall runoff scheme. Please have applicant provide this information prior to the issuance of a building permit.

• Construct a gentle ‘hump’ at the entrance/exit (along the entire width of each driveway) in order to prevent stormwater runoff from and onto Town Hall Road. Suggested dimensions of the “hump’ would be a width of 6 feet and a height of 2-4 inches. Trench drains often are not desirable.

• Curbing is required for the parking areas to control stormwater runoff.• Roof water runoff should not drain freely over the parking area or onto

surrounding property. Note that unconnected downspouts are not acceptable. We recommend piped connection to catch basins or alternative stormwater detention devices. If catch basins are to be networked, please have applicant to provide locations of such wells along with details of depth and diameter prior to the issuance of any Building Permits.

At the inspection stage for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate that the installed system will perform to the standard given. The National Roads Authority wishes to bring to the attention of the Planning

12

Department that non-compliance with the above-noted stormwater requirements would cause a road encroachment under Section 16 (g) of The Roads Law (2005 Revision). For the purpose of this Law, Section 16(g) defines encroachment on a road as"any artificial canal, conduit, pipe or raised structure from which any water or other liquid escapes on to any road which would not but for the existence of such canal, conduit, pipe or raised structure have done so, whether or not such canal, conduit, pipe or raised structure adjoins the said road”Failure in meeting these requirements will require immediate remedial measures from the applicant.Water Authority“Wastewater Treatment & Disposal• The developer shall provide a septic tank with a capacity of at least (2,500)

US gallons for the proposed. The septic tank shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards. Each compartment shall have a manhole to allow for inspection and service. Manholes shall extend to or above grade and be fitted with covers that provide a water-tight seal and that can be opened and closed by one person with standard tools.

• Treated effluent from the septic tank shall discharge to an effluent disposal well, constructed by a licenced driller in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards. Licenced drillers are required to obtain the site-specific minimum borehole and grouted casing depths from the Authority prior to pricing or constructing an effluent disposal well.

• To achieve gravity flow, treated effluent from the septic tank must enter the disposal well at a minimum invert level of 4’6” above MSL. The minimum invert level is that required to maintain an air gap between the invert level and the water level in the well, which fluctuates with tides and perching of non-saline effluent over saline groundwater.

Water SupplyPlease be advised that the proposed development site is located within the Cayman Water Company’s (CWC) piped water supply area. • The developer is required to notify the Cayman Water Company without

delay, to be advised of the site-specific requirements for connection. • The developer shall provide water supply infrastructure per CWC’s

specification and under CWC’s supervision.”Fire DepartmentStamped approved.Chief Environmental Health Officer“DEH has no objections to the proposed. No more that (4) 33 gallon garbage bins are allowed.”

13

Department of the Environment“Under delegated authority from the National Conservation Council (section 3 (13) of the National Conservation Law, 2013), the Department of Environment offers the following comments for your consideration.The application site consists of primary dry forest and shrubland habitat, as shown in Figure 1 below. We recommend that there is no large scale clearing of the site, and that clearing is kept to the development footprint, leaving a natural buffer separating the subject parcels and the neighbouring parcels. We also recommend that the applicant retains as much native vegetation as possible, incorporating it into the landscaping scheme for the church. Native vegetation is best suited for the habitat conditions of the site, resulting in vegetation that requires less maintenance, and is therefore a very cost effective choice.

Figure 1: Image showing the habitat cover in the subject parcels which have been outlined in blue. (Source: DoE, 2018 and LIS, 2013)”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application seeks planning permission for construction of a 7535.85 sq. ft. church building.

14

Zoning The land is zoned Low Density Residential. Specific Issue a) Principle of development

Regulation 14(2) of the Development and Planning Regulations 2018 enables the provision of religious institutions in any zone where they meet the needs of the community.The Department has requested an assessment of community need to demonstrate the requirement for the proposed development. Such an assessment is expected to review availability and capacity of existing provision within the community and reflect upon the present and anticipated demand in the community.A letter from the Pastor has been submitted as evidence regarding the Community need for a religious institution, included in the appendix.Members are invited to consider whether adequate justification has been provided to demonstrate the need for the proposed church building.

At 1:00pm, Irvin Long, Jeff Jefferson, Reinaldo Dracket, Joshua Lawrence, Maurice Chambers, Erron Brown and Locksley Gould appeared on behalf of the applicant. Ezmie Smith and Alfredo Powery appeared as objectors. Margarita Howell and Ryan Anderson appeared as objectors and signed the attendance record, but it was determined that they were not objectors on record. There was discuss regarding the application and summary notes are provided as follows:• The Authority explained the meeting procedure.• Mr. Chambers advised that he is the Pastor and he provided several

comments:- He gave the background to the formation of the church- There has been a lot of growth in the church- They currently have no permanent place of worship- They purchased the land and are looking to construct a building for 150

persons and to allow for some growth- He noted that they are actively involved in the community with several

programs• The Authority noted that they have a church by the police station and why do

they need another location so close.• A church representative explained that there are numerous SDA churches and

each of them has their own culture of worship. He noted that in the past they failed to account for growth and construction costs keep going up. They see

15

West Bay growing and they don’t want to be caught unprepared so they applied for this church.

• The Authority asked if the existing church is fully occupied and Mr. Brown noted that the capacity is 500 and there are about 300 in the congregation.

• Mr. Brown further noted that in regard to objections about traffic, they are only there on Saturday mornings and Wednesday and Thursday evenings and not when traffic is at a peak. He noted they have enough parking per the Regulation. Regarding noise, he said this is not a noisy congregation and they can get sound proof windows if needed.

• The Authority asked if the objectors wished to speak to the application.• Ms. Smith noted that she is here for herself and the Dilberts. She noted that

the CPA has already set a precedent with the Bethel Refuge church on Shamrock as it was refused because it was within a residential area. This is a precedent and the Authority needs to follow it.

• The Authority noted that every application is considered on its own merits as there could be different reasons for approving or refusing something in one location and then not in the next.

• Ms. Smith noted that the Town Hall crescent has developed as a residential neighbourhood. She advised that she has looked at the Church Incorporation Law and it doesn’t identify various branches of the SDA church. The Authority interjected that only relevant material planning issues can be considered.

• Ms. Smith explained that she doesn’t live far from the existing SDA church by the police station and she can hear them. She noted she lives on Willie Farrington Dr, but owns 4E 539 which is next to the proposed church. She noted that there are other churches in the area and they provide community services and offer similar programs. She noted that this is a quiet neighbourhood and the services on Saturday with all the holy rollers will disturb people working Monday through Friday.

• Mr. Powery noted that this is a peaceful area and doesn’t see the need for another church. There are other churches existing in the area and other churches being built in the area.

• A church representative explained that the SDA church is not noisy and there is no hollering, perhaps the objectors have confused that with a different church.

• Mr. Chambers explained that unless you are inside the church you can’t hear anything.

• A representative of the church advised that he has spent four years worshipping in this area and this church will serve the needs of the community.

16

• The Authority noted that they must determine if the church meets the needs of the community. The church says the congregation is 150 members, but the Authority doesn’t know if they live in West Bay or other districts. There is an SDA church not far away with a capacity of 500, while the current congregation is only 300 so it would seem that the other 150 members could also attend that church.

• The Authority asked if approval was granted what would be the time frame for construction. A church representative replied that they would start building in 1 or 2 months and would complete it in 2 or 3 years, but hopefully less.

17

2. 4 RUM POINT CLUB LTD. Block 33B Parcel 266 (F08-0420) (P19-0284) ($1,400) (CS)

Application for a 35’ tall flagpole.FACTSLocation Rum Point Drive, Rum PointZoning HTNotice Requirements No objectorsParcel Size 1.97 acCurrent Use ApartmentsProposed Use FlagpoleBACKGROUNDAugust 19, 2009 (CPA/22/09; Item 2.2) - The Authority granted planning permission for a 5-story, twenty eight (28) unit apartment building with a pool and sign. Since the date of the original approval, there have been numerous applications to modify planning permission.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following condition:1) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning


Reasons for the decision:1. With the exception of the high water mark setback, which is addressed below,

the application complies with the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision).

2. The proposed development does not comply with the minimum required setback from the high water mark per Regulation 8(10)(e) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision). Pursuant to Regulation 8(11), the Authority may allow a lesser setback having regard to:a) the elevation of the property and its environs;b) the geology of the property;c) the storm/beach ridge;d) the existence of a protective reef adjacent to the proposed development;e) the location of adjacent development; and

2.0 APPLICATIONSREGULAR AGENDA (Items 2. 4 to 2. 10)

18

f) any other material consideration which the Authority considers will affect the proposal.

In this instance, the Authority is of the view that proposed location for the flag pole in front of the pool is reasonable and being such a minor ancillary feature it is reasonable to allow a setback of 127’ 6” which is only 2’ 6” less than the required 130’, especially as there are no life safety issues associated with the approval of the flag pole. The Authority views these matters as a material consideration that can be considered per sub-regulation 8(11)(f).

APPLICANT’S LETTER“Please refer to the below for further correspondence to accompany our request for a variance to the high water mark (HWM) setback for the flagpole application, P19-0284.As mentioned in our letter dated 08 April 2019, the location of the proposed flagpole is located at the rear of the development to minimize the visual impact on the street scene and surrounding properties. Because of this, we believe that the proposed will not be detrimental to the person residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighbourhood, or to the public welfare, per 8(13)(b)(iii) of the Regulations.With reference to 8(11) of the Regulations:(a) The flagpole will be located at the same elevation as the lower pool deck of

the property (+7 MSL);(b) The geology is beach and rock;(c) The adjacent properties have been notified and we are of the understanding

that there are no objections. Note that the Retreat property is significantly closer to the HWM that the proposed flagpole location;

(d) Please note that the HWM has moved since the original building approval. As illustrated on the drawings submitted under this application, the proposed location of the flagpole is 127’6” form the original HWM. Based on the current HWM survey dated 27 February 2019, the proposed flagpole will be located 101’3” from the HWM.

We would also like to mention that other projects by this developer, such as the Caribbean Plaza, Caribbean Club and Buckingham Square, have flagpoles and proudly raise the Caymanian flag which is something that would like to apply to the Rum Point Club development. We feel that our request fulfils the criteria for granting a variation in accordance with 8(11) and 8(13) of the Regulations, and hereby ask for this variance to be considered by the Authority.AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the Department of Environment are noted below.

19

Department of Environment“Under delegated authority from the National Conservation Council (section 3 (13) of the National Conservation Law, 2013), the Department of Environment confirms that we have no comments at this time.”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe applicant is requesting planning permission for a 35’ tall flagpole.ZoningThe property is zoned Hotel/TourismSpecific Issuesa) High Water Mark Setback

The flagpole will be located within the HWM setback at 98’-3” from the current HWM line. The applicant’s letter justifying the location of the flagpole is included in this report.Given the Planning history for this site, specifically in regards to CPA consistently maintaining the 2008 HWM setback and repeated concerns over sand placement along this shoreline, the CPA is requested to consider whether the applicant has sufficiently detailed a hardship to warrant a HWM setback variance.

20

2. 5 KRIO GROUP LTD. Block 4D Parcel 20 (F19-0236) (P19-0383) ($400,000) (EJ)

Application for an after-the-fact addition to house 3A and an after-the-fact addition to house 3B to create a duplex.FACTSLocation Erenette Lane & Mount Pleasant RoadZoning MDRNotice Requirements No Objections.Parcel Size Proposed 8,712 sq. ft.Parcel Size Required 15,000 sq. ft.Current Use Two (2) HousesProposed Use After-the-Fact Addition to House and

Addition to House to create DuplexProposed Parking 4Required Parking 3Number of Units 2 BACKGROUNDBuilding appears on 1971 aerial map.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application and invite the applicant to appear before the Authority to discuss concerns regarding the lot size and setbacks as well the after-the-fact construction of the wall along the road.

LETTER FOR VARIANCE“The owner of this property contacted me to assist with the submission for Planning Approval of the proposed project. The project consists of an addition to create one duplex and renovations to an existing house. The houses will require a SETBACK VARIANCE and for that purpose a 150’ radius for notifications was used. The parcel is zoned Medium Density Residential which requires 7,500 per house or per Duplex (15’000) the subject parcel is 0.20 acres or 8,712 sq. ft. Therefore we are requesting a LOT SIZE VARIANCE and notifications were sent out mentioning these 2 requests to the Authorities. Notices were posted on the 21st of May so we will wait the 21 days required by law for any comments or objections from neighboring properties. The work being carried out at the site was suspended as required by the Authorities and will resume only after permits are obtained.

21

On behalf of the owner I respectfully request the granting of these two variances which will not be detrimental of the current conditions of the neighbors.PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralApplication for an after-the-fact addition to house 3A and a proposed addition to house 3B to create a duplex.ZoningThe property is zoned Medium Density Residential.Specific Issuesa) Side Setback - Regulation 9 (7) (i and j)

House 3B exists with a side setback between 0’ and 1’ instead of the required setback of 10’ for a single storey house. The front setback exists at 11’ instead of the required 20’. The applicant is seeking to add to the rear of the house and add a second floor. The rear addition does not affect the front setback, but does extend the very deficient side setback and this is further compounded by the fact that the new second floor would require a side setback of 15’ instead of 10’.

b) Lot Size Variance – Regulation 9 (7) (d and e)The subject parcel existing at 8,712 sq. ft. Regulations 9(7)(d) and (e) require a lot size of 7,500 sq. ft. for each house or duplex for a total required lot size of 15,000 sq. ft.. The subject parcel is deficient by 6,288 sq. ft

2. 6 GAYE RANDOLPH Block 25C Parcel 190 (F16-0002) (P19-0505) ($50,000) (JP)

Application for a swimming pool. FACTSLocation Shamrock Road, Lower ValleyZoning LDRNotice Requirements No objectors Parcel Size 1.29 AC/56,192.4 sq. ft.Current Use Residential Proposed Use Residential

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.

22

1) The construction drawings for the proposed swimming pool shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Health. The applicant shall also submit to the Director of Planning the requisite signed certificate certifying that if the pool is constructed in accordance with the submitted plans it will conform to public health requirements

2) The applicant is required to apply for a Permit from the Director of Planning. Construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a 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.

4) The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Completion prior to the utilization of the pool.

Reasons for the decision:1. With the exception of the high water mark setback, which is addressed below,

the application complies with the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision).

2. The proposed development does not comply with the minimum required setback from the high water mark per Regulation 8(10)(f) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision). Pursuant to Regulation 8(11), the Authority may allow a lesser setback having regard to:a) the elevation of the property and its environs;b) the geology of the property;c) the storm/beach ridge;d) the existence of a protective reef adjacent to the proposed development;e) the location of adjacent development; andf) any other material consideration which the Authority considers will affect

the proposal.In this instance, the Authority is of the view that:• The elevation of the property and its environs is high enough to assist in

minimizing storm surge thus allowing the proposed development to be closer to the high water mark.

• The geology of the property being an ironshore bluff will assist in minimizing storm surge thus allowing the proposed development to be closer to the high water mark.

• There are existing developments on adjacent properties with similar setbacks from the high water mark. Therefore, the setback of the proposed development is consistent with the established development character of

23

the area and it will not detract from the ability of adjacent land owners from enjoying the amenity of their lands.

AGENT’S LETTER“We write on behalf of the applicants, Gaye Randolph, with regards to the following;

A rear setback variance – to allow the proposed pool to be constructed with a setback less than the required 20ft from the property line.

We request permission for the subject matter per the drawings provided and humbly give the following reasons: 1. Per section 8(13)(d) of the Planning Regulations, the adjacent property

owners have been notified and no objections have been received to date; 2. Per section 8(13)(b)(iii) of the Planning Regulations, the proposal will not be

materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare;

3. The location of the pool is most suitable area of the parcel. It will offer the most efficient use and safest environment possible for the applicant.

4. The application complies with all other relevant planning requirements.”AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the Department of Environment are noted below.Department of the Environment“Although the setback of the pool and patio is significantly reduced from the minimum required by planning regulations, the 20ft high elevation of the bluff means that the potential of impact by sea level rise and waves from storm events is significantly reduced in this location.”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application site is location in the Lower Valley area of the district. Residential properties form the east and west boundaries with the ocean to the south and Shamrock Road providing access from the north.The application seeks planning permission for the construction of a swimming pool. Zoning The land is zoned Low Density Residential. Specific Issue a) High Water Mark Setback 24’ v 50’

Regulation 8(10)(c) stipulates a 50ft setback in areas of ironshore. The application seeks planning permission to site a swimming pool 24’ from the ironshore edge.

24

Members are invited to reflect upon the agent’s variance letter as part of their considerations.

2. 7 PETER WATLER Block 64A Parcel 17 (F19-0270) (P19-0452) ($1,300,000) (AS)

Application for a house, garage, wall, pool, generator and diesel tank.FACTSLocation Sea View RoadZoning BRRNotice Requirements No ObjectorsParcel Size 2.67 acres (116,305 sq. ft.)Current Use VacantProposed Use House, Garage, Wall, Pool, Generator and

Diesel TankBuilding Size 4,259 sq. ft. house, 476 sq. ft. garageBuilding Coverage 4%Proposed Parking 2Required Parking 1

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:1) The applicant is required to apply for a Permit from the Director of Planning.

Construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Permit.2) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning


In addition to Building Permit requirements, condition (3) listed below shall be met before a Building Permit can be issued.3) The construction drawings for the proposed swimming pool shall be submitted

to the Department of Environmental Health. The applicant shall also submit to the Director of Planning the requisite signed certificate certifying that if the pool is constructed in accordance with the submitted plans it will conform to public health requirements.

The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to occupying the building(s).

25

If the existing grade level does not currently provide for it, the applicant is reminded that the finished floor level of all buildings should be at least seven feet (7') above mean sea level.

Reasons for the decision:1. With the exception of the side setbacks, which are addressed below, the

application complies with the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision).

2. The proposed application does not comply with the minimum required side setbacks per Regulation 15(4)(b)(i) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision). The Authority is of the opinion that pursuant to Regulation 8(13)(b) there is sufficient reason and exceptional circumstance to allow the lesser setbacks as follows:a) The characteristics of the proposed development are consistent with the

character of the surrounding area;b) The proposal will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or

working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighbourhood, or to the public welfare; and

c) The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Section 2.6 of The Development Plan 1997.

AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the Department of Environment are noted below.National Conservation Council“Under delegated authority from the National Conservation Council (section 3 (13) of the National Conservation Law, 2013), the Department of Environment offers the following comments for your consideration.• The application site is located on an ironshore coastline with a perched beach

on the site; is the site is primarily man-modified with an area of coastal shrubland and seasonally flooded mangrove forest and woodland, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

26

Figure 1: Site plan overlaid onto DoE’s 2013 Habitat Map

Figure 2: Plan overlaid onto Lands and Survey’s 2013 aerial imagery • The Department is pleased to see that the development is situated behind the

vegetation line with a coastal setback of 165ft as shown in Figure 2. This is important assisting with mitigating against climate change impacts such as sea level rise and increased intensity of storm surge during inclement weather.

• The applicant is encouraged to retain as much mature native vegetation as possible, given that there is some primary coastal vegetation within the footprint of the development, as shown in Figure 1. It is also recommended to incorporate salt-tolerant native vegetation in to the landscaping scheme. Native vegetation is usually best suited for the physical conditions of the site, resulting in vegetation that requires less maintenance, and is therefore a very cost effective choice.”

APPLICANT LETTER“We write to the Central Planning Board to request a side yard setback variance to construct a single storey family house with a 10’-0” side setback rather than

27

20’-0” required under Beach Resort Residential (BRR) in the Planning Regulations.The proposed house application is under- developed consisting of one (1) single family one storey residence, garage and swimming pool. The house meets the 25’-0”road setback & 75’-0” HWM setback required under this zoning.As per Planning Regulation 2015, Section 8 (13b) our proposal meets the characteristics of the surrounding residential neighbourhood & will not be materially detrimental to persons resident or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighbourhood or public welfare.As per Section 8 (13d), we have notified the adjacent land owners and there have been no objections to date to this side setback variance.”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe application is for a single storey, 3-bedroom house, garage, pool, wall generator and fuel tank.ZoningThe property is zoned Beach Resort Residential. Specific Issuea) Side Setback Variance

Regulation 15 (4) (b) (i) states that side setbacks shall be a minimum of 20’ in a Beach Resort/Residential zone. The site plan shows side setbacks of 10’. The Authority must determine if the applicant has demonstrated that there is sufficient reason and exceptional circumstance to warrant allowing the lesser setbacks.

28

2. 8 PARADISE COFFEE BEAN Block 19E Parcel 139 (FA89-0292) (P19-0515) (JP)

Application for a 200 gal propane tank. FACTSLocation Seymour RoadZoning HINotice Requirements No Objectors Parcel Size 0.36 AC/16581.6 sq. ft.Current Use Heavy Industrial Proposed Use Heavy Industrial

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:1) The applicant is required to apply for a Permit from the Director of Planning.

Construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Permit.2) The applicant is required to obtain the necessary approvals from the Chief

Petroleum Inspector.3) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning


4) The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Completion prior to the utilization of the LPG tank.

Reasons for the decision:1. Pursuant to Regulation 8(8)(b) of the Development and Planning Regulations

(2018 Revision), the Authority deems the minimum road setback to be as shown on the submitted plans and finds the setback not to be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighbourhood, or to the public welfare and is consistent with the provisions of Section 2.6 of The Development Plan 1997.

AGENT’S LETTER“With this letter, we are requesting a variance to the following: We request a variance to Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision) 8. (b). Pertaining to the minimum road set back of 20’. • On the Seymour Rd. road boundary we wish to encroach into this set back with a LPG fuel tank and concrete pad.”

29

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application site is located in the Industrial Park of George Town. Industrial properties form the north and south boundaries with Commercial Avenue sited to the west and Seymour Road forming the eastern boundary.The application seeks planning permission for the installation of an LPG tank. Zoning The land is zoned Heavy Industrial. Specific Issue a) Front Setback Variance 14’ 8” v 20’

Regulation 8(8)(b) stipulates a 20ft road setback. The application seeks planning permission to site an LPG tank 14’-8” from the boundary.Members are invited to reflect upon the agent’s variance letter as part of their considerations.

2. 9 MORRITT’S PROPERTIES (CAYMAN) LTD. Block 73A Parcel 110 (FA79-0183) (P19-0552) ($50,000) (CS)

Application for a tennis court with a 10’ fence.FACTSLocation Queen’s Highway, East EndZoning HTNotice Requirements No ObjectorsParcel Size 4.54 acresCurrent Use HotelProposed Use Tennis CourtBACKGROUNDFebruary 17, 2015 (CPA/04/15; Item 2.3) - The Authority granted planning permission for a restaurant with cabana pool and tennis courts.June 5, 2019 (CPA/11/19; Item 5.1) - The Authority considered the location of a proposed tennis court on an existing site and determined a current HWM survey would not be required for the application.

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

30




AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the Department of Environment are noted below.Department of Environment“Under delegated authority from the National Conservation Council (section 3 (13) of the National Conservation Law, 2013), the Department of Environment offers the following comments for your consideration.”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe applicant is requesting planning permission for a tennis court with a 10’ fence.ZoningThe property is zoned Hotel Tourism.The Department supports the proposal as it complies with setbacks, parking and zoning.

31

2. 10 MATTHEW TIBBETTS Block 13D Parcel 311 (F18-0523) (P18-1245) ($385,000) (MW)

Application for four (4) studio apartments.Appearance at 11:30Ashton Bodden declared a conflict and left the meeting room.FACTSLocation Corner of Woodlake Drive and Greenwood

Drive, George Town Zoning HDRNotice Requirements No ObjectorsParcel Size Proposed 6,969.6 sq. ft. (0.16 Ac.)Parcel Size Required DiscretionaryCurrent Use VacantProposed Use (4) Studio ApartmentsBuilding Size 1,638 sq. ft. Density 4 unitsAllowable Density 25 units per acreBuilding Coverage 23.5%Proposed Parking 6 spacesRequired Parking 6 spacesNumber of Units 4BACKGROUNDMarch 5, 2019 - Eight (8) studio apartments with parking underneath adjourned.April 10, 2019 - Eight (8) studio apartments with parking underneath adjourned. June 19, 2019 – Four (4) studio apartments adjourned.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions: Conditions (1-7) listed below shall be met before permit drawings can be submitted to the Department of Planning.1) If not already shown on the site plan, the applicant shall submit a site plan that

shows the location, dimensions and size of the wastewater treatment system (including the disposal system). The treatment system must be labelled as

32

either a septic tank or an aerobic wastewater treatment system, whichever is applicable.

2) If not already shown on the site plan, the applicant shall submit a site plan showing tire stops for the parking spaces and the parking area curbed and surfaced with asphalt or concrete.

3) The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management plan designed in accordance with the requirements of the National Roads Authority (NRA) and approved by the Central Planning Authority. The applicant should liaise directly with the NRA in submitting the stormwater management plan.

4) The applicant shall submit a landscape plan which shall be subject to review and approval by the Central Planning Authority. It is suggested that the landscape plan be prepared following the recommendations of the Draft Cayman Islands Landscape Guidelines, found on the Planning Department’s website (www.planning.ky) under Policy Development, Policy Drafts.

5) Construction drawings for the proposed wastewater treatment system and disposal system shall be submitted to the Water Authority for review and approval. The Central Planning Authority must receive confirmation of the Water Authority’s approval.

6) The applicant shall submit a construction operations plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning indicating in sufficient detail how the development will be constructed without interfering with or obstructing adjacent roads, properties and fire lanes. At a minimum, the plan shall indicate the location of material storage, workers parking, site offices, portable toilets, construction fencing and where applicable, the stockpiling of material excavated from the site and material brought to the site for fill purposes.

7) The applicant is required to apply for a Permit from the Director of Planning. Construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Permit.


The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to occupying the building(s).If the existing grade level does not currently provide for it, the applicant is reminded that the finished floor level of all buildings should be at least five feet (5') above mean sea level.Provision shall 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.

http://www.planning.ky/

33

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, a Telecommunication Company of your preference and the Cayman Water Company and/or the Water Authority - Cayman.

Reasons for the decision:1. With the exception of the number of bedrooms, lot width, site coverage, front

and rear setbacks, which are addressed below, the application complies with the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision).

2. The proposed application does not comply with the maximum allowable number of bedrooms, the minimum required lot width, the maximum allowable site coverage, the minimum front and rear setbacks per Regulations 9(6)(c)(f)(g) and (h) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision). The Authority is of the opinion that pursuant to Regulation 8(13)(b) there is sufficient reason and exceptional circumstance to allow the additional number of bedrooms and site coverage and the lesser lot width and setbacks as follows:a) The characteristics of the proposed development are consistent with the

character of the surrounding area;b) The proposal will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or

working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighbourhood, or to the public welfare; and

c) The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Section 2.6 of The Development Plan 1997.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe application is for four (4) studio apartments to be located on the corner of Woodlake Drive and Greenwood Drive, George Town.Zoning The property is zoned High Density Residential and the Department would offer the following comments regarding specific issues noted below. Specific Issue a) Building Design

The Authority shall address the concerns regarding the design of the building and the intended number of apartment units.

SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSISThe Board should be reminded the mentioned application was seen on March 5, 2019 (CPA/05/19; Item 2.6), and it was resolved to adjourn the application and

34

invite the applicant to appear before the Authority to discuss concerns regarding the application with respect to the need for several variances to be granted.The Board should also be reminded the mentioned application was seen on April 10, 2019 (CPA/07/19; Item 2.4), and it was resolved to adjourn the application for the following reason: “1. The applicant is required to submit revised plans showing a maximum of four (4) apartment units.”The Board should be reminded the mentioned application was seen on June 19, 2019 (CPA/12/19; Item 2.22), and it was resolved to adjourn the application and invite the applicant to appear before the Authority to discuss concerns regarding the design of the building and the intended number of apartment units.

At 11:30am, Matthew Tibbetts appeared as the applicant. There was discussion regarding the application and summary notes are provided as follows:• The Authority noted that there is some confusion with the drawings as they

seem to show internal separation walls.• Mr. Tibbetts referred to the plans. He noted that originally there were eight (8)

1-bedroom units. He explained that two of the dotted wall lines should be shown as concrete and the other two as just internal sheet rock walls with the result being four (4) 2-bedroom units. He noted that he reduced the number of parking spaces to 6 which will reduce the overall site coverage.

• Mr. Tibbetts noted that he was asking for a setback variance from the one road and wishes for this to be considered a side setback.

• The Authority asked if the amount of asphalt could be reduced and Mr. Tibbetts replied perhaps it could be. The Authority asked if the driveways and parking areas would be asphalt or concrete and Mr. Tibbetts replied they would be concrete.

3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN MATTERS

4.0 PLANNING APPEAL MATTERS

35

5.0 MATTERS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

5. 1 BENDEL EBANKS Block 4B Parcel 49 (F19-0235) (P19-0382) (EJ)

The Authority reviewed an application for a two (2) lot subdivision and noted that the physical road is located outside of the public road reserve. The subject parcel does not have a vehicular right-of-way over the private parcel where the road is located. The Authority determined that this has been an historical situation and the subdivision can be approved with a condition that the applicant secure a vehicular access over the private parcel of land.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:1) Prior to the subdivision plan being finalized, the following condition shall be

satisfied:a) The applicant shall obtain a 30’ vehicular right-of-way over Block 4B

Parcel 267 Rem 1.2) The surveyor's final drawing shall include the surveyed dimensions of all

lots and must show all required easements and shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval prior to the survey being registered.



5. 2 CRAIG SMITH Block 12D Parcel 59 (F17-0347) (P19-0582) (CS)

The Authority reviewed an application for a fence situated along the road. The fence varies in height from 4’ to 5’. The Authority resolved to delegate approval of the fence to the Director of Planning pending the expiration of the agency commenting period.

Reason for the decision:1. The Authority considered the application and determined that proposed wall

height is in keeping with the heights of other walls in the area and that approval of the application can be delegated to the Director of Planning upon the expiration of the agency commenting period for the NRA.

6.0 CPA MEMBERS INFORMATION/DISCUSSIONS

1

Peacey, Jessica

From: Department of Planning

Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:46 AM

To: Clay Groves

Cc: Peacey, Jessica

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Proposal the build a church an baptismal pool.on Block And parcel

4E118,:E119,4E120.

Dear Ms. Groves,

Thank you for your email. The Planning Officer for the file, Ms. Jessica Peacey, will be in further contact with you

regarding a scheduled appearance with the Central Planning Authority when the application is considered.

Regards,

Ron Sanderson

Deputy Director of Planning|Current Planning Department of Planning |Cayman Islands Government | Government

Administration Building,

133 Elgin Avenue |PO Box 113, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands KY1-9000

1 +1 345 244-6504 (Main ) +1 345 244- 6501

- [email protected]| www.planning.ky

This email, including any attachment, is strictly confidential and may also be subject to legal professional and other

privilege. No confidentiality or privilege is waived by any error in its transmission. It is intended solely for the attention

and use of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the

intended recipient, you are not authorized to and must not review, disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message or

any part of it. If you have received this email in error, please delete it from your system and notify the sender

immediately at the above email address or call 1-345-244-6504.

-----Original Message-----

From: Clay Groves [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 11:17 AM

To: Department of Planning

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposal the build a church an baptismal pool.on Block And parcel 4E118,:E119,4E120.

By the present I would like to confirm that:I Joyice Marie Groves and Cliff Ian Groves joint owners of block and parcel

4E316. Westbay grand cayman,

We as joint owners of the said property , strongly oppose the contruction of any church on the said property . As this will

greatly diminish our quality of life . And as there two churches already within 500 feet of the propesed site . We can not

tolerate more noise an traffic in the area . Furthermore there is another Adventist church right here in west bay already

!!!!

Sincerely.

Joyice Marie Groves ,

Cliff Ian Groves,

2

PO Box 299. Ky11301. Westbay grand cayman .

P.O. Box 287

Grand Cayman KY1-1301

8th March 2018

Director of Planning

P.O. Box 113


Dear Sir,

Re: Notice of Application for Planning Permission by Cayman Island Conference of

Seventh Day Adventist

_____________________________________________________________

We write in connection with the above planning application.

We own the properties Block 4E 114 and 4E539 which required the Notice to be served on us.

We have examined the site plan after receiving the Notice of Application for Planning

Permission. We wish to strongly object to the Application. Herein are our objections for

Planning Permission:

1. The Zoning for this area is low residential. It is about the safety, or aesthetics,

neighbourhood character not churches.

2. The Application for the purpose of a church building and baptism pool will be noise,

congestion and traffic. Noise will create nuisance. The entrance to 4th Avenue is a 30 ft.

private road for the residential neighbourhood parcels. Such a building will not be

appropriate for a neighbourhood.

3. The building by reason of the use is likely to result in disturbance to the detriment of the

residential neighbourhood and carry down the value of existing properties.

4. Human Rights Act Article 8 states that a person has the substantive right for their

private family life. Private and family life therefore encompasses not only the home but

also the surroundings. The proposed building if passed would impact a significant

adverse impact on the residential dwellings.

5. Applications of this nature and if passed could lead to the increase of traffic on the

private road by the proposed development. There would be a conflict between the

movement of traffic going to the proposed development thereby creating safety hazard

on the existing neighborly development.

6. It is alarming by the proposed close proximity to homes/lands under 1 mile away.

People simply do not want to have nearby undesirable buildings close to them for the

sake of loss of privacy, overshadowing etc. Also visual impact of the development. This

application if allowed to take place is not in the best interest of surrounding land owners

and the CPA should strongly consider this. The proposed development is out of line with

existing buildings.

7. Such a development would set an undesirable precedent for other sites and would

erode the character of the area and this application would do just that. The location is

unsuitable for a church as it will bring problems to the neighbourhood. To select a site

for a church in a residential zone is critical and the CPA should not pass applications on

inappropriate sites.

8. Churches not only stay within their worship boundaries but take on other activities and

because of the zoning this could have adverse effects to residents.

9. The application is the impact on 3 residential lots. In such a case the application would

be considered inappropriate development within a residential area and should be

rejected. A LOW RESIDENTIAL AREA IS IMPLEMENTED TO LIMIT THE DENSITY OF

DWELLINGS PER UNIT OF THE PROPERTY NOT FOR A CHURCH TAKING UP 3 LOTS.

10. The Cayman Islands already has enough of these Seventh Day Adventist Churches. Every

time there is a falling out a new branch is formed. The Bethel Apostolic Church was

denied planning permission due to issues regarding traffic, noise and the location being

in a low density location therefore the CPA now has a precedent to follow and deny this

application.

11. Any Church Building and Baptism Pool would change the area for ever. No one should

have to leave the area or sell their property because of some church. The development

would destroy the peace and privacy of the area.

12. There is a case for rejection of this application as it is a peaceful area you cannot put a

Church there due to the general disturbance that would occur, noise which can affect

people’s health.

We trust that the above objections will be taken fully into account in determining the

application.

Respectfully

Ezmie Smith

Aileen Dilbert

Michael Dilbert

P.O. Box 287


14th June 2019


P.O. Box 113


Dear Sir,

Re: Planning Application by Cayman Island Conference of Seventh Day Adventist on Block

4E118, 4E119, 4E120

We refer to the further information by the Applicant dated 21st March 2019 therefore we

submit further objections.

1. Under the Churches Incorporation Law (2007 Revision) Part IV – Cayman Islands

Conference of Seventh-Day Adventist is listed. The Berea Seventh-day Adventist Church

is nowhere to be found. Even the letter head on which the further information is

provided refers to Seventh-Day Adventist Church. It appears that a branch has arisen

outside of the incorporation. This part of the law is clear.

2. It is unbelievable that each congregation is unique as the Seventh-day Adventist should

have the same teachings. If the practices differ what does that say for the incorporation.

This is just an excuse to get the application through.

3. There is already a very recent large Adventist Church built in West Bay which should be

able to facilitate growing members in West Bay. We do not believe that the membership

is growing that fast that the large church in West Bay cannot meet its demand. Was that

not the purpose of building a larger church? This church is hardly used during the week

why not work out a time table for programming their time of worship etc. with that

church. All the projects that are mentioned other churches are performing in the West

Bay district therefore this Berea Branch will not be doing anything more significant.

4. The Applicant has provided no evidence of change to the residential zoning.

5. The status on the church membership growth is notoriously questionable.

6. The list of projects and initiatives is definitely connected with the Church’s location and

the church changing the neighborhood. This church cannot stabilize the neighbourhood

when the neighbourhood is quite affluent. This application violates the zoning.

7. The Church should have checked when the land was bought that it prohibited a church

building. It is obvious the suitability for a church is out of question as 3 residential lots

will be used up for a church which is not in keeping with the residential zoning.

8. The 21st March 2019 letter list of projects endorses daily activities to necessitate even

more nuisance. The question of the location suitability for a church has not been

properly addressed. It is obvious that the compatibility of the building does not fit the

land form.

9. The Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision) is very clear that in a

residential zone, the primary uses any development in a residential zone shall ensure

that the massing scale, proportion and design of such a development is consistent with

the historic architectural tradition. Any approval for this church will certainly be a

departure from the regulations therefore whatever Pastor Maurice Chambers has said

does not suffice to meet the approval of this church.

10. For wanting a more convenient place to worship is no reason for a church to be placed

where it will have an effect on a quiet place of living which will result in many negative

causes to the detriment of where people have their homes.

Also see attachments enclosed to further support our objections.

In consideration of the further information provided it gives more rise why the application

should be rejected.

Respectfully

Ezmie Smith

Michael Dilbert

Aileen Dilbert

Antoinette & Alfredo Powery

West Bay

P.O. Box 212


15th June 2019


P.O. Box 113


Dear Sir,

Re: Planning Application by Cayman Island Conference of Seventh Day Adventist on Block 4E118, 4E119, 4E120

We refer to the further information by the Applicant dated 21st March 2019 therefore we submit further objections.

1. Under the Churches Incorporation Law (2007 Revision) Part IV – Cayman Islands Conference of Seventh-Day Adventist is listed. The Berea Seventh-day Adventist Church is nowhere to be found. Even the letter head on which the further information is provided refers to Seventh-Day Adventist Church. It appears that a branch has arisen outside of the incorporation. This part of the law is clear.

2. It is unbelievable that each congregation is unique as the Seventh-day Adventist should have the same teachings. If the practices differ what does that say for the incorporation. This is just an excuse to get the application through.

3. There is already a very recent large Adventist Church built in West Bay which should be able to facilitate growing members in West Bay. We do not believe that the membership is growing that fast that the large church in West Bay cannot meet its demand. Was that not the purpose of building a larger church? This church is hardly used during the week why not work out a time table for programming their time of worship etc. with that church. All the projects that

are mentioned other churches are performing in the West Bay district therefore this Berea Branch will not be doing anything more significant.

4. The Applicant has provided no evidence of change to the residential zoning.

5. The status on the church membership growth is notoriously questionable.

6. The list of projects and initiatives is definitely connected with the Church’s location and the church changing the neighborhood. This church cannot stabilize the neighbourhood when the neighbourhood is quite affluent. This application violates the zoning.

7. The Church should have checked when the land was bought that it prohibited a church building. It is obvious the suitability for a church is out of question as 3 residential lots will be used up for a church which is not in keeping with the residential zoning.

8. The 21st March 2019 letter list of projects endorses daily activities to necessitate even more nuisance. The question of the location suitability for a church has not been properly addressed. It is obvious that the compatibility of the building does not fit the land form.

9. The Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision) is very clear that in a residential zone, the primary uses any development in a residential zone shall ensure that the massing scale, proportion and design of such a development is consistent with the historic architectural tradition. Any approval for this church will certainly be a departure from the regulations therefore whatever Pastor Maurice Chambers has said does not suffice to meet the approval of this church.

10.For wanting a more convenient place to worship is no reason for a church to be placed where it will have an effect on a quiet place of living which will result in many negative causes to the detriment of where people have their homes.

In consideration of the further information provided it gives more rise why the application should be rejected.

Respectfully,

___________________________

Alfredo & Antoinette Powery

Berea Seventh-Day Adventist Church P.O. Box 515 Grand Cayman KY1-1106 Cayman Islands

Telephone: (345) 928-6457 Email address: [email protected]

March 21, 2019

Planning Department P.O. Box 113, Government Admin Building Grand Cayman KY1-9000 Cayman Islands

Dear Sir/Madam,

The Berea Seventh-day Adventist Church is requesting the permission to construct a new Church

in West Bay, on Block 4E, Parcels 118, 119, 120. This proposed Church is intended to house the

congregation of over 150 members, who presently worship at a temporary location in West Bay.

The Berea Church was organized in 2013 by the Cayman Islands Conference, the head of all the

Seventh-day Adventist Churches in the Cayman Islands, to facilitate the fast growth that the

Church is experiencing in West Bay. Even though there is another Seventh-day Adventist

Church in West Bay, there is a need to create more space to facilitate the paste at which the

membership of these congregations is growing. In addition to the growth that is being

experienced, each congregation has its unique culture and style of worship and attract

worshippers accordingly.

We are also mindful that there are a number of other denominational Churches in West Bay

however, the Seventh-day Adventist has its own doctrinal teachings, beliefs and practices that

differ significantly from these other Churches. We according to our Biblical understanding and

interpretation observe Saturday as the day of worship, while these other Churches observe

Sunday as their day of worship,

Our desire for wanting a more convenient place of worship is only one factor. We also believe in

building relationships and giving back to our Communities in which we live, work and worship.

We believe in fostering the physical, social and spiritual wellbeing of those who live in the

Community.

Therefore, we have started some projects which we intend to continue and some we intend to

implement, in order to foster the wellbeing of our Community members.

Below is a list of projects and initiatives which we have started and others we intend to

implement.

1. Presently we partner with George Town Seventh-day Adventist Church in serving over

300 cups of soup in West Bay, George Town and other Communities on Sundays and

Wednesdays.

2. As the pastor of the Church, I presently partner with the MLA office of West Bay

Central, in assisting with the West Bay Senior Citizens Club. This Club presently meets

at the Church of Christ, on Batabano Rd, each Wednesday, with plans to extend it to

other Churches. We are very eager to make our Church building available as soon as it is

built to accommodate this Club.

3. We have started a weekly Sunday School evening program in the Light House Gardens

Community, which is now relocated to Fountain Rd, a more convenient location with

toilet facilities. This program provides a number of activities for the children in these

Communities. We do various kinds of teaching and learning activities; such as teaching

them social graces; sign languages; Bible stories and other reading lessons with

application to their everyday life situation. We also provide refreshments for everyone

who attends. It’s a program that facilitates even the adults who would join us from time

to time. This program provides a safe haven for recreational and resourceful activities to

our children whom we facilitate in channeling their energy in a useful way and to develop

on their God given talents and abilities.

4. We have a very active Community services Department that identifies some of the most

critical needs of the Community members and address them accordingly. We have done

significant cleanings and renovations of family homes in the Community.

5. We offer educational assistance and distributes back to school supplies at the beginning

of each school year to needy students of the Community.

6. We presently offer free pastoral, premarital, post marital and family counseling.

7. We will be having weekly Vestry days, in which the community members have direct

access to the pastor for various pastoral counseling and prayer.

8. We will make the Church available for an Emergency Shelter, providing we meet the

required standard.

We are confident that if granted permission to build this Church, it will be dedicated to

the honor and glory of God and to the service of the Community. We look forward to a

favorable response so that we can enhance our service and continue to build on the good

relationship that now exist between us as a Church and the Community.

Yours truly

Maurice Chambers

Pastor.

avenue. central planning authority...1 central planning authority minutes of a meeting of the...

Documents