1

Central Planning Authority

Agenda for a meeting of the Central Planning Authority to be held on November 6, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. in the Conference Room, 1st Floor, Government Administration Building, Elgin Avenue.

23rd Meeting of the Year CPA/23/19

Mr. A. L. Thompson (Chairman)Mr. Robert Watler Jr. (Deputy Chairman)Mr. Kris BergstromMr. Peterkin BerryMr. Edgar Ashton BoddenMr. Roland BoddenMr. Joseph CoeMr. Ray HydesMr. Trent McCoyMr. Jaron LeslieMs. Christina McTaggart-PinedaMr. Selvin RichardsonMr. Fred WhittakerMr. 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/21/19

1. 1 Confirmation of Minutes of CPA/22/19 held on October 23, 2019. 42. 1 DISCOVERY POINT CLUB Block 5D Parcel 19 (FA85-0052) (P19-0509)

($5,000) (BES) .........................................................................................................52. 2 RAKESH BAXANI Block 14E Parcel 355 (F19-0032) (P19-0045) ($2,452,000)

(MW) .......................................................................................................................72. 3 PHYLLIS PARCHMENT Block 5C Parcel 27 (FA90-0374) (P19-0637) ($22,000)

(CS) ........................................................................................................................182. 4 ISLAND FORTUNA DEVLEOPMENT LTD. Block 28C Parcel 35 (F19-0368)

(P19-0657) ($22,000) (CS) ....................................................................................212. 5 DYLAN BENOIT Block 24E Parcel 563 (F98-0262) (P19-0658) ($41,800) (MW)

................................................................................................................................262. 6 OWEN ROBERTS AIRPORT Block 20C Parcel 78 (FA83-0256) (P19-0915)

($963,770) (BES) ...................................................................................................282. 7 MORITZ BRUEKNER Block 28E Parcels 47,82,83 (FA89-0405) (P19-0254)

($80,000) (MW) .....................................................................................................322. 8 BURNADETTE BODDEN Block 44B Parcel 388 (F08-0354) (P19-0615)

($700,000) (BES) ...................................................................................................392. 9 TICHINA RICKFIELD Block 27C Parcel 280 (F07-0194) (P19-0595) ($25,000)

(BES) .....................................................................................................................462. 10 RICARDO & DEBBY FRANCIS Block 1D Parcel 684 (F15-0159) (P19-0590)

($101,000) (MW) ...................................................................................................482. 11 KYRO GROUPLTD. Block 4D Parcel 20 (F19-0236) (P19-0383) ($400,000) (JP)

.............................................................................................................................492. 12 HARBOUR HOLDING LTD. Block 14BG Parcel 50 (F99-0192) (P19-0569)

($815,000) (JP) .....................................................................................................512. 13 LALOR RESIDENCE Block 22D Parcel 359 (F18-0193) (P19-1024) ($75,000)

(JP) ........................................................................................................................552. 15 STRATFORD VILLAS Block 4E Parcel 747 (F19-0018) (P19-0021) ($220,000)

(AS) .......................................................................................................................592. 16 JASON DOBLE Block 22E Parcel 389 (F19-0488) (P19-0901) ($1.6 million)

(BES) ....................................................................................................................612. 17 FISHER RESIDENCE Block 4C Parcel 16 (F98-0030) (P19-0907) ($390,000)

(JP) ........................................................................................................................622. 18 ISLAND PROPERIES LTD. Block 1C Parcel 270 (F17-0169) (P19-0710)

($2,000) (BES) ......................................................................................................64

3

2. 19 KARIBA ARCHITECTURE (RITZ CARLTON) Block 12C Parcels 393, 451 3/H10H5 and Block 17A Parcel 260 (FA94-0233) (P19-0919) (CS) ..................65

2. 20 ONE CANAL POINT (CP LAND CO. LTD.) Block 12C Parcels 234, 235, 267 (F19-0120) (P19-1020) ($100,000) (CS) ..............................................................67

2. 21 MAPLES Block 14CJ Parcel 183 (F99-0087) (P19-1030) ($14,000) (BS) ......68

4

APPLICANTS APPEARING BEFORE THE CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

APPLICANT NAME TIME ITEM PAGE

Discovery Point Club 10:00 2.1 5Rakesh Baxani 10:30 2.2 7Phyllis Parchment 11:30 2.3 19Island Fortuna 11:45 2.4 22Dylan Benoit 12:00 2.5 26Owen Roberts Airport 1:00 2.6 29Moritz Bruekner 2:00 2.7 32Burnadette Bodden 2:30 2.8 40

1.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. 1 Confirmation of Minutes of CPA/22/19 held on October 23, 2019.

5

2. 1 DISCOVERY POINT CLUB Block 5D Parcel 19 (FA85-0052) (P19-0509) ($5,000) (BES)

Application for five (5) after-the-fact cabanas.Appearance at 10:00

FACTSLocation Discovery Point Club, West Bay Road.Zoning HTNotice Requirements ObjectorsParcel Size 2.94 acCurrent Use ApartmentsProposed Use CabanasBuilding Size Proposed 451 sq.ft.Building Coverage 18.7%

BACKGROUNDOctober 23, 2019 (CPA/22/19; Item 2.4) – CPA adjourned the application to re-invite the applicant and objector to appear before the Authority.

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. HWM Setback (44’-11” vs 130’).2. Side Setback (10’ vs 20’)3. Objection

APPLICANT’S LETTER“I write on behalf of the owners of the Discovery Point Club. Five “After the Fact” shade cabanas (matching the existing approved eight shade cabanas) were erected by the owners of the Discovery Point Club without Planning Permission and the Owners wish to apologize for this oversight. All these “After the Fact” Cabanas are Ancillary Structures to the Discovery Point Club Condominium Complex with seaside setbacks further from the sea than the existing swimming pool and the existing approved eight shade cabanas.

2.0 APPLICATIONSAPPEARANCES (Items 2.1 to 2.8)

6

They are all open timber structures with thatched roofs and with no power or other utility services and would be sacrificial structures in the event of a hurricane. They provide shade cover to the owners of the Complex. These types of structures are very common all along Seven Mile Beach.”

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 confirms that we have no comments at this time.”

OBJECTIONS“Will you kindly accept this letter as a formal objection to the plans put forward for 5 after the fact Cabanas on block and parcel 5D 19 on behalf of my client (Chris D. Johnson), the neighbor and house owner of 5D 20. Specifically the objections are:SETBACKS-All cabana structures breach the High Water Mark (HWM) Setback and one Cabana breaches both the HWM and side setback required by the development and planning law and regulations. Note that this side setback breach was not mentioned in the application or notification letter. Planning setback laws are in place to protect the over development of the Cayman Isles, including the beautiful 7-mile beach. There are several reasons why structures are not built within the HWM or side setbacks.FENCE-While building the Cabanas, the DPC also built a fence along the property boundary my client shares with them. There has not been a planning application submitted for this and my client received no notification letter. While this structure was being built, my client notified Planning Enforcement because much of my client's landscape was destroyed and cut down, including an old (40 years +) Seagrape tree which was within 5' of his parcel. It was a terrible experience and at least my client could of liaised with his neighbors if he had some notification. I ask that the DPC file an after the fact application for the fence as well.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe applicant is requesting to planning permission for five after-the-fact cabanas.

7

ZoningThe property is zoned Hotel/Tourism

Specific Issuesa) HWM Setback

The proposed setback from the high watermark is 44’-11”, whereas the minimum required setback is 130’ according to Regulation 8(10)(e).

b) Side SetbackThe side setback is 10’- 0”, whereas the minimum required setback is 20’ per Regulation 10 (1)(f) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision).

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

The application was adjourned on October 23, 2019 in order to re-invite the applicant and objector an opportunity to appear before the Authority.

2. 2 RAKESH BAXANI Block 14E Parcel 355 (F19-0032) (P19-0045) ($2,452,000) (MW)

Application for 10 apartments contained within 2, 3-storey buildings, cabana and pool.Appearance at 10:30

FACTSLocation Zeedah Crescent, George Town Zoning MDRNotice Requirements ObjectorsParcel Size Proposed 0.5238 Ac. (22,816.728 sq. ft.)Parcel Size Required 20,000 sq. ft.Current Use VacantProposed Use ApartmentsBuilding Size 16,341.93 sq. ft. Proposed Density 10 Allowable Density 10.476Building Coverage 27.64 %Proposed Parking 17 spaces

8

Required Parking 15 spacesNo. of Units 10 units

BACKGROUNDOctober 23, 2019 (CPA/22/19; item 2.1) – the application was adjourned in order to be re-considered on November 6, 2019

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. Suitability2. Front (Roadside)Setback (16’ vs 20’)3. Rear Setback (16’ vs 20’)

AGENT’S LETTER“Please be advised that my client is requesting a variance for encroachment on setbacks. The board will note that only the side and rear A/C condenser pads and Patio slabs encroach on the setbacks by a maximum of 48”. The slabs would be set at 4” above grade level. The actual apartment buildings do not encroach on the setbacks. With the above in mind, it is my clients request that you consider approving the application as drawn. We would be happy to present the proposed development to the board if you should require. I thank you in advance and look forward to your favorable reply.”OBJECTIONS

“I write in connection with the above planning application. I, and the Zeedah Crescent community, have examined the plans and we know the site well. We wish to object strongly to the development of these units in this location.

We wish to mention two strong points that should be considered before allowing the permission to build the proposed buildings by Mr. Baxani.

Mr. Baxani proposes to build 10 units. According to his plans, each unit has 3 bedrooms, which means that the total numbers of bedrooms is 30.

We would like to bring out a very important point that does NOT allow Mr. Baxani to build his proposed plans.

When Mr. Rakesh Baxani purchased the property in 2017, the land was subject to the Restrictive Agreement listed in the schedule attached to filed Instrument (4988/79) CO. According to the Restrictive Agreement for block and parcel 14E 355, there are 2 restrictions,

9

1. No building shall be erected on this Parcel other than a single family dwelling house or a duplex for residential purposes only.

2. This Parcel shall not be sub-divided.

Each owner of this block has signed and bought their lot with restrictive agreements, as the original land owner’s intention was for Zeedah Crescent to be for residential use only and not to commercialize it with rentals or other means of business.

Each owner who purchased their lot bought it with the peace of mind that each land owner will honor the restrictive agreement and not build apartments to the area, other than a duplex. And not make the area over populated.

The above is only one point on which Mr. Baxani should not be allowed to build his proposed construction.

On another note, according to the Medium Density Residential Zone of the Planning Department of the Cayman Islands, an acre is required for 30 bedrooms. The proposed lot is only 0.5238 of an acre. Which means he would require an additional 0.5 of an acre to build his proposed plan, on a lot that is restrictive to an agreement, an agreement that was mentioned on the Encumbrances Section of the Land Register.

The proposed plan, without counting the square footage of the pool is 16,341.93 square feet. The total lot size is 22,816.72 square feet. There is literally no space left if family with kids move in to that location.

He is proposing 3 bedrooms in each unit and has assigned 2 parking spaces for each unit. Technically speaking, if a family, which consist of a couple, and maybe 1-3 children occupy the space, 2 parking spaces would be enough, if they only have 2 cars. Hypothetically speaking, lets imagine that the units are occupied by either single tenants, which would mean a room for each person, or lets paint a difference scenario, let’s say, its occupied by a couple in each room, that means a total of 6 people will occupy one unit. Which means that there will be about 60 people living in the same amount of square footage that is being occupied by block and parcel 14E728 and the one next to it, because both lots combined is about the same square footage of block and parcel 14E355. In those two block and parcels, there is a total of 8 bedrooms only. And Mr. Baxani is proposing 30???

The neighbors and owners of the current block of Zeedah Crescent are very concerned and we are objecting to this proposal and we cannot accept anything else other than specified in restrictive agreement which is that of a single home or a duplex.

10

We hope that the Planning Department votes in favor of those objecting and let the owners of Zeedah Crescent continue to have a measure of peace and tranquility while they continue to live in their homes.

Owners are even considering moving and selling their property because of this construction. And no one should feel this way or should be pushed to even make this decision.

The below are the names of the owners that object to the proposed construction of block and parcel 14E355.”

11

12

13

AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the Department of Environment, Chief Environmental Health Officer, National Roads Authority and Water Authority 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 has the following comments.A desktop review of the site using DoE’s Habitat Map indicated that the site consisted of primary dry shrubland and forest with an area of man-modified habitat, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Extract of DoE’s 2013 Habitat Map showing application site outlined in red

A site visit was conducted by the Department’s Terrestrial Research Unit on 22 February 2019, which confirmed that the site is fully vegetated with an 8m high canopy forest, growing in flat land with abundant dark soil. This is typical of the once valued “black soil” land of the George Town area, which has been almost completely covered by housing and other infrastructure.The forest is heavily dominated by Bull Thatch palms, Thrinax radiata. The forest community is not diverse, which may suggest the original vegetation may have been cleared a long time ago, but historic aerial imagery suggests it has been forested at least as far back as the 1970’s. Bull Thatch groves in natural settings are often locally low in plant diversity, so it is possible that this area represents a fragment of an original forest community. The site does not contain Schedule 1 Part 1 protected species (National Conservation Law), and though possibly a remnant of the original George Town forest, it is low in native biodiversity and degraded by invasive species. The site is not a high priority for protection and we therefore do not object to its proposed development. The applicant may wish to take advantage of some of the mature

14

Bull Thatch palms as a component of their landscaping, since these are evidently of some age and have aesthetic value.Chief Environmental Health Officer“DEH has no objections to the proposed. The applicant stated that they will request permission to utilize a private contractor for the removal of their solid waste. The applicant is reminded that a letter addressed to the Chief Environmental Health Officer, Richard Simms must be submitted for review and approval.”National Roads Authority“As per your memo dated February 8th, 2019 the NRA has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations based on the site plan provided.Road Capacity IssuesThe traffic demand to be generated by a residential development of ten (10) multi-family units has been assessed in accordance with ITE Code 220. Thus, the assumed average trip rates per dwelling unit provided by ITE for estimating the daily, AM and PM peak hour trips are 6.63, 0.51 and 0.62 respectively. The anticipated traffic to be added onto Zeedah Crescent 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

67 5 1 4 6 4 2

Based on these estimates, the impact of the proposed development onto Zeedah Crescent is considered to be minimal.Access and Traffic Management IssuesTwo-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 Zeedah Crescent, within the property boundary, to NRA standards.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

15

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 die overall runoff scheme. Please have applicant provide this information prior to die 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 Zeedah Crescent. 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 die 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 die 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 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 the 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 hut 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“The Water Authority’s requirements for the proposed development are as follows:Wastewater Treatment & DisposalThe developer, or their agent, is required to submit an Onsite Wastewater Treatment Proposal, per the attached Form, which meets the following

16

requirements. Water Authority review and approval of the proposed system is a condition for obtaining a Building Permit.• The proposed development requires Aerobic Treatment Unit(s) with

NSF/ANSI Standard 40 (or equivalent) certification that, when operated and maintained per manufacturer’s guidelines, the system achieves effluent quality of 30 mg/L Biochemical Oxygen Demand and 30 mg/L Total Suspended Solids. The proposed system shall have a treatment capacity of at least 3,000 US gallons per day (gpd), based on the following calculations.

BUILDING UNITS/BLDG GPD/UNIT GPD/BLDG GPDA 5 300 1,500 1,500B 5 300 1,500 1,500

Total 3,000

• Treated effluent from the ATU shall discharge to an effluent disposal well-constructed by a licensed driller in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards. Licensed 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 ATU must enter the disposal well at a minimum invert level of 4’9” 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 SupplyThe proposed development site is located within the Water Authority’s piped water supply area. • The developer shall contact Water Authority’s Engineering Services

Department at 949-2837, without delay, to be advised of the site-specific requirements for connection to the public water supply.

• The developer shall submit plans for the water supply infrastructure for the development to the Water Authority for review and approval.

• The developer shall install the water supply infrastructure within the site, under the Water Authority’s supervision, and in strict compliance with the approved plans and Water Authority Guidelines for Constructing Potable Water Mains. The Guidelines and Standard Detail Drawings for meter installations are available via the following link to the Water Authority’s web page.

The Authority will not be held responsible for delays and/or additional costs incurred by the developer due to the developer’s failure to provide sufficient notice to the Authority.”

17

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe applicant is requesting planning permission for a two 3-Story 10-unit Apartments with Pool & Cabana to be located on Zeedah Crescent, George Town.ZoningThe property is zoned Medium Density Residential.Specific Issuesa) Suitability

The Authority must determine if the site is suitable for apartment per regulation 9(8). Regarding this issue, the Authority will typically consider such matters as:• any physical constraints on the site that would prevent the proposed

development• consistency and compatibility with the established building character of

the area• existence of sufficient infrastructure at the site (e.g. public road, water

line, electrical service) and in the area (commercial retail, grocery stores, etc.) to support the residents of the proposed apartments

In this instance, there appears to be no physical constraints on the site. There are several apartment developments in the area as well as single family homes and duplexes and apartments.• (14E349) Zeedah Villas Apartments (Approved. CPA/26/04; Item 2.9)• (14E352) 6 Bedroom Duplex (Approved CPA/12/02; Item 5.10)• (14E354) 4 Bedroom Duplex (Approved CPA 7-26-01)• (14E347) 4 1 Bedroom Units (Approved 2-23-00)• (14E718 old 654) 8 single Homes (Approved)• (14E520) 30 Duplexes (Approved CPA/28/04; Item 2.2)• (14E727&728) Duplex (Approved)Finally, the site is located on a public road, is served by a piped water supply and CUC and there are many commercial and recreational amenities in the area.

b) Bedroom Density Regulation 9(7)(c) states “the maximum number of apartments is twenty per acre with a maximum of thirty bedrooms per acre”. The proposed development complies with the maximum allowable number of apartments, however 30 bedrooms are proposed and 15 are allowable.

18

c) Front & Rear SetbackRegulation 9(7)(i) states “the minimum front and rear setbacks are 20'.” The proposed development has proposed patio slabs to be 16’-0” from the front & rear boundaries a difference of 4’-0” respectively.

d) Side SetbackRegulation 9(7)(j) states “The minimum side setback is 15’ for a building of more than one storey.” Building B of the proposed development would be approximately 14’-11 15/16” from the eastern boundary a difference of 1/16”.

e) Driveway tuning radiusAs designed, the exit lane of the driveway has a 15’ turning radius, but the entry lane does not and this could affect the overall functionality of the driveway.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONThe board should be reminded that the mentioned application was seen on October 23rd 2019 and it was resolved to adjourn the application and re-invite the applicant and objectors back before the Board on November 6th 2019 (CPA/22/19 Item 2.1). The Board should also be aware that the applicant has submitted revised plans which addressed the deficient side setback & bedroom density which now complies with the max allowable of 15 bedrooms.

2. 3 PHYLLIS PARCHMENT Block 5C Parcel 27 (FA90-0374) (P19-0637) ($22,000) (CS)

Application for a five (5) lot subdivision.

Appearance at 11:30

FACTSLocation Shamrock Road, SavannahZoning LDRNotice Requirements No ObjectorsParcel Size 1 acreCurrent Use HouseProposed Use Residential

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reason:1. Lot size variances (5,325 sq. ft. vs. 10,000 sq. ft.)2. Lot Width Variance (55.1’ vs. 80’)

19

APPLICANT LETTERLetter #1 “In reference to tan application from the share proprietors, which are all the children of the original proprietor, registered on the land register. We are requesting for your consideration, the granting of a partition of the parcel, (see proposed drawing and evidence of case, attached) for the building of private homes form the remainder of parcel 37.As we do not wish to sell, and we can’t afford the sale of our sentimental family heritage, we have concluded and therefore wish to transfer parcels of land held in the names on the register for our private use. If it had not been a hearing result of loss between 5C 27 and 5C 28 claimn as adverse possession, a substantially large portion of the property as a result has been gained by Parcel 28.parcel has been own and used by our family members through the history and administrated and now ourselves registered as proprietors before the taken place of this hearing result between parcel 27 and 28 which has been ordered by the acting registrar in this hearing a loss which is not allowing greater sizing in the partition.

Please can you take into consideration this application as this is truly a great loss for us and we wish to proceed in development as soon as approval is achieved to upgrade the area providing the transfer of benefits to each proprietor.”Letter #2“Enclosed please find the relevant documents relating to a 5 lot subdivision. The purpose of the subdivision is to create 4 single house lots for the individual owners of the parcel. We are asking for a variance on the lots size and width under the Planning Regulation 8(13) (b) (i) & (iii) to accommodate this. If it weren’t for the successful adverse posses claim made by a neighboring parcel, there would have been adequate land for the 4 lots, but as the registrar has granted that land to the neighbor, the family has been forced to create smaller parcels to accommodate them all. There are several parcels of similar size in the surrounding neighborhood. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.”

AGENCY COMMENTSDepartment of Environment“Under delegated authority from the National Conservation Council (section 3 (13) of the National Conservation Law, 2013), the Department of Environment

20

confirms that we have no objections to the subdivision at this time as the site is man-modified and of limited ecological value.”National Roads Authority‘As per your memo July 15th, 2019 the NRA has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal.Stormwater Management Issues“A comprehensive drainage plan needs to be provided by the applicant for the entire project.The applicant shall demonstrate that the Stormwater Management system can be designed to include storm water runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 2 inches per hour for one hour of duration and ensure that surrounding properties that are lower, and nearby public roadways are not subject to stormwater runoff from this site.The applicant is encouraged to consider stormwater management techniques other than deep wells, and to contact the NRA for advice on these alternative control measures.Infrastructure Issues“A thirty (30) ft. wide road parcel needs to be provided in order to have adequate access as the NRA does not endorse the use of vehicular ROWs.The subdivision's road base shall be constructed to NRA minimum design and construction specifications for subdivision roads - this includes elevations, minimum longitudinal slopes and minimum cross fall of minus 2 percent from the centre line to the shoulder.The roadway shall be HMA. The NRA shall inspect and certify the road base construction prior to HMA surfacing activities.All internal roadway curves (horizontal alignment) shall be no less than 46 feet centreline radius. This requirement ensures that the minimum vehicle sweeps for a standard garbage and/or fire truck can be accommodated by the site layout.”

Water Authority“Please be advised that the Water Authority’s requirements for this development are as follows:Water SupplyPlease be advised that the proposed development site is located within the Cayman Water Company’s (CWC) 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.

21

Wastewater Treatment“Please be advised that the development is outside the Water Authority’s West Bay Beach Sewage System (WBBSS) collection area; therefore, the required onsite treatment of wastewater will be specified by the Water Authority when the proposal for built development is reviewed.”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe application is requesting planning permission for a five (5) lot subdivision.

ZoningThe property is zoned Low Density Residential.

Specific Issuesa) Minimum Lot Size

The minimum lot size allowed for a house in the LDR zone is 10,000 sq. ft. None of the four house lots proposed meet this requirement, as the lots range in size from 5,325 sf to 8,810 sq.ft.

b) Minimum Lot WidthThe minimum lot width required for house lots within the LDR zone is 80’. The proposed lots’ widths range from 55.1’ – 97.4’.

The proposed subdivision is designed in line with HDR criteria versus LDR. The applicant has provided an explanation for the subdivision design and small lot sizes, which is included in this report. The Authority is asked to consider whether the design is suitable for the area, which is surrounded by LDR and NC zoned land.

2. 4 ISLAND FORTUNA DEVLEOPMENT LTD. Block 28C Parcel 35 (F19-0368) (P19-0657) ($22,000) (CS)

Application for a twenty five (25) lot residential subdivision with one (1) LPP and one (1) road parcel.Appearance at 11:45FACTSLocation Shamrock Road, SavannahZoning LDRNotice Requirements ObjectorsParcel Size 7.5 acresCurrent Use Vacant

22

Proposed Use SubdivisionUnits Proposed 25BACKGROUNDOctober 9, 2019 (CPA/21/19; Item 2.2) - it was resolved to adjourn the application for further research into the boundary dispute issue

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. Location of LPP.2. Lack of connectivity to adjacent developments.3. Objector’s concerns

OBJECTIONS“To the Planning Department, Central Planning Authority and Developers of Parcel 28C35 located in Savannah, Grand Cayman Cayman Islands.There is an issue which we would object to before the development of Parcel 28C35 commences.From the current available maps viewing the boundary demarcation off of Shamrock Road of Block & Parcel 28C35, after the first few feet immediately off the Road, rather than the boundary extending straight as virtually every other Parcel in Block 28C, the boundary varies multiple times in a slanted Eastern direction into Block 28C Parcel 54 rather than carrying on in a logical straight line and meeting up in a logical Right Angle with the Northern Boundary of Block & Parcel 28C54. This curious variance is actually repeated to a lesser extent in the immediate opposite adjoined boundary off of Shamrock Road Parcel 31 of Block 28C. In all these variances create an odd funnel shaped right of way rather than a symmetrical shaped right of way in Block and Parcel 28C35 which is not repeated elsewhere. Having established through truthful admission of the Owner of Block & Parcel 28C35 Nellie Lewis Jones that Fence Posts were placed improperly along the Western Boundary of the adjoined Parcel 28C54 around the time of the of the Cayman Islands Cadastral Survey. In the past whereas we offered to have the boundary surveyed at our expense, the Owner was not agreeable to this offer. Being now that time is of the essence and the landowner appears to want to commence with development of Block and Parcel 28C35, we would now request that this longstanding irregular boundary variance now be corrected and factually demarcated.In addition having lived through, witnessed and understood that during Hurricane Ivan fence posts and barbed wire were destroyed by falling trees, there are issues with how the Fence and barbed wire were subsequently re established

23

post Hurricane Ivan. Therefore we would request the Proper Southern Boundary of Block and Parcel 28C35 be correctly established as well.To rectify and correct these discrepancies we would respectfully request that a Proper and Accurate Survey of the shared boundaries be carried out at the developers’ expense so that the shared boundaries now and forever be properly and truthfully established as demarcated by the Cayman Islands Cadastral Survey.As is customary we look forward to receiving Proper Formal Notification of the Survey so that we may be able to attend on the set Date and Time and confirm the markings.” “Please allow for a correction as Block and Parcel 28C54 is now known as 28C598. Please insert references to Block and Parcel 28C54 to read as 28C598.Also please note that having viewed the illustrated proposed lots for Parcel 28C35 at the Planning Department, the illustration on behalf of Island Fortuna Development Limited shows variations which are not accurate or reliable but do however prove the point that the current markings shown are based on inaccurately placed Fence Posts and cannot logically be based on the Cayman Islands Cadastral Survey. Once again we call for the Developers of Parcel 28C35 to provide Proper Notice on an actual Physical Survey with Date and Time notified in Advance.”AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the Department of Environment, National Roads Authority and Water Authority 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 confirms that we have no comments at this time as the site is man-modified with limited ecological value.” National Roads Authority“As per your memo dated July 9th, 2019 the NRA has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations based on the site plan provided.Stormwater Management Issues“This development is located over the Savannah fresh water lens or within the 500m buffer zone of the lens. In order to protect the fresh water lens, the Water Authority requests that stormwater drainage wells are drilled to a depth of 60ft instead of the standard depth of 100ft as required by the NRA.”A comprehensive drainage plan needs to be provided by the applicant for the entire project.

24

The applicant shall demonstrate that the Stormwater Management system can be designed to include storm water runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 2 inches per hour for one hour of duration and ensure that surrounding properties that are lower, and nearby public roadways are not subject to stormwater runoff from this site. The applicant is encouraged to consider stormwater management techniques other than deep wells, and to contact the NRA for advice on these alternative control measures.Infrastructure IssuesThe NRA advises the CPA to require the developer to provide for signage (stop signs, etc.), street lighting and any other traffic calming measures on the proposed roads of the subdivision. Once the roadway has been taken over as a public road, the NRA can then assume that responsibility. This site will need a stop sign with stop bars at the junction with Shamrock Road.A thirty (30) ft. wide road parcel needs to be provided in order to have adequate access as the NRA does not endorse the use of vehicular ROWs.The subdivision's road base shall be constructed to NRA minimum design and construction specifications for subdivision roads - this includes elevations, minimum longitudinal slopes and minimum cross fall of minus 2 percent from the centre line to the shoulder.The roadway shall be HMA. The NRA shall inspect and certify the road base construction prior to HMA surfacing activities.All internal roadway curves (horizontal alignment) shall be no less than 46 feet centreline radius. This requirement ensures that the minimum vehicle sweeps for a standard garbage and/or fire truck can be accommodated by the site layout.Water AuthorityPlease be advised that the Water Authority’s requirements for this development are as follows:Water Supply:The proposed development site is located within the Water Authority’s piped water supply area. • The developer shall contact Water Authority’s Engineering Services

Department at 949-2837, without delay, to be advised of the site-specific requirements for connection to the piped water supply.

• The developer shall submit plans for the water supply infrastructure for the development to the Water Authority for review and approval.

• The developer shall install the water supply infrastructure within the site, under the Water Authority’s supervision, and in strict compliance with the

25

approved plans and Water Authority Guidelines for Constructing Potable Water Mains.

The Authority shall not be held responsible for delays and/or additional costs incurred by the developer due to the developer’s failure to provide sufficient notice to the Authority.Wastewater Treatment:The developer is advised that wastewater treatment and disposal requirements for built development are subject to review and approval by the Water Authority. Stormwater Management:This development is located over the (Lower Valley) fresh water lens or within the 500m buffer zone of the lens. In order to protect the fresh water lens, the Water Authority requests that stormwater drainage wells are drilled to a depth of 60ft instead of the standard depth of 100ft as required by the NRA.”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe applicant is requesting planning permission for a twenty five (25) lot residential subdivision with one (1) LPP and one (1) road parcel.ZoningThe property is zoned Low Density Residential.Specific Issuesa) Road Connection to North

Block 28C parcel 519 is a road parcel that was created as part of the northern subdivision to provide connectivity to adjacent properties as they develop.The Department has asked the applicant to extend the subdivision road network to connect to Parcel 519, but they have chosen to not do so.The Authority has consistently required residential subdivisions to provide road connections to adjacent developments to enhance connectivity, which is important if the main subdivision entrance is blocked in times of emergency.

b) Location of LPPLot 27 has been designated as Land for Public Purpose, which is a suitable location. However, if the Authority concedes the applicant should provide a connection to Parcel 519, the remainder of Lot 13 could be utilized for storm water retention (LPP) as this is a naturally low-lying area of the site.During dry season, this area could also serve as a recreational area.

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTSThe Application was adjourned on October 9, 2019 and has now been re-scheduled for consideration.

26

2. 5 DYLAN BENOIT Block 24E Parcel 563 (F98-0262) (P19-0658) ($41,800) (MW)

Application for a Change-of-Use from Residential to Commercial Catering Business/Kitchen. Appearance at 12:00

FACTSLocation Prospect Drive, George TownZoning LDRNotice Requirements 500’ & 2 Newspaper AdvertisementParcel Size Proposed 0.2411 AC / 10,502.316 sq. ft.Parcel Size Required 10,502.316 sq.ft. Current Use ResidentialProposed Use CommercialBuilding Size 418 sq.ft. BACKGROUNDJuly 21, 1998 (P98-1027697) – Planning Permission was granted for a three bedroom house.August 14, 2019 (CPA/17/19; Item 2.5) – the application was adjourned to invite in the applicant to discuss concerns regarding a commercial kitchen in a residential area

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reason:1. Suitability

AGENT’S LETTER“We are writing to explain our request for the change of use for the client’s living room to a commercial kitchen.Our client, Dylan Benoit, is a professional chef on the island and has a catering company. He is currently using a restaurant kitchen, outlined in his Trade and Business license, during their off-peak hours. He recently purchased the home on Block 24E Parcel 563, which has an extra living room towards the driveway that he does not use for standard living purposes. This space has more than adequate area available to accommodate a kitchen for his catering business and would be more economical for him than his current situation of paying rent for using the restaurant kitchen. If approved, the converted commercial kitchen at

27

his residence will meet all requirements set out by the DEH and will not be used as a restaurant for the public to dine in.As you can see, we have no objectors to this project and the client, Mr. Benoit, will remain committed to ensuring his business will not be a nuisance for his neighbors.Should the board allow this change of use to be granted, Mr. Benoit will take the next steps of obtaining a Building Permit, then finally amending his Trade and Business license once all final inspections pass and the Certificate of Occupancy is granted.If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at kristen@trio-design.net.”AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the Chief Environmental Health Officer are noted below.Chief Environmental Health Officer“Please see the department’s comments on the above application:

1. DEH has no objections to the proposed in principle.a. The applicant has advised that the approved mechanical drawings

for the commercial kitchen exhaust hood will be submitted once received from BCU.

b. The applicant must also submit the water heater specifications for review and approval.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

GeneralThe application is for a Change of Use from Residential 418 sq. ft. (Living Room) to Commercial Catering Business / Kitchen to be located on Prospect Dr., George Town.ZoningThe property is zoned Low Density Residential.Specific Issuesa) Suitability

Section (9)(3) states “Commercial, hotel, tourism-related, agricultural, religious, social and educational development (including recreational facilities and public and civic buildings), may be permitted in suitable locations and if the applicant has advertised details of his application (other than an application having relation to any temporary development) twice in a newspaper published and circulating in the Islands, with a period of not less than seven days or more than ten days between each successive publication of the advertisement, and there are no objections, from an adjacent owner as provided for in regulation 8(12A), (12B) and (12C) and lodged within twenty-

28

one days of the final advertisement, which the Authority regards as raising grounds for refusing such permission.”An overview of the proposed site shows the surrounding area to be primarily residential homes and vacant parcels with the closest Commercial development being (Harbour House Marina) some 1,800+/- feet away.The parcels within a 500’ radius were notified as well as 2 Newspaper Ads were sent and no objections were received.The Authority should determine if the proposed change of use is permissible provided the application has met the required criteria.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The Authority should be reminded the above mentioned application was seen on August 14, 2019 (CPA/17/19; Item 2.5) and it was resolved to adjourn the application and invite the applicant to appear before the Authority to discuss concerns regarding the suitability of the commercial use in the residential area.

2. 6 OWEN ROBERTS AIRPORT Block 20C Parcel 78 (FA83-0256) (P19-0915) ($963,770) (BES)

Application for an extension of the runway in a westerly direction; removal/filling of airfield ponds; expansion of the apron in an easterly direction; perimeter access road; and strengthening of the runway.Appearance at 1:00FACTSLocation Owen Roberts Int’l AirportZoning Airport LandsNotice Requirements ObjectorsParcel Size 343 acresBACKGROUNDJuly 8, 2015 (CPA/14/15; Item 2.1) - CPA granted planning permission for the expansion and renovation of the Owen Roberts Terminal with conditions.Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. A privacy screen on the perimeter fence to reduce visual impacts.

AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the Department of Environment and Cayman Islands Airports Authority are noted below.

29

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. On 30 April 2019, the Department met with representatives of the Cayman Islands Aviation Authority to discuss the airfield upgrades. The upgrades are confined to man-modified areas and the ponds to the west of the existing runway; the mangroves adjacent to the North Sound are not proposed to be altered. In a series of four visits in May and June 2019, a biological survey of the ponds in and around the runway of Owen Roberts International Airport was conducted, as included overleaf. The ponds are freshwater and are a part of the remnant freshwater Typha sp wetlands which historically occurred in this general area. The ponds contained some native species including Limia caymanesis, Gambusia puncticulata (Mosquitofish), Lophogobius cyprinoides (Crested Goby) and Maglops atlantica (Tarpon). The ponds also contained a significant number of alien invasive Tilapia (Oreochromis nilotica). Hickatees (Trachemys descussata) were present. None of these species are known to be endangered in the Cayman Islands. Although Limia caymanesis is listed as a protected species in Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the National Conservation Law, no Conservation Plan is in effect and there is no current restriction on take of this species. This endemic fish is widespread and removal of the specimens in the airport ponds would not pose any risk to the survival of the species as a whole. There are also likely to be animal welfare concerns from the public, which is outside of the remit of the Department. However, in order to manage and mitigate the risks to the species in the ponds we recommend that the ponds are filled slowly, starting from one side and proceeding linearly to allow the species to move to one side of the ponds. We then recommend that the animals are trapped and relocated to the MRCU pond, which would be a suitable recipient site. Provided these steps can be taken, the DoE has no objections to the proposed airfield upgrades."Cayman Islands Airport Authority “No Objections. Each phase shall be accompanied by the CIAA internal Work Safety Plan which shall include associated Hazard Identifications/Risk assessments and resulting mitigation proposals.”

OBJECTION LETTER“I am writing as a Tenant of Cayman Business Park and Citizen of the Cayman Islands (as per the newspaper) regarding the above and would like to object for the following reasons.1. I was joint owner of 14D 65 and a tenant there for 7 years, and because it is

in the direct flight path to the airport, and because of the extension to the

30

airport commencing this year and a further extension proposed within the next five (5) years , I was concerned with effects to the building and the occupants. Therefore, I engaged the services of a Civil Engineer to investigate and received the attached report.

The report deals with health issues caused by noise (nuisance) and that the building should have been required to have the appropriate sound proofing before we built it. The report also advises that the occupants of the building are presently experiencing unsafe noise levels (above safe level of 55 dB L) above 80 dB L and should be wearing ear protection now. In addition, it advises that the building would need the required sound proofing/insultation to obtain the safety level required and to surpass the expected building life of 5 years due to the extensions to the Airport without it.In addition, as I have been an occupant of the building since 2012, and have been having health problems (i.e. aneurysm, high blood pressure, Kidneys, eye, palpitations, blood clots, vasculitis and tinnitus) in the past 5 years.Furthermore, I had written to the CIAA on several occasions with my concerns (2015, 2019) and in 2017 I engaged the services of the law firm Ogier to find out the effects to the building and they advised that there was nothing to do to my building. I also sent the CIAA the attached report.2. The health issues that can and will be caused by this extension for occupants

in or near the Obstacle Limitation Cone/RESA around the airport. 3. The Buildings, including a school (Prep Primary School) that are located a

short distance from the proposed extensions of the Airport, will experience above the safety decibels from the noise, because they are not insulated with the required sound proofing.

4. That there has been no process established as per 6.3 of the CIAA Airports Master Plan 2032 -Height and Land Use Controls (Aeronautical Zoning) and Municipal Land Use Planning and Aircraft Noise (on a case by case basis).

5. That any reports have not been added or available for review by the general public that was stated in the Airport Master Plan 2032.

Therefore, I am requesting the above-mention objections be taken into consideration as per the Development and Planning Law (2017 Revision) and Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision) for this planning permission. In particular Sec. 9(5) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision) – Nuisance.Furthermore, that the above-mentioned also be investigated as per Sec. 8(14) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision) to ensure that the appropriate reports as per the Airports Master Plan has been done to ensure the proper safety/health to Humans-(Residents and Citizens) and other environmental matters are safeguarded.” (Also see appendix “A”)

31

APPLICANT’S PRESENTATIONSee Appendix “A”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe applicant is seeking planning permission for the following airfield works at the above-captioned property.

a) Milling and re-paving of the existing runway surface;b) Extending the runway to the west of threshold of runway08 and adding an

aircraft taxi turnaround;c) Expanding the aircraft parking ramp in an easterly direction to provide

additional aircraft parking;d) Establishing a perimeter access road; and,e) Filling of all the ponds within the airfield perimeters.

ZoningThe property is zoned Airport Lands.Specific Issuesa) Perimeter Jet-Blast Deflector Wall/Runway Extension

A perimeter jet-blast deflector wall would be erected at the runway taxi turnaround facing Crewe Road. The deflector barrier would be approximately 10’ in height and will extend from Mango Tree Restaurant perpendicular to the new runway The Authority should determine if any additional screening should be provided to help reduce the visual impact of the deflector barrier.The extension of the runway would be approximately 869’ in length, which would be used for take-off purposes. It should be pointed out that the existing runway threshold markings will remain in its same position.

32

2. 7 MORITZ BRUEKNER Block 28E Parcels 47,82,83 (FA89-0405) (P19-0254) ($80,000) (MW)

Application for an after-the-fact 5’ concrete fence and chain link fence. Appearance at 2:00

FACTSLocation Buena Vista Drive, Bodden TownZoning LDRNotice Requirements N/AParcel Size Proposed 0.55 AC/ 23,958 sq.ft. Current Use ResidenceProposed Use Fence

BACKGROUNDSeptember 9, 1989 (P89-002093) - Planning Permission was granted for a house.January 15, 2019 (CE19-0005) – An Enforcement Notice was issued for the construction of walls on the roadside setback without planning permission.May 22, 2019 (CPA/10/19; Item 2.19) - The Authority resolved to adjourn the application for ATF 5’ Concrete Wall & Chain link Fence (P19-0254)June 6, 2019 (CPA/12/19; Item 2.1) - The Authority resolved to adjourn the application for ATF 5’ Concrete Wall & Chain link Fence (P19-0254) in order for the applicant to notify all of the owners in the Buena Vista subdivision.

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. Fence Height (5’-0”-7’-0” vs 5’-0”)2. PROW Access

APPLICANT’S LETTER“Thank you for your letter dating 15’h January 2019. During the last months I have undertaken several renovations and steps to ensure safety and privacy in my property , as well as increasing safety within our entire community in Buena Vista Drive. In 2018 several Planning regulations changed which I was not aware of. For these missing applications for Planning permission I am very sorry and deeply appologize. To rectify this situation I therefore apply herewith for an After The Fact Application.

33

If you allow me, I would like to address some issues and aspects of each application and its reason:

a. The 4ft wall at property 28E47:The inspection for this wall was happening at a moment where the wall was finished in installing but the works around it had not yet been completed due to Christmas period coming. By now everything is levelled to 4ft height. The setback distance of the wall from Buena Vista Road I had chosen to be 2ft further in my land than the setback of my neighbours setback from the road. I have constructed this wall in 2018 and as indicated my appologies that I did not know the laws have changed within that year 2018 and a Planning permission has been introduced.

b. The old Turningarea on 28E82The area that we allowed for cars to turn around was previously seen to avoid people turning at our house. Since we have provided a new turning area right opposite this turning area, we block this old turning area off as there is no further need for it. I personally confirm having seen large trucks such as garbage trucks that they are able to use the alternative turning area in the access road without any problem at all. The old turning area has been misused for years as a parking area from neighbours as well as from many unknown visitors. With the new turnaround being provided it cannot be misused for parking anymore as it provides an active access to our neighbour. I asked the contractors to continue the existing fence to block it off the old turnaround but oversaw the fact that it crosses the 4ft height limit.

c. The Gate entrance between 28E47 and 28E82:In 28E81, 82 and 83 we noticed recently a disturbing and increasing amount of visitors coming with their cars, parking in our private property, observing the neighbourhood for many hours at each visit, throwing their garbage away, drinking alcohol, throwing bottles around, maybe even selling drugs or other articles and above all observing careful!v the vacancy /occupancy of all houses within the area. This makes all of us in Buena Vista Drive feel very unsafe and unsecure. In 2018 there has been a robbery, where robbers knew well when the owners were in house or absent. Well informed. Please note that most residents have a gate at their property. As a consequence I decided to invest into 2 new gates: All Residents of Buena Vista Drive have a vehicle and pedestrian right of way to get access to the beach. These 2 gates do not limit any residents in any way of their easement given as all residents will get a key to gain access to the beach by car or by foot, but with the benefit for all residents that no unwanted visitors will have access. The gate needs to have a height of 6ft8in as it is a combined pedestrian door within a gate which requires the door to be 6ft high and a frame of 4in (top and bottom). I was so into finding the right functional gate that I completely oversaw the fact of a permission of a gate higher than 4ft. The second gate is Sft high as it is

34

only an internal gate to provide privacy to our house and garden. I seek nothing else than this same privacy and safety that all residents in Buena Vista have too while giving all easements as before to all residents.

d. Comment on our neighbour Charly M.:A comment on one particular neighbour: Charlie M. is unhappy with my doings as he feels cars would now need to use his land to turnaround because I have constructed the wall, blocked the old turning area and would not give enough space to them. I point out that I have in no way limited any car to turn around or park on a public area. While in his land he has no sign for trespassing, nothing that stops any car to do so. I feel that he treats the entire situation unfairly as he does not do anything to block people entering his land. This is not my responsibility. And a visitor has plenty opportunity to turnaround in our dedicated turning area. Further I want to note that his gate has a height of Sft 2in at main entrance and his side entrance at Buena Vista Drive is Sft Min high. His fence has a height of 4ft 8 in and increasing northwards. Did he have a planning permission?

I am thankfull to have the opportunity to illustrate the situation and am looking forward for your reply. If you have any further questions, please contact me any time either at above number or email provided., I am happy to meet with a compliance officer with an appointment anytime on site, to illustrate the situation.”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 confirms that we have no comments at this time.”

OBJECTIONSLetter #1 “I write as the owner of Block 28E, Parcels 54 and 55 on Buena Vista Drive in Spotts. In addition to the above Planning application, Mr. Brueckner has also advised me and other owners on Buena Vista Drive that it is his intention to erect a gate across a portion of Block 28E Parcel 83, effectively shutting off the south end of Buena Vista Drive. Please see attached letter from Mr. Brueckner.

However, my land register papers (copies attached) clearly indicate a private 30 fl Right of Way over the NW comer of 28E 83 and along the E. bds. of 28E 81 & 82 with turn around, as well as a 6 Ft private pedestrian Right of Way to the sea on that same parcel. These are rights of way that have been used by Buena Vista

35

residents for many years. The original developers of Buena Vista Estates (Murmarson) fought hard, in Court, to ensure that all owners here would have an undisrupted vehicular and pedestrian right of way to the beach.Mr. Brueckner has already blocked off (via a chain link fence) any access to Block 28E Parcel 82 (formerly 50), which used to be the turning area for vehicles coming down our street. As far as I know, he did not obtain Planning permission for that. He now proposes to erect a gate across part of Block 28E Parcel 83, which all the residents of Buena Vista Drive have used and continue to use to access the sea. One of the selling points of our properties is this access to a private beach. We strongly feel that this right of way should be kept clear so as not to affect the intrinsic value of our property. Any hindrance to this access would be a negative selling point for our property.

I am very much opposed to any such barrier that would impede my access to the beach and the sea. I therefore strongly object to any application Mr. Brueckner should make in this regard. Even though he has offered to provide residents of Buena Vista with keys to the proposed gate, I am extremely concerned that he or any future owner could choose to revoke such access. I do not want to be faced, in future, with the financial burden of taking this matter to court.

I would also like to point out that Mr. Brueckner commenced development works, construction of boundary walls, fences and pre-works for a gate around Parcel 83 in November of 2018 without any prior notification to neighbours and residents of Buena Vista Estates. Nor did I receive any official notice of application from the Planning Department.”Letter #2“I write as the owner of Block 28E, Parcel 53 on Buena Vista Drive in Spotts. I hereby strongly object to Mr. Bruekner’s proposed installation of a gate interfering with a private Right of Way across the NW boundary of Block 28E Parcel 83. Although not stated on the above mentioned Application by Mr. Brueckner, I have been made to understand that the proposed installation of the gate is included there.I bought this property in 1982. One of the main reasons that I bought in the Buena Vista development was the fact that there was a pedestrian and vehicle right of way to the beach. Now, Mr. Brueckner intends to install a gate, which will limit this right of way. It is noted that he will give us an access key but this does limit our beach access. It now imposes on us a “burden” to remember a key, to keep track of a key and to ensure the gate is opened and locked accordingly. I do not understand why this is necessary. We have our freedom to come arid go now as we please and I do not have any intention of giving up this right.This gate would also affect the value of our property. I bought with a beach access free and clear and, to change that now, would have a negative impact on my property value. Beach access is really very desirable and an asset to any parcel of land or property. I want to keep my property as it was when I first

36

purchased it. Who is to tell what will happen in the future once this gate is erected. Once the act is done, it is harder for us to ensure this right is not lost.Mr. Bruekner stated in a letter, which I will attach here, that his only reason for doing this is security. I do find this totally unnecessary as compared to other areas in Grand Cayman, we are really a very safe development area with very few problems. This letter also asked us to sign our agreement to accepting a key from him for the gate. I will not do this. In closing, I once again reiterate, I strongly oppose the installation of this gate.”Letter #3“This letter is notifying that we are strongly opposed to Mr.Moritz Bruecker erecting a private gate that disrupts this sub-divisions access to the beach. Many of us have fortunately used it for beach access for over 30 years, and we are not willing to compromise this. The original Developers “Murmarson” fought in law to ensure that all owners in Buena Vista would have an undisrupted vehicular right of way and access to the beach, and this move not only makes it an inconvenience, but could very well be in breach of this court ruling.Mr. Brueckner has already blocked off(via a chain link fence) any access to Block 28E Parcel 82 (formerly 50), which was used as a turning area for vehicles coming down our street, erected the oversized wall, paved a road through Block 28E Parcel 47, and constructed additional pylons at the entrance of the easement. As far as I know, he did not obtain planning permission for that, and in turn seemingly only acted once residents were showing concern and confronted him. He now proposes to erect a gate across part of Block 28E Parcel 83, which all the residents of Buena Vista Drive have used and continue to use to access the sea. As well the concerns mentioned above, any hindrance to this access would be a negative selling point for our property.Historically, previous owners of this property have done many modifications without the courtesy of notifying the residents in Buena Vista, and also illegally. To this date, after Court and DoP orders, nothing has been done.Mr. Brueckner issued a letter stating we must “sign yourself’ for receiving a key, which is seemingly a deceptive way to say he is going to be building this gate whether we, as the subdivision object or not. It also seems that the actions he has conducted thus far have been in bad faith.Beach access is a continuing growing issue in the Cayman Islands, and we do not want to be a part of the problem. We firmly believe that we should keep the right of access how it is for all generations to enjoy. If it is changed, there is no telling what Mr. Brueckner’s or future owner’s motives may be.”Letter #4“We the residents of Block 28E, Parcel 41 do strongly object to Mr. Bruekner's proposed installation of a gate interfering with a private Right of Way across the NW boundary of Block 28E Parcel 83.The proposed gate is a direct interference to the 30-foot Private Right of Way as listed in the Appurtenances in our property deed, attached. We strongly feel that this Right

37

of Way be kept clear so as not to affect the intrinsic value of our property- The Private Right of Way provides the residents of Buena Vista Estates with direct access to the beach, and any hindrance to this access would be a negative selling point for our property. Furthermore. regardless of whether Mr.Brueckner has offered to provide keys to his proposed gate we are very concerned that any future owner of Parcel 83 may choose to revoke access and the residents of Buena Vista Estates may be burdened financially by another court case to fight this interference.Finally, Mr. Brueckner commenced development works, construction of boundry walls, fences and pre-works for a gate around Parcel 83 in November of 2018 without any prior notification of neighbours and residents of Buena Vista Estates. Essentially, he acted in bad faith and contravened the current Planning Law of the Cayman Islands.”Letter #5“I am one of the three original shareholders of Murmarson Ltd. the developers of Buena Vista Estates. I also own 28E Parcel 44,45,52.At that time we sacrificed a good portion of Lot 49 to facilitate a turning area so that lot owners could drive down and have a view of the ocean with steps down to the water, a big selling point, hence lot 49,50 were sold together as one and a half lots for development purposes. This was done in 1980 and registered and re enforced in 1988 by a court order all of which Mr. Brueckner knew about when he acquired the property recently.Apart from the five foot concrete wall that Mr. Brueckner built around Lot 47 he wants to put a gate across our easement over Lot 49 & 50 or Lot 81 & 82 as we were recently informed of the Lot number change at a meeting at Mr. Brueckners house on August 21, 2019 with 8 lot owners present who were all in disagreement with the gate. The gate is not mentioned in the After the Fact notice. This 6ft.8" high gate is my main concern as this will hinder access to the turning area and steps to the sea.Mr. Brueckner has also erected two six foot wide and seven foot high wall and gate columns which encroach some twelve feet into our thirty foot right of way to the turning area. These need to be removed.”(For additional information please Appendix B)

Letter #6"I am the owner of Block 28E, Parcel 42 at 35 Buena Vista Drive and am writing this letter to strongly object to Mr Brueckner's proposed installation of a gate which directly interferes with my 30-foot private right of way (PROW) as registered in my property title deed (attached for your reference) over NW corner of block 28E Parcel 83 and along E. bds. of Parcel 28E Block 81 and Parcel 28E Block 82 with turn around and continuing with 6ft private right of way to the beach over the steps as indicated on the Registry Map (5962/90).

38

These are rights of way that have been used by Buena Vista residents for many years and the original developers of Buena Vista Estates (Murmarson) fought hard, in Court, to ensure that all owners here would have an undisrupted vehicular and pedestrian right of way to the beach.I purchased my property at Block 28E, Parcel 42 on 9 February 2017 in large part because of the direct access to the beach and registered PROW, which was indeed also reflected in the purchase price at that time and any hindrance to this access would be a negative selling point for my property.The proposed gate is a direct interference to the 30-foot private right of way listed in the appurtenances in my property deed. Regardless of whether Mr Brueckner has offered to provide keys to his proposed gate I am very concerned that any future owner of Parcel 83 may choose to revoke access and the residents of Buena Vista Estates may be burdened financially by another court case to fight this interference.This right of way should remain accessible to all residents in Buena Vista Estates who also benefit from this PROW as registered in each of their property deeds so as not to affect the intrinsic value of our properties, and most of my neighbours and residents of Buena Vista Estates have already sent you their letters objecting to the gate proposed by Mr Brueckner.Mr Brueckner is using safety and security as an attempt to justify the installation of the proposed gate, however we do not have any security issues in Buena Vista Estates. In fact, most of the residents of Buena Vista Estates, including myself, do not have a gate to their property. We live in a very safe one way street and Mr Bruckner is attempting to restrict our legal PROW by obstructing it with a locked gate. I am genuinely concerned that, by closing off his property boundaries with a locked gate, Mr Brueckner may be attempting to claim full ownership of the land through adverse possession (i.e. eventually negating the registered PROW). This is why I kindly request that you take into account the objections of myself as well as the other residents of Buena Vista Estates and refuse planning permission for the installation of the proposed gate.Finally, Mr Bruecker commenced development works, construction of boundary walls, fences and pre-works for a gate around Parcel 83 in November 2018 without any prior notification of neighbours and residents of Buena Vista Estates. Essentially, he acted in bad faith and contravened the current planning Law of the Cayman Islands.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe application is for an ATF 5-ft high concrete wall with 7’-0” columns & 5’ chain link fence at the above captioned property. Notification was served to all owners within the Subdivision and 6 objections have been received.

39

ZoningThe property is zoned Low Density Residential.Specific Issuesa) Fence Height

The CPA fence guidelines stipulate that the maximum height of a fence in a residential zone is 5-ft. The ATF concrete entrance fence is 5’-0” with 7’-0” high columns and a new 5’-0” chain link fence enclosing the existing turning area. The Authority should determine if the proposed wall height is appropriate.

b) PROW AccessThe proposed 5’ roller gate would block access to the PROW as all residents in the subdivision have been given a legal 30’ private right of way over the North West Corner of 28E 83 along the east boundaries of 28E 81 & 82 with a turn around and continuing with a 6’ private right of way to the beach over the steps. The applicant has indicated that they have offered all residents in the subdivision keys to the proposed gate. The Authority should determine if this scenario is acceptable.

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTSThe Application was adjourned on June 6, 2019 and has now been re-scheduled for consideration.

2. 8 BURNADETTE BODDEN Block 44B Parcel 388 (F08-0354) (P19-0615) ($700,000) (BES)

Application for eighteen (18) apartments.Appearance at 2:30FACTSLocation Mijall Road and Monument RoadZoning MDRNotice Requirements ObjectorsParcel Size 0.91 Acre or 39,639.6 sq. ft.Building Footprint 13,082 sq. ft.Building Size 13,082 sq. ft.Number of Units 18Max. Allowable Units 18Number of Bedrooms 25Max. Allowable Bedrooms 27

40

Density 19.7 Apts/acAllowable Density 20 Apts/acBuilding Coverage 33%Parking Coverage 25.1%Total Site Coverage 58.1%Proposed Parking 28Required Parking 27

BACKGROUNDSeptember 3, 2008 (CPA/35/08; Item 2.3) – The Authority granted planning permission for eighteen (18) apartments with conditions on the current subject parcel.

October 9, 2019 (CPA/21/19; item 2.4) – the Authority adjourned the current application to re-invite the applicant and objectors to the meeting.

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. Suitability of the site for apartments.2. Site coverage (33% vs. 30%).3. Objectors letters.

AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the Chief Environmental Health Officer, National Roads Authority and Water Authority are noted below.Fire ServicesNo comments from the Fire Services were submitted.Chief Environmental Health Officer“DEH has no objections to the proposed in principle. The property requires an 8 cubic yard container with servicing twice per week.”National Roads Authority“As per your memo dated July 2nd, 2019 the NRA has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal.Please find below our comments and recommendations based on the site plan provided.Access IssueMijall and Monument Road has a width that varies from 17 to 22 feet only and is therefore not conducive in supporting multi-family development units. On that basis, the NRA cautions against approving apartment developments on this road.

41

Should the CPA proceed with the approval of this development despite NRA’s caution, the following should be considered:

Road Capacity IssuesThe traffic demand to be generated by a residential development of a eighteen (18) multi-family units has been assessed in accordance with ITE Code 220. Thus, the assumed average trip rates per dwelling unit provided by ITE for estimating the daily, AM and PM peak hour trips are 6.63, 0.51 and 0.62 respectively. The anticipated traffic to be added onto Mijall 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

120 9 2 7 11 7 4

Based on these estimates, the impact of the proposed development onto Mijall Road is considered to be minimal.Access and Traffic Management IssuesTwo-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 Mijall Road, within the property boundary, to NRA standards.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 diat 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, thatt 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 die 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 Mijall Road.

42

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 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 hut 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 tire applicant.”Water Authority“The Water Authority’s requirements for the proposed development are as follows:Wastewater Treatment and DisposalThe developer, or their agent, is required to submit an Onsite Wastewater Treatment Proposal, per the attached Form, which meets the following requirements. Water Authority review and approval of the proposed system is a condition for obtaining a Building Permit.The proposed development requires Aerobic Treatment Unit(s) with NSF/ANSI Standard 40 (or equivalent) certification that, when operated and maintained per manufacturer’s guidelines, the system achieves effluent quality of 30 mg/L Biochemical Oxygen Demand and 30 mg/L Total Suspended Solids. The proposed system shall have a treatment capacity of at least 3,225 US gallons per day (gpd).Treated effluent from the ATU 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.

43

To achieve gravity flow, treated effluent from the ATU 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 Supply:The proposed development site is located within the Water Authority’s piped water supply area. • The developer shall contact Water Authority’s Engineering Services

Department at 949-2837, without delay, to be advised of the site-specific requirements for connection to the public water supply.

• The developer shall submit plans for the water supply infrastructure for the development to the Water Authority for review and approval.

• The developer shall install the water supply infrastructure within the site, under the Water Authority’s supervision, and in strict compliance with the approved plans and Water Authority

The Authority will not be held responsible for delays and/or additional costs incurred by the developer due to the developer’s failure to provide sufficient notice to the Authority.”OBJECTORSLetter #1“I write on behalf of my wife Regina and myself, the joint owners of Block 44B Parcel 253 (on which we reside) and Block 44B Parcel 289. In my case, I have resided in my house since 1976, being joined there by my wife in 1988 when we got married. It is relatively quiet, peaceful and residential and both of us fear that that may change with the erection of 18 apartments immediately next door to us. That seems like rather a lot of apartments, given the lot size and the area it is in. However, we both recognize Ms Bodden's right to develop her property and indeed hope that, if it happens, it might bring some improvement to an area that is marred by (1) an ugly derelict apartment building and former laundry/storage room nearby, (2) a very poorly maintained apartment building next to Ms Bodden's property and (3) several derelict vehicles also on the property next to the lot in question. All of these are a serious blight on the Mijall Road area and are constantly commented unfavourably on by visitors. That said, we offer up the following short observations that we hope will be taken into consideration when it comes to considering the above captioned application.Road Access and Traffic It is presumed that traffic will access these apartments from off the main Bodden Town road, down Monument Road then a hard left on to Mijall Road and a right turn to wherever the entrance is. 18 apartments will likely produce a lot of vehicular activity. Already, the access to Mijall Road is very very far from satisfactory and in fact is downright dangerous at times, given

44

the propensity for people to speed on Mijall Road and the general twisting, narrow, cornering nature of Monument Road and the first part of Mijall Road. This situation has worsened greatly since Ms Bodden's first application to construct these apartments which we will comment on below.Drainage We hope that particular attention will be paid to drainage issues in general but, as residents of the adjacent property, we are of course especially fearful that we will be inundated with run off from the completed project. Garbage We would expect that a project of this scope and number of apartments would require that proper facilities for a garbage skip be included. We mention it only because the lot next to our Parcel 289 contains sixteen apartments which appeared in a rebuild after Ivan in 2004 and there is no garbage skip there, just bins which are always full and overflowing/dragged into the roadway by dogs and chickens; a most disgusting, insanitary and property value lowering situation.Finally, we have reviewed the Minutes of a meeting of the Central Planning Authority, held on November 5th, 2008, Applications, Appearances, item 2.2 which reference an earlier application for this project, and we strongly support all the conditions listed under 1-14 which were attached to a decision to grant planning permission at that time. We would be grateful if you would enable members considering this new application for planning permission to review what we have written above.”Letter #2“Turner and Verna, owners of block and parcel #44B316 also located in Bodden Town received notice of Ms Bodden’s submission to your department for approval of her development on her property, we have some concerns to which we are seeking your clarification to this matter, before approval of this submission.First of our concerns are, where does Ms Bodden have her right of way to her property (road) as far as we know the right of way is not yet built or made.”Letter #3“After a lot of thought, my wife and I have decided not to attend the deferred meeting of the Authority on November 6th to discuss the above captioned property. We note carefully and fully support the first paragraph of the submission from the NRA about the inadequate road access along Monument Road.Please ensure that our original letter, printed as part of the original agenda, remains for consideration at the deferred meeting. Many thanks.”

APPLICANT’S LETTER“We would refer to the above named application of which is currently pending planning approval. At this time we hereby request a site coverage variance for the proposed 18 apartments and 25 bedrooms, which is in the allowance for this property as it is zone medium density residential.

45

Given the characteristics of the proposed development it is consistent with the existing apartments and character of the surrounding area. The proposal will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the adjacent properties, neighborhood or to the public welfare, and surely will enhance the area. All other requirements are with in the Planning Regulations. We appreciate your kind consideration in the approval of this application request.”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS GeneralThe application is for eighteen (18) apartments at the above captioned property. The site is located on Mijall Road and Monument Road, Bodden Town. The applicant is proposing two (2) apartments blocks with thirteen (13) apartments and 15-bedrooms in building “A”, and five (5) apartments and 10-bedrooms in building “B” respectively. Zoning The property is zoned Medium Density Residential.Specific Issuesa) Suitability

The surrounding land uses in area are apartments, single-family dwelling houses, and vacant properties. Pursuant to Regulation 9 (7) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision), the Authority must determine whether the site is suitable for the proposed apartments. As noted above, on September 3, 2008 (CPA/35/08; Item 2.3) - CPA had granted planning permission for eighteen (18) apartments on the same site.

b) Site CoverageThe proposed site coverage is 33%, whereas the maximum allowable is 30%. The Authority should consider whether there is sufficient reason and exceptional circumstance to warrant allowing the additional site coverage variance.

46

2. 9 TICHINA RICKFIELD Block 27C Parcel 280 (F07-0194) (P19-0595) ($25,000) (BES)

Application for after-the-fact cabana.

FACTSLocation Sun Rose Street off Leeward DriveZoning LDRNotice Requirements No ObjectorsParcel Size 0.2296 ac/ 10,001.37 sq. ft.Building Size Proposed 268 sq.ft.Building Footprint 2,213 sq.ft.Building Coverage 22.1 %

BACKGROUNDJuly 11, 2018 (CE18-0104) – an Enforcement Notice was issued in respect of the above application.

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. Canal setback (3’-0” vs. 20’)2. Side setback (1’-0” vs. 10’)

APPLICANT’S LETTER“We have submitted an application on behalf of Ms. Tichina Rickfield who have constructed an ancillary structure which falls closer than the required prescribed setbacks from the side and the rear.With the above mentioned ancillary structure being closer than the required rear setback minimum of 20’-0” (3’-0”) and the required side setback 10’-0” (1’-0”), under the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision) we would like to apply for the above-mentioned variance.8 (13) (b) there is sufficient reason to grant a variance and an exceptional circumstance exists, which may include the fact that –

2.0 APPLICATIONSREGULAR AGENDA (Items 2.9 to 2.21)

47

8(13) (b) (iii) 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;8 (13) (d) in the case of an application where lesser setbacks are proposed for a development or a lesser lot size is proposed for a development, the adjoining property owners have been notified of the application.We would appreciate the board’s favourable decision to this request.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralAs noted above, this application is a result of an Enforcement Notice issued on July 11, 2018, regarding the above application.The application is for an after-the-fact cabana (268 sq.ft.) located at the above-captioned property. The site is located on Sun Rose Street off Leeward Drive, Savannah.ZoningThe property is zoned Low Density Residential.

Specific Issuesa) Canal and Side Setbacks

The rear setback is 3’-0:”, whereas the minimum required setback is 20’ in accordance with Regulation 8(10)(ea) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision). Additionally, the side setback is 1’-0”, whereas, the minimum required is 10’ pursuant to Regulation 9(8)(j).The adjoining parcels were notified, and no objections were received.The Authority should ascertain whether or not if there is sufficient reason and an exceptional circumstance that exists in accordance with Regulation 8(13)(b) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision) to warrant granting rear and side setbacks variances. As noted above, the applicant has provided an explanation for the variances in their letter, which is included in this report.

48

2. 10 RICARDO & DEBBY FRANCIS Block 1D Parcel 684 (F15-0159) (P19-0590) ($101,000) (MW)

Application for a house addition with setback variances. FACTSLocation Worthing Drive, West BayZoning LDRNotice Requirements No ObjectorsParcel Size 0.1539 AC / 6,703.884 sq.ft.Current Use ResidenceProposed Use AdditionBuilding Size 670 sq.ft.Building Coverage 28.7%Proposed Parking 2Required Parking 1

BACKGROUNDJune 8, 2015 (P15-0655) – Application for a house with swimming pool approved.

October 31, 2018 (CPA/24/18; Item 2.8) – The Authority adjourned an application for an addition to the house create a duplex (P18-0423).

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. Floor plan design2. Front setback (9’-7” vs 20’)

AGENT’S LETTER “The main reason for the addition space to the house is for his older son and daughter, for the 2- bedroom and more spaces for them. The setback variance, provided is 10ft from the left side instead of 20ft and 13 ft from the rear set back instead of 20ft of the property line. The lot size variance provided is 6,702 sf only instead 10,000 sf.In accordance with regulation 8(13)(b) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision) a letter of variance must be submitted to the

49

Department regarding the side setback, lot size, and lot width explaining that there is sufficient reason to grant a variance and an exceptional circumstance exists, which may include the fact that

(i) the characteristics of the proposed development are consistent with the character of the surrounding area;

(ii) unusual terrain characteristics limit the site development potential; or(iii)the proposal will not be materially detrimental to persons Thank you for

kind consideration and patience.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe application seeks planning permission for a 670 sq.ft. house addition.ZoningThe property is zoned Low Density Residential.Specific Issuesa) Floor plan design

The proposed floor plan is essentially the same as previously considered with the exception that the kitchen has been replaced by a sitting area and there is now one internal access door to the existing house. The Authority must determine if the floor plan design is acceptable as a house addition.

b) Front setbackRegulation 9(8)(i) states “the minimum front and rear setback is 20 feet.” The proposed addition would have a front setback of 9’-7”.

2. 11 KYRO GROUPLTD. Block 4D Parcel 20 (F19-0236) (P19-0383) ($400,000) (JP)

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 Zoning MDRNotice Requirements No ObjectorsParcel Size Proposed 8,712 sq.ft.Parcel Size Required 15,000 sq.ft.

50

Current Use House(s)Proposed Use AdditionProposed Parking 3Required Parking 2

BACKGROUNDJuly 31, 2019 (CPA/16/19; Item 2.4) - The Authority adjourned the application to enable the applicant to submit a revised plan showing the combination of parcels 19 and 20.July 3, 2019 (CPA/14/19; Item 2.5) - The Authority adjourned the application in order to invite the applicant to appear to address concerns with the application.

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. Lot Size Variance2. Setback Variance

AGENT’S LETTER“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.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 ANALYSISGeneralThe applicant is requesting permission 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.

51

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSISJuly 3, 2019 (CPA/14/19; Item 2.5) - The Authority 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.July 31, 2019 (CPA/14/19; Item 2.4) – Applicant informed CPA they owned both parcels 19 and 20. It has since become known this was incorrect as the applicant does not own parcel 19. In light of this, the applicant commissioned the services of a licensed surveyor to accurately plot the boundary. This is still subject to authentication. It demonstrates a 4’ setback from the northern (rear elevation of House 3B.Revised site plan has been provided demonstrating 4’ setback from northern boundary and removal of existing and proposed boundary wall. A site inspection confirms the existing wall has been demolished.

2. 12 HARBOUR HOLDING LTD. Block 14BG Parcel 50 (F99-0192) (P19-0569) ($815,000) (JP)

Application for two warehouse buildings.FACTSLocation Rock Hole Road, George TownZoning NCNotice Requirements No ObjectorsParcel Size 0.15 ac/6,534 sq.ft.

52

Current Use Parking AreaProposed Use WarehouseFloor Area 5,000 sq ftProposed Parking 5Required Parking 5Site Coverage Allowed 75%Site Coverage Proposed 70%Height Allowed 40’/ 3 storiesHeight Proposed 13’-8”/ 1 storiesSide Setback Allowed 6’.Side Setback Proposed 6’Road Setback Allowed 20’ Road Setback Proposed 21’3”

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reason:1. Zoning

AGENT’S LETTER

“On behalf of our client, we are humbly requesting to grant an approval for an application of the Proposed Warehouse on Block 1D Parcel 721. The area is a neighborhood commercial zone where the client is proposing the warehouses which are in demand to cater existing offices, shops and other business enterprises within the area. We are asking for your good office for consideration. We are whole heartedly looking forward for your favorable response. Thank you.”

AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the Department of Environment, National Roads Authority, Water Authority, Chief Environmental Health Officer and Fire Department are noted below.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 confirms that we have no comments as the site is man-modified.”

53

National Roads Authority“As per your memo dated June 12th, 2019 the NRA has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations based on the site plan provided.Road Capacity IssuesThe traffic demand to be generated by the above proposed development of 6,100 sq. ft. has been assessed in accordance with ITE Code 151 — Mini Warehouse. The anticipated traffic to be added onto Rock Hole 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

15 1 1 0 2 1 1

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

Access and Traffic Management IssuesTwo-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 Rock Hole Road, within the property boundary, to NRA standards.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.

54

• Construct a gentle ‘hump’ at the entrance/exit (along the entire widdi of each driveway) in order to prevent stormwater runoff from and onto Rock Hole 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 die 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 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“The developer’s agents have submitted construction drawings for a traffic-rated 1,500-gallon CI Precast septic tank and disposal well at the above referenced development. The drawings satisfy Water Authority regulations and adequate to discharge of CPA condition.The Septic Tank Approval memorandum has been uploaded to the document links section below.”Chief Environmental Health Officer“The proposed location of the onsite solid waste storage facility is satisfactory”Fire Department““Please depict required deep well and hydrant on drawing”

Revised drawings submitted 2nd September. No further comments provided. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe application site is located within the George Town area of the Island in an area which is predominantly characterized by parking facilities together with

55

informal mature vegetation. Access to the site is achieved from Rock Hole Road which forms the northern boundary; the site is triangular in shape.ZoningThe property is zoned Neighbourhood Commercial.Specific Issuesa) Zoning

The development site is located within a Neighbourhood Commercial zone of George Town. The proposal seeks planning permission for the construction of warehouse/storage units. Members are invited to consider whether such a use is acceptable in this zone and in this location.For the avoidance of doubt, the scheme complies with all other Neighbourhood Commercial development criteria.

2. 13 LALOR RESIDENCE Block 22D Parcel 359 (F18-0193) (P19-1024) ($75,000) (JP)

Application for after-the-fact modification to pool design, trellis and dock.

FACTSLocation Off Admiral Avenue, ProspectZoning LDRNotice Requirements No ObjectorsParcel Size 0.2302 ac/ 10,027.51 sq. ft. Current Use 28Proposed Use 27

BACKGROUNDJune 13, 2018 (CPA/14/18; Item 2.9) – The Authority granted planning permission for a house and pool.

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. Pool trellis rear setback variance (2’9” vs 20’)2. Width of dock (6’11” vs 6’)3. Upper floor balcony side setback variance (10’ vs 15’)4. Modified pool design (11’9” vs 10’11”)

56

APPLICANT’S LETTER

“We write on behalf of the applicants, Wesley Lalor, with regards to the following;• A rear setback variance - to allow the Pool Trellis to remain as constructed a

setback of 2'9" instead of the required 20’ from the property line.• A dock width variance - to allow the dock to remain as constructed with a of

6’ 11” instead of 6'.• A side setback variance - to allow the Upper floor balcony to remain as

constructed with a setback of ID' instead of the required 15' 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(l3)(d) of the Planning Regulations, the owner of the adjacent

properties was notified by register mail and has provided written consent to the variances;

2. Per section 8(l3)(b)(iii) of the Planning Regulations, the proposal will not materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare;

3. The application complies with all other relevant planning requirements.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe application site occupies a lot in Prospect with a canal forming the southern boundary, neighbouring lots to the west and east and access to the site gained from the north.The application seeks after the fact planning application for modified pool design, trellis on balcony and pool and dock

ZoningThe property is zoned Low Density Residential.Specific Issuesa) Pool trellis rear setback variance

Regulation 8(10)(ea) requires all structures and buildings to be setback a minimum of 20’ from the canal edge. As constructed, the pool trellis is only 2’ 9” from the canal edge. Members are invited to consider whether adequate justification has been provided.

57

b) Width of dockThe dock is 6’ 11” in width. While the Regulations do not provide dimensions for docks, historically, the CPA tends to support applications which achieve a maximum of 6’ in width.Members are invited to consider whether adequate justification has been provided.

c) Upper floor balcony side setback varianceRegulation 9(8)(j) permits structures with more than one storey with a 15’ side setback. A trellis has been constructed on top of the upper floor balcony and the structure measures 10’ from the side boundary.Members are invited to determine whether adequate justification has been provided.

d) Swimming poolPrevious application granted planning permission for the installation of a swimming pool with a setback of 11’ 9”. Permission is now being sought for an after the fact modified pool design with a new setback of 10’ 11”.Members are invited to reflect upon the variance letter for consideration on the acceptability of this aspect.

2. 14 LONDON HOUSE Block 10E Parcel 49 (FB74-0096)(P19-0745)($150,000)(CS)

Application for a generator and 1,000 gallon diesel tank.

FACTSLocation West Bay Road, West BayZoning HTNotice Requirements No objectorsParcel Size 1.59 acresCurrent Use ApartmentsProposed Use Generator and fuel tank

BACKGROUNDThe London House condominiums exist on this site.

Recommendation: Discuss for the following reason:1) Front setback variance (1’ vs. 25’)2) Side setback variance (14’9” vs. 20’)

58

APPLICANT LETTER“In regards to proposed generator installation for London House Condominiums we are writing today to explain the 15 foot variance requirements that cannot be met.History; when this project was first considered we determined that it would be wise to meet with all officials that would be involved with future inspections and present Planning submissions, as we were aware that there was limited space to position a generator and meet the 15 foot set back rule using a standard UL 162 Fuel tank. We met with the Petroleum inspector Dwayne Ebanks, and we determined a location, however in order to comply with the location and limited se backs we were required to supply a UL 2085 concrete encased, impact and fire resistant fuel tank, which we have. We also met with the electrical inspector Erwin Smithz to determine the wiring methods would be acceptable. We also met with the Fire Marshall, Tina Ebanks to determine that we would be compliant with the generator location, which we were. We believe we have performed due diligence in determining the variance in question in order to meet Planning requirements. The reasons for the selected spot on site for the generator placement are.1. The generator would encroach into the parking area and become a possible

hazard.2. Using a parking space for the generator location would not be feasible as site

has limited parking as is.3. Aesthetically pleasing location was also a factor, and placing in nearer the

beach or pool side was not an option. Should you require any further information regarding this Permit application please contact me directly.”AGENCY COMMENTSChief Petroleum InspectorateThe OfReg Fuels has reviewed the above captioned plans in accordance with NFPA 30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code and the Dangerous Substances Law & Regulations (2017). The proposed location is in code compliance. All technical plans & fuel storage tank documents are required to be submitted at BCU stage for further consideration.PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe applicant is requesting planning permission for a generator and 1,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks.ZoningThe property is zoned Hotel/Tourism.

59

Specific Issuesa) Setback variances

The generator and associated fuel tank will be located 1’ from the front boundary and 12’4” from the side boundary. Bollards will be placed on the front property boundary.Through review of current aerial photographs, it seems there is space available in the existing landscaped areas to install a generator and fuel tank where they would at least comply with side and rear setbacks.The applicant has provided a letter outlining the reasons they selected the current location, which is included in this report.

The Authority is asked to consider the merits of the applicant’s request.

2. 15 STRATFORD VILLAS Block 4E Parcel 747 (F19-0018) (P19-0021) ($220,000) (AS)

Application for a house.

FACTSLocation Malvern WayZoning HDRNotice Requirements No Objections Parcel Size 0.1176 ac/ 5,122.65 sq.ft.Current Use Vacant Proposed Use House Building Footprint 1,149 sq ftBuilding Size 1,149 sq.ft.Building Coverage 22.43%

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. Front setback (18 ft 6 in. v 20 ft.)2. Rear setback (5 ft v. 20 ft.)

APPLICANT’S LETTER“My client the owner of the above-named property is requesting variance for the proposed house on the above mention plot of land. The setback variance we seeking is 4’-10” from the rear side setback of the proposed house to the boundary instead of the 20’-0” that is required and

60

encroachment of the stairs into the 20ft of front setback. Please note that the proposal will not be materially detrimental to person residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property owner, to neighbourhood, or to the public welfare. In accordance with regulation 8(13)(b) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision) a letter of variance must be submitted to the Department regarding the side setback, lot size, and lot width explaining that there is sufficient reason to grant a variance and an exceptional circumstance exists, which may include the fact that (i) the characteristics of the proposed development are consistent with the character of the surrounding area; (ii) unusual terrain characteristics limit the site development potential; or (iii) the proposal will not be materially detrimental to persons”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is requesting to planning permission for a single storey three (3) bedroom house.Zoning The property is zoned High Density Residential.

Specific Issues a) Setbacks

Regulation 9(6)(h) requires front and rear setbacks of 20’ for houses. The site plan shows a rear setback of 5’ and a front setback of 18’ 6” due to the encroachment of the stairs.At CPA/13/18 (Item 2.16) a house was approved at Block 4E Parcel 749 with a front setback of 17’-11”.

b) Notification to Adjacent Parcel OwnersAdjacent parcels owners have been notified of the applicant’s variance request and no objections have been received.

61

2. 16 JASON DOBLE Block 22E Parcel 389 (F19-0488) (P19-0901) ($1.6 million) (BES)

Application for 2-story five (5) bedroom house with carport, LPG tank and pool.FACTSLocation Grand Isle WayZoning LDR Notice Requirements No ObjectorsParcel Size 15,942.9 sq. ft.Current Use VacantProposed Use ResidentialBuilding Size 7,450 sq. ft.

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1) Carport side setback (8’ vs. 10’).2) Upper deck side setback (10’-5” vs. 15’)

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 confirms that we have no objections at this time as the site is man-modified and of limited ecological value.”APPLICANT’S LETTER“Our client is kindly requesting that CPA consider granting a side setback variance in relation to the above application to allow a carport with an adequate turning radius. We have sent out notices to the adjoining landowners (22E390, 442 and 447 Rem.4). Furthermore, as seen on the latest A-1_Site Plan, we have altered the layout and design to allow for minimal encroachment on the eastern side setback. The carport is within the 20’ setback on the south. The cantilevered open pergola roof is now 4’-10” from the property line and the structure is 8’ from the property line. This relationship is depicted on drawing A-3 detail 6.We believe this should be granted because of the following reasons:• the characteristics of the proposed development are consistent with the

character of the surrounding area.

62

• 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.

• the structure material is open and light.• we have adjusted the location so that the carport is now within the 20’

setback on the south.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe applicant is requesting planning permission for 2-story five (5) bedroom house with carport, LPG tank and pool. The site is located in Grand Harbour.ZoningThe property is zoned Low Density Residential.Specific Issues

a) Carport Side SetbacksThe carport side setback is 8’, whereas the minimum required setback is 10’ per regulation 9(8)(j).

b) Upper Deck SetbackThe cantilevered second-floor deck is setback 10’-5”, whereas the minimum required side setback is 15’ in accordance with regulation 9(8)(j).The adjoining parcels were notified, and no objections were received.

The Authority should ascertain whether or not if there is sufficient reason and an exceptional circumstance that exists in accordance with Regulation 8(13)(b) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2018 Revision) to warrant granting setbacks variances. As noted above, the applicant has provided an explanation for the variances in their letter, which is included in this report.

2. 17 FISHER RESIDENCE Block 4C Parcel 16 (F98-0030) (P19-0907) ($390,000) (JP)

Application for an after-the-fact modifications to the existing building.

FACTSLocation Kemp Street, West BayZoning HDRNotice Requirements No ObjectorsParcel Size 0.20 ac / 8,712 sq. ft.Current Use Residential

63

Proposed Use Residential

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:1. Side Setback Variance (4’vs10’)2. Rear Setback Variance (18’-2” vs 20’)

AGENT’S LETTER “We have submitted an application on behalf of Mr. Glenroy Fisher and Mrs. Blossom Fisher who is in the process of completing an additional to existing apartment which they have started for a number of years and are in the process of completing the building which will assist them when they retire financially.With the building being nearer than the required minimum setback under the development and planning regulation (2018) (R), the proposal would be encroaching into the rear setback at 18'-2” which the regulation states that the setback should be 20’-0” and side setback of 6'-0" which the regulation states that the setback should be 10’-0”, having mentioned the above we would like to apply for the above mentioned variance request for the building to remain as constructed.8 (13) (b) there is sufficient reason to grant a variance and an exceptional circumstance exists, which may include the fact that –8(13) (b) (iii) the proposal will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or workingin the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare;8 (13) (d) in the case of an application where lesser setbacks are proposed for a development or a lesser lot size is proposed for a development the adjoining property owners have been notified of the application.We would appreciate the board’s favorable decision to our request.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSISGeneralThe application site is located in West Bay within an established residential area consisting of an eclectic range of accommodation. The property has previously been subdivided to create 4 apartments. The site can be accessed from the north or south with neighbouring properties location to the north and west. Vacant residential land bounds the application site to the east and south.The application seeks to regularise after-the-fact development which consists primarily of a porch and rear steps. Additional minor works consist of changing a door opening into a window.

64

ZoningThe property is zoned High Density Residential.Specific Issuesa) Side Setback Variance

Regulation 9(6)(i) stipulates development of single storey structures must not project within the 10’ side setback. The application seeks planning permission to regularise the unauthorised construction of a porch which projects into the setback by 6’.Members are invited to reflect upon the submitted variance letter.

b) Rear Setback VarianceRegulation 9(6)(h) requires a rear setback of 20’ for development in high density area. The application seeks retrospective planning permission for the retention of rear steps which result in a rear setback of 18’ 2” Members are invited to reflect upon the submitted variance letter as part the determination process.

2. 18 ISLAND PROPERIES LTD. Block 1C Parcel 270 (F17-0169) (P19-0710) ($2,000) (BES)

Application for 5-ft high fence and motorized sliding security gates.

FACTSLocation Northwest Point, West BayZoning LDRNotice Requirements No Objectors Parcel Size 1.439 AC

BACKGROUNDAugust 8, 2018 (CPA/18/18; Item 2.11) The Authority granted planning permission for apartments with conditions.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission.

AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the National Roads Authority are noted below.

National Roads Authority

65

““As per your memo dated October 14th, 2019 the NRA has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations based on the site plan provided.The NRA has no objections or concerns regarding the above proposed electric gates and 5 foot fence.”PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is for 5-ft high fence and security gates to be located at the above-captioned property. The site is located on Northwest Point Road, West BayZoning The land is zoned Low Density Residential.Specific Issuesa) Motorized Sliding Security Gates and 5’ Chain Link Fence

The gates are setback 21’-9” from the front property line, and paragraph 8.2.10 of the Wall and Guidelines require a minimum of 20-ft setback. As indicated on the site plan, a 5-ft high fence is proposed along the eastern property line.

b) Re-Positioning of the SignThe sign would be re-located parallel to the public and setback 12-ft from the front property line, whereas the previous location of the sign was angled next to the ingress/egress curb – see magenta highlighter on the site plan. For the Authority’s information, appendix 1 of the CPA Signs Guidelines states that signs should be setback a minimum of 12-ft from the road and the sign complies with this setback.

2. 19 KARIBA ARCHITECTURE (RITZ CARLTON) Block 12C Parcels 393, 451 3/H10H5 and Block 17A Parcel 260 (FA94-0233) (P19-0919) (CS)

Application for two storage buildings and additional parking.FACTSLocation West Bay Road, West Bay Beach northZoning HTNotice Requirements No Objectors Parcel Size 8.29 acresCurrent Use HotelProposed Use Storage

66

Required Parking 408Proposed Parking 446

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission

AGENCY COMMENTSComments from the Department of Environment, Chief Environmental Health Officer, National Roads Authority and Water Authority 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 confirms that we have no comments.” Chief Environmental Health Officer“DEH has no objections to the proposed in principle.”National Roads Authority“As per your memo dated September 10th, 2019 the NRA has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations based on the site plan provided.The NRA has no objections or concerns regarding the above proposed development.”Water Authority“The plans do not indicate any additional water source or sanitary fixtures; if this is in fact the case, the Authority has no requirements for this proposal.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS GeneralThe applicant is requesting planning permission for a storage building, golf storage building, and additional parking.ZoningThe property is zoned Hotel Tourism.

Specific Issues a) Parking

Per CPA/11/15; Item 2.12, the Authority was satisfied with 402 parking spaces being provided for the hotel. If the Authority is minded to require 1 parking space per 1,000 sq.ft. for the new buildings, given they will be used for storage, the proposal will require 6 additional spaces. However the location of these two buildings results in the loss of 45 spaces. To counter the

67

loss of parking, the applicant will add an 89 space parking area along Safehaven Drive. This results in a 38 space surplus with a total of 446 spaces.

2. 20 ONE CANAL POINT (CP LAND CO. LTD.) Block 12C Parcels 234, 235, 267 (F19-0120) (P19-1020) ($100,000) (CS)

Application for three (3) 1,000 gallon and one (1) 500 gallon LP tanks.FACTSLocation Canal Point Drive, West Bay BeachZoning LDRNotice Requirements No Objectors Parcel Size 4.98 acresCurrent Use TownhomesProposed Use LPG tanks

BACKGROUNDApril 24, 2019 (CPA/08/19; Item 2.1) - The Authority granted planning permission for eight (8) townhomes, 7 pools, dock and an 8-lot raw land strata subdivision.June 5, 2019 (CPA/11/19; Item 2.8) - The Authority granted planning permission for nine (9) apartments, 7 pools, one community pool, gym, pool, clubhouse and nine (9) strata lots.June 28, 2019 (CPA/13/19; Item 2.8) - The Authority granted planning permission for 17 apartments.August 28, 2019 (CPA/18/19; Item 2.12) - The Authority granted planning permission for 10 apartments.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission.

AGENCY COMMENTSPetroleum Inspectorate“The OfReg Fuels has reviewed the above captioned plans for proposed LPG locations (2 separate locations on Block 12C Parcel 234) for four underground storage containers in accordance with NFPA 58 for Code Compliance. OfReg Fuels would like to remind the applicant that “No part of an underground ASME container shall be less than 10ft (3m) from a building” (See NFPA 58, Chapter 6).

68

All other setbacks per NFPA 58, Chapter 6 and Table 6.3.1 Separation Distances Between Containers, Important Buildings, and Line of Adjoining Property that Can be built Upon, and Table 6.3.8 Separation Distance Between Container Pressure Relief Valve and Building Openings will be verified in the field during construction and/or installation of the LPG containers by the fuels inspectors.The applicant will be required by the Dangerous Substances Law, 2017 to apply for a Premises Operating Permit before operating or occupies or cause such regulated premises to be operated or occupied without a valid operating permit.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The applicant is requesting planning permission for three (3) 1,000 gallon and one (1) 500 gallon LPG tanks.Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential and there are no concerns with the application.

2. 21 MAPLES Block 14CJ Parcel 183 (F99-0087) (P19-1030) ($14,000) (BS)

Application for 6 signsFACTSLocation Elgin Avenue, George TownZoning GCNotice Requirements No Objectors

Parcel Size 7.95 sq.ft.Current Use CommercialProposed Use Signs

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS GeneralThe application is for 6-signs affixed to the building at the above-captioned property. The site is located at Boundary Hall Office Building, Cricket Square. The sizes of the signs are as follows:

• Sign Type “A”: Area: 4.7-sq ft x 2 = 29.4-sq ft• Sign Type “B”: Area: 4.6-sq ft x 4 = 18.4-sq ft

69

Zoning The property is zoned General Commercial.Specific Issuea) Sign Size

The Central Planning Authority’s Sign Guidelines stipulates that fascia signs should not exceed 10% of the building façade. The proposed signs are within the sign guidelines, and the Department has no concerns with the proposal.

3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN MATTERS

4.0 PLANNING APPEAL MATTERS

5.0 MATTERS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

6.0 CPA MEMBERS INFORMATION/DISCUSSIONS

Appendix ‘A’

Airfield Upgrades Project6th November 2019

The Project In line with the 2014 Airport Master Plan

Conforms with ICAO Annex 14 – Aerodrome ManualProject duration approximately 8 months

Runway Rehabilitation

Apron Expansion

Runway Extension andBlast Deflector

Completed Runway Length = 7,871ftRunway 08 TORA = 7,464ftRunway 026 TORA = 7,379ftLanding Dist. Avail (08) = remains at 6,598ftLanding Dist. Avail. (026) = increase to 6,791

Runway Extension Section

Pond Remediation

End of Presentation