CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY · 2016-09-23 · 1 CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY Minutes of a meeting of the Central Planning Authority held on October 3, 2001 and continued on October 10,

1

CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

Minutes of a meeting of the Central Planning Authority held on October 3, 2001 and continued on October 10, 2001 in the Planning Conference Room, 3rd Floor Tower Building.

31st Meeting of the Year CPA/31/01

Mr. Gordon McLaughlin (Chairman) (excluding Item 5.20)

Mr. David Arch

Mr. Attlee Bodden (absent)

Mr. Dalkeith Bothwell (Acting Chairman, Item 5.20 only)

Mr. Ray Hydes

Mr. Barry Martinez (absent)

Mr. Trent McCoy

Mr. Steve McLaughlin

Mr. Rex Miller

Mr. Eldon Rankin

Mr. Ernie Scott

Mr. Antonio Smith

Mr. Troy Whittaker

Mr. Kenneth Ebanks (Executive Secretary)

Mr. Robert Lewis (Planning Officer)

Ms. Angela Riddle (Planning Assistant I)

1. Attendance

2. Confirmation of Minutes

3. Matters Arising

4. Adjourned Applications

5. New Applications

A) Minor Matters

B) Subdivisions

C) Other Applications

D) DAB Applications

6. Enforcements

7. Development Plan Matters

8. Matters from the Director of Planning

9. CPA Members Information/Discussions

10. Adjournment

2

APPLICANTS APPEARING BEFORE THE CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

NAME REASONS TIME ITEM PAGE

Acorn Properties (AR) Objections, Department concerns

2:00 5.04(C) 43

Andy’s Auto (BES) Objections, Department concerns

2:30 5.13(C) 104

Ellesmere Britannia (AR) Objections, Department concerns

3:00 5.11(C) 63

1.0 ATTENDANCE

1.01 APOLOGIES, OCTOBER 3, 2001

Apologies were received from Mr. Attlee Bodden and Mr. Barry Martinez.

1.02 APOLOGIES, OCTOBER 10, 2001

Apologies were received from Mssrs. Attlee Bodden, Ray Hydes, Rex Miller, Eldon Rankin, Ernie Scott, Troy Whittaker and Mr. Robert Lewis.

2.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

2.01 CPA/29/01 HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2001

Tabled

3.0 MATTERS ARISING

3.01 CAYMAN SHORES DEVELOPMENT LTD. Block 12D Parcels 9 Rem 4, 10, 12 & 30 and Block 12E Parcels 78 & 79 (FB91-0385) (P01-105913) (RS)

Application for phased excavation and fill (1,496,000 total cubic yards of material).

FACTS

Location: Between West Bay Road and the North Sound, immediately north of Lawrence Blvd. (a portion of the Harquail By-Pass)

Zoning: Neighbourhood Commercial, Low Density Residential and Mangrove Buffer

3

Background: See below

Existing Use: Vacant and a garden nursery

Proposed Use: Excavation

Excavation Size: 1,496,000 cubic yards

BACKGROUND

The application has been considered by the Authority on two separate occasions. The minutes from each of those meetings are provided below and include agency comments, previous Planning Department reports, recorded objections and the Authority’s previous decisions.

MINUTES FROM CPA/32/98 (October 14, 1998)

“Proposed excavation and fill situated directly east and west of the Esterly Tibbetts Highway. The area is zoned Neighbourhood Commercial, Low Density Residential and Mangrove Buffer.

The subject site consists of 238 acres of land. The proposal is to excavate 1,496,000 cubic yards of material from the eastern portion of the site and fill on the western portion. The depth of the excavation would range from 10 to 15 feet and be done in a manner, which would create a lake on the eastern section of the site. There would also be two large storage areas for the excavated material, one in the center of the site and the other along the northern boundary. The existing nursery would remain. The applicants also propose to retain a mangrove section along the North Sound coast that ranges in width from 300 to 450 feet. Furthermore, there are also three large rectangles that would remain untouched in the central part of the site.

Agency Comments

The following comments have been received to date.

Director of Environment

“Having reviewed the above-referenced application, the Department of Environment provides the following comments.

The DoE strongly recommends against approval of this application for these reasons.

1. A magnanimous project of this nature should not be presented for consideration on a phase-by-phase basis. This procedure is wrong and of poor planning practice. Since last year, the DoE and the Caymanian public have been aware of the entire master plan for this project (see attached).

2. The Department of Environment and the Planning Department held discussions with the applicant’s representatives and scoped Terms of Reference for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be conducted based on the entire project concept (see attached). The DoE remains firmly of

4

the view that this is the only way that the impacts associated with a project such as this can be fully and properly assessed.

3. Given the above, and as indicated by “Phase One Land Reclamation,” applicant clearly intends to do more than what is being currently submitted. The plans submitted reflect the preparatory work required to develop the site as per the attached conceptual master plan. In essence, the applicant is not being truthful regarding the purpose, extent and magnitude of this development site, especially as pertains to the areas marked “Existing Mangroves (Undisturbed)”, which according to the master plan will become residential canal lots. In addition, the mulch/compost storage areas indicate that the applicant is stockpiling and preparing the site for final landscaping.

4. In effect, Phase One excavation to –15’ of the “Interior Pond” and waterways behind the mangrove buffer will grossly fragment the wetland habitat and will essentially destroy the intertidal and marine function of this mangrove area.

In conclusion, the Department’s considered position on this project is that a full EIA should be conducted on the entire master plan and be completed before any phase of the project is approved. Only then should consideration be given to this project for works done on a time-scheduled phase-by-phase basis.

If the Central Planning Authority is minded to approve this application, the Department of Environment requests that we be given the opportunity to make specific comments on the application at such time.”

Chief Environmental Health Officer

“The Department has no objection to the proposals as outlined in the above application.”

Water Authority

“I refer to your memorandum dated 2nd September 1998 concerning the above referenced site. With respect to the protection of ground water resources, the Water Authority has no objection in principle to the proposed excavation as indicated in the plan. On receipt of CPA approval, the developer is required to obtain a quarry permit from the Water Authority prior to commencing the proposed work.

Please be advised that the Water Authority has a 250mm sewer pressure main in the existing dyke road located on the west side of the nursery. The developer should contact Mr. Tom van Zanten, New Works Engineer, about the arrangements to relocate or divert this pipeline.”

Response to Agency Comments

The Department has no concern with the comments however, it would appear that the Public Works Department comments apply to more than road matters.

Objectors

5

Adjacent landowners were notified by Registered Mail and advertisements appeared in the newspaper. Almost 1,700 objections have been submitted. Letters that are not the National Trust form letter were distributed at the meeting.

Planning Department Review

Section 1.2 of the Development Plan, 1997, states that the primary objective of the Development Plan is to maintain and enhance the Cayman Islands and the well-being and prosperity of its people subject thereto its environmental character.

In addition to other considerations, the Development Plan contains strategies to preserve the natural assets of the Island for their value in protection from the elements and their natural beauty as well as to protect areas of environmental significance (section 1.3(d) and (h) of the Development Plan).

Section 2.3 of the Development Plan speaks to the ecology of the Island and the features of the ecology, which must be regarded in planning land use and development. Included amongst the features are the beauty of the coral reefs, the clarity of the water, wetlands, virgin forests, and the beaches.

Section 2.3 (b) expands on matters affecting the mangrove buffer. It states that consideration must be given to the type of mangrove that would be disturbed, to the biological effects and to whether the storm and hurricane protection of the Islands would be reduced. This section further states that new developments in mangrove areas may be subject to the completion of an environmental analysis which enable the CPA to be satisfied that:

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

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

iii) the scale, density, and design of development take proper account of a sites physical and environmental characteristics.”

In addition, “the submission of a comprehensive site analysis report may be required by the Authority in cases where the characteristics of the site may and the particulars of the proposal, or the potential impact of development, require closer examination prior to the determination of an application.”

In view of the above noted policies, the Department has no alternative but to recommend that an Environmental Impact Statement be completed so that the CPA may adequately assess the impact of the proposed excavation and fill project. The statement should be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and DOE.

Consideration of this matter convened at the Town Hall, George Town at 3:00 p.m.

The following were in attendance:

The Applicants

6

Mr. Gene Thompson

Mr. Steve Dial

Mr. Jim Lammers

Members of the Public (C=Caymanian, NC=Non-Caymanian)

[NOTE: The list of members of the public is based on a “sign-in sheet”. Members of the public were asked to print their names and addresses. In some instances the printing is not clear and in others, information was written. Therefore, the accuracy of the list below cannot be ensured.]

Marjorie Hurst 35 GT C

Brenda Quin 30297 SMB “Status”

Carter Powell 32094 SMB C

Susan Phillips 205 GT NC

Margaret Keshishian/Catherine Mather 205 GT NC

Andrea Bothwell 1563 GT C

Clarence Bothwell 1563 GT C

Sandra Dailey 26 GT C

Janet Walker 265 GT C

Peter Milburn 596 C

E. Meruik 30261 SMB C

R. L. Wight 64 GT C

Dennie Ebanks 161

David Wight 64 GT C

Marar Polack 1140 GT NC

Alson Ebanks, Chairman National Trust 506 GT C

Reva Bodden 414 Sav C

Brian M. Ebanks 30009 SMB NC

Wendy Moore 31116 SMB C

Laverne Daykin 575 GT C

C. Merren 431 C

Fred Burton 31116 SMB NC

Ronette Johnson Jurn 78 GT C

Bonnie Briggs 479 C

Katherine Briggs 479 C

7

Francia Lloyd 1320 GT C

A. Steve McField 680 GT C

Felicity Jones 309 GT NC

Esther Rivers 95 H WB C

Deborah Kirkconnell 893 GT C

M. John Meaney 233 Cayman Brac NC

Chris Wight 64 GT C

Merle McGann Burke 2019 G C

Troy Jacob 2758 C

Sonya Carlesso-Ebanks 30390 SMB NC

Eve Flowers 2179 GT C

Samuel Abel Powery 2033 GT

Colford Scott 10505 APO C

Mark Scotland 10505 APO C

Diana Scott-Bruce 2800 GT NC

Nicolas Joseph 2800 GT C

Olga Adam 312 GT C

Thomas Adam 312 GT C

Carroll Yates 253 WB C

David Mitchell 299 Sav C

Baron Jacob 2758 GT C

R. Ackermon 300066 SMB C

John Doak (observer only) 893 GT NC

Bothwell 1563 C

Sharon Roulstone 10979 APO C

Charles Watts 2188 GT

Wendy Bush 64 GT C

Jennifer Wight 64 GT C

Peter Riley 10505 APO NC

Katrina Jurn 78 GT C

Faith Gealey 88 GT C

Darlene Ebanks 73 BT C

8

Denby Groves 31416 SMB C

William H. Avan 840 GT C

David R. Myers for Rebie Bodden* 11842 APO C

Mr. Lawrence 30402 SMB NC

Leroy Mitchell 299 Sav C

John Doehkes 1983 GT C

David R. Legge 30231 NC

Eileen Smith 463 LB P.O.

Judy Lankford 30986 SMB C

Marlene Borden 30571 SMB C

Simon Boxall (Press) 1234 GT C

J. Burke The Shores C

Mary Lou Senior 295 GT C

?? 1320 C

John Redman Cayman Free Press NC

George Chollette 11717 APO C

Edward Howard 10505 APO C

Jacqueline Scot 10806 C

William Peguero 10001 C

* The following letter was received at 3:10 p.m. on 14th October 1998 from Rebie Bodden:

“In reference to my letter objecting to the application to excavate and fill on Block 12D, Parcels 9 Rem 4, 10, 12 and 30, and Block 12E, Parcels 44, 45 (a)-(f), 78, and 79, West Bay Beach South, by Shores Development Ltd. I am unable to attend the meeting today and request Mr. David Myers to speak and act on my behalf.”

All Central Planning Authority members

Planning Department

Mr. James Corcoran, Executive Secretary

Mr. Richard Keit, Assistant Director

Ms. Christine Maltman, Planning Officer

Mr. Nick Popovich, Planning Officer

Mr. Tim Woloshyn, Planning Assistant

Mr. Nathan West, Planning Assistant

9

Mr. Burton Schneider, Planning Assistant

Ms. Angela Currie, Planning Assistant

Legal Department

Ms. Keva Reid

CPA Introduction of Procedures

The Authority thanked everyone for attending the meeting and explained the order of conduct would be as follows. First, the applicant will make a presentation of the project. Second, objectors may state their concerns. Third, the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to the objectors’ concerns. Fourth, the objectors will be able to make any final remarks. The Authority noted that this is the usual manner in which CPA meetings are held; the fact that this meeting was located in the Town Hall was a result of the number of people expected to attend.

The Authority noted that Ms. Keva Reid from the Legal Department was at the meeting as an observer and to offer the Authority advice as necessary.

The Authority then asked the applicants to make their presentation.

Applicant’s Presentation

Introduction of Applicants (Mr. Gene Thompson)

Mr. Thompson introduced those in attendance representing the applicants. He noted that his own role has been in introducing the developers to the Island. Mr. Thompson stated he knows the Dart’s personally and professionally and he can personally attest to their character. Mr. Thompson advised that, unfortunately, Mr. Bob Dart had to send his regrets today as he had to undergo emergency back surgery.

Overview of Application (Mr. Jim Lammers)

Mr. Lammers thanked the Authority for the opportunity to address the public on the matter and he stated that he would provide an overview of the application.

The site consists of approximately 238 acres from Seven Mile Beach to the North Sound. The proposed excavation will be internal to the site. There is no proposal to remove the Mangrove Buffer which is 350’ wide or to dredge the North Sound. Mr. Lammers noted that the application proposes 868,000 cubic yards of excavation is (shown in blue on the plans posted). This excavation will allow the applicant the fill necessary for the development. As a result of the excavation there would be 628,000 cubic yards of organic mulch to be composted in the areas shown in pink on the plans. Once the excavation/fill is concluded, the overall development would consist of the following:

Developable land 70 acres

Nursery/Compost 31 acres

Open water 52 acres

10

Remaining mangrove 85 acres

238 acres

By way of history, Mr. Lammers noted that the site was purchased in 1995 for US$20 million and stamp duty paid was US$1.5+ million. Excluding the Mangrove Buffer, the site is zoned for development. A year ago the applicants made public a concept master plan which illustrated North Sound dredging and raised some concerns regarding traffic. Therefore, the applicants began studies in 1997 and with the Department of the Environment, the applicants agreed on the Terms of Reference for a complete Environmental Impact Assessment. The applicants then charged their consultants to prepare environmental and traffic impact studies.

Mr. Lammers stated that the master plan can be done in an environmentally responsible way and will result in construction of the Harquail By-Pass. He stated that the applicants must pursue a plan that is complimentary to the Harquail By-Pass and is environmentally responsible.

Mr. Lammers noted that the current application seeks only to develop a portion of the site and he stated he understood that approval of this portion of the development in no way means an approval will be granted for the entire master plan.

Mr. Lammers advised that the applicants are now editing a document, which is an ERA, which was submitted for peer-review to the Departments of Environment, Public Works and Planning. He also noted that the applicants intend to quickly and aggressively re-landscape the area. The nursery is now two (2) years old consisting of 30+ acres on the subject site and in West Bay. The nursery has 100,000+ plants and $4 million has been spent to date on the nursery. He welcomed the CPA to tour the nursery facility.

Mr. Lammers stated that the plans are in keeping with the planning objectives of the Authority. Approval of the current application will allow continuation of the Harquail By-Pass; the applicants will donate the land and construct the road, an estimated $2-3 million cost. It is unlikely that actual building construction will commence before the year 2000. He concluded by stating that the applicant is committed to responsible, sustainable development. He invited the Authority to feel free to question the applicant’s consultants.

Applicant’s Consultants’ Reports (Mr. Steve Dial)

Mr. Lammers provided some background information regarding the consultants’ qualifications.

Mr. Dial stated that he was brought on to the project about 16 months ago regarding the project site, North Sound and master plan issues. He referred to baseline surveys and his studies’ parameters, including that of the Environmental Baseline Survey. The studies included the project site, North Sound and surrounding area. He noted that he has been asked to evaluate the current application which is quite different than the master plan initially proposed; there

11

are a lot of environmental differences. He stated that a great deal of work had been conducted throughout the site. The current application’s impacts are as follows:

The impact to the interior mangroves will not result in significant ecological loss to the North Sound ecosystem

Phase I impacts are to the infrequently inundated interior habitat only

Mr. Dial provided a summary of the Marine Resources within the North Sound Basin which is a total of 30,000 acres. The current application amount to 128 acres. In his professional opinion, Mr. Dial stated that the Central Mangrove Swamp and water quality is vital for seagrass and must be maintained and balanced. He noted that all mangroves are not created equally and we must bear this in mind. The mangroves provide lesser benefit as you move from the North Sound to West Bay Road, although their inland importance is not insignificant. Mr. Dial stated that it is crucial to maintain the mangrove buffer. There will be no direct impact on extinction of flora and fauna and this will be borne out in their detailed EAR. Mr. Dial stated there will be no water quality degradation and no impacts to the seagrass of coral reefs, since there will be no North Sound dredging.

Statements from Objectors

Pastor Alston Ebanks, Chairman, National Trust

Pastor Ebanks thanked the Authority for the opportunity to speak today. He noted that he would call on Mr. Fred Burton later for technical details about the Trust’s concerns. Pastor Ebanks stated that the Authority must look at this project carefully, as it is probably the first project involving mangrove that the CPA has considered under the 1997 Development Plan. He read aloud from the Development Plan and concluded that the Authority has a duty to question whether the application will safeguard the quality of life in Cayman. He noted that the application before us now is for 1.5 million cubic yards of marl and peat, that we do not have an application before us for any subsequent development for canals, lagoons etc. Pastor Ebanks stated that the guidelines of the Development Plan should influence the Authority’s decision, that the Authority must, under the Law, ensure a balance (cost/benefit analysis). To do so, the Authority must understand the costs and benefits of the application.

He stated that there is no where near enough information to make this assessment. Without that information, we cannot assess the environmental, social and economic quality of life issues. No one (CPA or Public) had access to the additional information provided today; it is presumptuous to think that, at even this stage of development, that an Environmental Impact Assessment would not be required. The master plan is also not included with this application; this is putting the cart before the horse if this application is considered now. The Authority should “strike a careful balance” when it makes this decision. We cannot weigh the significance until more detailed information is provided. The Authority should ask the developer to withdraw the application and resubmit, with

12

all information, an application for outline planning permission for the entire development. The National Trust is genuinely concerned about these issues and we invite developers to work with us. There should be a public consultation process whereby the public can look at and comment on the entire plan. Not until all this happens can the Authority make an informed decision. At this point consideration of this application is inappropriate and premature. The mangroves are very important to the environment. Any ecological system is exactly that, a system. One just can’t just say “its just the red mangrove”; its all part of a system. If we destroy the mangrove fringe, the North Sound ecosystem will die. This and the Ritz site are comparatively undeveloped. We can never be certain how much mangrove we can remove by impacting/harming the North Sound; it is important to us ecologically, culturally and socially. We cannot make hasty decisions.

The National Trust would recommend the following:

1) That the Authority set aside this application;

2) That the applicant submit an application for outline planning permission;

3) That detailed impartial environmental and other impacts studies be required; and,

4) That these studies be professionally reviewed locally by the public, Department of Environment and National Trust, at a minimum.

Maybe if we’re fully informed and the developer cooperates, we may not have objections the second time around.

Fred Burton

Mr. Burton stated that he’s seen just today the first bit of information from the developers’ studies; therefore, he cannot make full assessment without more information, cannot assume that the importance of mangrove diminishes as you move inland from North Sound. We do not have good strong information of impacts on seagrass now; we can only speak in terms of probabilities. Environmental science is not exact.

Peter Milburn

Mr. Milburn stated that he has been living in Grand Cayman for thirty-five (35) years and he agrees with previous speakers. He also stated that he has some facts/information that he will provide when full environmental reports are available. He read a quote regarding mangroves from fishermen in the third world (E. Thailand). In the Florida Everglades US$7.98 billion will be spent by the US Government to regenerate wetlands including mangroves damaged over years by development. He re-stated the importance of inland mangroves on the ecosystem.

Faith Healey (Senior at John Gray High School)

13

Ms. Healey stated that she is fifteen (15) years old with the heart and determination of a young Caymanian who knows that progress is inevitable but that it should be controlled. Our natural resource is mangroves that may not be looked upon as important by foreign developers. In the 1932 hurricane there was much flooding with all mangroves in tact; what would happen tomorrow if a hurricane hit? Is this Island only worth the money promised to us by developers?

David Mitchell (John Gray High School)

Grand Cayman used to be a sleepy little island; it is now a booming economy. The developers say the mangroves are needless and useless; old Caymanians say that they are vital (mangroves, seagrass and coral reef); they protect the Island. The Authority should set a good example so we can learn from them. Many people buy a lot of land, clear it, then do not use it for a couple of years, this results in loss of habitat.

Katrina Jones (John Gray High School)

Ms. Jones stated that she supports the objectors. She represents herself and many John Gray High School students and other youth of Grand Cayman. She asked the Authority to please make all decisions in our interest; “stop neglecting and start protecting our mangroves, to keep our future bright”, (message from John Gray High School).

Billy Adam

Mr. Adam stated that he is for the cultural, social and general welfare issues of the Cayman Islands (residents here). He referred to Vision 2008 exercise to manage growth and maintain prosperity. He suggested that some of these proceedings be televised unedited so the public can see how decisions are made. A Caymanians first policy seems to be evident in Vision 2008 surveys: for example, foreigners in our own land, relative lack of confidence in quality of life over next number of years, concerns over rate of development and lack of control, need for moratoriums on development, lack of affordable housing due to rate of development, Caymanian – non Caymanian thing, too may times people are left out of the decision making process. He called for a social impact study before approving any such major developments.

Denby Groves

Mr. Groves circulated copy of the Cayman Islands Yacht Club master plan, which has not developed as originally planned. He also referred to other canal subdivisions such as Salt Creek, Safehaven, George Town Barcadere, Crystal Harbour, Governors Harbour. He stated that 83% of canal lots are vacant; how can you justify actually developing (more than just fill) all this land, in considering many other vacant canal developments?

Monsieur Meany

He said the developers made an inadequate presentation and he noted several concerns as to whether this is a public meeting.

14

The Authority stated that it hoped to let everyone speak and these procedures were clearly stated at meeting outset.

The applicants have made an application and we have to consider it and the objections.

Monsieur Meany replied that the applicant can not possibly address our concerns.

Member of Public (did not identify hinself)

He noted his concerns regarding dredging and deepening the water along the shore and therefore increasing the probability of flooding. Hotels can be rebuilt but after destroying the mangroves we cannot get them back, development needs to slow down.

Steve McField

Mr. McField wanted clarification as to why the developers would leave mangroves if they were not going to use them for future development. He asked the Authority to defer the application until full outline application is made so the Caymanian people can see fully what they intend to do.

Member of Public (did not identify herself)

She wanted to know why we need all of this development, who is going to buy it – more foreigners. Caymanians will be second class citizens in our country


She stated we need a full application and noted her concern regarding garbage generation/disposal and sewage.

Peter Milburn (member, Marine Conservation Board)

Mr. Milburn stated that he would like another independent environmental study.

The Authority stated it will forward any environmental studies to the Department of Environment for comment.


She asked if this development is essential for Cayman? Do we need it for our workforce? We can do without this development.

Jim Lammers (applicant)

Mr. Lammers stated that he will submit an Environmental Assessment specific to this development. Regarding a master plan we know we are subject to providing notices/ads in paper for subsequent development.

The Authority asked if the inland mangroves will eventually be filled/developed?

15

Mr. Lammers said that this may or may not be the case. We know that we have to submit a separate application for this; until then, must leave them as is .

Ronna Lynne White

Ms. White asked where would we get relief from rainfall. If we fill in mangrove, our climate changes. She urged the Authority not to sell out to big developers. Development wrecks everything until there is no infrastructure to worry about. She stated “do not line the developers pocket”; we do not need or want this and we do not want the social imbalance that this development will cause.

Clarence Bothwell

Mr. Bothwell stated that he is anti-development and queried the Authority about any mechanism (if you approve it), whereby the development could be stopped.

The Authority replied that there is no obligation to continue approving development; every application is dealt with on its merits. If approved as is now, any changes will require a separate application.

Vince Christian

Mr. Christian stated that every proponent of this development should be ashamed of themselves. We know the developers want to develop further; they themselves do not even know what they want to do. The Authority should send them back to the drawing board for a full picture of their intentions.

David Myers

“Beware of the thin edge of the wedge”.

Christopher Wight

Mr. Wight stated that it does matter who the developer is and that he stands behind all the objectors.

The Authority stated that the licensing is dealt with by Immigration; the Authority only deals with planning applications

David Wight

Mr. Wight stated that we should not try to fool ourselves that they are here in our best interest.

The Authority stated that as Caymanians they are here to protect Cayman.

Billy Adam

Mr. Billy Adam asked if the Authority can request a Social Impact Study under the Law?

The Authority replied, yes, it supposed it could and that it would think about it.

16


She asked the Authority to explain the process to the audience.

The Authority replied that a decision would be made within two (2) weeks. Anyone that the Authority has addresses for will receive a copy of the decision.

Charles Watler

Mr. Watler asked to have an independent study done on the development in terms of schools, garbage, water, electricity and roads etc. We will subsidize this project somehow. He made a reference to proposed house lots at 3,000 sq. ft. when the minimum is 12,500 under the Regulations. He noted his concerns about the impacts of filling on flooding roads and neighbours land and impacts on Immigration. We should be required to do studies to determine impacts on these infrastructures.


She noted we should be concerned about the impact on schools.

Mr. Peter Milburn asked what recourse do we have?

The Authority replied that the decision could be appealed within fourteen (14) days.

Wendy Moore (National Trust)

Ms. Moore referred to the Ritz Carlton appeal and that objectors may not be considered aggrieved parties.

Keva Reid

Ms. Reid replied, that this is a strict point of law and that Ms. Moore’s comment is correct.

The Authority thanked the applicants and members of the public for appearing at its meeting.

Decision: It was resolved to defer the application for the following reasons, which must be addressed prior to reconsideration by the Authority:

1. Submission to the Planning Department a copy of the applicant’s Local Companies Control Law (LCCL) Licence.

2. Submission of a master plan for the entire development including anticipated phasing program. The plan should reflect the most recent proposal.

3. Submission of comprehensive environmental and economic impact statements to the satisfaction of the Authority.”

Comments from the Chief Engineer are referenced in the planning report under the heading “Response to Agency Comments”, but for unknown reasons were not included in the recorded minutes. The comments from the Chief Engineer were,

17

however, included in the Appeal Record and therefore have been made available to the appellants. The comments are provided here for the Authority’s consideration.

Chief Engineer

General Comments

The comments contained here-in relate specifically to the proposed dredge and fill operation submitted under the name Cayman Shores Ltd. Outline plans for this project indicate that this is a development of extremely high density, and furthermore there are a number of issues regarding this developments impact on the proposed new N-S arterial. In this regard we would wish the opportunity to comment separately on all road matters pertaining to this proposal.

This project as you well know has sparked what is undoubtedly well deserved debate over its size, and more importantly its impact on the marine ecosystem for the Cayman Islands. As not only public citizens, but as civil engineers we are inclined to advise the Authority that the excavation and land fill operation proposed here is extremely detrimental to what remains as one of the fewest and largest existing portions of mangrove swamp in this area. It is not just sufficient to develop this entire site, and provide a mere 300 to 400 ft strip of mangrove buffer. One must consider the impact caused by the urbanisation of the area inwards of the buffer zone. In essence, the development would bring increased water traffic (and with it water pollution) in the form of private speed boats, yachts etc. Undoubtedly there will be multifamily/hotel/resort type development which will encourage the creation of dock/yacht club facilities and bring about an increase in water traffic in the way of commercial dive boat/fishing/touring operations (even more environmental pollution).

Excavation Operations

We have concerns regarding the areas designated as being undisturbed mangrove both inland and in the mangrove buffer zone.

It is our recommendation that the Authority investigate the environmental impact on those inland mangrove areas labelled as 'undisturbed'. We cannot see how the excavation of 50 and 100 ft canal waterways around the existing mangroves will render it 'undisturbed'. Once fully developed, the marine life which thrives within these mangroves could undergo significant environmental devastation due to water (boat fuel, storm-water runoff from surrounding development etc), lighting, and noise pollution.

In canal subdivisions such as Snug Harbour and Safehaven there is noticeable debris in the canals (more-so in Snug Harbour which is nearly fully developed).

In this proposal canal waters closest to the N-S arterial (furthest away from the sea) will most likely be subject to stagnation, and mixed with urban pollution will induce environmental problems. The key here is to ensure that there is adequate water circulation in this area. The Authority should require documentation on

18

whether the flushing canal will provide adequate circulation for the 6' to 9' deep canal areas.

The applicant should take into consideration various excavation procedures which help to minimise the impact on the surroundings such as the construction of a silt fence (made of wood or aluminium sheet pile) around surrounding mangroves. A plug should be p1aced at the inlet to the North Sound (labelled as 'Bayou Entrance' on the submitted plans) and removed only after all inland excavation works have been completed. The canal should not be straight at the point of entry to the North Sound, but designed in such a way as to provide protection from storm surges.

Development Alternatives

PWD advises that the Authority consider having the applicant develop the area at a lower density, and more importantly exchange the three (3) central mangrove blocks for a much wider (say 12001500 ft) mangrove buffer strip adjacent to the North Sound. This is in our view a better solution as it allows for a more centralised and better protected mangrove area. Also a 1200-1500 (l/4 mile) strip adjacent to the North Sound provides better protection from storm surges in the Sound. (see attached sketch)

Traffic Management Issues.

Operations such as this generate a great deal of traffic in the form of dump trucks, front end loaders etc. which transport saleable fill to and from the area. FWD is requesting that trips to and from the site be organised so as not to conflict with rush hour periods (including morning, noon and evening peak hour periods). Of particular concern is traffic at the West Bay Road/Lawrence Blvd intersection and the North Sound Road/Nixon Road intersection. We request that a construction access, other than West Bay, Road, be provided for heavy equipment traffic during the excavation and construction activities to follow later.

Conclusion

We once again seriously urge the Authority not to approve a development of such high density without review of both an environment impact statement (EIS) and a major investment study (MIS). The latter study would include detailed analysis of the development's impact on traffic patterns, population, labour, and projections for the real estate and tourist markets.

We must stop and consider that m the past we have sacrificed our mangroves for developments such as Cl Yacht Club, Crystal Harbour, Safehaven, and Canal Point, and today these same developments are no where near their initial projected development growth. We must be wary of sacrificing our environment for the sake of a development whose success is uncertain and perhaps unnecessary.”

MINUTES FROM CPA/27/00 (August 2, 2000)

In order to avoid repetition, only those materials that were not found in the minutes of CPA/32/98 are provided here as the minutes for CPA/27/00.

19

“AGENCY COMMENTS

Director of Environment

“Further to our meeting with the Planning Department on 10 July 2000 to discuss a joint strategy for ensuring that all environmental and other concerns contained in the above reports are satisfactorily addressed prior to determination of this application. The Department's initial review of these reports were documented on 14 October 1999 and on May 5 2000 comments by the applicant's consultant on DOE's review as well as the third party reviewer, Dr. Michael Loden, were received. The following is provided to garner further consideration of issues associated with but transcending the Phase I application, and to respond to the more critical points of the consultant's evaluation of DOE and Dr. Loden's reviews.

A. Issues for consideration associated with Phase 1 Application

The Department views the phased approval of such large scale projects with apprehension unless the Master Plan, along with its potential consequences, is considered and given outline planning approval. The applicant has now supplied review agencies and the CPA with Environmental Assessment Reports (EARs) for both Phase I and the Master Plan. The DOE would urge the CPA to consider issues of concern associated with the entire project, which have the potential for creating logistical difficulties for the project and serious environmental consequences.

1. Phase I application is a marl mining operation, although on a much larger scale than typical excavation applications. The material will not be sold but remain on site for site preparation works. The majority of environmental impacts of the project - save the dredging component -occur in this excavation/filling phase, resulting from significant habitat loss and potential on-site water quality issues. Project benefits from Phase 1 as detailed in section 1. 1.2 of the EAR will only be accrued once the project has advanced to future construction phases. Benefits actually accrued to government for the excavation and filling activities are fees from this planning application, canal, blasting and work permits, and the bypass road.

2. In the event that approvals for future phases are not granted, in particular the dredging component, or the project is abandoned after Phase 1 application (8-10 years time) a closed system of two east-west and four north-south interior canals and a 31 -acre lake would remain (Figure 1.5 Phase 1 EAR). The site majority east of the bypass would be similar to other mined areas in the Red Bay, Bodden Town or Frank Sound, which are largely incomplete subdivisions that contain borrow pits with serious water quality deficiencies and no site rehabilitation. The applicant's state that "Phase 1 application does not assume that there will be later phases" (Point 21 DOE evaluation). In other words, Phase 1 could be the final development if the market does not support need for further residential canal lots along West Bay peninsula. The need does not exist at present given the number of undeveloped canal lots and time required to build-out

20

at Salt Creek, Cl Yacht Club, Crystal Harbour and SafeHaven alone, in addition to other canal developments coming to fruition further east (Heron Harbour, Admirals Landing, Bonnie View Estates, Patrick's Island and Sunrise Landing).

3. At present dredging in North Sound is a contentious issue. To date the largest quantity applied for by a single entity and approved by Executive Council has not exceeded 1.2 million CY. The dredge quantity sought by Cayman Shores represents approximately half of all previous licensed dredging in North Sound. The substantial quantity required to develop the Island and Marina Villages may not be realised through offshore excavation, as dredging 2.2 million cy from North Sound may not be palatable to the administration of the day or the general public. Should difficulties in filling the remainder of the site limit this project to Phase 1, the full economic project benefits will not be realised by the applicant or Government, and the potential for long-term on-site impacts stand to increase. Thus, serious consideration should be given to importation as an alternative method of land filling.

4. The Department understands the current policy for projects with components both seaward and shoreward of the MHWM to be that a coastal works licence must precede planning approval. Neglect of policy has generally resulted in unwise approvals, procedural difficulties, lengthy delays, and additional expense and uncertainty for developers (e.g. Heron Harbour and Limestone Investments).

5. Given the above, the Department supports the introduction of a bonding program which is a recognized part of effective planning and environmental management in jurisdictions worldwide. Currently in Cayman, when mining projects are abandoned prior to completion or do not fulfil planning/coastal works obligations there is no recourse by government to recover lost services resulting from incompletion or inadequate mitigation. The only alternatives available to ensure site rehabilitation are limited to planning conditions, which must withstand litigious actions, or on an honorary system, which has typically been ineffective and is difficult to enforce. The Department strongly recommends consideration of some form of bonding or the like be attached to approval of this application given the timeline for completion of Phase 1 and potential for the project to not advance beyond Phase 1 application.

The Department understands there is currently some trepidation regarding the use of performance bonds for land-based project approvals. The difficulties in implementing such a program appears to be legislative. In a letter dated 20 June 2000 to the Solicitor General the Department requested a legal opinion on the matter and to date has received no response. Perhaps a formal recommendation by the Planning Department and/or CPA to investigate how bonds have been implemented in other jurisdictions would allay these fears. It should be noted that Executive Council currently sanctions bonding for major coastal work approvals. A bonding program established for aggregate/fill extraction projects appears as a recommendation in the draft Evaluation of Procedural Guidelines for Mining and Dredging Project Review, the first deliverable of the Aggregate and Fill Study.

21

The method of implementation suggested for Cayman does not appear arduous, but would require the co-operation of the Attorney General and Financial Secretary's offices in setting up an independent trust fund under the bonding program.

B. General Comments on Phase l and Master Plan EARs

The Department maintains that both EARs were received as final versions only contrary to the review schedule of 2 December 1997, which stipulates that "DOE will have two 30 day review periods, along with a two week review permit for the draft final EAR". Not adhering to the agreed review schedule has allowed some of DOE/Dr. Loden's technical queries to be classified as either "Invalid" or "Valid & Outside of TOR/Scope of Work". "Invalid" comments are generally issues in which the consultants and DOE/Dr. Loden differ in scientific opinion. While in some cases the disagreement is largely subjective, others are based on DOE's local knowledge and observation of conditions or impacts. The criteria for categorising comments into "Valid & Within TOR/Scope of Work" or "Valid & Outside TOR/Scope of Work" is less clear. Re-examination of both Phase 1 and Master Plan TORs reveal that most concerns are in fact within the scope of work as interpreted by the DOE. At times, the same concern raised by the DOE and Dr. Loden is categorised as both Invalid and Valid but outside scope of work. Generally, the consultants' comments do not substantially alter the Department's opinions on certain issues.

The EARs are tools to assist the CPA in the decision-making process, and are intended to satisfactorily answer concerns/issues identified by the public, review agencies and other stakeholders during the scoping phase of the EIA process. The EARs should 1) predict direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of Phase I and the overall project, 2) offer alternatives to minimise impacts through effective mitigation measures, and 3) provide appropriate compensation options for loss of irretrievable resources. The CPA must consider whether the EARs satisfy 1-3 above and provide sufficient information to make an informed decision on the application.

The following are seen as shortfalls of the EARs.

1. Phase I EAR does not address water quality impacts within interior canals and lake over the 8-year duration of Phase 1. The consultants agree this concern is valid and within the scope of work. The rationale given for neglecting this component is that these water bodies are situated on private property. Water characteristics within such deep canals and lakes are critical regardless of ownership. The Department typically recommends that inland excavation not exceed -10 ft. Depths of "Interior Waterways" and "Interior Pond" range from -11 ft to -15 ft (Figure 1.4). Long-term water quality at these depths covering such a large surface area is of concern for the following reasons: 1) "Phase 1 lakes will be excavated to a larger size and depth than is needed in the final master plan"; 2) some exchange between the interior water bodies and North Sound will occur through natural tidal ditches; and 3) approval will be sought from Executive Council to connect these interior water bodies to North Sound in future phases. If

22

water quality is not acceptable to allow a connection, how will this affect the viability of the overall project, and what will be the long-term impacts of poor water quality resulting from Phase 1 excavation?

2. Phase 1 EAR did not confirm quantity of on-site marl deposits through geotechnical investigation. Technically, direct excavation impact has not been satisfactorily quantified and thoroughly assessed, in that, on-site deposits may be insufficient to complete Phase 1, necessitating supplementary off-site deposits. The Department consistently recommends that the CPA obtain this information, as in the absence of such investigations marl deposits are often overestimated and peat depth, rock strata, etc. are underestimated during the application phase. This often incurs additional blasting, processing and other operational costs for the developer. Presumably detailed soil borings or geotechnical data are necessary to determine final design concept, which would effect the cost of project elements such as fill material.

3. Relatively minor canal design alternatives were explored to determine the fastest flushing time. Alternatives did not deviated from the straight, grid-like canal pattern. Straight canals have been the norm, complete with environmental deficiencies as highlighted in the Environmental Baseline Survey, and are in direct conflict with current planning regulations. It is hoped that the Planning Department would not recommend approval of this application if the Phase 1 canal design, which clearly forms the basis of the Master Plan canal design, does not comply with planning regulations.

4. That land within the CMW is threatened is not in dispute. Presumably compensation alternatives for environmental resources lost to Phase 1 impacts are limited to the CMW because the applicant owns property within the target area. The DOE was not instructed by Government or the CPA to enter into compensation discussions with the applicant, otherwise the Barkers alternative could have been explored earlier. The DOE strongly believes this area is appropriate compensation given the immediate demonstrable threat to a number of parcels currently for sale or seeking approval for development. Additionally, the importance of these wetlands has not been totally recognised by the proposed ES/EP zoning, which seeks protection for the ponds only and not the wetland system in its entirety. While Government may have already settled the compensation issue, it should be noted that the parcels agreed to by the applicant during negotiations with the National Trust are currently afforded some protection under the Marine Parks Environmental Zone, which extends inland beyond Little Sound. The EZ portions of these parcels are not under immediate threat of residential sprawl and pit mining as compared to the black mangrove habitat of the southern CMW.

The Department recognises that the CPA's current charge is to make a decision on the Phase 1 application. However, the DOE has outstanding concerns relating to the Master Plan EAR, namely the containment area design, turbidity plume calculation, seagrass recolonisation, and the economic analysis. The consultants recognise that further information such as column settling and elutriate tests are

23

necessary prior to finalisation of the containment dike design shown in Figure 5.4. These issues must be given due consideration as they relate to subsequent planning approvals.

C. Phase 1 EAR mitigation measures as conditions of planning approval

If the CPA is minded to approve Phase 1 application, the mitigation measures proposed in Section 4.1 of Phase 1 EAR should be incorporated as conditions of planning permission. The following measures are highlighted below. Where plans are proposed, these should be developed and approved prior to commencement of Phase 1 excavation and land reclamation activities to ensure they fulfil all environmental mitigation obligations.

1. Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, including means to minimise possible leachate from mulch/compost storage area entering Limestone's canal to north or the proposed Promenade Canal. The plan should include a basic water quality monitoring program with reports submitted to the DOE in accordance with a mutually agreed schedule. Control treatments to be installed prior to any earthwork as specified in Phase 1 EAR.

2. Best Management Practices reviewed prior to start of excavation activities as specified in Phase 1 EAR.

3. Interior shoreline treatments as shown in Figure 1.6. Creation of narrow shallow shelves between seawalls and cut slopes as shown in Figure 4.1 to provide hard substrate for colonisation by marine algae, seagrass and habitat for invertebrates (e.g. juvenile spiny lobsters) in future phases.

4. Landscape Plan, including prompt revegetation of reclaimed areas to stabilize soil surfaces and minimize wind and rain-induced erosion. Utilization of indigenous species wherever possible.

5. Stormwater Management Plan, including mechanisms to divert and/or treat water before discharge into canal system.

6. All interior excavation and filling must be complete prior to creation of an access channel to North Sound.

In the above commentary the Department has not attempted to respond to the enumerated comments contained in the consultants' evaluations of DOE and Dr. Loden's earlier reviews. The Technical Review Committee is prepared to furnish the Planning Department and/or CPA with a detailed report specifically responding to these comments if so directed. We trust the CPA can determine whether enough satisfactory information is available to make an informed decision on this application.

OBJECTORS

Adjacent landowners were notified by Registered Mail and advertisements appeared in the newspaper. Almost 1,700 objections have been submitted. Letters that are not the National Trust form letter will be distributed at the meeting.

24

Is should be noted that the objectors addressed the CPA on 14th October 1998.

NEW INFORMATION

Since the time of deferral, the applicant has submitted a master plan for the entire development as well as Environmental and Economic Impact Statements. In addition, the Director of Planning has been verbally advised that a LCCL Licence has been granted by EXCO.

The applicant has agreed to phase the excavation and filling. Phase one would involve the excavation of approximately 500,000 cubic yards of organic muck. This is expected to take up to five years.

Phase two would involve the excavation of 360,000 cubic yards of fill and 237,000 yards of organic muck. The location of the phases area is indicated on a map provided by the applicant.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS

The Department would note that the environmental report has been forwarded to the DOE as well as a third party review of that report.

The economic impact study has also been submitted and the Director of Planning has reviewed the contents of same. He will summarize his findings verbally.

The master plan is indeed comprehensive in nature and includes a phasing plan. However, it is acknowledged that modifications may occur over time.

Recommendation: Discuss the application to excavate the subject lands.

Should the Authority consider granting planning permission, the following items should also be discussed:

1) If the canal design is acceptable. If so, it is suggested that phase two not start until phase one is completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.

2) The implementation of Best Management Practices.

3) The maximum height of material being stored.

4) Whether additional environmental information is required at this time.

5) That approval of the excavation does not guarantee further approvals.

6) A water quality monitoring program.

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

1. Phase Two shall not commence until the completion of Phase One, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Phase One shall not exceed 57% of the total fill material and 62% of the organic material to be excavated.

25

2. A minimum 75 foot landscaping buffer shall be maintained along the Harquail By-Pass portion of the property and a 50 foot vegetation buffer along the entire north and south boundaries.

3. An Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, including means to minimize possible leachate from mulch/compost storage area entering Limestone’s canal to north or the proposed Promenade Canal shall be submitted and reviewed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. The plan shall include a basic water quality monitoring program with reports submitted to the Department Of Environment in accordance with a mutually agreed schedule. Control treatments to be installed prior to any earthwork, as specified in Phase 1 EAR.

4. As specified in the Phase 1 EAR, Best Management Practices shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning prior to start of excavation activities.

5. You shall install interior shoreline treatments as shown in Figure 1.6 of the EAR. The creation of narrow shallow shelves between seawalls and cut slopes as shown in Figure 4.1 to provide hard substrate for colonization by marine algae, seagrass and habitat for invertebrates (e.g. juvenile spiny lobsters) in future phases shall be required.

6. A Landscape Plan, including prompt revegetation of reclaimed areas to stabilize soil surfaces and minimize wind and rain-induced erosion shall be submitted and approved by the Director of Planning. Utilization of indigenous species shall be provided wherever possible.

7. A Stormwater Management Plan, including mechanisms to divert and/or treat water before discharge into the canal system, shall be submitted an reviewed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.

Approval of the excavation does not guarantee further approvals. Any deviation from the approved plans will require the further approval of the Central Planning Authority.”

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING ANALYSIS FOR CPA/30/01

The Authority originally deferred the application and requested the applicant to submit comprehensive environmental and economic impact statements. The applicant submitted the required documents, which in turn were reviewed by the Planning Department and the Department of Environment (DOE). The required studies were also subject to a third party review. DOE commented on the studies and the third party review and in their opinion felt that certain issues required further analysis. The Authority approved the application and imposed several detailed conditions in order to address the comments from DOE.

The purpose of the application is to excavate and fill the subject property in an effort to improve the land for future development purposes. As noted above, the Authority was satisfied with the Environmental Assessment Report (EAR)

26

and economic impact report that support the application, subject to certain conditions, and on this basis the proposed excavation and fill would appear to be consistent with Vision 2008 (Belief #4, Vision Statements #10, #12 and Strategies #9, #10 and #11) and the Development Plan 1997 [Sections 1.2, 1.3 d) and h), 2.3 b), 3.01 and 3.08].

The subject lands are zoned to allow certain forms of development and the proposed excavation and fill would be consistent with several existing and approved developments in the immediate area, namely, Canal Point, Snug Harbour, Britannia and Limestone. It should also be noted that there has been a proposal to rezone the lands immediately to the south of the Cayman Shores property to allow commercial development. That rezone has not been finalized and the Department has recommended that the lands in question should be rezoned to allow a mixed-use development.

As the proposed excavation and fill does not include any material being removed from site, any impacts on the surrounding area from dust, noise and vibration associated with truck traffic should be minimal.

Should the Authority view the application favourably, additional conditions could be imposed to assist in monitoring the size of the excavation and the amount of material that is being removed.

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING ANALYSIS FOR CPA/31/01

The Authority considered the application on September 26, 2001 and the applicant, the National Trust of the Cayman Islands (National Trust) and Mr. William Adam appeared before the Authority at that meeting. The Authority resolved to adjourn the application in order to further consider the input, submitted both orally and in writing, provided by the applicant, the National Trust and Mr. William Adam.

CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY ANALYSIS

In reviewing the large volume of information both for the proposal and against, the Authority carefully considered the application before them. It was therefore clarified that the application before them dealt only with the phased excavation and fill and that no materials are proposed to be removed from the site. It was noted that the “Conceptual Master Plan” was not part of the application and therefore not a material consideration.

The Authority was satisfied that the application as submitted was not a detriment to the environment of the Cayman Islands. It was acknowledged that since there were two phases to the development, if after or during phase I it was found that the environmental impacts were unacceptable phase II could/would be stopped. The Authority determined that the mangrove buffer and the areas marked “undisturbed” should not be disturbed and should remain in their current, natural state. It was acknowledged that access to portions of the area of excavation beyond the “undisturbed” areas shall be through roads over areas where future excavation for canals will take place, thus maintaining the “undisturbed” areas.

27

The Authority also reviewed the design of the excavation and determined that design changes were necessary as they relate to the canals, the MRCU dykes and the “Bayou Entrance Channel”. These design changes are necessary to address Regulation 32.

The Authority also determined that the area of excavation to the southeast of the property adjacent to the MRCU dyke road shall be undertaken with caution.


1) The applicant shall submit a revised plan(s) showing:

a) the “100’ Promenade Canal” meandering through the site;

b) the “50’ Bayou Canal” meandering through the site;

c) critical corners rounded;

d) the “Bayou Entrance Channel” eliminated;

e) the limit of all excavated areas shall be no closer than fifty (50) feet from the MRCU dyke that travels along the southern boundary of the subject lands;

f) the perimeter of all excavation done in a manner that prevents sediments from escaping the excavated areas and possibly reaching the North Sound via the MRCU canal.

g) there shall be a minimum 75 foot wide landscape buffer (in its natural state) on either side of Esterly Tibbetts highway;

h) a 50 foot vegetation buffer along the entire north and south boundaries; and

i) Interior shoreline treatments as shown in Figure 1.6 of the EAR. The creation of narrow shallow shelves between seawalls and cut slopes as shown in Figure 4.1 to provide hard substrate for colonization by marine algae, seagrass and habitat for invertebrates (e.g. juvenile spiny lobsters).

2) The areas shown on the plan as “Existing Mangroves (Undisturbed)” shall remain in an undisturbed, natural state.

3) The applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Director of Planning an Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, including means to minimize possible leachate from mulch/compost storage area entering the canal on Block 12D Parcel 32 Rem 1 as well as the dykes and the North Sound. The plan shall include a basic water quality monitoring program with reports submitted to the Department Of Environment in accordance with a mutually agreed schedule. Control treatments to be installed prior to any earthwork, as specified in the Phase 1 EAR.

28

4) As specified in the Phase 1 EAR, Best Management Practices shall be reviewed and approved by the Authority prior to start of excavation activities.

5) A Landscape Plan, including prompt revegetation of reclaimed areas to stabilize soil surfaces and minimize wind and rain-induced erosion shall be submitted and approved by the Authority. Utilization of indigenous species shall be provided wherever possible.

6) A Stormwater Management Plan, including mechanisms to divert and/or treat water before discharge into the canal system, shall be approved by the Authority.

7) Phase Two shall not commence until the completion of Phase One, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Phase One shall not exceed 57% of the total fill material and 62% of the organic material to be excavated.

8) The subject property shall be filled to a minimum of four (4’) feet above mean sea level [i.e. one (1’) feet above the Vidal Bench Mark]. After filling the site, the applicant shall submit a plan prepared by a registered land surveyor indicating spot heights at 100’ intervals, including the finished grade of constructed access road (s), if any. If the Director of Planning is satisfied that any reclaimed land is below the required level, the person responsible for the reclamation shall bring up the level in compliance with such directions as shall be given by the said Director.

9) Pursuant to Regulation 35 approval of the excavation does not guarantee further approvals.

10) The excavation shall not be commenced until conditions 1), 3) – 6) have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Central Planning Authority.

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

4.0 ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS

4.01 JOHN FURNISS Block 5C Parcel 42 (FA92-165) (P01-105479) ($33,000) (BES)

Application for an after-the-fact cabana.

FACTS

Location: Willie Farrington Drive, West Bay

Zoning: Low Density Residential.

Background: July 14, 1992 the Authority approved a house on the subject property with standard conditions.

29

July 25, 2001 (CPA/24/01; item 5.12(c)), the Authority adjourned the current application for the CPA to conduct a site visit.

Existing Use: Weddings conducted on the site

Proposed Use: Cabana

Parcel Size: 21,780 ft2

Site Coverage: 7.4%


The applicant is requesting planning permission for an after-the-fact cabana on the subject property. As submitted, the applicant has not indicated the purpose of the cabana. At a recent site inspection it was observed that chairs for weddings and/or receptions were stored in the structure and “Heart of Cayman “ sign attached to the structure. It is also noted that the applicant has erected other signs without planning permission.

The Department on several occasions had contacted the applicant to request the following:

The purpose of the cabana.

A revised site plan depicting all the structures on the property(s).

An application for after-the-fact signs.

Notices to adjacent landowners if the cabana to be used for commercial use.

As of July 18, the applicant has not addressed the Department’s concerns noted above.

It is noted that at a meeting of the Central Planning Authority on July 4, 2001, it was resolved to authorize the Department to issue an enforcement notice to the applicant in respect of illegal construction during the weekend. In this instance, no enforcement notice has been issued to the applicant.

The Authority questioned the legality of several other buildings on the property. The Authority questioned the use of this cabana and whether it was associated to several of the adjacent parcels. Due to the Authority’s concerns, it was determined that a site visit was warranted.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the matter for the Central Planning Authority to conduct a site visit.

On October 10, 2001, the Authority conducted a site visit and resolved to adjourn the application in order for the Department to complete its report on all parcels, i.e. 149 and 150.

5.0 NEW APPLICATIONS

30

A) Minor Matters

5.01 DOMO LTD. Block 25B Parcel 6 (F01-0062) (P01-105896) (BES)

Application for a proposed 6’ high fence and an after-the-fact 4’ high fence.

FACTS

Location: Shamrock Road, Spotts

Zoning: Low Density Residential

Existing Use: Vacant

Proposed Use: 6’ high fence

LETTER FROM APPLICANT’S AGENT

“Please find attached a Planning Application on behalf of our clients Domo Ltd., for the proposed erection of a 6’-0” high ‘plant green’ chain link fence between Block 25B Parcel 6 (recently purchased by our client Domo Ltd) and Block 25B Parcel 243.

While we do not normally request a 6’-0” high chain link fence, we do so in this specific case as our clients require additional security. The parcel of land is at present vacant and is adjacent to another parcel owned by our client on which they reside. Due to our concerns that the vacant lot could potentially give unauthorised access to their residence and their elderly age, we hereby request a slightly higher than normal fence.

This fence will be only on a portion of the western boundary as indicated on the attached drawing. We have specified the more expensive green colour coated fence to blend into the vegetation.

Please find attached all necessary documentation and drawings for this application.”


The proposal is for a 6’ high fence to be located on the western boundary. There is an existing fence along the roadside boundary and eastern boundary line, which has an average height of 4’-5”. With regards to the Authority’s fence guidelines, the maximum height of fences in residential areas is 4’. As submitted, the Department is not in support of the proposal.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application for the submission of plans showing a proposed four foot (4’) fence.

5.02 GILES CHARLTON-JONES Block 22D Parcel 155 (F01-0278) (P01-105875) ($10,000) (BES)

Application for a dock.

31

FACTS

Location: Red Bay Estates Subdivision



Proposed Use: Dock

Parcel Size: 0.52 acre


The applicant is requesting planning permission to construct a private dock (8 feet x 50 feet of 8” PVC pilings and lumber decking) at the above-mentioned property. As submitted, the department has no specific concerns regarding the proposal.

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

1) The dock shall not be used for commercial purposes.

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

5.03 CABLE & WIRELESS Block 55A Parcel 34 (FA89-0324) (P01-105853) ($30,000) (BES)

Application for a 40 metre (131 feet) high mast.

FACTS

Location: Frank Sound


Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent landowners and no objections were received

Background: September 20, 1989 the Authority granted planning permission for a telephone exchange building with conditions.

September 4, 1996 the Authority granted planning permission for a 20m high mast with conditions.

Existing Use: Exchange building and 25m high mast

Proposed Use: 40m high mast


AGENCY COMMENTS

32

Comments were requested from the Director of M.R.C.U. and Director of Civil Aviation, but were not received at the time of this agenda.


The applicant is requesting planning permission to replace an existing 25m (82 feet) mast with the above-mentioned mast at Cable & Wireless Frank Sound exchange building. As indicated on the site plan, the mast is setback 10’-4” and 64’-9” from the boundaries respectively. In this instance, the Department has no specific concerns regarding the proposal.


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

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

3) The applicant shall comply with the Civil Aviation Law and Mosquito Research and Control Unit Law

5.04 GM INTERNATIONAL SALES Block 13EH Parcel 173 (FA84-0367) (P01-105858) ($4.500) (AR)

Application for two (2) façade signs.

FACTS

Location: The Axis International Building (SeGoes), on North Church Street, across from the Lobster Pot, George Town.

Zoning: General Commercial

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) Notices were undertaken on August 31, 2001. No objections were received.

Background: The four storey office building received planning permission August 23, 1995 (CPA/27/95; Item 3.4). The Final Certificate was issued on April 29, 1999.

June 7, 2000 (CPA/19/01; Item 4.02) CPA granted permission for two illuminated signs. However, when the applicant discovered that there was a Building Permit fee involved, the signs were changed to be non-illuminated.

Existing Use: Office Building


33

The applicant is requesting planning permission to erect two (2) signs. The computer-enhanced elevation depicts what these proposed signs will look like on the existing structure. Each sign is:

Height Above Ground: mounted between the 3RD and 4TH storey’s

Width: 15’ Height: 2’-6” Area: 37.5 ft2 each

As each of these signs is larger than the 32 ft2 permitted by the Authority’s guideline regarding signs.. However, during the review for the two SeGoes signs that were approved in 2000, which were slightly larger than those proposed herein (45.83 ft2 each), the Authority determined that those signs, knowing that other signs would eventually be proposed for the building, were in keeping with the mass of the building.

In light of this previous determination be the Authority, the Department has no serious concerns regarding this application.


1) Should the signs be illuminated, the applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief Building Control Officer and construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.


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

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

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

5.05 ROBERT JACKSON Block 14D Parcels 301 and 302 (F98-0361) (P01-105808) ($3,400) (JAB)

Application for a 6’ high chain link fence.

FACTS

Location: Behind the Education Department Building, off Thomas Russell Way


34

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors. No objections were received

Background: Approval was granted for two office buildings at CPA/17/99; item 6.05

Existing Use: Vacant lot partially fenced

Proposed Use: 6’ high chain link fence


The applicant is requesting planning permission to erect a 6’ chain link fence at a vacant commercial lot in George Town South. The applicant has not indicated the need for this fence and generally the Department does not support application of this nature in a commercial zone as a chain link fence detracts from the aesthetics of the surrounding area.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application for the applicant to clarify the need for the fence and the use of the subject property.

5.06 K. COAST DEVELOPMENT LTD. Block 19E Parcel 206 (F97-0437) (P01-105789) ($1,050) (JAB)

Application for two (2) after-the-fact signs.

FACTS

Location: CI Precast, off Sherwood Drive in the Industrial Park

Zoning: Heavy Industrial

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served to adjacent property owners and no objections were received


The applicant is requesting planning permission for an after-the-fact freestanding sign at the entrance to the CI Precast site. The sign is 32 ft2 in size and 2’-4” off the ground. The applicant is also requesting permission for a sign on the CI Precast building. The sign is approximately 18’ x 4’ and reflects the CI Precast name. The Department has no objection to these signs.


1) The applicant shall relocate the signs to a minimum of 6’ from the road.

2) If the signs are illuminated, the applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

35





5.07 A.R.E. HOLDINGS LIMITED Block 14C Parcel 113 (FA80-0157) (P01-105757) ($7,674) (AR)

Application for an illuminated directory sign.

FACTS

Location: On the corner of Compass Drive and Shedden Road, George Town.


Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) Notices were hand signed. No objections were received.

Background: July 30, 2997 (CPA/24/97 Item 7.06) CPA approved the retail/Commercial Building and a separate storage building on the site.

Existing Use: Office/Commercial Building


The applicant is requesting planning permission to construct a directory sign. This sign is:

Maximum Height: approximately 11’-0” Face Width: 3’-10” Face Height: 6’-0” Face Area: 23 ft2 Total Width: 5’-4” Total Height: 11’-0”

The face of the proposed sign falls under the Authority’s guideline of 32 ft2. The colour of the sign will be purple, matching the purple colour of the building. The sign is proposed thirteen feet (13’) from Compass Drive and ten feet (10’) from Shedden Road. The only concern the Department has is with the Shedden Road setback, as the Authority typically uses a setback guideline of twelve feet from the front of the property.

36


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

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

a) The sign setback 12’ from Shedden Road.






5.08 NEIL MURRAY Block 22E Parcel 256 (F99-0044) (P01-105900) ($2,800) (BES)

Application for storage building.

FACTS

Location: On Silver Thatch Drive/Legacy Drive off Crewe Road

Zoning: Medium Density Residential

Background: An application for a dwelling house was approved administratively on February 15, 1999 with conditions.

June 6, 2000 a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) was issued.

Existing Use: House

Proposed Use: Storage building


37

The applicant is requesting planning permission to construct a storage building (80 ft2) at the northeast corner of the subject property. The application complies with the minimum requirements of the Development and Planning Regulations regarding building setbacks and site coverage. In this instance, the Department has no specific concerns regarding the application.



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

3) The building shall be used for residential storage only.

B) Subdivisions

5.01 BRITANNIA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Block 12D Parcels 74, 47, 48 and 49 (F01-0230) (P01-105879) (AR)

Application for a two (2) lot subdivision and combination.

FACTS

Location: Britannia Estates, at the end of Britannia Road, behind the Hyatt Hotel, George Town.

Zoning: Hotel/Tourism

Existing Use: Road Parcel


The applicant is requesting planning permission to subdivide the ‘finger’ portion (Lot B) off of the road off the main road (Lot A). This finger parcel will then be combined with Parcels 47, 48 and 49, which are currently being combined into one larger parcel. The result will be one large parcel that fronts on the main Britannia Road.


1) Lot B shall be combined with Block 12D Parcels 47, 48 and 49.

2) A 30’ wide vehicular right-of-way shall be registered in favour of the combined lots over all relevant rights-of-way accessing the parcel(s).

38

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


5.02 DAVIS A. CHISHOLM Block 45A Parcel 83 Rem 1 (F01-0270) (P01-105839) ($50,000) (BES)

Application for a four (4) lot subdivision.

FACTS

Zoning: Medium Density Residential.

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent properties and no objections were received.

Background: No prior CPA action on this file

AGENCY COMMENTS

The Department is still awaiting comments from PWD.


The applicant is requesting permission to subdivide the above-mentioned property into four lots located at North Side. The resultant acreage of the parcels after the subdivision would be lot “A” 38,730-sq. ft., lot “B”38,730- sq. ft, lot “C” 53,790-sq. ft., and lot “D” (road parcel) 32,960-sq.ft. respectively. In accordance with Regulation 8(7)(d), these lots comply with the minimum lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. Access the property is via 30 foot right of way Block 45A Parcel 91 (formerly parcel 26). As submitted, the Department has no specific concerns in respect of the above application.


1) The access road (s) abutting the proposed lots shall have a minimum of a 30’ demarcated road parcel and shall be constructed with a minimum of two (2) coats of chip and spray and approved by the Director of Planning prior to the lots being registered. The applicant shall liaise with the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, at predetermined stages of road construction to ensure compliance with the requisite standards. Failure to do so may render the project unacceptable.

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

39


C) Other Applications

5.01 RICARDO CLARKE Block 4B Parcel 599 (F01-0136) (P01-105903) ($no change) (AR)

Application to modify the side yard setbacks of an approved duplex.

FACTS

Location: Off Finch Road, off Birch Tree Hill Road, West Bay.

Zoning: High Density Residential

Background: May 30, 2001 (CPA/18/01 Item 6.03) CPA approved the subject duplex on the property.

August 21, 2001: BCU issues the Building Permit for this duplex.


Proposed Use: Duplex

Parcel Size: 0.26 acres or 11,325.6 ft2

Site Coverage: 17.69%

Building Size: Proposed - 2,004 ft2 Parking Required - 2 Total - 2,004 ft2 Parking Provided - 4


“After lining the approved duplex the contractor was short by 3 feet total.

The revised site plan shows the proposed setback.

My client would like to have a variance on both side boundary from 10 feet as per code to 8’-6” each side. If the boundary were turned around the amount of square feet that would need a variance would be 252 square feet, but if the building remains as per Site Plan we would only need a variance of 108 square feet.

The total square feet for the approved duplex is 2004 square feet, therefore it is impossible to reduce the approved plan, because it would not meet the required room size by the code book (SBCCI).

Thank you in advance in this matter.”


The applicant is requesting a modification of planning permission for an approved duplex of both side yard setbacks from 10’ to 8’-6”.

40

The Department’s concern is that this was a recent subdivision and the correct dimensions were therefore available to the applicant and his agent, therefore allowing them to design the building to conform in the first place. However, both adjacent landowners have ‘signed-off’ on the variance request (letters on file for reference purposes).

In regards to the applicant’s agent’s letter requesting a variance, the Planning Department recommends the Authority take the contents lightly. Not only is the amount of square footage mentioned inaccurate (252 ft2 versus 108 ft2), but the Department has confirmed with the Building Control Unit that the room sizes would not be in contravention of the Building Code if a reduction in the size of the building were required.

The Authority discussed the applicant’s amendment request and queried the timeframe of the subdivision in relation to the applicant’s proposal and subsequent approval for the duplex. The Authority acknowledged that the applicant’s agent’s argument regarding the CI Building Code was not valid and that the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision) take precedent over the Building Code in any event. Overall, the Authority determined that the applicant should revise the previously approved duplex plans in order to comply with the setback requirements of the Regulations.

4) Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application for the submission of revised plans showing compliance with the related setbacks. The Authority is not satisfied that, pursuant to Regulation 7(8) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision), exceptional circumstances exist or that there is sufficient reasons why permission for the variance should be granted.

5.02 MARIE CLAIRE FERNANDES Block 14C Parcels 136 and 304 (F99-0214) (P01-105812) ($35,000) (P01-105876) ($1,200) (A.R.)

Application to modify the aesthetics of the building, a proposed washroom addition (61 ft2) and proposed signage.

FACTS

Location: On Shedden Road, between L & T Tyres and the Eucalyptus Building, George Town.


Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) Notices were undertaken on August 23, 2001. No objections were received.

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

August 30, 2000 (CPA/29/00 Item 7.02) CPA deferred the change of use application.

41

October 25, 2000 (CPA/34/00 Item 7.05) CPA approved the change of use application.

May 30, 2001 (CPA/18/01 Item 7.12) CPA required the applicant to adhere to the original planning permission and use asphaltic concrete in the parking areas.

June 13, 2001 (CPA/19/01 Item 7.01) CPA modifies the approval that required her to complete the sidewalk, as it will be done by PWD.

Existing Use: Single Family Dwelling

Approved Use: Commercial/Office

Parcel Size: 0.4 acres or 17,424 ft2

Site Coverage: 7.3%

Building Size: Existing - 1,209 ft2 Parking Required - 4 (1/300 ft2) Proposed – 61 ft2 CPA Guideline – 4 Total -1,270 ft2 Parking Provided -6


Approved Application

The approved application was for a change of use from residential to a retail/commercial/office use, for rental purposes.

Current Amendment

The applicant has substantially revised the approved elevations and wishes to divide the one large approved unit into three smaller rental units. The applicant also wishes to add one washroom facility (as an external addition) for one of the units and will renovate the interior such that the other two units each have their own facilities.

Three signs are also proposed, each 6’-0” by 1’-4” or 8 ft2.

The Department is satisfied with the proposed amendments, acknowledging that the are an improvement over the original approval.

Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission of October 25, 2000 (CPA/34/00 Item 7.05), subject to the following conditions:

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

1) The applicant shall submit to the Director of Planning proof of application to the Registrar of Lands to combine the subject parcels.

2) The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit for the building and the signs from the Chief Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

42


Additionally, once construction has started, conditions (4-9) shall be complied with before a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) can be issued.

4) The subject lots shall be combined and registered with the Registrar of Lands. The applicant shall inform the Planning Department of the new parcel number.

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

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

7) Roof water runoff should not be made to drain freely over the parking area(s) or onto surrounding property. The connection shall be piped to catch basins in or near the parking lot.

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

9) All conditions of CPA/34/00 Item 7.05 still apply.

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

The applicant is reminded that asphaltic concrete is required in the parking and driveway areas.

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

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


5.03 GARY RANKIN Block 64A Parcel 31 (F98-0223) (P01-105889) ($276,661) (BES)

Application for a house.

FACTS

43

Location: Off Sea View Road, Half Moon Bay


Background: June 23, 1998 the above application was approved administratively with conditions


Proposed Use: House

Parcel Size: 0.41 acre (17,859.6 ft2)

Site Coverage: 12%

Building Size: Proposed - 2,912.23 ft2

Footprint – 2,079.73 ft2


The proposal is for a three (3) bedroom house to be constructed on the subject property. The application complies with the minimum requirements regarding site coverage, lot size and setbacks. In this instance, the Department has no objections regarding the application.

It is noted that the applicant is in the process of registering a 15’ wide right-of-way over Block 64A Parcel 34 in favour of the subject property.

The Authority requested clarification on the previous approval of this subject house. The Planning Department acknowledged that this house was previously approved administratively and noted that it was an apparent oversight of the Department that the legal access issue was not adequately addressed as a condition of approval. The Department noted however, that the applicant had previously submitted papers regarding the obtaining of legal access but that, to date, it has not been registered with the Lands and Surveys Department.

The Authority, while noting the Department’s satisfaction with the proposal, determined that the applicant should obtain the legal access via a vehicular right of way prior to obtaining planning permission and being allowed to start construction. This was done to avoid any potential conflicts should legal access not be obtained.

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

1) The applicant shall submit proof of registration of a minimum 15’ wide vehicular right-of-way accessing the subject property.

5.04 ACORN PROPERTIES LIMITED Block OPY Parcel 179 (F00-0179) (P01-105778) ($15,000) (A.R.)

Application for a temporary parking lot (after-the-fact).

FACTS

44

Location: On Mary Street, George Town, adjacent to the Walker Building addition nearing completion.


Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were undertaken on August 7, 2001. Three (3) objections were received (See “Objections” below)

Background: June 27, 2001 (CPA/21/01 Item 7.12) CPA granted permission for a transformer pad on this property, to service Block OPY Parcel 30 (Walker’s Building expansion).

Existing Use: Old Caymanian House used as office, and the subject parking lot

Proposed Use: No change


AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Chief Engineer are noted below.

Chief Engineer

“As per your memo dated August 8, 2001, PWD has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations.

How temporary is temporary? If this is for more than a year then we don’t want quarry dust tracking onto Mary Street from this lot hence we’d have to insist that the surface material is well compacted.

How will drainage be handled? There are two basic options. The first is to use drain wells. These work best with a slightly impermeable surfaces so the lot might require a single coat of spray n’ chip to seal the surface and channel water to the drains. The second option is to use graded gravel rock or even grass as a surface layer. The gravel or grass provides a fairly study surface for driving and also acts as a drainage layer for stormwater runoff.

Provide clearly marked entrance/exit signs at the driveways and tire stops for each parking space.”

LETTER FROM APPLICANT

“We are writing to confirm our intentions in respect of the headlined parcel.

It has always been intended (intention) that an additional office building will be constructed on the site. The new building would most likely accommodate a third phase in the expansion of the legal firm Walkers. In the interim, the new building could also accommodate a number of smaller tenants, at least until the law firm required all of space that would be available.

45

Aside from the assurances contained in this letter, it is probably worth noting that Parcel 179 represents a substantial investment for Acorn Properties. This makes further development of the site extremely important, since the revenues that might be available from the provision of parking facilities alone could not possibly justify the large capital investment that has been made.

We would be grateful if you could allow the temporary usage, at this time, without applying the criteria that would be necessary for a permanent development.

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require anything further.”

LETTER OF OBJECTION

Objector #1 - Letter #1 - Zena Denson (received August 20, 2001)

“We object to the subject Temporary Car Park for the following reasons:

1. No specific date for a permanent facility. We were advised by Planning that there was no specific time requested for the temporary status. There are no firm plans for a permanent installation. Therefore, if the current application were approved, the ‘temporary’ status could last indefinitely.

2. No drainage wells or water retention basins specified. The plans do not provide for water drainage well, or water retention basins to prevent water from draining onto Mary Street. In a severe storm, the gravel surface of the car park may be borne by water from draining onto Mary Street. This gravel could cause damage to the vehicles that travel on Mary Street.

3. No sidewalk on plans. We understand that the Planning Board requires a six foot sidewalk on roadway boundaries for all new facility applications. We feel that a sidewalk should be required along the Mary Street boundary of parcel 179.

4. No environmental areas on the car park plan. All new construction along Mary Street has been required to have a minimum four foot wide environmental area along the property borders. We feel that the subject car park should be subject to the same requirements as the other new properties, to maintain the appearance of the area.

Thank you for your consideration.”

Objector #1 - Letter #2 - Zena Denson (received September 10, 2001)

“Thank you for your letter of August 25, 2001, inviting us to address the Central Planning Authority on the subject “temporary” carpark application. Our objection to this application remains the same as stated in our letter of August 18, 2001, namely:

1. There is no time limit for the “temporary” status of the carpark.

2. There are no plans for drainage wells or catchment basins to prevent rainwater from washing gravel onto Mary Street and neighbouring property.

46

3. The plans do not include a six foot sidewalk along the Mary Street property boundary.

4. The plans do not include an environmental or “green area” along the property borders of Parcel 179, and would detract from the appearance of other properties in the area.

We understand that our objection items 3 and 4 are mandatory for all new construction and would be required for whatever is eventually constructed on Parcel 179.

We will be unable to attend the October 3, 2001 meeting on this subject. However, Mr. Franklin Thompson will represent my interest in this matter. Mr. Thompson has a document dated August 18, 2001 authorizing him to act on my behalf in regards to the subject application.”

Objector #2 – Franklin Thompson

“Upon reviewing the applicant’s drawings and letter requesting approval for the above-mentioned project, I feel compelled to object to this application for the following reasons:

1. If planning approval was issued to block OPY parcel 30, then it is logical to assume that the parking requirements have been met. On this basis, it would seem to me that rent, is or will be charged to walkers for the use of the parking lot which will result in commercial gain and this would create a double standard.

2. It is clear to me that this parking lot was designed for the walkers building giving the layout and given the fact that the parking blocks installed, have already been assigned. In light of this, I feel that this application is an attempt to avoid spending any more on the Walker’s project and this is not an acceptable reason.

3. There is an existing building on site that is being used for a commercial sales office namely Frank Hall Homes. On this basis alone the developer is required to provide a proper parking lot namely 6’ wide sidewalk, 4’ landscape strip, catch basins with deep wells and relevant markings.

4. I also observed that the recently installed chain link fence is not installed according to the legal boundary.

In conclusion, my objection is also based on the fact that if this application is approved, there will be problems with adjacent properties flooding, and on the other extreme, dusty conditions. It is also my opinion that it is not aesthetically pleasing to the eye.

I hope that the board will take these points under serious consideration and rule against this application for all the right reasons both legal and on principal.


Objector #3 – Eugene Kingsley Thompson

47

“Upon reviewing the applicant’s drawings and letter requesting approval for the above-mentioned project, I feel compelled to object to this application for the following reasons:

1. If planning approval was issued to block OPY parcel 30, then it is logical to assume that the parking requirements have been met. On this basis, it would seem to me that rent, is or will be charged to walkers for the use of the parking lot which will result in commercial gain and this would create a double standard.

2. It is clear to me that this parking lot was designed for the walkers building giving the layout and given the fact that the parking blocks installed, have already been assigned. In light of this, I feel that this application is an attempt to avoid spending any more on the Walker’s project and this is not an acceptable reason.

3. There is an existing building on site that is being used for a commercial sales office namely Frank Hall Homes. On this basis alone the developer is required to provide a proper parking lot namely 6’ wide sidewalk, 4’ landscape strip, catch basins with deep wells and relevant markings.

4. I also observed that the recently installed chain link fence is not installed according to the legal boundary.

As we all know, the main contractor for this project is the former chairman of the planning board. Just this point alone reinforces my opinion that the parking lot was created without planning approval to avoid extra costs, as the contractor knows that the works carried out was illegal according to the planning regulations.

In conclusion, my objection is also based on the fact that if this application is approved, there will be problems with my lot with regards to flooding and on the other extreme dusty conditions. It is also my opinion that it is not aesthetically pleasing to the eye.

I hope that the board will take these points under serious consideration and rule against this application for all the right reasons both legal and on principal.



The applicant is requesting permission to use the subject property, which contains an older Cayman style building toward the Mary Street portion of the property, as a “temporary” parking lot. As stated in the applicant’s letter, this parking lot is being labeled ‘temporary’ so that they will not have to undertake several requirements that are typically imposed on parking lots. These include proper and adequate surface material (aspahltic concrete), proper drainage (drain wells), a sidewalk and suitable landscaping.

The Department notes that at least three (3) other parking lots in the immediate area have been approved by the Authority over the last year, all with proper

48

design qualities. These include one across the street (one objector’s property, Block OPY Parcel 75), one on Mary Street (Block 14BG Parcel 61) and one around the corner (Block OPY Parcel 26). These lots were required to provide asphaltic concrete surface, proper drainage, sidewalks and landscaping.

The Planning Department is concerned that the applicant has not indicated any specific time frame for the ‘temporary’ aspect of the proposal. As the Planning Department has received no overall redevelopment scheme for the property, it is suggested that the applicant’s promise to redevelop the property should be considered with less a factor in reviewing the submission.

The Planning Department suggests that, should the Authority consider approving the development, that a more suitable surface material be used and that drainage, landscaping and sidewalks be provided. Such requirements would address the Department’s concerns, noting consistency with the other approvals in the area.

The Department acknowledges that when the application for the parking lot was made, it was ‘proposed’. However, by the end of August the parking lot was being used as shown on the site plan. Therefore, the Planning Department acknowledges that, should their recommendations and the concerns of the objectors be taken into consideration, alterations to the parking lot will be required.

The applicant, Mr. Frank Hall (P.O. Box 866 GT), his representative, Mr. Trevor Baxter (P.O. Box 899 GT), two of the objectors, Mr. Franklin Thompson (P.O. Box 311 GT) and Mr. Eugene Thompson (P.O. Box 412 GT) and their representative, Mr. Eddie Thompson (c/o CAD+, P.O. Box 10167 APO), appeared before the Authority at 2:00 p.m.

The Authority welcomed those in attendance and asked the applicant to outline the project.

Mr. Frank Hall stated he had an agreement with Walkers Attorneys-At-Law to demolish and build two new buildings. Mr. Hall stated that the building just completed was one of those buildings and he was awaiting instructions from Walker’s regarding the second building. Mr. Hall stated that Walkers have more employees than parking and needed more available spaces.

Mr. Hall stated they don’t want to build a formal parking lot because it will be destroyed in a few years. He stated that they do not have a problem with drainage as the site drains well and there is certainly no dust problem.

Mr. Hall stated he walked around George Town and found ten (10) parking lots similar to his, from Norbert Thompson’s property adjacent to the Tower Building to Harbour Place to the Glass House (Racket Club property). He also noted that UBC has a marl parking lot and that Cayman National Bank uses the property next door to them. Mr. Hall stated that precedent has been set.

The Authority asked the length of the temporary parking lot.

49

Mr. Hall started his agreement is for 5 years and that 6 months has passed. He stated that it would be about 3.5 years before the construction of the next building would start.

Mr. Trevor Baxter presented a Master Site Plan displaying the development of the subject property, in relation to the existing two phases of the Walker’s building and outline the scheme. Elevations of the proposed building in relation to the existing were also displayed.

The Authority questioned who was using the parking lot.

Mr. Hall explained that employees of the Walker’s Building and Frank Hall Homes were the only ones using the parking lot.

Mr. Eddie Thompson spoke for the objectors. Mr. Thompson stated that they had received no guarantee that after 3 years the office building would be built that they had no assurances or guarantees. Mr. Thompson stated that dust was in fact a problem that would increase, and asked the Authority to remember that it is rainy season right now. With regards to drainage, Mr. Thompson stated that yes it drains well, but it is draining on to the objector’s property. He noted that he questioned the change of use for the building on the site, acknowledging that his clients never received any notification of its change. Mr. Thompson also noted that the Glass House was not a formal parking lot, but one that was just used by the public.

Mr. Thompson stated that revenue is being generated from that parking lot and that they were concerned that in 6 months will be nothing but potholes, etc. He stated that their recent development application was undertaken to the “T”, including sidewalks, etc. Mr. Thompson questioned why should one be required to develop to the letter of the law and the other not? He stated that aesthetically, the parking lot as is was not suitable and not just because they don’t have enough parking where they are.

Mr. Hall stated that the emphasis was on temporary. He agreed that, if business was bad and Walker’s decided not to build he could demolish the parking lot or put in a permanent one. Mr. Hall denied that water was draining on to the lot next door. The land drains because it is not blacktopped. He stated it was just to be temporary, as they did not want to dig it up in 3 years.

The Authority questioned the extent of the parking problem and who utilizes those spaces used now.

Mr. Trevor Baxter explained that the Walker’s Building extension had covered ground level parking with periphery parking available.

Mr. Eddie Thompson requested the Authority be aware that the parking lot was not just for three (3) Frank Hall Homes employees, but includes customers, other employees, contractors, etc.

Mr. Franklin Thompson stated that the water does in fact drain onto his property.

50

With no further inquiries, the Authority thanked the applicant’s and objectors and their respective agent’s for appearing before the Authority to address all concerns.

The Authority discussed the parking lot application but expressed concerns that the change of use from residential to office for the building on the property should also be addressed through the required application process. The Authority determined that they would address the concerns of the parking lot in conjunction with the change of use application that shall be made prior to the end of October 2001, or is subject to enforcement for the illegal development.


1. The applicant shall submit a completed application (form, plans, notices, fees, etc) for the after-the-fact change-of-use of the building. This shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the end of October, 2001

Should this application not be received or submitted in a completed format, the applicant shall be subject to enforcement.

The parking lot will be considered in conjunction with this change of use application.

5.05 ORVILLE ERSKINE (formerly ISLAND CONCRETE PRODUCTS) Block 19E Parcel 103 (FB90-0085) (P01-105810)(P01-105906)(P01-105907) ($68,500) (AR)

Application for a proposed industrial/office building and sign and an after-the-fact fence and workshop buildings.

A portion of this application is the result of Enforcement by the Planner.

FACTS

Location: On Barnes Drive, off Seymour Road off North Sound Road in the Industrial Park, George Town

Zoning: Heavy Industrial

Background: PERTAINING TO THIS USE ON THIS PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY

The rented, front corner portion of the property (the subject portion) received planning permission for a shed and covered work area on February 25, 1999 (CPA/05/99; item 6.10) valid for one year only.

February 20, 2001: The Department sends a letter reminding the applicant that planning permission was temporary and had therefore expired. The Department requested re-application or enforcement would proceed. To date, no response has been received.

51

May 16, 2001 (CPA/17/01 Item 8.01) CPA authorizes the issuance of an Enforcement Notice for the outstanding buildings/etc on the property.

Existing Use: Island Concrete Products and Apartments (building) Lemmie’s Trucking (property)

AGENCY COMMENTS

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

Water Authority

“Please be advised that the above development will be approved upon compliance with the following requirements:

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

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

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

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

Chief Fire Officer

Stamped “Approved for Planning Permit Only”


“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:

1. An on-site solid waste enclosure shall be provided.

2. This enclosure shall be located near the roadside.

3. The enclosure shall be equipped with a 32-gallon garbage container.

4. The enclosure shall have the following minimum dimensions:

a. Length = 2ft-6in

b. Width = 2ft-6in

c. Height = 2ft-6in”


52

The applicant is requesting permission for the following in association with the existing pre-cast concrete plant operation as well as the office structure in association with the proposed construction company:

A proposed office for a construction company (761.77 ft2).

The redevelopment of this property includes the construction of a 6-foot sidewalk for the subject portion of the property and a 4-foot landscaping strip.

The redevelopment of this property includes an asphaltic concrete parking area with drainage.

A proposed 1 ft by 4 ft (4ft2) illuminated sign to be mounted on the front of the proposed building.

An after-the-fact chainlink fence (8’), with rolling chainlink gate entrance (20’). The front portion of the gate is to be relocated from the front of the property line to the inside edge of the sidewalk.

An after-the-fact storage shed (128 ft2)

An after-the-fact workshop (510 ft2).

The proposal complies with all the related requirements of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision) for the Light Industrial zone (including parking, surface material, drainage, setbacks, etc.) and with the typical requirements of the Authority for this type of development. The Department is satisfied with the proposal. The applicant has revised the drawing to suitably address the Department of Environmental Health’s concern regarding the provision of a solid waste facility on the property.


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

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

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



53

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

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

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

9) 7) The applicant shall provide a septic tank with a capacity of at least 750 US gallons. The septic tank shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Water Authority’s standards.

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

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

10) The on-site solid waste enclosure shall be 2ft-6in length by 2ft-6in width by 2ft-6in height and shall be provided near the roadside equipped with a 32-gallon garbage container.

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




5.06 JESUS REYES Block 24E Parcel 291 (F96-0208) (P01-105855)($1,500) (BES)

Application for an after-the-fact temporary house.

This application was the result of an enforcement warning.

FACT

Location: On Patrick Avenue, Prospect Park Subdivision

54


Background: August 7, 1996, the Authority granted planning permission for a dwelling house on the subject property.

Existing Use: House under construction

Proposed Use: Temporary House


“I Jesus Reyes, I’m applying for permission to build a temporary house on my property, Block 24E 291 parcel Spotts, which I have started to build.

The reason is that, I have been unemployed for the last eight months, and cannot afford to pay rent and also have no where to live.

I would be grateful if you could take this into consideration.

Thank you in advance.”


This application is a result of an enforcement warning. As noted above, the applicant is requesting permission for an after-the-fact temporary house (383-sq. ft.) on the subject property. Neighbors in the area have voiced verbal objections to the Enforcement Officer regarding the temporary house. However, the Department did not receive any written objections. With respect to temporary houses, the Authority’s does not encourage this type of development, unless the temporary house is an integral part of a permanent house. This temporary house does not appear to be part of an overall plan for the site.

The Authority discussed the temporary house and was not satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist to warrant permitting the structure to remain on the property. The Authority, in considering refusing the application, determined that the applicant should be invited in for an appearance.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application to invite the applicant to appear before the Authority to discuss the their concerns.

5.07 HARD ROCK CAFÉ (KEN THOMPSON) Block 14BH Parcel 75 (FB80-0235) ($N/A) (A.R.)

Review of the off-site parking situation at Hard Rock Café, pursuant to planning permission approved on August 25, 1999 (CPA/25/99; item 6.05)(P99-103582) and amended on October 25, 2000 (CPA/34/00; item 7.03)(P00-104103).

FACTS

Location: The Hard Rock Café on South Church Street.

Zoning: The area is zoned General Commercial.

Notice Requirements: N/A

55

Parking: Required 42 Amended 10 off-site (Piccadilly), 40 off-site (Lighthouse), 7 on-site, 57 total.

BACKGROUND

There is an extensive background, but only the following pertains to the current application:

August 25, 1999 (CPA/25/99; item 6.05): CPA granted planning permission for the restaurant/bar renovations, façade changes and signs.

November 24, 1999 (CPA/34/99; item 7.07): CPA requires the applicant to adhere to the original planning permission. This pertained to the applicant’s request to relocate the off-site parking from the approved site at the corner of South Church Street and Boiler’s Road (Block 14BJ Parcel 5) to the new Duty Free Mall site (Block 14B Parcels 85, 87 and 89).

December 8 1999 (CPA/36/99; item 7.04): CPA rehears the application to amend (as heard on November 24, 1999) and requires the applicant to adhere to the original planning permission.

March 1, 2000 (CPA/08/00; Item 10.03) CPA deferred an application to amend the off-site car parking situation to

“advise the applicant that the Authority is not in favour of designated parking at the Piccadilly Centre. The onus is on the application to make acceptable arrangements for parking. The Authority would strongly urge the applicant that, to avoid delays with the building’s Certificate of Occupancy, the parking arrangement should be satisfactorily addressed as soon as possible. The Authority is in favour of parking consistent with that contemplated in the original approval.”

April 12, 2000 (CPA/12/00; item 7.08) CPA amended the application to allow 40 parking spaces at Piccadilly Car Park (Block 14BH Parcel 142) and several at the new Duty Free Mall (Block 14BH Parcel 89), subject to the following conditions:

“1 Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall comply with the following requirements:

a) Provision to the Department of a copy of an agreement with Piccadilly Parking Centre for forty (40) parking spaces.

b) Provision to the Department of a copy of an agreement with the Arch Road Development for additional parking.

c) Yellow lines shall be painted on both sides of the access road to prohibit on-street parking.

d) A security guard shall be present during open hours and posted outdoors to assist in the management and control of parking.

56

The Authority will monitor the parking arrangements for six (6) months at which time it will reconsider the application. At that time, the Authority may consider additional conditions as may be necessary to adequately control parking generated by the use.”

October 25, 2000 (CPA/34/00; item 7.03) Pursuant to the April 12, 2000 modification and the approval of August 25, 1999 (CPA/25/99; item 6.05), CPA reviewed the parking situation and amended a reduction in the number of Piccadilly parking spaces (approved at 40) and determined the following:

1. Ten (10) parking spaces, namely for staff purposes shall be retained at the Piccadilly Car Park.

2. The Authority will review the parking situation one year from the date of this decision and may require additional parking at that time.”


On October 25, 2000, CPA gave permission for the Hard Rock Café to reduce the number of leased parking spaces at the Piccadilly Car Park from forty (40) to ten (10) spaces, with the stipulation that

“The Authority will review the parking situation one year from the date of this decision and may require additional parking at that time.”

As this 1-year time nears expiration, the Authority must now re-consider the status of the parking issue in relation to the operation of the Hard Rock Café restaurant/bar.

The Planning Department summarizes the following:

The Authority required 40 spaces be leased from Piccadilly Car Park. The applicant did so. This was amended to ten (10) spaces.

The applicant also leased parking from the Lighthouse property (the new Duty Free Mall), nearer to the subject property than the Piccadilly Car Park. A review of the lease shows that 40 spaces have been leased to the Hard Rock for 1 year, with a future option for 10 years. The Planning Department’s concern with this was the number of spaces leased, while complying with the requirements for the Hard Rock, depletes the Duty Free Mall’s parking facilities.

The Department has monitored the parking situation both during the week and on weekends and has not noticed any serious problems with parking around the property as a result of the restaurant being in operation.

The Planning Department has received no complaints regarding this situation over the past year.

Planning Department’s Previous Statements

The Planning Department remains against any off-site parking that involves “shared” parking rather than dedicated leased parking (as was proposed on Arch

57

Road Development/Duty Free Mall site). However, at the applicant previously indicated, this site is closer, more convenient and does not involve a shuttle service.

The Planning Department notes that the Piccadilly Car Park may have sufficient space for the dedication of off-site parking, but that its distance from the restaurant is well beyond the customary distance of 500 feet that the Authority typically applies to off-site parking.

Summary

The Department would note that, even in consideration of their previous concerns expressed above, the parking situation, in this instance, appears to be functioning well. As such, should the Authority have no concerns regarding the current situation, the Department would recommend no additional “time frames” be places on this applicant for re-consideration.

However, the Department does recommend that the applicant provide long term proof of leasing [ten (10) years] from both off-site parking establishments. As well, the Department would re-iterate to the applicant the following consideration of his original approval granted on August 25, 1999:

“14 Off-site parking shall be provided in accordance with the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision). Should, at any point in time, off-site parking not be adequately provided, the restaurant use shall cease operation. The applicant is reminded that the parking lease is for five years. Should the lease expire and alternative parking has not been provided, the restaurant may be required to cease operations or the area of the restaurant reduced to match the parking provided.”

Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission to permit a one year extension to the current parking situation, to expire November 2002. The applicant shall confirm this by the submission of copies of the leases for the approved off-site parking sites (Duty Free Mall and Piccadilly Carpark) to the Director of Planning by November 20, 2001.

5.08 KIRK OFFICE EQUIPMENT Block 14C Parcel 314 (F97-0441) (P01-105823) ($22,957) (NAW)

Application for ten (10) signs.

FACTS

Location: Off North Sound Way next to the Compass


Notice Requirements: Notices were sent on August 6, August 20, September 3, and September 12. No objections were received.

Background: N/A

58


The applicant is proposing 10 signs totalling approximately 454-sq. ft. on a 10,750-sq. ft. building. There is already an existing sign on the building approximately 46-sq. ft. in size. The building contains one business and is proposing almost 500-sq. ft. of signage. The applicant's agent has been informed that the Planning Department would not recommend signage in excess of 32 sq. ft and that the existing signage on site already exceeds this.

The Department would recommend that the proposed signage is excessive and would further degrade the aesthetics of the existing building. The existing sign is more than sufficient in size for one business.

Alissta Towers, the development on the adjacent parcel, has two (2) identifier (tower) signs, a main sign and eighteen (18) tenant signs. These tenant signs are only approximately 10.5 sq. ft. Considering that Alissta is a three story building with many tenants and a much larger size (30,059 sq. ft.) the approval of much larger signs for a one tenant smaller building would not be suitable.

The Authority discussed this application and was not satisfied with the overall number of signs proposed and their related sizes in relation to the scale and massing of the subject building as well as surrounding properties. The Authority was not satisfied with the overall aesthetics, noting that the signs would overwhelm the structure. The Authority, in considering refusal of the application, determined that the applicant should be invited in for an appearance.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application to invite the applicant to appear before the Authority to discuss the their concerns, including at a minimum, the following:

1) The proposed signage is excessive and takes away from the aesthetics of the building as it is out of context with its scale and massing.

2) Approval of this much signage would be inconsistent with adjacent sites considering the building size and number of tenants.

5.09 CRACKED CONCH RESTAURANT Block 1C Parcel 3 (F95-0177) (P01-105760) (P01-105759) (P01-105742) ($67,000) (JAB)

Application for a patio addition, gazebo addition and pool.

FACTS

Location: Cracked Conch Restaurant next to the Turtle Farm

Zoning: Beach Resort Residential

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served to adjacent property owners. The application was also advertised in the newspaper on August 17th and 24th 2001. No objections were received

59

Existing Use: Restaurant and dive shop

Proposed Use: Patio addition, gazebo addition and pool


Building Size: Existing – 9,639 ft2

Parking: Existing – 30 Required – 34 Proposed – 40


The applicant is requesting planning permission for a patio addition, gazebo addition and pool to an existing restaurant/dive shop. The proposed patio addition is elevated to be an extension of the existing dining room on the second floor. The proposal also includes an addition and aesthetic improvements to the existing seaside gazebo. In addition, a pool is also proposed on site to complement the existing dive operation. The Department has no objection to these proposals as they meet all minimum planning requirements, including parking; however, parking space number 28 should be removed as it does not provide ample turning space.


In addition to Building Permit requirements, condition (1-2) listed below shall be met before a Building Permit can be issued.

1) The applicant is required to provide a revised site plan showing the removal of parking space number 28.

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




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

60

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

7) No storm water can be disposed of into any excising canal, lake, pond or sea unless treated in a manner approved by the Department of Environment

8) Roof water runoff should not be made to drain freely over the parking area(s) or onto surrounding property. The connection shall be piped to catch basins in or near the parking lot.

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

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





5.010 DRUMBLADE LIMITED Block 20B Parcel 383 (F00-0103) (P01-105925) ($N/A) (AR)

Application to modify the location of the ingress/egress.

FACTS

Location: At the end of Breezy Way off Owen Roberts Drive, with access at the end of Somerset Drive.

Zoning: Light Industrial

Background: May 10, 2000 (CPA/15/00 Item 7.06) CPA granted planning permission for Building 1, which now has its CO.

October 25, 2000 (CPA/34/00 Item 7.06) CPA amended, for one year only, the location of the ingress/egress.

61

November 1, 2000 (CPA/35/00 Item 6.04) CPA granted planning permission for Building 2. The Building Permit has yet to be issued.

February 7, 2001 (CPA/06/01 Item 6.07) CPA granted planning permission for a second storey addition to Building 1.

March 21, 2001 (CPA/10/01 Item 7.04) CPA amended the layout of the approved second storey addition to Building 1.

April 4, 2001 (CPA/11/01 Item 6.07) CPA approved a two-storey addition to the recently amended existing two-structure.

August 8, 2001 (CPA/25/01 Item 5.01(b)) CPA approved as two (2) lot subdivision of the property. Access for these lots is via the (unconstructed, gazetted) road parcel along the north of the property boundary (Parcel 382).

Existing Use: Light Industrial

Proposed Use: Industrial storage/warehouse


Submitted during first application (October 19, 2000)

“During the current construction of the above project we have been using Somerset Drive as our access as per the approved drawings. It was with some dismay when our neighbour on the adjoining parcel 50 installed fence posts in the road and reduced the access to less than 14 feet. Upon research by our surveyor and his subsequent discussions with the Chief Surveyor it turns out that although Somerset Drive shows on the Cadastral Map as a 20 foot public road and the intention to do so was gazetted as far back as 1986 the process was apparently never completed. The result is that until Public Works completes the necessary process there is no 20 ft public road to our property. By the way we have just received notice of the gazetting of a proposed extension of Red Gate Road along the northern boundary of our project but we know that this will not be built this year.

Our dilemma is that we need to complete the above project in order to move CAC Engineering Co’s workshop so that we can complete the project, which is being constructed on Dorcey Drive where CAC is currently located. The timing of both of these projects is critical and a delay the Breezy Castle project affects the Dorcey Drive one. In order for us to get our CO and move CAC we are requesting permission to access the project from Breezy Way until such time as Somerset Drive is widened or the Red Gate Road is extended. We are enclosing two copies of our proposed relocation of the access.

62

We look forward to your kind co-operation in resolving this problem over which we had no control and to receive your early approval.”


Submitted September 24, 2001

“You will recall that your department issued a temporary permit to allow the use of the correct access from Breezy Way to the new warehouse whilst Public Works Department and the Lands and Survey Department sorted out the problem of them never having designated Somerset and Sussex Drives as proper public Roads. To date, there has been no confirmation that either department has completed this project.

We would be obliged, therefore if you would extend your temporary permission for a further period to allow the continued use of the temporary access from Breezy Way.

We thank you for your kind cooperation and help.”

AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. are noted below.

“Red Gate Road extension (BP 395) was gazetted under section three on 20/09/2000.

PWD proposed to construct it in two phases commencing this year (2001) but phase one was not funded this year. At the earliest we hope that phase one will be carried out in 2002. Phase one should include up to the eastern boundary of parcel 382.

I hope this will assist you.

Regards,

Mark Scotland”


The originally approved ingress/egress to the subject property was off Somerset Drive. However, due to matters beyond the applicant’s control (see attached letter from the Applicant), this access was no longer available.

As such, the applicant requested, and CPA modified, permission to utilize access off Breezy Way, for one year only.

As this one year time frame expires November 12, 2001 and in light of those comments made by PWD included above, the Planning Department supports the utilization of the ‘temporary’ access for one additional year or until PWD constructs the public road.

63

Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission to extend usage of the alternative ingress/egress until November 2002, as shown on the site plan dated October 19, 2000.

5.011 ELLESMERE BRITANNIA Block 12D Parcel 26 (F01-0233) (MM/190/98) (P01-105738) ($0) (AR)

Application for an after-the-fact temporary tent pavilion (hotel related) and proposed trellis entrance.

This application was the result of an Enforcement Warning.

FACTS

Location: Between the Hyatt Hotel and the Ellesmere Britannia Condominium development, adjacent to the Golf Course.

Zoning: Hotel/Tourism

Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) Notices were undertaken on July 24, 2001. Letters of both objection and support were received (see below).

Background: November 4, 1998 (CPA/34/98 Item 4.04): CPA granted temporary planning permission for one year only (MM/190/98). No objections were received to this application. The approval noted the following:

“Planning permission is granted to allow the tent for one year only unless parking and setback requirements meet current planning regulations. Planning permission is valid for the same year if you select the temporary basis option. If parking and setback requirements (and all other requirements) are met, planning permission is granted on a permanent basis. A letter identifying interest in using the tent on a permanent basis shall be submitted to the Planning Department if this option is selected.”

Planning Permission for this tent expired on November 26, 1999. Since that time, the tent has been illegally used.

For the Authority’s information, since that expiry time, the Department has received several telephone, verbal and/or written complaints regarding the tent’s operation. It was through the Planning Department’s error (each staff member handling the file subsequently left the Island and the Enforcement process) and the applicant’s lack of re-application that have allowed the tent to operate for additional time.

July 25, 2001 (CPA/24/01 Item 6.02): CPA authorized the issuance of an Enforcement Notice for the illegal tent

64

pavilion. This current planning application was received during the Authority’s meeting.

Site Coverage: Tent only = 27.63% (Tent + Parking = 41.81%)

Building Size: Tent 7,200 ft2 Trellis 540 ft2

Parking Required 36 Provided 13 (on site plan) / 22 (on site)

AGENCY COMMENTS

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

Water Authority

“Given that this after-the-fact tent pavilion has no facilities and no potable water source, the WA has no requirements related to it.”

Chief Engineer

“As per your memo dated July 27th, 2001, PWD has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations.

PWD has no objection to the proposal.”

Chief Fire Officer

Stamped “Approved for Planning Permit Only.”


65


1. This proposal requires sanitary facilities for patrons and staff.

2. The facility should be provided with a hot and cold water supply and any space designated for serving of food and should be equipped with a hand-basin.

3. Floor Plans should be submitted showing the location and layout of the servery.”

OBJECTION/SUPPORT LETTERS

Objection #1 – Mr. and Mrs. Emory Ford, Jr.

“I am the owner of Block 12D Parcel 25H42. I recently received a copy of Ellesmere Britannia’s application to build a “tent” next to me at Block 12D Parcel 26.

Assuming that the proposed “tent” is even remotely similar to the one that has been there for roughly the past five years both my wife and I are very very much against you approving the application for a number of reasons.

1. The present “tent” is very unattractive as almost anyone I know agrees.

2. When the “tent” is in use the traffic often uses the area I am supposed to park in.

3. I am told that on occasion the traffic is bad enough to make access by fire equipment difficult or impossible.

4. When it is in use the noise makes it absolutely impossible for anyone in my condo to sleep.

5. I was told when the first “tent” went up that is was temporary and would be only up for one year. When I was last in Cayman it was still up five years roughly later.”

Objection #2 – Ms. Dorothy Dwyer

“I wish to express by objection to the “tent” owned by Cayman Hotel and Golf Inc.

1. It is incredibly ugly .

2. It extends onto the sidewalk making walking difficult.”

Objection #3a – Mr. and Mrs. Tony and Jacky Jenkins

“Following my communications I had with you last year regarding the above, when you confirmed permission was given on this, dated 26th November, 1998 for one subject to them meeting certain conditions which expired on the 26th November, 1999.

You did inform me at the time this was only one year permission, and that under the law if they applied for an extension I would have been approached accordingly under your development and planning law (revised) section 12(4)(2)

66

and that you would look into this matter and advise me what has happened at the end of the period. I have not been contacted at all regarding this over the last two years, and the tent pavilion is still used by the Hyatt, and is as far as I am concerned has no permission to continue to be used, after the 26th November 1999.

I am currently in England and would appreciate you advising me on my private fax number above the current situation, as last summer we experienced on several occasions a terrible level of noise when they had a function that was unacceptable. Also the parking facilities were totally inadequate where they utilized our own parking area for the villa adjacent to the pavilion, and either side of Britannia Drive right through to the middle of phase one, and were even unable to drive to our apartment. Although security was available they had been unable to cope with the parking requirements, the police on the last occasion were advised and an apology was received from the Hyatt.

For the capacity that the tent pavilion holds, I would wish you to confirm to me where the toilets are for both men and women, how many and where located, as I think they are virtually non existent, and what there is is totally inadequate, and a considerable distance from the pavilion.

Apart from the building itself being a very obscene structure, for a five star hotel, had we and my neighbours been approached in the correct manner when an extension of their original application was requested, this information would have been provided with more detail to the planning office, and I am sure would have been addressed correctly by yourselves. Unfortunately, none of us were aware on the original application exactly the nature and use the tent pavilion would have, and we were under the impression that it was only temporary.

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible confirming the current legality of the tent pavilion.”

Objection #3b – Mr. and Mrs. Tony and Jacky Jenkins

“I am writing following your letter of the 10th July, 2001 reference all my previous correspondence referred to in my letter of the 30th January, 2001 which as you are aware commenced on the 26th November, 1998.

I quite frankly appalled that your Department has taken so long to address this matter regardless of previous personnel being replaced and changing Government officials. I would have thought the governmental responsibility and laws of the Island regardless of personnel should be officially adhered to under the planning laws, unless changed.

I have a copy of a letter that was sent by your Department direct to Britannia over 18 months ago informing them, as you have, of their liabilities and responsibilities, no further application had been made following temporary application putting them on notice to remove the tent pavilion structure.

67

This obviously from your correspondence was totally ignored and as such do not feel that they justify being given further notice of enforcement to remove same, and time to give further consideration for what they may wish to do or not do.

I think in view of the circumstances and this correspondence they should be issued with immediate enforcement notice due to them ignoring your previous correspondence.

Had the local residents been aware, as I have stated in my previous correspondence to your Department of what was going to be erected and the implications regarding noise, parking and sanitary facilities etc., then the objections would have been so strong they would never have got permission.

Just the other night on the 21st July 2001 people were turning up in ball gowns for a function where the parking congestion was horrendous. They were having to walk from the front of the hotel to get to the pavilion. There were as already stated only toilets available some 80 to 100 yards away, and they would have to walk outside the pavilion to reach these.

Although the bands were excellent, the noise was so much that it was impossible to even sit out on the balcony or listen to the television in our apartment, due primarily to it being a tent and not a permanent brick built structure.

The previous night of the 20th July, 2001, they had the big outside air conditioners blowing all night to establish the temperature required for this large function they were holding.

I feel the tent is very cheapskate for a five star hotel, and the way they have been allowed to get away with this for so long does make one feet they have got powers on the Island that in my opinion is not justified.

I am on the executive committee of Strata 1 at Britannia and it is unanimously felt that immediate action should be taken to close the pavilion down.

I wonder if other people on the Island that have made current planning applications are aware that an organisation of ‘Hyatt’ quality can erect a ‘tent’ and have one years planning permission and then it be totally ignored by your Department.

Both my wife and I were very proud to get residency in Cayman Islands last year and as such we are spending more time over here. My wife is semi-permanently there and I travel to and from Island frequently.

I personally will be on Island from the 3rd August, 2001 and would appreciate your direct communication with me on the above address and fax number, and following your principals return from holiday I would like you to arrange a meeting for use to discuss the position further, and know exactly what steps you are going to take.”

Objection #3c – Boxalls Attorney’s-At-Law on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Tony and Jacky Jenkins

“We represent Mr. A.N. Jenkins in connection with his objection to the above

68

application. As you are aware because the hearing before the CPA has been moved to 3rd October 2001 our client is unable to attend and object in person. We accordingly write to ensure that our client’s objection is complete form and content and will be presented to the CPA on 3rd October without our client’s attendance.

I: Preliminary

1. Both Mr. Jenkins and employees of this firm acting on behalf sought from your department copies of the application to which Mr. Jenkins wishes to object. We have been told by your Department that copies of the application would not be provided. We accordingly write without the benefit of a copy of the very application upon which our client is expected to attend a hearing and fairly have his objections heard. Failure to provide a copy of the application on request is a stunning breach of the principles of natural justice and if any appeal is necessary this will be the first Ground thereof.

II: The Letter of 2nd August 2001

2. We append hereto the first page of a letter to our client dated 2nd August 2001 and we have the following queries:

(a) In paragraph 1 it is stated that “an after-the-fact” application for the Britannia tent has been made. We are concerned to know what is meant by “after-the-fact” application? Our understanding is that an application has been made for the tent prospectively from 3rd August 2001 to 3rd August 2003? Please confirm that there is no application for retrospective approval for the period from 23rd November 1999 to 3rd August 2001 when the tent was illegal.

(b) In paragraph 2 it is mentioned that there was then a belief in your department that Mr. Jenkins was properly served and you set out the address where it is claimed he was served. You will note that the address of purported service in paragraph 2 is not used at the top of the letter. We understand that it has been accepted that Mr. Jenkins was never actually served because the address in paragraph 2 in incorrect and the address at the top of your letter is correct. We would be grateful for confirmation that notice of the decision in this matter will be sent to this firm and to the correct address for our client.

(c) In paragraphs 4 and 5 it is mentioned that objections of Mr. Jenkins made prior to 3rd August 2001 would need to be transferred over to the new application’s file. We would be grateful if you could confirm that this has been done and that all of Mr. Jenkins’ complaints about the tent over the years will be considered as objections on the current application.

III: Vehicular Access

3. We understand that the parcel upon which the tent sits does not benefit from vehicular access? We understand that your department was investigating this concern/objection further and we were wondering if any conclusion had been

69

reached?

IV: The Law

4. Our client would like to ensure that the following sections of the Law are considered:

(a) Section 18(2): this sub-section allows for a condition “requiring the removal of any building or works authorized by the permission…at the expiration of a specific period…”. When “temporary” permission was granted in November 1998 that permission should have had a requirement for removal of the tent upon expiry of the one-year “temporary” period as removal is inherent in the concept of the permitted tent being “temporary”. If any further permission is granted then it is submitted that a condition of removal should be included.

(b) Section 19(1): this section enables the grant to extend back to 23rd November 1999. If the CPA were minded to grant such permission:

(1) There would need to be evidence before the CPA to explain why the applicant was in breach of the Law from 23rd November 1999 and why such breach should be excused. Why should an applicant who is in flagrant breach of the Law be able to stand before the CPA and seek further permission from it? The applicant appears while in contempt of the CPA’s previous permission and in contempt of the Law. A contemnor is not permitted to be heard in a court of law if he is still in contempt or “comes to the court with unclean hands”. It is accepted that the Planning Department was remiss in enforcing the law but that does not take away from the applicant’s duty to obey the law.

(2) This means that in essence there is an application before the CPA for a “temporary” permission for 3 years and 8 months total duration (i.e., from 23rd November 1999 to 3rd August 2003). Further if the application were granted the “temporary” structure would have been up for years and 8 months. This must make a mockery of the word “temporary” and bring the system into disrepute.

(c) Section 21(1): this sections provides that illegal development cannot be removed after it has been up for 3 years. The tent has now been illegal for almost 2 years and any further permission must not enable the applicant to argue after 23rd November 2002 *3 years since the illegality commenced) that Planning is prohibited from requiring its removal.

(d) Section 41(4): applications for cheap “temporary” structures could be seen as a means of avoiding larger payments to the infrastructure fund that would otherwise be due. This would be an undersirable precedent to set and especially at this time.

70

(e) Regulations 8(7) and 23 require advertisements for applications for places of public assembly. It is submitted that these regulations apply to the tent and we are unaware of the advertisements?

(f) Regulation 35: this regulation provides that the grant of November 1998 cannot by law create any subsequent expectation of permission. It is submitted that this applies with especial force against an applicant who applies for the subsequent permission while in violation of the previous permission and the Law.

V: Summary

5. We look forward to hearing from you in reply to the queries in paragraphs 2 & 3 above.

6. We would be grateful for confirmation that the points set out above will be taken into consideration on the hearing of the application on 3rd October 2001 as part of the objections of our client to the permission sought.

7. Thank you for your assistance.”

Objection #4 – Mr. Michael Polling and Ms. Elizabeth MacDonald

“We write to advise of our objections to the continued existence of the temporary plastic tent first erected in 1998. We believe that not only is this an inappropriate location for such a facility but also this particular structure is in and of itself an environmental eyesore having a negative impact on the neighbouring condominium development.

We understand that permission for this structure has lapsed, but find it regrettable that the developer has seen fit to bring this application at a time of year when occupancy of the condominium units immediately to the north is at its seasonal minimum. There is therefore insufficient time for all potential objectors to make their objections known. We have however previously spoken to one of the owners with a unit overlooking the tent and he advised that the noise from any evening function was at unacceptable levels and lasting to late hours. Our objections can be summarized as follows:

General objections to any such facility in this location

Severe noise pollution during evening events.

Inadequate parking facilities and obstruction from cars parked illegally on the access road to the condominium development.

Safety issue regarding pedestrians crossing the road in large numbers with insufficient street lighting.

Specific objections to existing structure

Lacks toilet facilities for staff and guests.

Hotel staff perform catering functions in the parking lot.

71

The structure partially obstructs the sidewalk alongside, causing pedestrians to walk in the road.

The structure has been damaged by vandals and has a generally rundown appearance.

In summary, we feel that the “temporary” structure has been allowed to stand for far too long. Its appearance, aside from some artful landscaping at the front which is for the benefit of hotel guests not residents, is highly unaesthetic and out of keeping with the rest of the development.”

Objection #5 – 525 Limited

“Planning Permission for “a Tent” on Block 12D Parcel 26.

The Company objects to the above application. Our comments are as follows:

1. The quality of the structure is not in keeping with the surrounding buildings. Despite extensive landscaping, it resembles an emergency aircraft hangar. The skin has been damaged and it subsequent repair only emphasizes the unsuitability of this makeshift shelter.

2. When used for a function:

a) There is inevitably considerable noise, particularly when there is music.

b) There is inadequate nearby parking. Without the constant vigilance of the Hyatt security, this results in cars being parked in the adjacent strata car parks.

c) There are no washroom facilities in the structure.

3. The location is quite wrong for this structure and its use. It is isolated by the curve of Britannia Drive. Guests are required to cross the roadway to reach it and cross back to use the bathrooms. The foot parts are of inadequate width for the numbers of guests with the result that they spill over into the roadway. Potentially a most dangerous situation as the crossing point is on the curve of the roadway.

4. The adjacent stratas are required to maintain their complexes to a certain level in order to obtain their tourist board approval. This “tent” seems to fall far below the standards required by the adjacent strata corporations.”

Objection #6 – Mr. and Mrs. Charles and Carol Lubeck

“As owners in Phase I Britannia and Permanent Residents of the Cayman Islands, we submit this letter of objection to the application of Hyatt/Ellesmere to maintain a Tent/Pavilion adjacent to the Phase I Britannia Villas. Ref #F01-0233 (P01-105738) (AR). We never received notice that such a structure was to be erected in November 1998.

There have been several occasions when the tent was in use that cars clogged the roadway and parking areas in Britannia, making it impossible for Fire, Police and Rescue vehicles to enter the property, if needed.

72

Sanitary facilities are a concern, as there are none in the tent. Patrons must exit the tent and cross the roadway and enter Hyatt buildings to use toilets etc. For a structure that holds several hundred people, this is unacceptable.

Noise levels, music, emanating from the tent have been extreme during daytime and evening hours, up till midnight at times. This is most annoying, especially to those who have condominiums immediately adjacent to the tent.

The roadway that this structure actually sits on belongs to Britannia Villas, not Hyatt or Ellesmere. Our needs and concerns were never addressed by Hyatt/Ellesmere at the time this time was erected.

Added to this is the fact that the Britannia Villas are an upscale complex and real estate values can only deteriorate due to the presence of this eyesore.

Your attention to these concerns of ours would be deeply appreciated when this matter comes before you again.”

Objection #7 – Proprietors of Strata Plan No. 79

“On behalf of ALL PROPRIETORS of Registered Strata Plan No. 79, which is situated on the adjacent parcel of the proposed development site mentioned above, we write to you and your board in protest without prejudice and or any malicious intent.

As stated in a previous letter to your department regarding the “tent” situated on the above mentioned Block and Parcel our proprietors were outraged and frustrated at our recent Annual General Meeting regarding said matter, thus prompting my first visit to your department back in late March of this year. Said visit as you can recall in my letter was on a fact-finding basis, which was geared, to assist in my complete understanding of why such a structure was granted permission by your department and for what purpose and under what guidelines was it approved i.e. permanent or temporary status and if it was granted under temporary status guidelines for what period or duration was the said approval for.

As stated in the aforementioned letter, during this fact-finding visit I met with planning Ms. Angela Riddle and enforcement officer Mr. Cadian Ebanks who were I must add, extremely friendly, very helpful and considerate. They presented me with information that astonished me such as the said subject structure was given planning approval as a temporary structure in late November of1998 for a period of twelve (12) months. I intriguingly inquired why this kind of injustice can be acknowledged by your department and continue to go on, as it sends a resounding and disturbing message to investors that one’s investment in the Cayman Islands are in fact not all protected by the local Government and its learned planners as was first promoted simply because individuals with influence and or vast resources can dictate what occurs in terms of building regulations and codes, hence this ghastly polyurethane and or vinyl structure erected in an up-scale, and well structured development such as Britannia Village.

All of our Proprietors vehemently protest any further development and or

73

resubmission of a planning application for a “tent” as it is ill appropriate for this immediate area in terms of but not limited to its structure, physical appearance and most of all usage. As I have demonstrated there are many other varied issues regarding said property such as limited parking, limited land space, open market values of adjacent properties and developments, security and safety concerns, facilities and or services to mention a few.

To further emphasize one issue highlighted above such as the matter of limited parking which is not a figment of our imagination but a grim reality, this matter cause havoc each time an event is held at the said structure, the patrons and or guest of these events have no consideration and or forethought of where they park such as on the thoroughfare which is limited in its girth thus causing a breach of planning regulations as it obstructs access of homeowners and more importantly emergency vehicles to access the Britannia Village Development. We urge you and your planners to visit the site during one of these events.

We are confident that when you and your learned board and planners have investigated all aspects of this application you will find that this application is ill appropriate for the immediate area and for all concerned homeowners and investors who purchased under the impression that this area was to be protected by covenants, planning regulations and a sound planning methodology that utilizes continuity and curb appeal in its overall consideration.

We request that an further meetings, and or notices regarding said property be forwarded to our company for our perusal and comments and the time should always be considered of the essence when posting.”

Objection #8 – Hyco Limited

“We would like to notify you of our objection to allowing a tent erected on Block 12D Parcel 26. We find the erection of a tent diminished the appearance of the surrounding buildings and landscape, and thus hurts the value of the surrounding property. These tents are not in keeping with the general theme of Britannia. They also are noisy when occupied for gatherings, which bothers owners and tenants of Britannia.”

Objection #9a – Mary Jane Kampe

Addressed to another objector but included direction to Planning Department

“It was nice speaking with you today on the phone and I appreciate all the data in regards to the Tent situation at Britannia. Like I stated to you on the phone, I just returned late last night from out of State. My husband showed me after your call a notice that he picked up from out Post Office, for a Tent on Block 12D Parcel 26 near the Hyatt Hotel owned by Cayman Hotel and Golf, Inc. Somehow they certified that all the above mentioned on the formed had received by Registered Mail on July 24, 2001. My form was mailed to my old Ohio address while Ellesmere personnel know my current eleven-year-old address. I can assure you that at no time did I ever receive prior to this late notice anything from Ellesmere in regards to this tent. I also can assure you that no one can state that all notices have been received without having possession of the return receipt.

74

I was totally amazed when I came to Cayman in 1999 that I saw the tent. I professionally do not understand how planning approved the installation of this tent. I have sat on planning boards and we always has a specific procedure to follow in regards to erections of something new that would affect the adjoining property owners. The rest rooms, parking and noise levels are all part of the procedure, along with the approval of the majority of the adjoining property owners. Cayman Islands policies could be different from the rest of the World for compliance.

You are more than welcome to share my reply with the Planning Department. Mr. Fredericks at the Planning knows who I am.”

Objection #9b – Mary Jane Kampe

“I am in receipt of your fax today in regards to Ellesmere Britannia's application for a Tent Pavilion on Block 12D Parcel 26 (Fo1-0233)(AR).

I will be unable to attend the hearing because of other commitments out of town.

I again want to state what the note that I emailed to Tony Jenkins, property owner at the First Phrase of Ellesmere Britannia, and faxed to your office.

I was never notified on the original application submitted to your Planning Department. I finally received this notice of Application on August 9, 2001.

There are basic things that would need to be addressed.

1. Does this Tent Pavilion provide the following for the occupants: Rest rooms on premise or must the occupants walk a far distance for this service? How is the parking and does it in any way harm the property owners close by? What is the noise level due to Air-Conditioning to the outside of the Tent?

2. Do they have the support of the majority of the adjacent property owners?

3 Does the Tent architecture adhere to the surrounding structures? Or does it stand out and not conform, reducing the value of the adjacent property?

4 Does Ellesmere Britannia own this land or does it belong to Phrase One Strata # 79?

I do not have a copy of your Structure Compliance Law or Rules for additions on a site. The above are basic guidelines used in the United States.

I would appreciate Ms. Riddle if you would read the above for the record at the hearing on Wednesday, August 22,2001, in my absence.”

Objection #10 – Andreas von Schulthess

“As owner of Britannia Villa no. 216 on West Bay Beach South, Block 12D, Parcel 25H32, bought on November 12, 1987 I received from you a

Notice of Application for Planning Permission of July 24, 2001 of a Tent on Block 12D Parcel 26, near to Hyatt Hotel and owned by Cayman Hotel & Golf Inc., which has been submitted to you.

75

Although this tent has already been erected illegally end of 1998, I have only now the possibility to raise my concern and objections to this tent.

Herewith I object to this tent because of the following reasons:

1. Prior to purchasing my apartment I enquired with Ellesmere Britannia about future building projects on the land between the Hyatt Hotel, the Golf Course and the building in which my apartment is located. I was informed by Management of Ellesmere Britannia that this piece of land would be left as a lawn in order to allow our building some free space and some view. This has been reconfirmed to Ellesmere Britannia early 1988 by my lawyer J.B. Smith of Truman Bodden & Co., Georgetown.

2. This tent has been described to me by Management of Ellesmere Britannia on my visit to Cayman end 1999, as temporary. A tent can never be indefinite construction and has to be dismantled within a short period.

3. The emissions of this tent cannot be tolerated as they impair unduly the rights of the general public and, in particular, the immediate neighbours. Those emissions include noise from the public, the music, the air-conditioners and the additional traffic.

4. The infrastructure around this tent is absolutely insufficient what parking facilities for guests, staff and deliveries concerns. Sanitary installations are lacking.

The surrounding area of this tent is already overcrowded with unnecessary parking lots and other obstructions. No additional construction can be tolerated.

5. A tent of this sort is certainly not up to Hyatt-Standards, a standard strictly enforced upon the villa rental pool with, as a consequence, high additional investments and upkeep at the cost of the villa owners.

I am very grateful that I have finally the possibility to voice legally my concern about illegal actions of the Hyatt Hotel and broken promises on their part.”

Objection #11 – Nicola and Patrick Maloir

“As owners of a condominium at Britannia, Block 12D Parcel 25H24, I recently received a notice of application for planning permission on behalf of Ellesmere Britannia Ltd. for a tent on Block 12D Parcel 26 near to Hyatt Hotel and very close proximity to Britannia villas.

I hereby submit that we strongly oppose any such application, as we have already encountered on several occasions’ excessive noise, parking problems, vandalism as well as plastic beverage cups, etc. thrown on the property. These problems coupled with the undesirable aesthetics of the tent will surely depreciate the value of Britannia property.

Kindly consider all of these negative aspects when reviewing the application in hopes that the planning department will have the best interests in Britannia owners in mind and deny any such application request.”

76

Objection #12 – Cynthia Lubeck

“Having just been notified by Ellesmere Britannia of their reapplication to maintain a tent/pavilion adjacent to Britannia Villas Phase 1, I am submitting my objection to this structure. I have been an owner of Villas 126 and 223 since 1986. The tent is an eyesore; certainly not aesthetically up to Hyatt standards. This tent was originally to be in use only for one year. The tent is an eyesore for Phase 1 Villas as it is located just at our entrance. I strongly feel that it devalues our Villas. Many of my guests have commented negatively about its unsightly appearance.

Fire and emergency vehicles, if needed, would have a difficult time approaching our villas due to the congested parking.

The tent encroaches on the sidewalk forcing most people to walk in the street, especially those pushing carriages.

There are no sanitary facilities in the tent. The people have to cross the street to use the hotel facilities.

Many villa owners, especially in the first building, have complained about the noise level from the tent ‘til late at night.

These are legitimate concerns. As an owner I feel the tent should be removed. I was lead to believe that it was only “temporary”.

Objection #13 – Peter Cunningham

“I understand there is to be a planning Board meeting on August 22nd to review an application to make the "Tent" in Britannia a permanent structure or to renew the permit for another year.

I strongly urge you and the Board to reject both applications:

1. The Tent is an eyesore and has been negatively commented on by all our visitors and others to whom we have talked. Golfers on the first tee of the golf course ask about it and laugh! I would rather not live in an area that is laughed at.

2. It is against many of the tenets advanced by the development committee in terms of quality and making the Island an attractive, safe place for tourists and residents.

3. It would not receive planning approval in any area I have lived in the US; if we want to have first world standards we need to reject shoddy structures such as this. There are no sanitary facilities nor adequate parking facilities. Food preparation and serving facilities are inadequate. Vehicle access is also a problem; the roadway into Britannia has been blocked on several occasions.

4. It is dangerous; the cement "foundations" intrude on the pedestrian pathway (I assume we have code standards on pathway widths). One of the owners tripped over one of these cement bumps, fell and broke her arm and is severely handicapped today as a result. I believe she is considering legal action here and perhaps in Canada as she is a Canadian resident. I have also

77

heard from staff that it is dangerous to work and serve there because of the unevenness of the floor.

5. The residents of Britannia are completely opposed to this structure that was I believe illegally foisted on us by an organization that has failed to abide by planning rules and regulations. As an owner here I can tell you that I believe that Ellesmere and its management have consistently failed to meet planning standards in terms of structures.

6. Our property values in Britannia have declined due to this structure and other well known structural issues (roofs, sewers, drains, gutters, water lines, air conditioning, etc.) that have driven up strata fees. (This is a small island and word gets round fast!). We want to put a stop to that and reverse the value trend. Doing away with this structure would be an important first step.

For too long, some developers have been able to get away with poor quality work and I hope that you and the Board will send them a strong message by rejecting this application.

With sincere regards”

Objection #14 – Robert and Marjorie Feeney

“Dear Ms Riddle-please relay this message to Mr. Kenneth Ebanks.

We are permanent residents of the Cayman Islands and the owners of Villa 923 in Britannia since 1991. We understand that the Planning Board is considering the future of the so-called Hyatt Pavilion and we would like to recommend that the structure be demolished...

We understand that the Board believes that residents of Britannia were consulted when this structure was erected and approved of the construction. In our case this was not so. We know of no resident who was consulted at that time. EBL was effectively in control of the Britannia Strata's and operated as a law unto itself in all matters. Residents were told when they inquired that the tent was a temporary structure designed to serve hotel needs until a more appropriate structure could be erected.

Experience with the Pavilion illustrates a hazard to the safety, public health and welfare of all residents of the Britannia property. Emergency equipment would be hard pressed to enter the condo property with the chaotic parking situation prevailing for Hyatt guests when the Pavilion is in use. There are no sanitary facilities associated with a structure housing hundreds of guests. It may be coincidence but real estate values proceeded to decline in Britannia in a catastrophic fashion with the construction of the Pavilion. I would find my Villa 923 difficult to sell at the purchase price of ten years ago. Visitors to Britannia are incredulous that such a monstrous structure was ever permitted by the Cayman Government in the first instance.

78

Finally one small fact that illustrates the problem. The tent was affixed to the surrounding area by a bead of concrete to permit air conditioning. This obscures about one-third of the sidewalk. I have fallen on this mound of concrete several times in a poorly lit area and have taken to transiting in the street, which is equally unsafe. In heavy rain the entire structure is flooded and dismal.

The Board should recognize in its wisdom that this structure is demeaning to the image of the Cayman Islands and represented an assault on the rights conveyed by sale to property owners of Britannia by EBL. This existing structure would not survive a legal challenge if Britannia residents elected to do so. EBL proved to be a developer whose commitments were worthless, Britannia is a beautiful, tasteful community poisoned with a ridiculous structure designed by the developer to deal with a contractual obligation to the Hyatt Corporation. We would urge you to come to the rescue of the Britannia Community.”

Objection #15 – Britannia Services Co., Ltd.

“I understand that a meeting is scheduled for Wednesday August 22nd between the Planning Board and the Hyatt regarding the possibility of making the Hyatt “tent” a permanent structure.

I am the General Manager of Britannia Services Company Limited, a company set up by Phase II, III and IV of the Britannia Village that represents their homeowners. Phase I is represented by Mr. Woody DaCosta. I have been instructed by the Federation Chairman to request that I be allowed to be present at this meeting and if possible allow me to relay their concerns as they are directly affected by this structure. If this is not possible, they request that their objections be forwarded to you in written form for your consideration at this meeting.

Their objections include the drop in property value due to the presence of this structure, safety issues related to the obstruction posed by the structure with regards to the sidewalk leading to the Hyatt and that the homeowners were advised by the hotel that this was a temporary solution to their capacity issue and not a permanent one.”

Objection #16 – Jan and Larry Pearson

“It is our understanding that your department is in receipt of an application to provide for the location of a tent structure on the property adjacent to Phase I of Britannia.

We are the owners of Villa #411 in Phase I and would strenuously object to the approval of this application. It is our understanding that the Hyatt hotel had previously applied for a temporary permit for such a tent while they were reviewing a capacity problem with their meeting rooms. This application was approved based on a temporary nature, which has now covered several years.

We have been property owners at Britannia for 7 years and do not recall ever receiving any notice of the original application and would have objected to it then.

79

As for now, we believe that this application should be denied for the following reasons:

1. Noise levels during events hosted in this area negatively impact the homeowners’ quiet enjoyment of our property.

2. This area can become very congested with traffic flows of vehicles and people during the events, which can prove to be unsafe.

3. Parking on the property can already be a problem on the property; this only further compounds the problem.

4. There is some concern relating to who actually owns this parcel of land. I believe that it or certainly the adjacent roadway belongs to Britannia and not Hyatt or Ellesmere.

5. Since this area is at the beginning of Britannia, such a structure certainly negatively impacts on the beauty of the resort property. This in turn has a negative impact on the real estate values.

6. The current location and installation creates some dangerous areas on the sidewalks. The area becomes very dark at night and the narrow walkway sandwiched between palm trees, flowerbeds and the rolled cement tent border make for an awkward and unsafe approach.

7. On the two occasions that we were actually in the tent we found it to be less than up to resort quality. The unit becomes very hot inside and therefore requires constant air conditioning, which provides for constant noise both inside and out. The internal noise levels make it difficult to hear. The outside noise is disturbing to neighbours. The inside also carries a rubbery smell that is not pleasant.

We are not in favour of this application. If the Hyatt still claims that they need this space for banquets etc. then they should have improved their planning when they built the beachfront property. They had ample opportunity to increase capacity there. In fact they have meeting rooms as well as the entire roof as added capacity.

We would urge the Board NOT to approve this application but to finally make Hyatt remove the eyesore from our beautiful Britannia.”

Objection #17 – L. L. Fox and C. S. Fox

“We have indirectly learned of the Planning Board's Hearing to review the subject Britannia Structure on August 22nd, 2001. It is most unfortunate that mechanisms are not in place for affected property owners in Britannia to be notified of such Hearings on a direct basis. We have to say that previously we were not in any way informed of the original application to build the Hyatt Pavilion. Moreover we are unaware of any Britannia Villa owners who were so informed. Perhaps we could be advised of what procedures are in place to notify affected parties when applications for such structures are made.

80

Our concern, as with other villa owners in Britannia, is that the location of the present structure is such that it creates a hazard not only for visiting guests to the Pavilion, particularly in the evenings, but also to villa owners who have to deal with pedestrian and motorized traffic conditions when events take place. These traffic conditions along with inadequate parking arrangements act as a hindrance to Emergency vehicles and equipment seeking entrance to Britannia Villas in case of need.

Adding to this is the flow of pedestrian traffic seeking to use sanitary facilities which are not available in the pavilion structure. The flow of this traffic comes at a time in the evening when lighting conditions are not sufficient and because of the nature of social events taking place, visitors and guests are in a more relaxed and perhaps unmindful mood. This of course creates very difficult conditions for villa owners and guests using the only available service road to their properties. It is very clear that the structure is totally inappropriately located for the role for which it is intended.

The present structure, situated beside the first tee of the golf course, is commonly referred to as "the tent". Its appearance is unsightly and its composition is totally inconsistent with other buildings in the Britannia complex. Upon viewing it one can readily appreciate its persistent ridiculing.

The very fact that its composition is inferior in appearance and in materials used compared with other structures of the complex built some 13 years ago has negative implications not only for the authorities that approved its building but unfortunately also on the government of Cayman, who is rightly concerned about the condition of first class developments on the island.

In this respect I refer you to the all round quality of other developments on the island such as the SOVEREIGN, the PINNACLE and other such properties. Villa owners are also particularly mindful of the depreciating asset values which are taking place at Britannia and this "tent like" structure with its deteriorating canvas type material, that is often subject to repair due to wear and tear and/or mischief, does not help the villa owners in their high cost, high maintenance investment.

Finally, therefore, we request you to decline the application to leave in place the present degrading structure permanently and also decline to renew the permit for another year. We ask that instructions be given to dismantle the structure immediately.”

Objection #18 – Gerald and Sandra Raisen

“We are permanent residences and owner of Villa 638 at Britannia. Since the Planning Board is considering the future of the Hyatt Pavilion - which in reality is a "HUGE CANVAS TENT" SIMILAR TO ONE A CIRCUS WOULD SET UP, we urge the Planning Board to reject their Application.

81

The "TENT" was set up without our knowledge. After the fact, we were told this "TENT" was a temporary structure for use by the Hyatt Hotel, and was to stay for a short period of time. The time period is over. Ellesmere Britannia (EBL), the developer, had control of the Board at Britannia at the time of erecting the "TENT", so they did what they wanted to do without approval of, or consultation with the residences. EBL no longer controls the Board, and we believe no member of EBL sits on the Board. We do not even know if EBL owns or controls the land where the "TENT" sits.

Nonetheless, this "TENT" is an atrocity and must come down. We do not appreciate this structure which reduces the ambiance and look at Britannia, and makes the entire Project look like a 4th or 5th rate Project.

In our opinion, the "TENT" has, in a large part, deteriorated the VALUES at Britannia. "EBL" developed Britannia, and obviously no longer cares, nor has any pride in the Project, nor its effect on the Cayman Islands. EBL obligation to the Hyatt Hotel should not infringe on the rights of owners at Britannia, and we should not have to see this abomination any longer.

The concrete placed around the "TENT" not only looks terrible, but also reduced the sidewalk area. In addition, the lighting around the "TENT" area is very low. Both items cause a danger to pedestrians. The congestion with cars when there is an AFFAIR, and the noise generated is not acceptable.

At your hearing on August 22, 2001, please negate the requests of "EBL". PLEASE TELL THEM TO TEAR DOWN THE "TENT" IMMEDIATELY.”

Objection #19 – Valerie Walsh

“I would like to add my name to the growing number of Britannia villa owners who have emailed you with their objections to the Hyatt Pavilion. I am the owner of Villa 712.

As you know, this structure suddenly appeared one day and we were promised by EBL that it would only be temporary and would be taken down within eighteen months. This never happened and EBL has turned a deaf ear to all owner objections.

The Hyatt resort markets itself as a four or five star property and apart from the “tent” it is a beautiful place. I have been to many five star hotels all over the world and have never seen anything like this anywhere else. It really detracts from the appearance of the property and it is deteriorating rapidly. Quite recently it was slashed in several places by people unknown and it has been repaired using duct tape which makes it look even worse.

The original construction is appalling. The concrete spills over on to the sidewalk and makes it very hazardous to walk there. There are no toilets and guests have to cross the road to use other facilities. This can be a dangerous thing to do at night as there is inadequate lighting on that corner and often guests are dressed in black and it is very difficult to see them if one is trying to drive by. Also on several occasions cars have been parked on both sides of the road when a

82

function is going on and this makes it almost impossible for owners to get to their homes. Certainly a fire engine would not be able to get through without moving the parked vehicles.

This ugly structure at the entrance to Britannia Villas has, we think, seriously affected the value of our properties. I know many of my guests have made comments that they are surprised that such a structure was allowed in the first place and are also amazed that it is still standing.

I would like to make a request that the Planning Board denies the application to renew the temporary permit and also declines the request to leave the “tent” in it’s present place on a permanent basis.”

Objection #20 – Elsbeth Speich

“I am the owner of Britannia Villa 620 and reside permanently in the Cayman Islands.

It is my understanding that there will be a Hearing at the Planning Board on August 22/01 to decide the future of the Hyatt Pavilion commonly called the tent.

a) Not at any time have I ever received a notice that a structure like this would be erected. In other words it came as quite a shock to be faced with a tent at the entrance to our so-called first class resort. After making inquiries I was told this structure was strictly a temporary solution for a year or two…

b) Not only does this ugly looking structure affect the value of the property in a negative way it is also a safety hazard. The concrete that encloses part of the tent has been poured in such an unprofessional way that it is downright dangerous to walk along that part of the sidewalk. To make matters worse the lighting in that area is very poor.

c) No sanitary facilities are nearby.

d) Also there is a lot of congestion along the roadway when events are held.

I would highly recommend that no permit should be granted and trust that you will give this letter due consideration. Thank you.”

Objection #21 – Hon Ming Cheang and Carol Cheang

“My wife and I live at 464 Britannia Drive, Britannia Estates. We also own 2 villas at the Britannia. We pass the “tent” many times a day and we feel that the “tent” devalues our properties at the Britannia and is an eyesore. We feel that it is an inappropriate structure and should be removed. The tent has flooded many times in the past and the mildew and fungus that has resulted from the flooding has been appalling and a risk to the general health of the community. Even at the best of time, when you enter the “tent”, there is a pervasive smell of mildew and fungus in the air, which are embedded into the fabric of the “tent”. It is our opinion that the “tent” should not be made into a permanent structure and that the application by Ellesmere Britannia for the “tent pavilion” be rejected.”

Objection #22 – Dennis Freeman

83

“As a private owner of a villa adjacent to ‘the tent’, I wish to register my complete support of Mr. Tony Jenkins in his objection to a planning extension for activities which very much disturb the peace.”

Objection #23 – Helmut and Patricia Meissner

“We are writing to you as owners of Britannia villa #2-043 (12D 80H45) since we obtained information that an application has been filed by Ellesmere Britannia Ltd. (EBL) asking for a renewal of permission for their "temporary" Tent Pavilion or even having it approved as permanent structure.

We would like to express our serious objections against either of these two alternatives.

When we purchased the villa from EBL, it has been pointed out to us that the tent would be only temporary. We believe that a structure like that can only be tolerated for a very short period of time. Under any possible interpretation, it can no longer be considered as "short" if the tent were allowed to remain for another year or even longer.

Its existence represents a negative impact on all villas in Britannia. Any visitor, be it a short term (hotel) guest, a potential real estate purchaser or last, but not least, we as owners do not have any chance to reach our properties without passing this totally inappropriate structure. There is only one road to our village and the tent is sitting right at its entrance.

In order to maintain the top class resort character of Britannia, the Department of Tourism justifiably requests our rental pool villas to always be in a proper condition. If you compare the appearance and quality of the villas of all phases of development as well as the hotel itself with the appearance of the tent, you will admit that the standards are quite out of proportion. I wonder how it could be reasonably justified to allow a situation like this to persist that long.

You certainly have seen the Rotary "Four Way Test" displayed at various bus shelters. One of the four questions is "Is it fair to all concerned?"

We are convinced it is not. Other hotels on the island had to invest significant amounts to have ballrooms available for functions. Why is the Hyatt allowed to take economic advantage from attracting events of island wide importance by spending very little money for a really "cheap" construction? It would be fair to apply the same standards island wide. The standard should be that a facility like the tent has to live up to the same aesthetic and structural requirements as the buildings in its vicinity.

We understand that the Pavilion currently is the largest facility of its kind on the island and its removal would create difficulties for certain entities (including the government) to hold functions and similar events. But this can not be reason enough to tolerate a situation, which from an objective point of view is grossly unreasonable.

As a "fair" approach, we may suggest that EBL is given a grace period of 6 months to completely remove the tent together with the assurance that any plans

84

EBL puts forward for an aesthetically pleasing "real" convention center will be dealt with by the Board in an expedited manner. As we all know, EBL is currently not involved in major construction work on the island. With all their resources being underemployed and their significant experience in the construction area, it should be very easy for them to erect a building that serves their purpose, is acceptable for the residents of Britannia and restores the fairness amongst the suppliers of convention capacity on the island.

As concerned residents of Britannia we trust that you will consider our objection.”

Objection #24 – William and Anne-Berit Power

“As a villa owner(s) we are against the permanent tent on the Britannia development. We were told 2-3 years ago it was to be temporary and now it appears Ellesmere wants it there permanently. They should built a nice structure like the one near the shops just 100-200 feet away. Don’t let them keep this tent permanently.”

Objection #25a – Robert Slater (JOCR Holdings Limited)

“As the owner of Villa 322, Phase 1, we hereby register our objection to the extension of the approval for the above temporary structure.”

Objection #25b – Robert Slater (JOCR Holdings Limited)

“As the owner of Villa 2-047, Phase 1V, we hereby register our objection to the extension of the approval for the above temporary structure.”

Objection #26 – David Auty

“I am the owner of apartment 1012 in the Britannia complex and I understand that the Hyatt have applied for a 2 year extension to the provision of what is known as the 'Hyatt tent'.

This is now under consideration by the Cayman Planning Authority.

I recall that when this was erected it was clearly done so on a temporary basis and residents accepted it on that understanding. It is an ugly construction and I question if it truly fulfils the needs of the Hyatt anyway.

Any events held within it can cause excessive noise to the outside and, if you are in the structure, passing vehicles can be equally so noisy that you can rarely hear speakers etc.

Whilst the structure has been in place I have assumed that the Hotel has been making alternative plans as promised. It appears that they have not and, on this basis, I would not be in favour of you granting the extension.”

Objection #27 – R. E. Rowe

“With regards to the forthcoming planning meeting to discuss Ellesmere Britannia’s July 25th 2001 application to renew the temporary Hyatt Tent for an additional two years.

85

As the owner of one of the Villas in the Village of Britannia within the Hyatt complex I would be extremely disappointed if permission to renew was given for the following reasons:

1. I knew nothing of the planning details when I saw the Tent being installed but assumed because of its gross ugliness it must be a temporary structure, one would not expect otherwise within the grounds of a Hyatt Hotel, as it would obviously be viewed as a considerable lowering of standards.

2. If left standing it will continue to have a considerable negative effect on the Villas and houses within the complex as well as the Hotel itself.

3. The sidewalk alongside the structure leading to and from the Hyatt is impeded and reduced to single file, especially to avoid tripping over the large lumps of concrete holding the tent down.

4. Car parking area has been sacrificed for this tent.

5. Various functions are regularly held in the tent entailing accommodation of large numbers of guests who have the unsatisfactory situation of having to walk 150 feet or so to the bathrooms.

6. It has been in place for 3 years now notwithstanding that permission was for a temporary structure and that the application was only renewed once in November 1999.

7. An unsightly structure is now even more unsightly as it dirty, various fittings have rusted and there has been damage inflicted with what appears to have been a knife.

8. The owners of the Hotel have been trying to sell the Hotel since 1998 and to date have shown no desire to invest in a structure that would be in keeping with an hotel of this nature.

I request that permission is resolutely refused and if possible a time limit is places on the tent’s removal.”

Support #28 – B. B. Torchinsky

“As a homeowner in Britannia Estates, I have seen a letter by Britannia Services Co. Ltd. planning to oppose the above application. I am opposed to their letter of opposition for the following reasons:

1. Britannia Services will purport to represent all the homeowners in the Britannia Homeowners’ Association, but there are many homeowners like myself who have no objection whatever to the presence of the tent on Hyatt property.

2. Furthermore, I think, along with many others, that it would be a shame to remove the tent as it serves a useful purpose for large scale gatherings in the community.

86

I enclose for your information a copy of a letter I have to-day sent to Britannia Services Co. Ltd. which further explains my objections to their position. I hope that my letters will assist you in a decision to grant Ellesmere Britannia’s permit renewal application.”

Objection #29 – Ann Smith

“This firm acts for Mr. Donald Gales, Apartment 639, Britannia. Mr. Gales is presently out of the country and he has asked me to convey his objection to the renewal of the temporary Hyatt tent structure for a further 2 years.

Please let me know if you require anything further from Mr. Gales in this regard.”

Objection #30 – Bruce Campbell & Co. (on behalf of client)

“We act for the registered proprietors of the above designate apartment.

Our clients have instructed us to write on their behalf opposing the application to renew the temporary tent structure by the Hyatt.

Our clients have the following reasons for opposing the application:-

1. The Hyatt-Britannia properties are supposed to be of the highest quality and their apartment was sold to them on this basis. The presence of a tent for an extended period of time (2 years) directly effects the aesthetics of the developments;

2. Whilst the tent is in situ it may well lead to a reduction in the value of the property and the adjoining phases of the Britannia development, which are often seen as one complex;

3. There are no adequate parking facilities adjoining or near to the tent;

4. The presence of the tent is hazardous to resident, road users and to the occupants of the tent be they staff or guests as there is a constant stream of pedestrians crossing the road for business purposes and or bathroom facilities;

5. It sets a precedent;

6. The Hyatt Hotel has ample conference/entertainment facilities without the need for the addition of a temporary structure. If (which is not agreed) they did not have ample facilities, they have certainly had sufficient time to construct additional permanent facilities.

For the reasons aforesaid our clients wish us to note their opposition to this application.”

Objection #31 – Stewart Siebens

“As an owner, living in Britannia Estates at 484 Britannia Drive, I ask the Planning Department to reject EBL’s application to renew the permit for the Hyatt temporary tent.

87

In 1998, EBL as Property Manager and Developer of Britannia let it be known that the tent was a temporary structure as they were finalizing plans with the Planning Department for a permanent structure. I believe that 3 years is a reasonable period for EBL to have designed and built a permanent structure.

The majority of owners in Britannia purchased their homes/villas from EBL, under the understanding that the Hyatt Resort and Britannia is a world-class resort. All one needs to do is look at the summer 2001 issue of the Britannia Magazine to see this statement advertised.

What does reality tell us – that in 1998 the then owner of EBL had the Hotel listed For Sale and the current new owner of EBL has the Hotel listed For Sale at a reduced price and by requesting a 2 year extension has little intention of building a permanent structure. So both the Planning Department and we the owners in Britannia have been mislead as to EBL’s meaning of temporary.

I am sure the tent would meet the definition of temporary due to:

Portable water and bathrooms being 150 feet from the tent.

The cement anchor for the tent obstructs 1/3 of the sidewalk.

Nearest parking for an event is 100 yards from the tent.

An event at the tent slows/restricts traffic to and from Britannia.

The owners look at the service entrance to the tent.

What action should the planning Department take:-

Reject the EBL application on the basis that 3 years is adequate time to replace a temporary structure.

Order EBL to remove the tent.”

Objection #32 –Sharon Nanez

“It has come to my attention that the Hyatt temporary structure is looking more and more like a fixture that will remain on the Hyatt property indefinitely. As a homeowner I strongly protest its presence there and want to be assured that there is a date at which time it will be removed. The obvious reasons to my objections are ones that you are already aware, i.e., safety, aesthetics, parking, and maintaining investment values. It does little to add this problem to an already "soft" economy. Your immediate attention will be most appreciated.”

Objection #33 – Hampton Holdings Ltd.

“We understand that the planning Department is having a meeting on October 3rd 2001 at 3pm. to review an application from Ellesmere Britannia to renew the permit for this structure for another year or to make it a permanent structure.

We as the owner of Britannia Villa # 903 would like the Board to consider rejecting both applications for the following reasons:

88

1. The structure was erected without our knowledge. After the fact we told by Ellesmere Britannia that it was a temporary structure and would only be in place for a maximum of 18 months. That time has long past.

2. The tent is an eyesore and the concrete spills over on to the pavement which makes it very hazardous to walk there.

3. There are no toilet facilities and guests have to cross the road to use other Hyatt facilities. It is very dark round this corner and when guests, dressed in black and darting across the road, it is extremely difficult to see them and is potentially dangerous.

4. On some occasions cars have been parked on both sides of the road by the tent and this makes it almost impossible for Britannia Villa owners to return to their homes. Certainly a fire engine would not be able to get through.

5. The Hyatt markets itself (as do the Tourist Board) as a 5 star resort and, apart from this structure, it is a beautiful place. We frequent many five star hotel world wide and have never seen anything like this elsewhere. Also we know of no other major hotels on the island that have been granted permission to erect a structure like this. We wonder if the Ritz Carlton would be given permission to do something like this. We know that many of our guests have remarked that they are surprised that such a structure was allowed in the first place because it is not in keeping with the architecture of the Islands and they are even more surprised when they return each year to see that it is still in place.

6. Recently the Pavilion that has been slashed in several places by people unknown and been repaired using duct tape which makes it look even worse.

7. This ugly structure is at the entrance of the Village of Britannia and the villa owners are sure that this has seriously affected the value of our properties.

8. At the moment the Pavilion is being used as a storage place by the hotel for mattresses, electrical equipment etc.

We would like to reiterate our request to the Planning Board that they reject the application to renew the temporary permit and also decline the request to leave the Pavilion in it’s present place on a permanent basis.”

Objection #34 – Yolande D. Andrews

“I understand that the Planning Department is holding a meeting on October 3rd 2001 to review an application from Ellesmere Britannia to renew the permit for this structure for another year or make it a permanent structure.

As the owner of Britannia Villa #904 I object to both applications for the following reasons:

1. The structure was erected without my knowledge I was informed by Ellesmere that it was a temporary structure and would be in place for a maximum of eighteen months, it is still in place.

89

2. The ‘Tent’ is not only an eyesore, but more but more importantly a HEALTH HAZARD how it passed the building Regs. Beggars belief, the buildings foundations encroach on the walkway making it very dangerous to walk especially at night, there are no toilet facilities, guests have to cross the road to use other Hyatt facilities. Cars are sometimes parked on BOTH sides of the road, which, I believe is not only illegal but extremely dangerous making it very hazardous for homeowners, but more important a BIG FIRE RISK. Fire engines would not be able to access the Villas without first having some of the offending vehicles towed. The “Tent” has been slashed in several places and been repaired by duct tape, does this give the Tourists a good impression of Cayman Islands 5 star Hotels? The Hyatt Facilities are excellent but for this eyesore.

Please record that this letter requesting the Planning Board to refuse both renewal and permanent planning permission on both grounds. Firstly as a Health Hazard and secondly the many visitors who remark on the eyesore whilst paying huge amounts of cash for the enjoyment of staying at a “5 Star” complex.”

The following letters of either objection or support were received after the agenda and were read into the minutes.

Objection #35 – Devco Overseas Company

“I am writing to voice the opposition of Devco Overseas Company, the owner of Villa 821, Phase II, Britannia Village, to any further extension of the right of Ellesmere Britannia to maintain a tent along the entrance road to our condominium. As you well know, the original approval for the erection of the temporary tent was granted in November 1988 for a one year period.

The tent is unsightly, creates a parking problem, is poorly maintained, has no toilet facilities or potable water source in it and poses a personal problem for people walking by it. It has now existed for three years on a one year permit and it is time for removal of the eyesore that is so out of keeping with the aesthetics of the area.

I feel sure that the Planning Department will respect the petitions of the area residents to deny any further approval to allow this abomination to continue its existence.”

Support #36– Robert Forwell

“I am in favour of the renewal of the Hyatt Pavilion for an additional two years.”

Objection #37 – RoseMary Frataroangelo

“I am writing in response to the e-mail sent by Suresh Prasad on September 24, 2001 regarding the application to renew the temporary Pavilion for an additional two years.

90

I would like Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Siebens to know that they have my support to oppose the application to renew the temporary Pavilion. I may or may not oppose a permanent structure on the site when the time comes, but as for now I definitely want the temporary one taken down. It is an eyesore and definitely not up to Hyatt standards (in fact I can’t believe the Hyatt has allowed it).

In his e-mail, Suresh said that there have been no complaints until recently. I, for one, complained directly to him when the structure was first installed. Since then it looks much worse. It has been torn and patched with silver tape, which I complained about; the next time I came to the Caymans I noticed that they had the silver tape painted white. I just couldn’t believe the Hyatt would not have a problem with this.

By opposing this renewal, I don’t believe that we are opposing further development of the resort. When the pavilion was put up, and I complained I was told that it was temporary and that it would be replaced by a permanent structure and if that has not happened in two years then I don’t think it will. For these reasons, I oppose the renewal application.”

Support #38 – Edgar Casper

“This is to notify you that I am the owner of Britannia Villa 1029 in Strata 215 that I have no objections to the two year renewal application for the temporary Pavilion.”

Objection #39 – Libby and Allen Manus

“What is a tent? According to Webster’s College Dictionary: a tent is a portable shelter or temporary structure made of fabric or skins supported by poles and usually secured by stakes in the ground.

This is definitely a description of a removable temporary structure like the one occupying the corner of the property on the Hyatt. When this eyesore appeared, without notice to homeowners, we were all verbally assured that it was temporary and the maximum time for it to be on the property was 18 months. Well, that time has gone and past and the Hyatt has continued to make it more permanent by cementing around the bottom of the tent, laying a brick entrance and continuing to landscape to hide the hideous structure plus reconstructing the #1 tee box.

If the Hyatt or Ellesmere Britannia is so proud of this project, why is it that since 1999 none of their advertisements show a picture of this tent? Before that time wide-angle pictures were shown in various advertisements and the area on their own printed maps indicated that this area was to be a Regency Club area. A new article that I have just seen says that they have expanded the total area to 6000 square feet of space for this so called facility. Where?

You should be made aware of the fact that as of this day the tent is being used as a storage area with mattresses, boxsprings, mini-bars, and waded sheets, bedspreads and various other items thrown around the inside. The safety of this alone is a fire-hazard as there is no water to this area. As for then the tent is used for social functions there are no bathroom facilities on premise and one must

91

cross the road on an unlit curve to get to water and personal facilities no matter what the weather. As for the meals etc. that need to be prepared, they are either carted from the hotel kitchen, usually arriving cool, or the food is prepared outdoors in the parking lot leaving crumbs or waste of the prepared food around to draw insects and the like. The fire hazard for functions is as great as one can imagine. Does this represent a ‘so-called’ 5 STAR HOTEL? Does it suit the committee’s idea of what the island wants represented to its visitors or to groups that use this because it is THE HYATT?

Several times we have come home and not been able to see guests crossing the road or oncoming cars because of the blockage in the area. If emergency equipment would need to get through not only to this tent or to the homeowners in the villas and homes, they would be faced with a very constricted area to combat.

The Hyatt and their representatives have had adequate time to build a permanent facility that would keep in the theme of the island and of the hotel. They recently completed a major project on the beach and why didn’t the include facilities in that project to be able to remove this eyesore that all of use see on a daily basis going in and out from our homes.

We owners have also felt a decrease in our home values. Although one can not attribute the devaluation totally on the tent, what we can say is that when a prospective buyer comes back to our homes they must pass this monstrosity. We feel it would almost be impossible for any new person to think that this is a top-rated area to purchase property.

In reference to a letter dated September 24 from Suresh Prasad supposedly sent to all homeowners, but we have found out that only rental pool owners received, I would make the following comments.

1. The sale of the hotel is not really the homeowners concern or responsibility. If a permanent adequate structure or additions were made to existing buildings of the hotel’s were made for banquets maybe the hotel would sell or have been sold.

2. Why should a continued application for TEMPORARY status be given once again, when they are over their allotted time now and there are no plas for anything else on the table?

3. To say that there were never any complaints is not true. I believe most of us complained to deaf ears and tales of non-truths told about it being 18 months maximum were given to appease us.

4. Why is this application late? We believe that the Hyatt and their associates probably felt is wasn’t necessary to renew and if they did it would be done quietly as it was before, without any notice to the homeowners.

Well, this time they are wrong. Fortunately, we do have many people who care and have let other know of this application. We do OBJECT and hope that immediate action is taken for the removal of this “temporary” eyesore in our lovely area Britannia.”

92

Meeting between Director of Planning and Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins (Objection #3a, #3b and #3c)

“The Jenkins expressed their dissatisfaction that the CPA meeting was postponed in order to allow the applicant and their attorney to attend. The Jenkins viewed this as a delaying tactic as the Hyatt knew from November 1999, that the tent was to be removed. They are of the view that the developers are using their influence to flaunt the laws of the land, and therefore should not have been given an extension.

I explained that the applicant had requested an extension and I made the decision to grant it as I would have if the objectors had made a likewise request. The Jenkins were not happy with this, however, it was a decision I made and was not prepared to change. The reason for the ‘long’ postponement was due to the number of appearances scheduled to address the Authority during the September meetings.

I also apologised for the matter having “slipped through the cracks” but as the Director I was trying to address these as best as I could. The Hyatt tent was one those matters.

The Jenkins were also disappointed because due to the change in dates they will not be able to attend. However, they left 8 panoramic photos (identified by my signature) of the tent. These photos showed the tent from different locations. The Jenkins are some of the most inconvenienced, as their unit is one of the closest to the tent. The Jenkins informed me of functions where the food was being dished out from the car park at the tent. I agreed that if this happened, then it was without question totally unhygienic and is not in the best interest of our tourism product. The Jenkins also complained of the noise being generated from the air conditioners. They were surprised that the air conditioners were on recently. When they checked they were on to cool the tent because mattresses were stored inside.

On another matter the Jenkins wanted the Department to investigate the commercial operations occurring at the canal. I advised that we will.”

Applicant’s Letter received after the agenda and read into the minutes

“I presume, by now, you have receive a letter dated August 29, 2001, from Britannia Services Co. Ltd. advising you that Mr. Rory Mohammed and Mr. Stewart Siebens are to speak on behalf of the Home Owners Association regarding our application to renew the temporary Pavilion for an additional two years.

I do not believe that Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Siebens have the necessary support to represent the homeowners associations for an issue of this nature. Their grounds for opposing the application is based upon a few individual owners and ignores virtually all the remaining homeowners, especially those rental pool owners.

The following should address the itemized list in the August 29th letter:

93

Lack of Parking: This is incorrect. The resort has adequate parking. The initial encroachment of Phase One parking during special events has been rigorously controlled. As far as I am aware, there has not been a report to the contrary for the past several events.

Aesthetics: The structure and the landscaping have improved this area tremendously. Obviously, the individuals who are opposing these improvements forgot what the area looked like before the Pavilion.

Devaluation of Property: Per above, we believe the area has been dramatically improved. More importantly, with the addition of the Pavilion, the Hyatt and Britannia have been able to generate additional occupancy for the rental pool villas stemming from group business. As you likely know, the recent tragic events in the US have significantly hurt the airline and tourism industries. This has affected the rental pool villa owners. Removal of a marketing tool and amenity such as the Pavilion would further affect their performances.

Safety Issues: The structure does not prevent use of the sidewalk. Additionally, there has been no reported incident.

Application status: the planning department advised us that we needed to apply for a renewal. Obviously, we should have applied earlier to prevent this oversight. In any event, the Pavilion did not present any problem nor did we receive any complaints until we forwarded our notices to the homeowners.

Potable water and bathrooms: Located 150 feet from the Pavilion. We do recognize that this presents some discomfort to our guests. However, I do not see how this impinges on the homeowners’ rights.

Sale of Hotel: The hotel has been for sale for over a decade. A more permanent structure has been under consideration from the time we installed the Pavilion. While we do not publish our business strategies, strong consideration is being given for a more permanent structure. This is why this is not a permanent application for the Pavilion.

Given the recent and current developments, I would question the motive of the homeowners who are opposing this structure. I believe they do not have the villa owners as a whole and especially the rental pool owners’ interests at heart. Homeowners who do not have their villa(s) in the rental pool primarily initiated this action.

It is interesting to note that many of the Annual General Meetings for the various Britannia Villas stratas were held at the Pavilion. Additionally, many, many Britannia Villa owners have attended various functions, dinners, and other events there as well. Therefore, non-rental and rental pool villa owners as well as your stratas and executive committees recognize the need and benefits for such an amenity and have and will continue to utilize it.

It is more distressing to know that today we are dealing with factions within the Britannia community. These actions are divisive and do not support co-operative intentions of the current Executive Committees.

94

As a homeowner with substantial investment in the resort, I am personally concerned with the actions of the homeowners associations especially when they are encouraging our homeowners to ignore their legal agreement with Britannia i.e. not to oppose further development of the resort. The Pavilion forms part of our development plan.

I would like each villa owner to consider the above and respond to your individual association with your thoughts. This response should also be forwarded to C.I. Government Planning Department by fax (1-345-945-2922) or email to [email protected].

Thanking you again for your early response.”


General Proposal

The applicant is requesting temporary planning permission for a tent pavilion until August 2003 [two (2) years]. The Authority, in November 1998, previously approved this tent; however, planning permission expired in November 1999. The tent is therefore considered illegal and the application after-the-fact.

The tent is constructed of a thick plastic membrane, held in place by a series of metal ribs. While the structure is not permanent, tents of this type are considered very durable and are commonly used for time periods in excess of one year.

Previous Approval

The tent was approved on a one (1) year temporary basis, as there were issues relating to the tent’s contravention to the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision) that the applicant had to address.

These, as stated in the Authority’s letter of approval, parking and setback requirements. The applicant was therefore given the opportunity to “fix” the problems and inform the Planning Department. That was never undertaken and, with this current application, these remain outstanding issues.

Land Use

The tent’s uses vary but are similar to permanent pavilion facilities, including uses such as weddings, parties, corporate meetings, and the like. This is permitted according to Regulation 9(3) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision). These uses are considered commercial/hotel as the tent is operated in association with the adjacent hotel.

However, any such development in the Hotel/Tourism zone should also respect the Development Plan. The Department is not completely satisfied that this tent complies with the following Development Plan matters:

Section 3.04(b): the tent does not enhance the quality and character of Cayman Islands’ hotels,

Section 3.04(c): the site may be overdeveloped, and

95

Section 3.04(d): the tent appears to create excessive traffic impacts on surrounding properties.

Therefore, while the use is satisfactory, aesthetics, temporary nature and lack of supporting facilities of the structure makes the proposal contentious. .

Issues/Concerns

The applicant previously requested that the tent be used until improvements to the permanent pavilion are complete (located across the street). They asked for, and received, planning permission for the tent for one year, although they indicated that there is no established time frame for removing the tent.

The Department is concerned that, not only did that time expire almost 2 years ago, but they are now requesting the tent on a temporary basis again, for two (2) more years. The Department stresses that time frame no longer appears temporary but long term or permanent.

As well, the Department stresses that the tent pavilion and the permanent facility (across the street) are mutually exclusive matters/applications.

The location and use of the tent creates two planning issues, in relation to the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision): setbacks and parking as well as other concerns.

Setbacks

The tent is “pushed” into the back corner of the property, as this was the only way the lot could accommodate a tent of this size, which creates setback violations of the rear, side, and street side, as follows:

Regulation 9(1)(g): minimum side setback of fifteen feet (15’) required, five feet (5’) provided;

Regulation 9(1)(h): minimum rear setback of twenty-five feet (25’) from the road edge required; fifteen feet (15’) provided; and

Regulation 9(1)(h): minimum rear setback of twenty-five feet (25’) from the lot boundary required; five feet (5’) provided.

Parking

The structure requires a parking ratio of one space per 200 square feet, for a total of 36 spaces. However, the applicant is only providing 22 spaces on site. This is quite a large variation in the amount of parking provided and creates a tremendous strain on other parking facilities and roadways that are utilized for parking in the area. The Department believes it unthinkable that a gathering at a 7,200 ft2 tent would only attract 22 vehicles.

The Department acknowledges that, on many occasions, those attending the pavilion have used the road and adjacent ‘private’ parking at the Britannia Condominiums.

Water Supply / Washroom Facilities

96

The structure contains no supply of potable water or internal washroom facilities for use by the conference, wedding, etc. patrons of the structure. The Department notes that Regulation 25 of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision) states that “Buildings for human habitation shall be provided with potable drinking water as well as water for domestic purposes…”

Objectors Concerns

Numerous letters of objection have been received regarding this application. Common concerns include excessive noise, increased traffic and terrible parking problems, unpleasing aesthetics, lack of washroom facilities, partial obstruction of the sidewalk, etc.

Summary

The Department notes that this tent has operated long past the permitted one year. There has been no apparent attempt by the applicant to address the concerns noted in the Authority’s previous approval letter (parking/setbacks). Usage of the tent has brought to light issues other than just parking and setbacks.

Daytime use of the parking lot dedicated to the tent is by those visiting the golf course, at parking adjacent to the clubhouse is limited to 5 spaces. On several occasions, this Department viewed the tent parking area near to capacity. Several objectors have expressed concern that, during some events at the tent facility, the parking area is actually used to contain smaller tents under which food is served.

The Department also notes that the applicant was given an opportunity to make the structure permanent, if the Authority’s concerns were properly addressed. While there were no apparent objections to the structure during the initial application to CPA, the tent pavilion has created apparent undue stress (parking, noise, etc.) to adjacent landowners that only became apparent after the tent’s operation.

As well, the Department of Environmental Health has health and safety concerns regarding the tent.

Overall, the Department is not satisfied with the proposal, as it contravenes several factors of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision) as well as the Development Plan 1997. The Department is of the contention that the objectors concerns are valid and reasonable.

On a final note, should the Authority consider refusing the application, thus requiring the applicant to remove the tent and restore the grounds to a reasonable state, the Authority should determine a reasonable timeframe for this to be undertaken.

The Department would suggest that, as the applicant considers the tent a temporary structure, it should be fairly easily dismantled. The Department also suggests that the Authority should not consider future bookings, as a reason for keeping the tent, should the applicant state that bookings are a factor. For comparison sake for example, if an applicant was proposing apartments that the

97

Authority was considering refusing, the applicant’s stressing that he has already pre-sold several of the units is not a factor for the Authority to consider.

The applicant’s, Mr. Suresh Prasad, his representative, Mr. Danny Owens, and the objectors listed below, appeared before the Authority at 3:09 p.m.

Rory Mohammed P.O. Box 10049 APO

John Broadbent of Bruce Campbell P.O. Box 884 GT

Yolande Andrews P.O. Box 30087 SMB

Jill Borger P.O. Box 11417 APO

Valerie Walsh P.O. Box 31080 SMB

Kathy and David Hearne P.O. Box 31732 SMB

Pete and Patricia Cunningham P.O. Box 30998 SMB

Woodward Dacosta P.O. Box 44 Hell


Mr. Danny Owens opened discussions by stating that in 1994, the applicant came before the board for the Hyatt Suites development, which was five storeys with underground parking. He stated this application was deferred by the CPA pending a change in Law regarding building heights. Mr. Owens stated that since then they had renewed the Hyatt Suites application and they feel they can not make any adequate decisions regarding this property until that matter is worked out. Mr. Owens stated that this application is needed until that other conference situation is worked out.

Mr. Prasad addressed the Authority by stressing that this entire development was built as high density resort. Mr. Prasad stated they had taken 90 acres of swampland and turned it into very valuable land. Mr. Prasad continued by stating that, regarding investments, each stage has respected and improved the others investments. He stated that for several successive years, Travel and Leisure Magazine has awarded the Hyatt based on the pavilion. Mr. Prasad stated that the primary use of the tent was to house larger groups meetings and has brought more business for hotel and more business to Britannia Villa’s rental pool. Stating that, in response to an objection letter, Mr. Prasad stated these owners are breaching a right given to them that they cannot object to Hyatt developments. Mr. Prasad, on a point by point basis, stated the following:

Lack of parking. He stated they do have adequate parking. Admittedly, they originally they did not, but in the past year, they had addressed the parking problem with heavily manned staff and security to move vehicles parking at the conference centre to their adjacent parking facility.

Aesthetics. Mr. Prasad stated they had spent $100,000 on landscaping for that property. He stated that this landscaping had improved area, noting that

98

before the tent went up the area was barren. Aesthetically, he stated it now looks beautiful and the money was well spent.

Devaluation of property. Mr. Prasad noted that the area is primarily residential and that he himself was a homeowner in that area. He stated not having that facility in place was actually chasing away guests as patrons of the facility stay in the area.

Safety issues. Mr. Prasad stated that there were no negative safety incidences, as far as he is aware of, as a result of the width of the sidewalk.

Temporary basis. Mr. Prasad stated that the length of time the tent had been in place was an oversight on their part and that prior to this he had no direct communication from homeowners as to their dissatisfaction with the tent.

Lack of washrooms and potable water. Mr. Prasad stated that this has no effect on homeowners.

Mr. Prasad noted that the hotel is for sale and has been for well over a decade. He stated it has always been their intention to develop the subject site. He stated it was their preference to develop the site as high-end condos.

Mr. Prasad stated the tent had now been used for the past few years and noted that at some point, all strata owners have used the facilities. They have been there and “come into our house” and he questioned why they turned around and complain.

Mr. Prasad stated that the actions being forward by residential owners were uncalled for, as they were aware of the long-term plan, which was well laid out. Mr. Prasad stated he believed this extension of the temporary facility should be approved and noted they had bookings through June of next year. Mr. Prasad stated that if the wrong decision were made here, it would hurt not only the hotel, but also the Cayman Islands, as it will be sending out the wrong message.

Mr. Prasad stated that the tent had been operated in a high-class fashion. He noted that, on a technical point, planning notices were sent to surrounding neighbours, which only included Phase 1 of Britannia. Mr. Prasad acknowledged that he could see objectors from the other phases here today.

Mr. Pete Cunningham opened his statement by saying that he was a permanent resident of the Cayman Islands and that when he was looking for a place to settle, he looked all over western hemisphere, but that he chose the Cayman Islands. He noted that he rented a unit at Britannia for 6 months, then bought there. Mr. Cunningham stated he believes Britannia is one of the most attractive developments he has ever seen, but that this temporary tent does not fit into the complex as an overall development. Mr. Cunningham stated it was to be temporary but that 3 years had now passed. He questioned how much longer is considered temporary. He stated that this is only a tent and does not compare to most world class pavilions. Mr. Cunningham stated is also speaking for another objector, Jerry Raisen. He noted he encourages people from around the world to

99

come to the Cayman Islands and to Britannia. He stated that Mr. Prasad’s comments were pretty incomprehensible.

Mr. Cunningham noted that he sits on the George Town Development Plan Review Committee and the number one community objective of their group was to make this a world class capital. He stated he would encourage Britannia to have a first class development at the subject property, as it is the entryway to Britannia. Mr. Cunningham stated he had spoken with employees and stated they hate working there for various reasons, including that the floor is uneven and that they must move everything to the facility. Mr. Cunningham questioned whether the tent has a fire certificate and he noted that the sidewalk too narrow as the tent blocks a portion of it. Mr. Cunningham wants them to pack up the tent and leave.

Ms. Valerie Walsh stated she represented the Britannia Homeowners Association. She stated she had been a Britannia owner for 7.5 years, and that when the owners were asked to comment on the tent, only two were in support of it. Ms. Walsh stated that the owners were told the tent would be in place for only 18 months. She stated the Hyatt was a world class resort and she had never seen anything like this structure anywhere else on the Island or in the world. Ms. Walsh stated this tent seriously affected property values in the area. She stated it was dangerous for guests, as there was provision for water and must walk a certain distance to use washroom facilities. She stated the corner it was on was badly lit and therefore unsafe. Ms. Walsh stated cars often parked on both sides of road, which made it hard for homeowners to get to their homes. She stated the tent had several slashes that had been repaired with duct tape and then painted over. She stated that cars parked in their parking lots displacing them from their spaces and noted that even in the low season the parking lot can be filled and spillover to the Britannia owners parking

Mr. John Broadbent questioned whether the tent was a fire hazard.

Mr. Broadbent stated the structure looked like a circus tent and when not in use for conferences, etc. was used for storage. Mr. Broadbent stated he represents the owner of Villa 1036 and questions applicant’s comments regarding the relevance of the fact they have bookings for the tent for the coming year. He stressed that was not the Authority’s concern. Mr. Broadbent noted as a response to the applicant’s comments regarding their right to object to the development, that natural justice can not take away their right to comment on this development and that there was a Common Law and Statutory Right allowed to the homeowners.

Mr. Broadbent recommended that this temporary structure be deferred until permanent structure is approved. He questioned the relevance of their application for suites on this property in relation to the conference facilities. Mr. Broadbent stated it was irrelevant to talk about landscaping, as landscaping is expected, as it is a high class facility. Mr. Broadbent stated this would set a bad precedent for other tent applications other places on the Island.

100

Mr. Woodward DaCosta noted that his first comment is that homeowners only objected once the application was made. Mr. DaCosta noted that he spoke to Cadion Ebanks (Enforcement Officer) and Angela Riddle (Planning Assistant) regarding the tent prior to the application being made. He was concerned that the tent was not hard and how unflattering the tent looked. He acknowledged that people attending the events in fact park on right of way road instead are parking in parking lot at front of the Hyatt, because the private road is closer to the tent.

Mr. DaCosta noted that the tent used an obnoxious sound system and that aesthetic and physical problems surround the tent. Mr. DaCosta stated he wanted to touch on several points:

Mr. DaCosta stressed he wanted the Authority to take all objections to heart.

Mr. DaCosta stated that approving the tent would be a breach of Section 5 of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision), which states “It is the duty of the Authority to secure consistent and continuity…”. Mr. DaCosta stated this tent was deemed temporary and does not fit into what the planners and architects first thought of the Britannia development.

Mr. DaCosta stated that we all know that Britannia was the forerunner to the development of the area.

Mr. DaCosta stressed that the Authority not let political or economic power influent their decision and that, by their decision, they restore investor confidence.

Mr. DaCosta was concerned that Governing bodies may be concerned with self-economic gain, or that calling the right individual may get the decision needed. He stressed that the Authority shatter the rumor and set a new trend that will shed a brilliant light of the Island.

In closing, Mr. DaCosta continued, the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision) requires the Authority to make a decision and he stressed they make the correct one. He stated that Section 6(1) of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision) requires development like this ‘special purpose development’ to be referred to the developments Advisory Board.

Mr. DaCosta stated that the decision would have far reaching and adverse affect to the people of the Island. He stated that the downward trend in the economy was not just because of the terrorist attacks but because of other economic issues. He suggested that it was not feasible to invest in Cayman any longer.

Mr. DaCosta also stated that permission to development the subject with this tent should have been advertised, in accordance with Regulation 7*7) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision).

Mr. DaCosta demanded the tent be removed or they would appeal as a breach of law and that the decision was erroneous in law.

101

Mr. DaCosta suggested that the Authority act in requiring the immediate removal of the tent and that a stop notice issue immediately.

The Authority asked the applicant if he wished to respond to the comments

Mr. Prasad stated he wants the Authority to consider the fact that a great majority of the units at Britannia are rental pool owners and they have a vested interest in the tent succeeding. Mr. Prasad stated the tent had been used for a number of years and has worked very well. He stressed that the charges made about parking on the road have been corrected. He also stressed that the tent does not devalue property. Mr. Prasad stated that those with units in rental pool would want this, especially in these economic times. He stated he does not see why a time extension should not be approved to give time to erect a more permanent structure. Mr. Prasad stated that no other development on the Island has made such a good impression. He again noted that Travel and Leisure magazine stated that the Hyatt Hotel was one of the best primarily because of the tent/pavilion. Mr. Prasad stated he hopes the board considers not only rental pool owners but also the hotel. He noted that, when the time comes, they would build the Hyatt Suites. Mr. Prasad employs the board to consider all interests.

Mr. Owens stated that a project this size does not have to be forwarded to the DAB. As well, he stated this development was not required to advertise as it is a commercial use in association with hotel and the zoning is Hotel/Tourism.

The Authority questioned the types of functions that take place in the tent.

Mr. Prasad stated that international groups such as Compaq and IBM have held functions there and those local functions such as business meetings, Christmas parties, pageants, fundraisers were also hosted there.

Mr. Prasad stated that, as far as he was aware, they had never received any complaints from the patrons of the tent and to the substandard nature of the facility. Mr. Prasad also stated that, during the off season, there were more local events held in the tent.

The Authority requested clarification for the reason for not renewing the tent once it had expired.

Mr. Prasad stated it was because they wanted to develop the site, noting that he lives in that area and also sees the tent every day.

The Authority questioned why this tent was considered development, and why they thought the adjacent landowners were not allowed to object.

Mr. Prasad stressed that the tent looks better than it did before. He stated that the long term development plan of the hotel calls for development of this property as integral part of the area.

The Authority questioned the return on investment of the tent and why it was kept longer than 12 months.

Mr. Prasad stated that they were not concerned about payback but in meeting the needs of their guests.

102

The Authority questioned whether they took the deteriorating fact of the tent into consideration when choosing the facility.

Mr. Prasad stated they don’t know who slashed the tent but they have attempted to fix, but he reminded the Authority, it is temporary structure. He stated they have invited the manufacturer to come and review the damage and make recommendations on how to fix it. He reminded the Authority that what is there is temporary.

The Authority questions how long the would prefer to keep the tent.

Mr. Prasad stated that as soon as application now in the Planning Department for the new pavilion building is approved, they would go about removing the tent.

The Authority questioned whether, if a two (2) year extension were granted as requested they would be coming back for yet another extension.

Mr. Prasad stated categorically no.

Mr. Prasad reiterated the importance of this issue with his homeowners, with respect to the rental pool. He stated that this issue brought up that rental pool was down almost 70% and that a point made at Annual General Meeting since building on waterside erected 2 years, overall expectations down. He stated that the web site does not even refer to rental pool and questioned how Mr. Prasad could even stated that this tent helps rent out units in the pool. Mr. DaCosta stated that the rental pool consists of about 1/3rd of units and the rest are long term rentals or owner-occupied.

Mr. DaCosta reiterated that according to the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision) this project should have gone to the DAB. He also noted that the use changes from storage to conference to ballroom therefore should therefore be considered special purpose. Conversely, he stated, a commercial structure would be leased out.

The Authority questioned the timeframe of the permanent pavilion, if it were approved.

Mr. Prasad stated it would take approximately one year from the time the permanent pavilion was approved to its completion.

The Authority thanked everyone for appearing to address its concerns.

The Authority clarified that the Hyatt Suites application referred to by the applicant’s agent was deferred at the applicant’s requested and was for Outline Planning Permission only, not final.

The Authority also clarified that this tent was considered a commercial development in association with the Hyatt Hotel, therefore neither did it have to be forwarded to the Developments Advisory Board nor were advertisements warranted.

The Authority discussed the new permanent pavilion application to the extent that it was noted that the two applications, on separate properties, are mutually exclusive of each other.

103

The Authority reviewed the photos of the tent, determining that the aesthetics were dissatisfactory. It was also acknowledged that the setback infringement and lack of parking were serious issues not to be taken so lightly.

The Authority, in light of the concerns of the objectors and the obvious contravention’s of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision), determined that the tent application should be refused and the tent itself should be removed from the property within 90 days of the date of this letter.

Decision: It was resolved to refuse the application, for the following reasons:

1) Non-compliance with the minimum setback requirements in contravention of the Regulation 9(1) Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision).

2) Non-compliance with the minimum parking requirements, in contravention Regulation 7(1)(c) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision).

3) The lack of potable water in contravention Regulation 25(1) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision).

3) Non-compliance with Sections 3.04(b)(c) and (d) of the Development Plan 1997.

5) The objectors’ concerns are considered valid and reasonable.

6) Blockage of the sidewalk by the concrete supports of the tent creates a potential safety hazard.

7) The serious nature of the health and safety concerns of the Department of Environmental Health.

The tent shall be removed within 90 days of the date of this letter or the applicant will be subject to enforcement action.

The Authority wishes to remind you of the right to appeal pursuant to section 51(1) of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision). Such appeal shall be made by notice in writing, and referred to as a “Notice of Appeal”. It shall be signed by yourself or your attorney-at-law and filed in the offices of the Permanent Secretary, Planning, Communications & Works within the ten day period as stipulated in Section 51 (1).

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

5.012 GYST LTD. Block 14BG Parcel 91 (F97-0156) (P01-105943) ($N/A) (BES)

Application for modification of (CPA/24/97) for two-traffic control barriers and re-positioning the electrical generator.

104

FACTS

Location: Gyst Office Building on N. Church Street, George Town


Background: August 8, 2001 (CPA/25/01; item 5.03), the CPA modified planning permission for covered parking spaces.

Existing Use: Office Building under construction

Proposed Use: Traffic control barriers and emergency electrical generator


The applicant is requesting planning permission to modify a previous approval to erect two traffic control barriers at the southeast corner of the building and on Diaz Lane entrance/exit. Additionally, the applicant is requesting permission to re-position the electrical generator three feet from the building and six feet from the property line. The Department has no objections regarding the applicant’s request to modify planning permission.

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


a) The entrance gate to Diaz Lane shall be setback a minimum of 32 feet from the street property boundary.

2) The applicant to obtain approval from the Chief Building Control Officer.


4) All other conditions of CPA/24/97; item 7.05 still apply.

5.013 ANDY’S AUTO Block 4B Parcels 217, 377, 378 and 419 (FA83-0232) (P01-105538) ($372,000) (BES)

Application for an addition to a garage.

FACTS

Location: On Fountain Road, West Bay


Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors. The application was also advertised in the newspaper on July 23rd and 30th, and August 6th and 13th 2001. One objection was received (see “Objection” below)

105

Background: August 24, 1983 the Authority granted planning permission for an auto repair garage on the subject property.

January 8, 1986 the Authority granted planning permission for an extension to the garage with conditions.

October 14, 1987 the Authority approved an application for storage area with conditions.

Existing Use: Garage

Proposed Use: Addition to garage

Parcel Size: 1.74 acres (75,794.4 ft2)

Site Coverage: Building = 10.7%, Parking Lot = 7.2%, total = 17.9%

Building Size: Existing – 2,610 ft2 Parking Proposed – 8 (1/1,000 ft2)

Proposed – 5,640 ft2 Parking Required – 8 (1/1,000 ft2)

Footprint – 8,100 ft2

Total – 8,250 ft2

POLLING

The applicant was required to poll landowners residing within a 750’ radius of the subject property, which 51% of those persons granted their consent. In this instance, the applicant has complied with the applicable polling requirements.

AGENCY COMMENTS

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

Water Authority

“Please be advised that this proposed development is subject to approval upon compliance with the following requirements:

The developer shall provide a septic tank with a capacity of at least 2,250 US gallons. The septic tank shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards.

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

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

Any floor drains in the service areas of the facility shall be plumbed to an oil/sand separator prior to discharging into a treatment system or disposal well. The required size of separator will be determined by the Water Authority

106

upon written confirmation of the number and type of wash equipment; e.g., hose, high-pressure wash wands, mop sink, etc.

Waste vehicle fluids must be managed in the most responsible manner available. Currently the Department of Environmental Health has programs for recycling lead/acid batteries and waste oil. Currently there are no recycling programs for other waste vehicle fluids. Those fluids (e.g., waste solvent, paint, coolant) should never be mixed with waste oil, nor should they ever be disposed of into any wastewater treatment system or disposal well. At this time, the best option is to place these fluids, separately, into containers and send them to the landfill. Contact the Department of Environmental Health with any questions regarding the disposal of these fluids.”

Chief Engineer

“As per your memo dated June 1, 2001 PWD has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations.

PWD has no objection to the proposal.”

Chief Fire Officer

“Approved for planning permit only.”



Solid Waste

1. Revised site plans are required showing the proposed location of an onsite solid waste facility.

2. Design details of the proposed facility shall be submitted for review and approval.

Hazardous Waste

1. Provision shall be made for the onsite storage of waste oils and lead acid batteries.

2. Revised site plans are required showing the proposed location of a facility for the storage of waste oil and lead acid batteries.

3. Design details of the waste oil storage and lead acid battery facility shall be submitted to the department for review and approval.”

OBJECTION

“I wish to place an objection to any present or future changes to the present garage and to it’s use located at West Bay Botswain Bay Road on 4B Block – 377 & 378 Parcels.”


107

The proposal is for an addition to the above-mentioned garage located off Fountain Road. As depicted on the floor plans, the proposal would consist of a reception area, offices, storage, paint shop and work shop areas. An office, lunchroom and storage are proposed on the second floor.

In accordance with Regulation 8(1) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision), the primary uses are residential and horticultural in the above captioned zone. As noted above, in the past the Authority had considered an industrial land use on the property to be permissible.

From an architectural design perspective, the proposed building would be an improvement to the area over the present building on the site. However, it should be noted that if the applicant continues to store derelict vehicles on site the architectural treatment of a new building would be of no effect of improving site and the surrounding area.

On August 24, 1983 and January 8, 1986, the CPA granted planning permission subject to the site being kept in a tidy and orderly manner. No derelict vehicles and/or car parts should be stored on site. At a site inspection, the Department has taken photographs of the site regarding the tidiness of the property (see photographs). If planning permission is granted, the Department would recommend that the derelict vehicles be removed off the property prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and, that the property be maintained in a suitable manner in the future.

Overall, the proposal would be an improvement on the site and the surrounding area provided that the property is kept in a tidy manner. The Department would support the application if the applicant removes all derelict vehicles off the property and in the future keep the site tidy. In the end, the proposal complies with the minimum requirements of the Development and Planning Regulations.

The applicants, Mr. Andy Parsons (P.O. Box 277 GT) and Mr. Bennie Parsons (P.O. Box 277 GT), their representative, Mr. Daryl Ebanks (P.O. Box 2762 GT), and the objector, Mr. Cadian Ebanks (P.O. Box 223 GT), appeared before the Authority at 2:24 p.m.


Mr. Daryl Ebanks, stated that the project involved developing a proper facility and keeping costs down but improving what is already on site. Mr. Ebanks stated that the project involved renovating the existing building and adding an addition onto that portion. He also stated that a portion of the building would now have a second storey.

Mr. Andy Parsons agreed with his agent and stated that improving the property would also help improve the surrounding area.

The Authority requested the objector clarify his objection, as the letter submitted was unclear.

108

Mr. Cadian Ebanks passed a letter and photo to the Authority for review, noting that the photo expressed his objection. Mr. Ebanks stated the building was a “sore-eye”. Mr. Ebanks stated that until the present place is upgraded he will not lift his present letter of objection. He stated he had too much money invested in the area and putting up a shack is not appreciated. Mr. Ebanks stressed that when the current building went up, the plans were just lines on paper and what was built was not kept up.

The Authority noted that a previous condition of approval was that the property was kept in an orderly manner. The Authority questioned whether the objector was objecting to that fact.

Mr. Cadian Ebanks agreed that the property was not kept well.

Mr. Andy Parsons requested clarification as to whether this proposal did not answer the objector’s questions as related to improvement of the existing building. Mr. Parsons told the Authority that Mr. Cadian had bid on the previous approval and his price was too high so he didn’t get the job and has been mad ever since.

Mr. Andy Parsons stated that in the past month or so he has removed at least half of the cars from the property and any West Bayer would agree that the property has been improved over the last year.

The Authority questioned whether a hedge or landscaping would be used as a buffer.

Mr. Andy Parsons re-stated that any West Bayer would be proud of the changes in the property and that he didn’t want to hide the building or the property with a hedge.

The Authority questioned whether this was ongoing experience in that the old cars were removed from the property only because the new building was proposed.

Mr. Andy Parsons stated that he wanted an improvement over the past year and there will be no lies, that everything will be built according to the approved plans.

Mr. Cadian Ebanks stated that one can easily build to the lines on a paper, but the conditions of the approval must still be met.

Mr. Andy Parsons stated that there will be landscaping.

The Authority questioned whether there were any other residents of the area that had objected.

Mr. Bennie Parsons stated that government vehicle inspections were undertaken at his place and that the fee charged was for government, not for them. He stated that this new building would help improve that service to the community.

The Authority noted that sufficient landscaping can take time to grow.

Mr. Andy Parsons stated that derelict cars would be kept in back of the building and not in the front.

109

Mr. Bennie Parsons stated they had designed a special trailer to remove the older vehicles from the site.

With no further inquiries, the Authority thanked the applicant’s and objector for appearing before the Authority to address all concerns.

The Authority discussed this application in reference to the site plan. The Authority determined that additional information was warranted from the applicant in order to address concerns relating to aesthetics and the zoning of the property.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reasons:


a) A six-foot (6’) grass verge along the front property line and a four feet (4’) minimum in width landscape strip. The location of this grass verge shall be initiated at the southwest corner of the property, inset in relation to the property line of the property to the south.

b) A restriction of parking on Parcel 419.

c) A more defined parking layout of vehicle storage areas.

2) The applicant shall submit a landscape plan, which shall incorporate suitable buffering from adjacent properties.

3) The applicant shall submit improved building elevations.

The applicant is advised that Parcels 419 and 377, at a minimum, should be combined.

5.014 URIAH & GRACE ROSE Block 1C Parcel 237 (F01-0166) (P01-105852) (NAW)

Application for an addition to create a duplex.

FACTS

Location: Off of Watercourse Road on Knolls Crescent, West Bay


Background: At a meeting of the Central Planning Authority held on August 22, 2001 it was resolved to issue an Enforcement Notice for the illegal structure, for the following reasons:

1) Planning permission is required for this development according to Section 16 of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision),

110

2) The Planning Department has not received any application for the illegal structure from agent or applicant since the warning letter was issued on July 20th 2001.

3) The development will detract from the amenity of the area.

On June 1, 2001 the original house was approved administratively.

At a meeting of the Central Planning Authority held on September 12, 2001 the above application was adjourned for the following reasons:

Additional information is required, including clarification on the number of structures on site, whether previously approved house has been started, and confirmation of the accuracy of the site plan versus what is on the ground.

At a meeting held on September 19, 2001 the application was adjourned for the following reasons. It was determined that the building does not constitute a duplex and as a result the lot size is insufficient for two houses. In addition, there was concern that the existing building is substandard.

Existing Use: House

Proposed Use: Duplex (2 units)

Parcel Size: 7,914 ft2


Building Size: 623 ft2


Based on the previous adjournment, the Department has confirmed the following information: There is currently one structure on site. The structure is not the approved house but the proposed addition to create a duplex. The approved house has yet to be started. Finally, measurements were taken on site and it was confirmed that the site plan was incorrect. The rear setback only measure 15' and the west setback measures approximately 9.5'.

The applicant has since requested a variance and obtained a signature from Criton Holdings (the owner of affected adjacent parcels) acknowledging the insufficient setbacks.

LETTER REQUESTING VARIANCE

“We would like to request on behalf of Uriah & Grace Rose that a variance to the Development & Planning Reg. Sec 7(8) be issued for Block 1C Parcel 237.

111

The house they have constructed after-the-fact has fallen short of the required setbacks on the west and south (right and rear) boundary. Actual field measurements are 9’-6” on the west and 15’ on the south (please see Revised Site Plan). A copy of the attached notification letter was sent to adjacent landowners for their acknowledgement and signatures.


LETTER TO ADJACENT LANDOWNER

“Please accept this letter as notification that the house we are building will have the following setbacks: 9’-6” on West Boundary adjacent to Lot No. 1C/236 and 15’ on the South Boundary adjacent to Lot No. 1C/246. This falls short of what is required by law.

We will be applying to the CPA for a variance to the Development & Planning Reg. Sec 7(8). Your signature below indicates that you have read and acknowledge the contents of this letter (see attached site plan for reference).”

Additionally, the applicant has revised the site plan to reflect the measurements onsite. The floor plan of the existing unit was inspected compared to what is found onsite and it was determined to be correct.

The following issue still remains. The applicant has applied for the structure as a duplex with the two units connected by a trellis. The parcel meets all requirements for a duplex. However, the units do not have a common wall and therefore the buildings do not fit the definition of a duplex as defined in the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 revision).

The Authority questioned the status of the structure(s) currently on the site and overall layout proposed. Due to the Authority’s concerns, it was determined that a site visit was warranted. At the site visit on 10th October 2001, the Authority met the applicants on site. Based on the applicants’ explanation as to the reason for the house Authority was satisfied that the application warranted a variance pursuant to Regulation 7(8).

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the matter for the Central Planning Authority to conduct a site visit.

On October 10, 2001 the Authority conducted a site visit and resolved to grant planning permission for one (1) year, subject to the following conditions:


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

112

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

4) The applicant shall commence work on the “main” house.


5.015 CAYMAN FREEPRESS LTD. Block 14C Parcel 319 (FB80-0088) (P01-105859) ($687,990) (BES)

Application for addition to office building.

FACTS

Location: Compass Drive off Shedden Road, George Town


Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served on adjacent landowners and no objections were received

Existing Use: Printing building and offices

Proposed Use: Same as above

Parcel Size: 70,755.2 ft2


Building Size: Existing – 28,093 ft2 Proposed – 7,242 ft2 Total – 35,335 ft2

Parking: Required (addition) – 24 (1/300 ft2) Required (existing) – 56 (1/500 ft2) Required (total) – 80 Proposed – 142

AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Chief Environmental Health Officer are noted below.



1. The department has no objections to the proposals contained in the application.”


The proposal is for a two storey addition (7,242 ft2) to the Compass Building. As noted on the floor plans, the ground floor would be for storage and the upper floor

113

for offices. Overall, the proposal would be compatible with the surrounding area and is designed to match the existing building. The application complies with the minimum requirements of the Development and Planning Regulations regarding site coverage, setbacks and parking requirements. In this instance, the Department has no specific concerns with the proposal.


In addition to Building Permit requirements, conditions (1-2) listed below shall be met before a Building Permit can be issued:


a) The removal of the parking spaces adjacent to the addition that require reversing onto the road. These spaces shall be replaced with suitable landscaping.

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




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



5.016 ADARE INVESTMENTS Block 14BG Parcel 62 (F01-0255) (P01-105802) (P01-105930) ($70,000) (AR)

Application for paved parking lot with eight foot (8’) chainlink fence and gated entrance.

114

FACTS

Location: Mary Street between Edward Street and Fort Street, George Town


Notice Requirements: Adjacent properties were notified on August 15, 2001. No objections were received.

Proposed Use: Parking lot, paved and proper curbing and drainage

Parcel Size: 0.20 acres or 8,712 ft2

Site Coverage: 80% (90% permitted)

AGENCY COMMENTS

Comments from the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. were requested but were not received at the time of this agenda.


The applicant is requesting planning permission to create a paved parking lot on Mary Street.

The lot will contain twenty-six (26) spaces, have a sidewalk, asphaltic concrete surface with drainage and will be illuminated for safety.

The lot will be used primarily as off-site parking for the Huntlaw Building; however, some of the spaces will be rented.

The Authority may recall that they recently removed a Tree Preservation Order from the property that was erroneously applied for by a relative of the property owner/representative.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reasons:

1) The fence shall be a maximum of four feet (4’) in height.

2) The gate shall be setback a minimum of twenty feet (20’) from the front property line to allow for vehicle stacking upon entering the property.

5.017 JOAN STEER Block 43E Parcel 62 (F00-0265) (P01-105744) ($156,080) (EJ)

Application for a duplex (1x2).

FACTS

Location: Sitewell Road in Belford Estates, Bodden Town


Background: August 22, 2000 administrative approval was granted for a three (3) bedroom house.


115

Proposed Use: Duplex (1x2)

Parcel Size: .32 (13,939 ft2)

Site Coverage: 14%

Building Size: Existing – 1,762 ft2 (approved) Parking Required – 2 Proposed – 1,951 ft2 Parking Proposed – 4 Total – 1,951 ft2


The applicant is proposing to build a duplex (1x2), instead of the approved three (3) bedroom house.

The proposal meets all planning requirements for coverage, density, lot size, lot width, parking and all setbacks.



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

3) The parking lot shall be finished with concrete with drainage.

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

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

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

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



116


5.018 DORINDA R. WILSON Block 31A Parcel 102 (FA91-0207) (P01-105902) (RS)

Application to modify planning permission CPA/19/99; item 7.10 granted on July 14, 1999 for an addition to an approved house to create a duplex.

FACTS

Location: To the rear of Starapple Road, Lower Valley


Background: See below

Existing Use: Temporary house and partial duplex

Proposed Use: Same

Parcel Size: 0.33 acres (14,375 ft2)


Building Size: Existing – 625 ft2 Parking Existing – 0 Approved – 2,880 ft2 Parking Required – 3 Total – 3,505 ft2

BACKGROUND

July 10, 1991: Approval granted for a temporary house for one year.

October 21, 1992: Approval granted again for the temporary house for one year and separate approval granted for a permanent house (the approval for the permanent house lapsed).

January 18, 1995: Approval granted for a permanent house and the temporary house again, with condition that temporary house to be removed upon occupation of the permanent house.

July 14, 1999: Approval granted to add to the approved house to create a duplex with a condition that the temporary house must be removed prior to occupation of the duplex.

April 3, 2000: Building Permit issued for the duplex.

September, 2001: One side of the duplex has been completed.


As can be seen above, there is a lengthy history to the application. The applicant is now seeking a Certificate of Occupancy for the one side of the duplex and also wants to retain the temporary house on the site until such time as the duplex is completed. This request is contrary to the approval that was granted for the

117

conversion to a duplex in July, 1999. It should be noted that the subject property is not large enough to support the minimum lot size for both a house and a duplex and, therefore would not comply with the pertinent regulation. It is for this reason that the Authority has always required that the temporary house would have to be removed. It should also be noted that the applicant has not yet provided any demarcated parking spaces for the duplex.

The applicant has submitted the following letter:

“I write this letter in relation to property owned by me the undersigned, and which is situated in Lower Valley at Block 31A Parcel 102 or 9 Indigo Drive.

Block 31A Parcel 102 is a corner lot measuring a third of an acre. Initially, plans were approved for a 2 storey 3 bedroom family dwelling for Richard and Dorinda Wilson. Plans were also approved for a temporary dwelling which would have to be dismantled when the permanent structure was completed. This temporary dwelling which was constructed out of T1/11 consists of two bedrooms, a bathroom, a small living area, a combined kitchen/dining area, back porch and laundry room. It is also centrally air-conditioned. This structure which has been maintained over the years is in very good condition.

At the time of writing this letter, my marital status is now that of a divorcee. Faced with the prospect of building this house on my own, which, incidentally was only at the foundation stage at the time of the divorce, I decided to convert the garage into a one bedroom flat. Once again, plans were approved and the one bedroom flat which is now completed awaits a certificate of occupancy.

My decision to convert the garage to a one bedroom flat would in my estimation serve as a source of income to either help defray payments to the Credit Union, the institution which presently holds the title to the property and/or be used to help purchase materials to begin construction of the balance of the permanent dwelling which is still at foundation level.

The temporary dwelling does not in any detract from the aesthetic value of the surrounding area. It must also be noted that the incomplete building along with the temporary dwelling was appraised and valued at C.I. $144,000.00 (one hundred and forty-four thousand Cayman Dollars) and is presently insured for C.I. $140,000.00 (one hundred and forty thousand Cayman Dollars).

In a discussion that I had with Mr. Emerson Pierson from the Planning Department, the issue of the Certificate of Occupancy was discussed and from that conversation I must bring to your attention the fact that the entire building is still not completed and as a result ask your indulgence to do the following:

(a) to remain in the temporary dwelling until the entire structure has been completed.

(b) to use the one bedroom flat as a source of income as stated above.

It is not my intention to go against the ruling of the Central Planning Authority but, would appreciate very much if my request was granted as it would definetly be to my advantage in completing this building.”

118

The Authority discussed the temporary dwelling, noting that it had been placed there in 1995, and that the potential existed for this unit not to fall under the category of ‘temporary’. The Authority, noting exceptional circumstances, chose to permit the temporary dwelling for one (1) additional year only, in order to allow sufficient time for the applicant to complete the duplex. It was determined that only one meter would be permitted at this stage and that no Final Certificate of Fitness for Occupancy would be issued for the still uncompleted portion of the duplex until this temporary structure was removed from the property.

Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission as follows:

“All conditions of CPA/02/95; item 7.01, excluding condition b) as it pertains to the temporary dwelling, still apply. The temporary house shall be removed from the property after one (1) year. There shall be only one (1) electrical meter for the duplex, until such time as a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) issued.

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

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

5.019 JAMES RICHARDS Block 20D Parcel 277 (FA98-0016) (P01-105954) (RS)

Application to modify planning permission CPA/18/01; item 6.06 granted on May 30, 2001 for the addition of four (4) apartment to an existing house in order to revise the parking layout.

FACTS

Location: Ryan Road, Off Crewe Road, George Town



The site plan as originally approved had eleven (11) parking spaces serving the five (5) apartment dwelling units on the property. Six (6) of the eleven (11) spaces were located to the rear of the four (4) new apartments and the remaining five (5) spaces were in front of the existing house. In an effort to reduce the amount of hard surface on the site, the applicant would like to modify the parking layout.

Instead of parking spaces to the rear of the four (4) new apartments, the applicant wishes to relocate a total of five (5) parking spaces to the front of the apartments. The area in front of the apartments is fairly narrow and the applicant is proposing two options for the Authority’s consideration. One, the five (5) spaces will be directly onto the main road, so that the cars would have to reverse onto the road. The second option would have a driveway off the main road with parking spaces

119

on either side, but given the narrow area, a proper 15’ turning radius could not be provided and it appears that cars would still end up reversing onto the main road.

The Authority would typically discourage a parking layout that would require cars reversing onto a road, but in this case the property is at the end of the road and there would be no through traffic in the immediate area; therefore, potential traffic conflicts would be minimal.

The applicant is also proposing to reduce the number of parking spaces in front of the existing house from five (5) to three (3). The total number of spaces provided on the site would be eight (8) and this satisfies the minimum number of required spaces using the Authority’s guideline of 1.5 spaces per apartment.

The Authority was made aware that Option 2 was removed from the table. The Authority was satisfied with the applicant’s request to modify the parking layout.

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

1) All conditions of CPA/18/01; item 6.06 still apply.


5.020 ISLAND INTERIORS Block 20B Parcel 138 (F01-0301) (P01-105910) ($20,000) (JAB)

Application to add a covered entry to the front façade of the Island Interiors building.

Mr. Gordon McLaughlin declared his interest and left the room. Mr. Dalkeith Bothwell acted as Chairman for this item.

FACTS

Location: Dorcy Drive, George Town


Notice Requirements: Section 18(4) notices were served to adjacent property owners. Notices to expire on October 9, 2001

Existing Use: Warehouse and showroom

Proposed Use: Covered entry

Parcel Size: 0.29 acre, 0.17 acre, 0.15 acre

Parking: Existing – 7

PLANNING DEPARTMENTANALYSIS

The applicant is requesting planning permission to add a 400 ft2 covered entry to the existing Island Interiors building. The addition will extend to the curb of the

120

existing parking lot and should not affect the number of parking spaces and will improve the aesthetics of the storefront.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions:


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

D) DAB Applications

6.0 ENFORCEMENTS

6.01 JOSEPH AND ELLA POWERY (OWNERS) AND NICOLE EDLEMIRE (OCCUPIER) Block 4C Parcel 21 (F01-0167) (P01-105554) (AR)

Enforcement regarding after-the-fact horse paddocks, shelter and shed.

FACTS

Location: Off Conch Point Road, across from Spanish Bay Villas, West Bay


BACKGROUND

On/around May 4, 2001, the Planning Department was made aware of a situation in West Bay regarding Nicki’s Beach Rides. The Department follow-up with an investigation and, on May 30, 2001, the subject submitted a planning application to the Department.

However, this application was grossly incomplete as the following required elements were not included:

The site plan is not in accordance with Regulation 6(4) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision) (see attached);

No Land Register was submitted;

No Registry Extract Map was submitted;

Clarification required as to extent of illegal structures, to determine if fees were correctly paid;

121

The notices to adjacent landowners required by Section 18(4) of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision) do not appear to have been undertaken; and

The advertisements required by Regulation 8(3) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision) do not appear to have been undertaken (these must be done when an application is at the Planning Department for viewing, not one year before the submission of the application).

On July 4, 2001, the Planning Department sent Ms. Eldemire a letter outlining concerns. A subsequent meeting between Ms. Eldemire and the planner clarified to Ms. Eldemire what was required of her.

Ms. Edlemire was warned in the Planning Department’s July 4, 2001 letter that if, considering the development was after-the-fact, she did not deal with these issues in a timely manner, the Department will be forced to request the Central Planning Authority authorize immediate enforcement action.

To date, the outstanding issues concerning the completion of the application have not been tended to.

Decision: It was resolved to issue an Enforcement Notice in accordance with Sections 16 and 21 of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision), to Joseph Jude and Ella A. Powery, owners of the subject property and to Nicole Edlemire, occupier of the subject property, for the illegal structure(s) on the subject property.

6.02 DAWSON WHITTAKER Block 74A Parcel 31 Rem 1

On August 31, 2001 information was received of mining on Block 74A Parcel 31 Rem 1.

The area was inspected and mining and removal of rock off site was confirmed. Upon checking records it was confirmed that the property was registered to Mr. Dawson Whittaker of East End.

Dialogue took place with Mr. Whittaker via telephone and he admitted that he had breached the Planning and Development Law. However; as advised, Mr. Whittaker stated that he would cease mining, remove the equipment and submit the relevant plans and application.

On September 4, 2001 a warning letter was sent to Mr. Whittaker as a reminder.

Tuesday, September 20, 2001 an aerial photo of the mining/excavation and removal was taken.

The Authority was made aware that, since preparation of this agenda, the applicant had made the relevant planning application. It was therefore determined that a decision on this application at this time was not warranted.

122

6.03 BREADFRUIT TREE CAFÉ Block 14C Parcel 12 (CE)

As a result of an inspection of the upstairs portion of Breadfruit Tree Café situated on Eastern Avenue on Block 14C Parcel 12 between Edie’s Décor and Walton Plaza.

The roof pitch has been re-designed and is currently being modified to be used as dwelling units.

Upon discussing the matter with Andrea Cantave of P.O. Box 335, Bodden Town, she was advised that planning permission is required for the proposed changes of the building and that she should submit the relevant plans for approval.

However, due to the potential life safety issues the Department is of the opinion that immediate action should be taken to stop the construction.

Decision: It was resolved to issue an enforcement and stop notice pursuant to Sections 16 and 21 of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision) respectively to the owner and occupier of the subject parcel.

7.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN MATTERS

8.0 MATTERS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

8.01 TRINITY SQUARE Block 14CF Parcel 205 (F99-0315) (A.R.)

Parking situation at Trinity Square.

FACTS

Location: Eastern Avenue across from Edie’s Décor, extending west to School Road, George Town.

Zoning: General Commercial and Neighbourhood Commercial.

Existing Use: Retail and Office building, under construction


BACKGROUND

November 10, 1999 (CPA/33/99 Item 2.03): CPA deferred this application, for the several issues to be addressed.

November 24, 1999 (CPA/34/99 Item 3.01): CPA granted planning permission for the subject building.

November 22, 2000 (CPA/37/00 Item 7.05): CPA amended planning permission for a loft area over the sound booth.

123

December 6, 2000 (CPA/39/00 Item 4.02): CPA granted planning permission for two Sounds and Things signs (referred to as signs “B” and “C”) and deferred the monument sign (referred to as sign “A”).

June 13, 2001 (CPA/19/01 Item 4.01): CPA adjourned the application, for various reasons.

July 4, 2001 (CPA/22/01 Item 7.01): CPA granted conditional approval for the fence and signs, but noted the following:

“Regarding compliance with approved plans for the parking, it was resolved to advise the applicant to liaise with the Planning Department to schedule a site meeting to determine the following:

1) The exact number of parking spaces constructed, in relation to the number of parking spaces previously required by the Authority.

Whether any of the parking spaces are non-functional.

The location and number of landscaping areas in the parking area that remain unfinished.”


“We write to confirm that steps are being taken to mitigate the parking lot problems on the above project. In particular, the contractor has been instructed to remove a tree that is blocking access to at least two spaces. Also the actual size and placement of the treatment plant affected 1 parking space, which the contractor is realigning to recover its use.

The approved plans indicated that 164 spaces would be provided based on the size and area of the proposed building of 49,064 ft2. However, the strata plans indicate an aggregate area of 43,390 ft2 which would require 145 spaces based on the legal building area. A copy of the strata plans prepared by Roland Bodden & Co. Ltd. is attached for your ease of reference. Also clause 202 of the SCBBI code also defines “Building Area” as the enclosed useable area within the exterior walls of a building.

I light of the above information we would be grateful if the CPA would consider accepting 162 spaces, which clearly exceeds the usable strata area based on 1 car for every 300 sq. ft. of building area.

We look forward to your favorable consideration of this matter.”


The Planning Department expresses two points in relation to the applicant’s letter:

1. The Planning Department flatly rejects the applicant’s argument that the floor area of the building should be based on the SCBBI definition or the Strata Law definition of “building area”. For planning purposes, floor area equals the total covered area.

124

2. The applicant is requesting the Authority consider a reduction of overall parking required, from 164 spaces to 162 spaces. The Department would note the following points in relation to this request:

The Central Planning Authority has repeatedly expressed concern to the applicant that an adequate amount of parking should be provided.

The 164 spaces that were required were a minimum amount to be provided, based on the total floor area, in respect of Regulation 12(13) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision).

This Regulation states that “one car parking space for every three hundred square feet of commercial development.” This Regulation does not differentiate total floor area from building area for planning purposes, as the Building Code may for building and construction purposes.

The applicant and agent, during the original review and approval of the project, repeatedly made statements that the 164 spaces proposed would be sufficient.

Parking should be provided based on the following:

Approved floor area 49,064 ft2 requires 163.5 spaces + 164

Loft Addition 260 ft2 requires 0.87 spaces + 1

Approved Change of Use for 1,020 ft2 requires 1.7 spaces + 2

TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED + 167

3. The applicant should be made to submit a revised site plan to confirm both the as-built parking lot and to confirm the number of spaces.


1) The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the ‘as-built’ parking layout and any proposed changes thereto, in relation to the applicant’s request to vary the required amount of parking on the property.

The applicant is advised that the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision) take precedent over the Cayman Islands Building Code (an adaptation of the SCBBI). Regulation 12(13) of the Development and Planning Regulations (1998 Revision) states that “one car parking space for every three hundred square feet of commercial development.” This Regulation does not differentiate total floor area from building area for planning purposes, as the Building Code may for building and construction purposes.

7.02 JOANNE MERCILLE & WAYNE ROSS Block 15B Parcel 234 (TPO01-0001) (NAW)

Application for Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for one large group of trees off of Antoinette Road in Webster Estates, George Town.

125


An amended draft TPO was approved by the CPA on June 27, 2001 (CPA/21/01 Item 7.11) The draft TPO was issued on July 9, 2001. Letters were sent to the applicant/land owner, Caribbean Utilities Company, Water Authority, Cable & Wireless and Public Works Department. The notice period expired on August 7, 2001. No objections were received.

Decision: It was resolved to issue the Tree Preservation Order in accordance with the schedule below.

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING TREE

PRESERVATION

(001/01) ORDER 2001.

The Central Planning Authority, in pursuance of the powers conferred on it by section 28 of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision), and after complying with the provisions of the Development and Planning (Tree Preservation Order) Regulations 1992, makes the following order –

Citation 1. The order may be cited as the Development and Planning Tree Preservation (001-01) Order, 2001.

Prohibition 2. A person must not cut down, lop or wilfully destroy the tree/any tree comprised in the trees/ groups of trees/woodland specified in Schedule 1, the position of which tree/groups of trees/woodland is shown on the plan in Schedule 2 except –

(a) With the consent of the Authority and in accordance with the conditions, if any, imposed on that consent; or

(b) (set out any other exemptions)

Application for

Consent 3. An application for the Authority’s consent under clause 2(a) must –

(a) be in writing; and

(b) state the reason why the consent is being sought; and

(c) detail the tree or trees to which the application relates by reference, if necessary, to the plan in Schedule 2; and

(d) specify the operation for which consent is being sought.

126

Compensation 4. (1) Subject to subclause (2), a person who has suffered loss or incurred damage as a consequence of –

(a) the refusal of any consent required under this Order; or

(b) the grant of such consent subject to conditions,

is entitled to be paid compensation by the Crown.

(2) Compensation is not payable under subclause (1) unless the land affected by this order

(a) Is incapable of reasonably beneficial use; and

(b) Cannot, as a result of this order, be rendered capable of reasonable beneficial use by the carrying out of any development for which the Authority has granted permission or has undertaken to grant permission.

(3) Compensation payable under subclause (1) shall be assessed taking into account –

(a) any compensation or contribution which has been paid to the claimant or any person in respect of the same tree or trees under the terms of this or any other tree preservation order; and

(b) any injurious affection to any land of the owner which would result from the felling of the tree or trees, the subject of the claim.

(4) Sections 34 and 35 of the Development and Planning (Revised) Law apply to claims under subclause (1).

Plan to prevail 5. If there is any ambiguity between any detail contained in Schedule 1 and the plan in Schedule 2 the plan shall prevail.

SCHEDULE 1

Details of group of trees

127

COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3

No. on Plan Description Location

Large group Trichilia, Havanesis, 15B 234

Burn Nose,

Smoke Pot,

Duppy,

Pepper Cinnamon (Croton Nitris),

Wild Guava,

Red Birch,

Iron Wood,

Mahogany,

Sapodilla

SCHEDULE 2

PLAN

The plan shows in the case of a tree preservation order relating to –

(a) A group of trees – the group surrounded by a black line.

Made by the Central Planning Authority this 26th day of September 2001.

Chairman

Central Planning Authority

________________________________________________________

7.03 SHELDON HISLOP, ELLA KAY LOCKWOOD & ANN STAFFORD Block 15B Academy Way Roadside (TPO01-0003) (NAW)

Application for Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for a group of trees east of the Church of Christ on Academy Way in George Town.


A draft TPO was approved by the CPA on July 11, 2001 (CPA/23/01 Item 10.1) The draft TPO was issued on July 27, 2001. Letters were sent to the applicant,

128

Caribbean Utilities Company, Water Authority, Cable & Wireless and Public Works Department. The notice period expired on August 24, 2001. No objections were received.

Decision: It was resolved to issue the Tree Preservation Order in accordance with the schedule below.

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING TREE

PRESERVATION

(003/01) ORDER 2001.

The Central Planning Authority, in pursuance of the powers conferred on it by section 28 of the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision), and after complying with the provisions of the Development and Planning (Tree Preservation Order) Regulations 1992, makes the following order –

Citation 1. The order may be cited as the Development and Planning Tree Preservation (003-01) Order, 2001.

Prohibition 2. A person must not cut down, lop or wilfully destroy the tree/any tree comprised in the trees/ groups of trees/woodland specified in Schedule 1, the position of which tree/groups of trees/woodland is shown on the plan in Schedule 2 except –

(a) With the consent of the Authority and in accordance with the conditions, if any, imposed on that consent; or

(b) (set out any other exemptions)

Application for

Consent 3. An application for the Authority’s consent under clause 2(a) must –

(a) be in writing; and

(b) state the reason why the consent is being sought; and

(c) detail the tree or trees to which the application relates by reference, if necessary, to the plan in Schedule 2; and

(d) specify the operation for which consent is being sought.

Compensation 4. (1) Subject to subclause (2), a person who has suffered loss or incurred damage as a consequence of –

(a) the refusal of any consent required under this Order; or

(b) the grant of such consent subject to conditions,

129

is entitled to be paid compensation by the Crown.

(2) Compensation is not payable under subclause (1) unless the land affected by this order

(a) Is incapable of reasonably beneficial use; and

(b) Cannot, as a result of this order, be rendered capable of reasonable beneficial use by the carrying out of any development for which the Authority has granted permission or has undertaken to grant permission.

(3) Compensation payable under subclause (1) shall be assessed taking into account –

(a) any compensation or contribution which has been paid to the claimant or any person in respect of the same tree or trees under the terms of this or any other tree preservation order; and

(b) any injurious affection to any land of the owner which would result from the felling of the tree or trees, the subject of the claim.

(4) Sections 34 and 35 of the Development and Planning (Revised) Law apply to claims under subclause (1).

Plan to prevail 5. If there is any ambiguity between any detail contained in Schedule 1 and the plan in Schedule 2 the plan shall prevail.

SCHEDULE 1

Details of group of trees

COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3

No. on Plan Description Location

Large group Species listed below Academy Way

Road Reserve

130

Trichilia Trichilia havanensis

(one of Cayman’s rarest trees, George Town area)

Bull Hoof [large] Bauhinia divaricata

Wild Sapodilla Sideroxylon salicifolium

Red Birch Bursera simaruba

Wild Cinnamon Croton nitens

*Tournefortia astrotricha

Spanish Elm [tall] Cordia gerascanthus

Wild Fig [large] Ficus aurea

Silver Thatch Coccothrinax proctorii

Bastard Strawberry Calyptranthes pallens

Strawberry Eugenia axillaris

White Fiddlewood Citharexylum fruticosum

Fiddlewood Petitia domingensis

Snake Wood Colubrina arborescens (rare) (young tree)

Cabbage Tree Guapira discolor

Christmas Berry Allophylus cominia var. caymanensis (endemic, this variety found only in Cayman)

Duppy Bush Phyllanthus angustifolius

SCHEDULE 2

PLAN

The plan shows in the case of a tree preservation order relating to –

(a) A group of trees – the group surrounded by a black line.

Made by the Central Planning Authority this 26th day of September 2001.

Chairman

Central Planning Authority

________________________________________________________

131

7.04 JOHN COLLINS Block 9A Parcel 18/E (FA94-0065) (P00-104605) (JAB)

Modification of planning permission of CPA/27/00; item 7.08, granted on August 2, 2000 to allow one additional lot to be registered due to exceptional circumstances.

FACTS

Location: North of Bonneville Glades Subdivision, West Bay



Lot Size: 13,939.2 ft2

Building Size: Proposed 1,986 ft2

BACKGROUND

May 4, 1994 (CPA/13/94; item 6.6): Twenty-two (22) lot subdivision that included the subject parcel granted planning permission. Only a portion of this subdivision has been registered. This application is in the unregistered portion.

December 4, 1996 (CPA/40/96; item 6.6): Seven (7) apartments granted planning permission (now expired) (Lot 7).

August 28, 1998 (CPA/27/98; item 6.17): Seven (7) apartments granted planning permission (now expired) (Lot 3 and Parcel 13).

March 15, 2000 (CPA/09/00; item 7.01): Duplex granted planning permission (Lot 6).

June 7, 2000 (CPA/19/00; item 6.08): Five (5) apartments granted planning permission (Lots 1 & 2).

August 2, 2000 (CPA/27/00; item 7.08): plan amended to allow for a portion of the remaining lots to be registered.

May 16, 2001 (CPA/17/01; item 7.01): It was resolved to modify planning permission to allow lots A, B and C to be combined.


The applicant, Mr. Mervin Smith, is requesting that the Authority consider a modification to CPA/27/00; item 7.08 on behalf of Mr. John Collins. This is a verbal request as no formal application has been made. As well, the Planning Department is unaware if Mr. Collins is in agreement with this amendment request. The Planning Department spoke with Mr. Collins recently and reiterated that the road should be finished.

This request is to register lot E of a twenty-two (22) lot subdivision approved on May 29, 1994. The Authority should be aware that at CPA/27/00 it was resolved to approve only five (5) of twenty-two (22) lots, for registration, specifically lots A, B (as one (1) lot), C, I, J and K.

132

At CPA/27/00 the Authority conditioned the approval such that “should further development on the property be granted planning permission in the future then the remaining road shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete or equivalent to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.” In addition, the applicant was “further advised that the Authority will not permit the transfer of any addition or variation of these lots until the road works are complete.” It should be noted that the developer has been selling these lots but has not complied with the above planning condition. The developer has also recently been told that proper surfacing of the road should be completed, as per the Authority’s previous statement.

It should also be pointed out that a duplex was approved on lot F and apartments approved on lots A and B, prior to these conditions being imposed. Mr. Smith is therefore requesting that consideration be given to allowing the registration of his lot to allow the administrative approval of his proposed house as he feels that the conditions imposed are out of his control and is the responsibility of Mr. Collins, the developer. The proposed house in question was submitted on August 21, 2001.

It was clarified by to the Authority that Mr. Mervin Smith has made application for a house on Lot E of the subject parcel. As this is an unregistered lot, he and the developer of the subdivision, Mr. John Collins, were interested in the Authority allowing for Lot e to be registered. The Authority expressed concern that the road had yet to be completed however, noted that the Mr. Smith should not be penalised for something beyond their control and in the developer's hands. The Authority determined that this lot could be registered but stressed that the road must be completed prior to further considerations for development on any of the remaining unregistered lots.

Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission of CPA/27/00 Item 7.08) granted on August 2, 2000 to allow for the additional registration of Lot E only.

The developer of the subdivision is warned by the Authority that no further development on the property or any of the unregistered lots will be granted planning permission in the future until the remaining road is surfaced with asphaltic concrete or equivalent to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.

7.05 THE MANDALAY Block 10E Parcel 3

The Authority visited the site to determine whether it was possible for a fire vehicle to access the east and south sides of the building. This became necessary after it was discovered that the driveway was not constructed as approved; however, all agencies had approved the works.

133

Recommendation: It was resolved to ask the Fire Service for its comments.

7.06 SEAWALLS Block 12E Parcels 44 and 18 and Block 11B Parcel 17

Seawalls at Block 12E Parcels 44, 17 and 18 and Block 11B Parcel 17 were inspected. It was determined that the walls should have been finished with a protective coating from existing grade to sea level. This would have prevented the metal from “bleeding” when the beach profile changes.

9.0 CPA MEMBERS INFORMATION/DISCUSSIONS

10.0 ADJOURNMENT

The meeting on October 3, 2001 was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. The meting was continued on October 10, 2001 and was adjourned at 3:55 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Central Planning Authority is scheduled for Wednesday, October 17, 2001 at 12:30 p.m. in the Planning Department’s Conference Room, Third Floor Tower Building.

Gordon McLaughlin

Chairman

Kenneth S. Ebanks

Executive Secretary

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

134

List of Applications Presented at CPA/31/01

1.01 APOLOGIES, OCTOBER 3, 2001 ........................................................................................................... 2 1.02 APOLOGIES, OCTOBER 10, 2001.......................................................................................................... 2 2.01 CPA/29/01 HELD ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2001 ....................................................................................... 2 3.01 CAYMAN SHORES DEVELOPMENT LTD. BLOCK 12D PARCELS 9 REM 4, 10, 12 & 30 AND BLOCK 12E PARCELS 78 & 79 (FB91-0385) (P01-105913) (RS) ............................................................... 2 4.01 JOHN FURNISS BLOCK 5C PARCEL 42 (FA92-165) (P01-105479) ($33,000) (BES) ............................ 28 5.01 DOMO LTD. BLOCK 25B PARCEL 6 (F01-0062) (P01-105896) (BES) ................................................... 30 5.02 GILES CHARLTON-JONES BLOCK 22D PARCEL 155 (F01-0278) (P01-105875) ($10,000) (BES) ... 30 5.03 CABLE & WIRELESS BLOCK 55A PARCEL 34 (FA89-0324) (P01-105853) ($30,000) (BES) ............. 31 5.04 GM INTERNATIONAL SALES BLOCK 13EH PARCEL 173 (FA84-0367) (P01-105858) ($4.500) (AR) ......................................................................................................................................................... 32 5.05 ROBERT JACKSON BLOCK 14D PARCELS 301 AND 302 (F98-0361) (P01-105808) ($3,400) (JAB) ... 33 5.06 K. COAST DEVELOPMENT LTD. BLOCK 19E PARCEL 206 (F97-0437) (P01-105789) ($1,050) (JAB) ....................................................................................................................................................... 34 5.07 A.R.E. HOLDINGS LIMITED BLOCK 14C PARCEL 113 (FA80-0157) (P01-105757) ($7,674) (AR) .. 35 5.08 NEIL MURRAY BLOCK 22E PARCEL 256 (F99-0044) (P01-105900) ($2,800) (BES) ........................... 36 5.01 BRITANNIA HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BLOCK 12D PARCELS 74, 47, 48 AND 49 (F01-0230) (P01-105879) (AR) .................................................................................................................................. 37 5.02 DAVIS A. CHISHOLM BLOCK 45A PARCEL 83 REM 1 (F01-0270) (P01-105839) ($50,000) (BES) .... 38 5.01 RICARDO CLARKE BLOCK 4B PARCEL 599 (F01-0136) (P01-105903) ($NO CHANGE) (AR) ............. 39 5.02 MARIE CLAIRE FERNANDES BLOCK 14C PARCELS 136 AND 304 (F99-0214) (P01-105812) ($35,000) (P01-105876) ($1,200) (A.R.) ................................................................................................. 40 5.03 GARY RANKIN BLOCK 64A PARCEL 31 (F98-0223) (P01-105889) ($276,661) (BES) ......................... 42 5.04 ACORN PROPERTIES LIMITED BLOCK OPY PARCEL 179 (F00-0179) (P01-105778) ($15,000) (A.R.) ....................................................................................................................................................... 43 5.05 ORVILLE ERSKINE (FORMERLY ISLAND CONCRETE PRODUCTS) BLOCK 19E PARCEL 103 (FB90-0085) (P01-105810)(P01-105906)(P01-105907) ($68,500) (AR) ................................................ 50 5.06 JESUS REYES BLOCK 24E PARCEL 291 (F96-0208) (P01-105855)($1,500) (BES) ............................... 53 5.07 HARD ROCK CAFÉ (KEN THOMPSON) BLOCK 14BH PARCEL 75 (FB80-0235) ($N/A) (A.R.) ..... 54 5.08 KIRK OFFICE EQUIPMENT BLOCK 14C PARCEL 314 (F97-0441) (P01-105823) ($22,957) (NAW) 57 5.09 CRACKED CONCH RESTAURANT BLOCK 1C PARCEL 3 (F95-0177) (P01-105760) (P01-105759) (P01-105742) ($67,000) (JAB) ................................................................................................................ 58 5.010 DRUMBLADE LIMITED BLOCK 20B PARCEL 383 (F00-0103) (P01-105925) ($N/A) (AR) ............... 60 5.011 ELLESMERE BRITANNIA BLOCK 12D PARCEL 26 (F01-0233) (MM/190/98) (P01-105738) ($0) (AR) ......................................................................................................................................................... 63 5.012 GYST LTD. BLOCK 14BG PARCEL 91 (F97-0156) (P01-105943) ($N/A) (BES) .................................. 103 5.013 ANDY’S AUTO BLOCK 4B PARCELS 217, 377, 378 AND 419 (FA83-0232) (P01-105538) ($) (BES) ... 104 5.014 URIAH & GRACE ROSE BLOCK 1C PARCEL 237 (F01-0166) (P01-105852) (NAW) ........................ 109 5.015 CAYMAN FREEPRESS LTD. BLOCK 14C PARCEL 319 (FB80-0088) (P01-105859) ($687,990) (BES)112 5.016 ADARE INVESTMENTS BLOCK 14BG PARCEL 62 (F01-0255) (P01-105802) (P01-105930) ($70,000) (AR) ....................................................................................................................................................... 113 5.017 JOAN STEER BLOCK 43E PARCEL 62 (F00-0265) (P01-105744) ($156,080) (EJ) .............................. 114 5.018 DORINDA R. WILSON BLOCK 31A PARCEL 102 (FA91-0207) (P01-105902) (RS) .......................... 116 5.019 JAMES RICHARDS BLOCK 20D PARCEL 277 (FA98-0016) (P01-105954) (RS) ................................ 118 5.020 ISLAND INTERIORS BLOCK 20B PARCEL 138 (F01-0301) (P01-105910) ($20,000) (JAB) .............. 119 6.01 JOSEPH AND ELLA POWERY (OWNERS) AND NICOLE EDLEMIRE (OCCUPIER) BLOCK 4C PARCEL 21 (F01-0167) (P01-105554) (AR) ...................................................................................... 120 6.02 DAWSON WHITTAKER BLOCK 74A PARCEL 31 REM 1 ................................................................... 121 6.03 BREADFRUIT TREE CAFÉ BLOCK 14C PARCEL 12 (CE) ................................................................ 122 8.01 TRINITY SQUARE BLOCK 14CF PARCEL 205 (F99-0315) (A.R.) ...................................................... 122 8.02 JOANNE MERCILLE & WAYNE ROSS BLOCK 15B PARCEL 234 (TPO01-0001) (NAW) ............. 124

135

8.03 SHELDON HISLOP, ELLA KAY LOCKWOOD & ANN STAFFORD BLOCK 15B ACADEMY WAY ROADSIDE (TPO01-0003) (NAW) ......................................................................................................... 127 8.04 JOHN COLLINS BLOCK 9A PARCEL 18/E (FA94-0065) (P00-104605) (JAB) .................................... 131 8.05 THE MANDALAY BLOCK 10E PARCEL 3 ............................................................................................ 132 8.06 SEAWALLS BLOCK 12E PARCELS 44 AND 18 AND BLOCK 11B PARCEL 17 ......................................... 133

Documents

CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY · 2016-09-23 · 1 CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY Minutes of a meeting of the Central Planning Authority held on October 3, 2001 and continued on October 10,