Central Planning Authority

Minutes of a meeting of the Central Planning Authority held on May 28, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference Room, 1st Floor, Government Administration Building, Elgin Avenue.

13th Meeting of the Year CPA/13/14

Mr. A. L. Thompson (Chairman) (except 2.3) Mr. Robert Watler Jr. (Deputy Chairman) (Acting Chairman 2.3) Mr. Edgar Ashton Bodden Mr. S. T. (Tommie) Bodden Mr. Dalkeith Bothwell Mr. Joseph Coe Mr. Ray Hydes Mr. Trent McCoy Mr. Rex Miller Mr. Eldon Rankin Mr. Selvin Richardson Ms. Sharon Roulstone Mr. Fred Whittaker (except 2.6) Mr. Haroon Pandohie (Executive Secretary) Mr. Ron Sanderson (Deputy Director of Planning (CP))

1. Confirmation of Minutes 2. Applications 3. Enforcements 4. Development Plan Matters 5. Planning Appeal Matters 6. Matters from the Director of Planning 7. CPA Members Information/Discussions

List of Applications Presented at CPA/13/14

1. 1 Confirmation of Minutes of CPA/12/14 held on May 14, 2014...... 3 2. 1 TREVER & NATALIE MCCANN Block 24B Parcel 214 H3 (F05-0440) (P14- 0229) ($50,000) (KA) ...... 4 2. 2 MORNE BOTES Block 15B Parcel 243 (FA85-0194) (P14-0330) ($2,500) (CS) ...... 6 2. 3 BARCAM (CAYMAN) LTD. Block 23C Parcel 30 Rem 1 (F09-0395) (P14- 0325) (P13-0665) (CS) ...... 9 2. 4 JEREMY BECK Block 21E Parcel 157 (F03-0493) (P14-0343) ($80,000) (BES) ...... 10 2. 5 COLLIN RICHARD HICKLING Block 21E Parcel 158 (F14-0058) (P14-0344) ($80,000) (BES) ...... 16 2. 6 CIYCAM LTD. Block 10A Parcel 238 (F14-0067) (P14-0312) ($1 million) (CS) ...... 22 2. 7 DESMOND KINCH Block 25C Parcel 160 (F98-0060) (P14-0367) ($22,000) (KA) ...... 27 2. 8 TODD HAZLEWOOD Block 4E Parcel 289 (F99-0078) (P14-0322) ($8,000) (CS) ...... 28 3. 1 LOIS ANN ARTIAGA Block 14E Parcel 213 (CM) ...... 30 3. 2 MIRIAM M. MUIRHEAD Block 4B Parcel 504 (JM) ...... 31 3. 3 REX A. EBANKS Block 22E Parcel 275 (JM) ...... 32 3. 4 PIRATE COVE ESTATES LTD. Block 21B Parcel 19 (JM) ...... 33 6. 1 CAYMAN SHORES DEVELOPMENT LTD. Block 12D Parcel 95 (KA) ..... 33 6. 2 ROYAL PALMS BEACH CLUB LTD. Block 12E Parcel 84 (CS) ...... 34 6. 3 NHDT HOUSES Block 4B Parcel 673 (Lots 22, 24, 25 & 32) ...... 34 6. 4 ILLEGAL CHANGE-OF-USE Block 9A Parcel 56 ...... 35

APPLICANTS THAT APPEARED BEFORE THE CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

APPLICANT NAME TIME ITEM PAGE Trever & Natalie McCann (KA) 10:30 2.1 4 Morne Botes (CS) 10:50 2.2 6 Barcam (Cayman) Ltd. (CS) 11:10 2.3 9 Jeremy Beck (BES) 11:30 2.4 10 Collin Richard Hickling (BES) 11:30 2.5 16

1.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. 1 Confirmation of Minutes of CPA/12/14 held on May 14, 2014.

Moved: Eldon Rankin Seconded: S.T. Bodden Confirmed

3 2.0 APPLICATIONS APPEARANCES (Items 2. 1 TO 2. 5)

2. 1 TREVER & NATALIE MCCANN Block 24B Parcel 214 H3 (F05-0440) (P14-0229) ($50,000) (KA)

Application to change the use of an attic to a liveable room in an existing apartment unit. Appearance at 10:30 FACTS Location Omega Drive Zoning LDR Notice Requirements No Objectors Current Use Apartments Proposed Use Apartments Building Size 378 sq. ft. BACKGROUND CPA/32/05; Item 2.9 - CPA adjourned the application to allow the applicant to submit revised drawings showing a maximum of nine (9) apartment units with a maximum of fifteen bedrooms. CPA/01/09; Item 2.15 - CPA granted planning permission for 9 x 2 bedroom units. CPA/11/14; Item 2.8 - CPA adjourned the application to allow the applicant to appear before the Board.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant is required to apply for a Building Permit from the Director of Planning. 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. The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to occupying the building(s).

AGENCY COMMENTS Comments from the Chief Environmental Health Officer are noted below.

Chief Environmental Health Officer “The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application: An application was submitted to the Department of Environmental Health, for comments on Converting attic to usable space with bathroom, Block 24B Parcel 214 H3. The Department has no objections to the proposed.” PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is for the renovation of the attic into a tv/sitting room with a half bathroom. The site is located off Omega Drive, Red Bay. Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential and while the proposed use is a permitted use per Regulation 9 (8) the Department would offer comments on certain specific issues addressed below. Specific Issues a) Use of the Proposed Room Although the Department has no major concerns with the proposal, the Authority is reminded that when the original application for the apartments was approved, concerns were raised with regard to the number of bedrooms – the applicant was proposing 20, but the allowable was 15. The Authority required the applicant to submit revised plans showing a maximum of 15 bedrooms. While the proposed room is labelled as a tv/sitting room, it could possibly be considered a bedroom. If that is the case, the applicant would require a density variance and should technically have to notify adjacent land owners (which they have not done for the tv/sitting room). The Authority should assess if there are any concerns with the proposed room. SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS At CPA/11/14; Item 2.8, the CPA adjourned the application to invite the applicant to appear before the Board. At 10:30am, Adrian Bodden appeared on behalf of the applicant. There was discussion about the purpose of the application and it was noted that the applicants just had a new child and they would like more storage space and a playroom – it is not a bedroom. It was also noted that if the Board has a concern about parking that the parking ratio is not linked to bedrooms, but rather the number of apartments.

2. 2 MORNE BOTES Block 15B Parcel 243 (FA85-0194) (P14-0330) ($2,500) (CS)

Application for an after-the-fact greenhouse. Appearance at 10:50 FACTS Location At the southeast corner of Antoinette Avenue and Websters Drive Zoning LDR Notice Requirements Objectors Parcel Size 24,829 sq. ft. Current Use House Proposed Use Greenhouse Building Size 324 sq. ft. Building Coverage 15% BACKGROUND October 17, 2011 - The Department administratively approved a two-storey house addition to create a duplex. December 11, 2012 - The Department administratively approved a modification to increase the duplex floor area by 259 sq. ft. May 15, 2013 (CPA/10/13; Item 2.10) - The Authority granted planning permission for a pump house and a 4’ high concrete wall.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant shall submit revised plans showing the building setback 20’ from the roadside property boundary and 20’ from the common boundary with Block 15B Parcel 244. 2) The building shall be relocated with the setbacks required in condition 1) within 60 days from the date of this decision. 3) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

LETTER FROM APPLICANT “I constructed a green house in the corner of my property a year ago to grow vegetables and fruit.

I was not aware that I would need planning approval, as it is a trellis structure mainly to grow tomatoes against and to keep iquanas away. The structure has no roof and no floor. I cemented all posts in 3 feet for safety. I kept the structure low so that my neighbor could not see it over her fence; as she has erected a 6-foot fence prior to grow her plants on. I chose the spot I put it as it gets maximum sunshine and is out of the way for everyone. Please find photos attached. I hope my green house is approved, if changes are needed to it please advise.” OBJECTIONS “I have just come from the Planning Department and viewed the greehouse plans "submitted after the fact" for Mr. Morne Botes's greenhouses in Websters Estate. I wish to object on a number of grounds: 1) The drawing that I viewed today show the greenhouses as being 10 ft from his back boundary. They are in fact only 8 ft if my memory serves me correctly. I measured them when I met with Mr. Botes at his property two months ago. Please could you have your department verify my measurements to ensure that the plans submitted by Mr. Botes are in fact accurate. 2) The greenhouses are unsightly from my viewpoint (which is the front side of my house) should I lose the rickety chain link fence or Thumbergia privacy creeper which is already dying in parts because of black lice that is infesting the Island's plants. 3) It is my understanding that any structure should be 20 ft from a back boundary. I would not consent to any alteration to those required setbacks. 4) The greenhouses are out of keeping with this upscale neighbourhood and devalues/defaces the area in my opinion. 5) Mr. Botes never consulted with me or my late husband Mr. Kenneth Hay, either verbally or in writing when he erected the greenhouses. Please keep me abreast of any developments as they pertain to this application. I would like to attend the CPA meeting that will discuss Mr. Botes's greenhouse submission.” PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is for a 324 sq. ft. after-the-fact greenhouse. Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential and while the proposed use is a permitted use per Regulation 9 (8), the Department would offer comments on

certain specific issues addressed below. Specific Issues a) Setbacks The proposed rear setback for the greenhouse is 10’ versus the permitted 20’. The Department notes the CPA did grant a rear setback variance for a pump room, where the structure is located 6’-10” from the rear property line (CPA/10/13; Item 2.10) At 10:50am, Morne Botes appeared as the applicant. Alex Duncan, Sandra Solomon and Carol Hay appeared as objectors. There was discussion between the applicant, the objectors and the members regarding the following issues: • The applicant wasn’t aware he needed permission for the structure • The site plan shows the setbacks he is proposing should permission be granted – i.e. the structure will be relocated to those setbacks if approved. • It was noted that the required setbacks are 20’ from the road and the rear property line (adjacent to Ms. Hay). • Ms. Hay stated she objects to any variances for setbacks and she is concerned about the aesthetics of the structure as it is out of character with the neighbourhood. The Authority considered the proposal and determined that: • There are not sufficient reasons or an exceptional circumstance to warrant allowing setbacks less than what is required by Regulation 9(8)(i) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2013 revision). As such, the Authority will require that the structure to be relocated to comply with minimum required setbacks. • The appearance of the structure is of a typical residential garden building and is not out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.

2. 3 BARCAM (CAYMAN) LTD. Block 23C Parcel 30 Rem 1 (F09-0395) (P14- 0325) (P13-0665) (CS)

Application for modification of planning permission for a fuel station. An appearance was schedule for 11:10am. The applicant’s representatives were present and available for the meeting, but they were not invited into the meeting room as the objector was not in attendance. A.L. Thompson and Ray Hydes declared conflicts and left the meeting room. Robert Watler Jr. sat as Acting Chairman. FACTS Location East-West Bypass, Prospect Zoning LDR Notice Requirements Objectors Parcel Size 4.5 acres Current Use Vacant Proposed Use Fuel Station Building Coverage 1% BACKGROUND March 3, 2010 (CPA/05/10; Item 2.3) - The Authority granted planning permission for a gas station. October 2, 2013 (CPA/21/13; Item 2.5) - The Authority granted planning permission for a fuel station and eight (8) signs.

Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application and re-invite the applicant and the objector to appear before the Authority to discuss the application.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is for a modification of planning permission for a fuel station. Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential. The use has been permitted per CPA/21/13; Item 2.5. The modification request includes the following: • Reduce the retail store floor area by 1,198 sq. ft. • Increase size of fueling canopy by 561 sq. ft. • Reduce height of the free-standing sign to 12’ per CPA condition 1.

Specific Issues a) CPA Conditions Per the CPA decision letter, the Authority requested “revised elevations showing the aesthetics of the building and canopy improved to the satisfaction of the Authority. The applicant shall also submit revised plans for the free- standing sign showing it reduced in height to 12’ and the design changed to be more in keeping with the architecture of the gas station building.” The Authority is recommended to review the revised building elevations and canopy in light of the previous design concerns.

2. 4 JEREMY BECK Block 21E Parcel 157 (F03-0493) (P14-0343) ($80,000) (BES)

Application for shoreline modification to excavate and place boulders along the shoreline. Appearance at 11:30 FACTS Location South Sound Road Zoning LDR Notice Requirements No Objectors Parcel Size 1.38 acres BACKGROUND December 10, 2003 - A dwelling house was approved.

It shall be signed by yourself or your attorney-at-law and filed along with the prescribed CI$50.00 filing fee, in the offices of the Chief Officer of Planning, Agriculture, Housing and Infrastructure within the fourteen (14) day period as stipulated in Section 48(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.

LETTER FROM APPLICANT "Please find enclosed an application for the installation of a rock groyne within the registered property boundary of the Beck Residence to stabilize the shoreline. As instructed by the Planning Officer, we have completed the docks/seawalls/bulkheading davits/boat landings application form. The maintenance of the beach in front of Block 21E Parcel 157 has recently required the import of sand due to shoreline erosion. The proposal is to stabilize the shoreline using a rock groyne running parallel to the shore within the registered property boundary. The groyne would have a break in it to provide a small inlet for access to the water for snorkeling and kayaking. Sand would be imported and placed behind the groyne to maintain and enhance existing public access along the beach. The elevation of the groyne has been set so as not to exceed the height of the adjacent dock and blend in with the existing shoreline features. During construction of the groyne, the contractor will be required to employ measures to mitigate turbidity. Examples include the use of silt screens and not working during inclement weather. It should be noted that no deepening is proposed. The access point, as mentioned above, is intended solely for snorkel and kayak access." AGENCY COMMENTS The Department of Environment provided comments after the Agenda was prepared and copies were provided at the meeting for the review of the Authority’s members. See Appendix ‘A’. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is for shoreline modification to excavate and place boulders along the shoreline. This application should be considered in conjunction with the application in Item 2.5 of this Agenda. Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential and the Department would offer

comments on certain specific issues addressed below. Specific Issues a) Imported Sand and Boulders As indicated on the plans, the applicant is proposing to stabilize the shoreline by way of excavating the sea bed and placing boulders with imported sand in the excavated area parallel to the shoreline within the fixed boundary of the site. The applicant has not indicated from where the sand would be imported. The Authority needs to determine whether or not importing sand would be environmental safe in the area. It should be pointed out as of the 22nd May, the Department was still awaiting the Department of Environment comments concerning this application. The planning report was completed the same day. b) Sea and Beach Access The applicant is proposing a 12’ wide access in the new shoreline modification for snorkelling and kayaking to access the sea. Additionally, it is noted on the plans that there would be 15’ wide public access between the existing seawall and the boulders. From a planning perspective, the seawall appears to have caused substantial amount of beach erosion in front of the dwelling house. c) HWM Survey The applicant has submitted a Fixed Boundary Survey indicating the High Water Mark (HWM) survey dated August 1, 2005. From a planning perspective, the Department would require a recent HWM survey to be conducted at the sites. The Authority needs to determine whether or not the applicant should submit a new HWM survey. It should be noted that the Land Survey Regulations 27A(2) defines the High Water Mark as…”the line of the median high tide between the ordinary spring and neap tides”. The high water mark contour for Grand Cayman is 0.45’ above datum. d) Site Photos A site inspection was conducted on May 22, 2014 and photos of the site are noted below.

At 11:30am, Jeremy Beck, Collin Hickling, J. Samuel Jackson, Loui Melbourne and Denis Murphy appeared on behalf of the applicants. There was discussion between the applicants and their representatives and the members regarding certain issues, including: • Mr. Jackson summarized the letter that he submitted at the meeting (see Appendix ‘B’. • DOE’s comments. • The height of the groyne being no higher than the adjacent dock, which is about 3’ to 4’. The groyne will allow for the ebb and flow of sand. • The sand will be imported from other locations on the Island. • Concerns raised by the Authority that the groynes could cause shoreline erosion on other properties. • The groynes do not comply with the required HWM setback. The Authority considered the application further and determined that planning permission would be refused for the following reasons: • The proposed rock/boulder groyne does not comply with the minimum required setback of 75 feet from the high water mark per Regulation 8(10)(c) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2013 Revision) and the Authority is of the opinion that the applicant did not demonstrate that there was sufficient reason or that an exceptional circumstance exists to allow a lesser setback per Regulation 8(13)(b).

• The scale and massing of the groyne feature is not in keeping with the visual and physical character of the shoreline in the immediate area and this will detract from the ability of the nearby owners and the general public to enjoy the amenity of the area.

2. 5 COLLIN RICHARD HICKLING Block 21E Parcel 158 (F14-0058) (P14- 0344) ($80,000) (BES)

Application for shoreline modification to excavate and place boulders along the shoreline Appearance at 11:30 FACTS Location South Sound Road Zoning LDR Notice Requirements No Objectors Parcel Size 1.06 acres

Decision: It was resolved to refuse planning permission, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rock/boulder groyne does not comply with the minimum required setback of 75 feet from the high water mark per Regulation 8(10)(c) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2013 Revision) and the Authority is of the opinion that the applicant did not demonstrate that there was sufficient reason or that an exceptional circumstance exists to allow a lesser setback per Regulation 8(13)(b). 2. The scale and massing of the groyne feature is not in keeping with the visual and physical character of the shoreline in the immediate area and this will detract from the ability of the nearby owners and the general public to enjoy the amenity of the area. The Authority wishes to remind the applicant of the right to appeal pursuant to section 48(1) of the Development and Planning Law (2011 Revision). Such appeal shall be made by Notice in writing, and referred to as "Notice of Appeal". It shall be signed by yourself or your attorney-at-law and filed along with the prescribed CI$50.00 filing fee, in the offices of the Chief Officer of Planning, Agriculture, Housing and Infrastructure within the fourteen (14) day period as stipulated in Section 48(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.

LETTER FROM APPLICANT "Please find enclosed an application for the installation of a rock groyne within the registered property boundary of the Block 21 E Parcel 158 to stabilize the shoreline. As instructed by the Planning Officer, we have completed the docks/seawalls/bulkheading davits/boat landings application form. The proposal is to stabilize the shoreline using a rock groyne running parallel to the shore within the registered property boundary. The groyne would have a break in it to provide a small inlet for access to the water for snorkeling and kayaking. Sand would be imported and placed behind the groyne to maintain and enhance existing public access along the beach. The elevation of the groyne has been set so as not to exceed the height of the adjacent dock and blend in with the existing shoreline features. During construction of the groyne, the contractor will be required to employ measures to mitigate turbidity. Examples include the use of silt screens and not working during inclement weather. It should be noted that no deepening is proposed. The access point, as mentioned above, is intended solely for snorkel and kayak access." PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is for shoreline modification to excavate and place boulders along the shoreline at South Sound beach. This application should be considered in conjunction with the application in Item 2.4 of this Agenda. Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential and the Department would offer comments on certain specific issues addressed below. Specific Issues a) Imported Sand and Boulders As indicated on the plans, the applicant is proposing to stabilize the shoreline by way of excavating the sea bed and placing boulders with imported sand in the excavated area parallel the shoreline within the fixed boundary of the site. The applicant has not indicated from where the sand would be imported. The Authority needs to determine whether or not importing sand would be environmental safe in the area. It should be pointed out that as of the 22nd May, the Department was still awaiting the Department of Environment comments concerning this application - the planning report was completed the same day. b) Sea and Beach Access The applicant is proposing a 12’ wide access in the new shoreline modification for snorkelling and kayaking to access the sea. From a planning

perspective, the seawall appears to have caused substantial amount of beach erosion in front of the dwelling house. c) HWM Survey The applicant has submitted a Fixed Boundary Survey indicating the High Water Mark (HWM) survey dated August 1, 2005. From a planning perspective, the Department would require a recent HWM survey to be conducted at the sites. The Authority needs to determine whether or not the applicant should submit a new HWM survey. It should be noted that the Land Survey Regulations 27A(2) defines the High Water Mark as…”the line of the median high tide between the ordinary spring and neap tides”. The high water mark contour for Grand Cayman is 0.45’ above datum. d) Site Photos A site inspection was conducted on May 22, 2014 and photos of the site are noted below.

At 11:30am, Jeremy Beck, Collin Hickling, J. Samuel Jackson, Loui Melbourne and Denis Murphy appeared on behalf of the applicants. There was discussion

between the applicants and their representatives and the members regarding certain issues, including: • Mr. Jackson summarized the letter that he submitted at the meeting (see Appendix ‘B’. • DOE’s comments. • The height of the groyne being no higher than the adjacent dock. The groyne will allow for the ebb and flow of sand. • The sand will be imported from other locations on the Island. • Concerns raised by the Authority that the groynes could cause shoreline erosion on other properties. • The groynes do not comply with the required HWM setback. The Authority considered the application further and determined that planning permission would be refused for the following reasons: • The proposed rock/boulder groyne does not comply with the minimum required setback of 75 feet from the high water mark per Regulation 8(10)(c) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2013 Revision) and the Authority is of the opinion that the applicant did not demonstrate that there was sufficient reason or that an exceptional circumstance exists to allow a lesser setback per Regulation 8(13)(b). • The scale and massing of the groyne feature is not in keeping with the visual and physical character of the shoreline in the immediate area and this will detract from the ability of the nearby owners and the general public to enjoy the amenity of the area.

21 2.0 APPLICATIONS REGULAR AGENDA (Items 2. 5 TO 2. 8)

2. 6 CIYCAM LTD. Block 10A Parcel 238 (F14-0067) (P14-0312) ($1 million) (CS)

Application for a restaurant with bar. Mr. Fred Whittaker declared a conflict and left the meeting room. FACTS Location Cayman Islands Yacht Club, Seven Mile Beach Zoning H/T Notice Requirements No Objectors Parcel Size 6 acres Current Use Marina Proposed Use Restaurant Building Size 4,334 sq. ft. Building Coverage 1% Proposed Parking 23 Required Parking 15 BACKGROUND January 23, 2013 (CPA/02/13; Item 2.10) - Renovations to the C.I. Yacht Club were approved on this site.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions: Conditions (1-5) listed below shall be met before building permit drawings can be submitted to the Department of Planning. 1) The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing the building (including stairs and deck) setback a minimum of 20’ from Governors Creek, as required per regulation 8(10)(d). 2) The applicant shall submit a site plan that shows the location, dimensions and size of the wastewater treatment system (including the disposal system). The treatment system must be labelled as either a septic tank or an aerobic wastewater treatment system, whichever is applicable. 3) If not already shown on the site plan, the applicant shall submit a site plan showing tire stops for the parking spaces and the parking area curbed and surfaced with asphalt or concrete.

4) The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management plan designed in accordance with the requirements of the National Roads Authority (NRA) and approved by the Central Planning Authority. The applicant should liaise directly with the NRA in submitting the stormwater management plan. 5) The applicant shall submit a landscape plan which shall be subject to review and approval by the Central Planning Authority. It is suggested that the landscape plan be prepared following the recommendations of the Draft Cayman Islands Landscape Guidelines, found on the Planning Department’s website (www.planning.gov.ky) under Policy Development, Policy Drafts. 6) The applicant is required to apply for a Building Permit from the Director of Planning. Construction shall not commence prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 7) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans. The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to occupying the building(s). If the existing grade level does not currently provide for it, the applicant is reminded that the finished floor level of all buildings should be at least five feet (5') above mean sea level, [i.e. two feet (2') above the Vidal Bench Mark]. Provision shall be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction period. The applicant shall provide adequate number of sanitary facilities during the construction stage. The applicant is reminded that the proposed development is subject to compliance with the Public Health Law, Fire Brigade Law, Water Authority Law and Roads Law. To prevent potential delays and save money, the applicant may wish to coordinate with the following agencies prior to commencing any construction: Caribbean Utilities Company, a Telecommunication Company of your preference and the Cayman Water Company and/or the Water Authority - Cayman.

AGENCY COMMENTS Comments from the Chief Environmental Health Officer, Chief Fire Officer, Water Authority and National Roads Authority are noted below. Department of Environmental Health “The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application: An application was submitted to the Department of Environmental Health, for comments on Application for a Restaurant, located on Block 10A Parcel 238.

The Department cannot approve such at this time. The following must be submitted for review and approval. A detailed fully labelled floor plan of the kitchen showing the layout of all equipment, technical specifications for equipment, and engineering details for all engineering systems related to the handling, and preparation of food for human consumption. I have also attached the Departments guidelines for commercial kitchens.” Chief Fire Officer “Please provide a revised drawing for the fire vehicle access to the restaurant showing the radius.” Water Authority “Please be advised that the Water Authority’s requirements for the proposed development are as follows: Wastewater Treatment: • The developer shall provide an on-site aerobic wastewater treatment system designed to achieve effluent quality standards of 30 mg/L Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)and 30 mg/L Total Suspended Solids (TSS). • The treatment capacity of the system shall be at least 4,000 US gallons per day (gpd). • A grease interceptor with a minimum capacity of (2) 1,250 US gallons is required to pre-treat kitchen flows from fixtures and equipment with grease- laden waste. Fixtures and equipment includes pot sinks, pre-rinse sinks; dishwashers, soup kettles or similar devices; and floor drains. The outlet of the grease interceptor shall be plumbed to the sanitary sewage line leading to the aerobic wastewater treatment system. • The developer, or their agent, is required to submit a proposal per the attached Onsite Wastewater Treatment Proposal Form. The developer is advised that Water Authority review and approval of the system, is required as a condition for obtaining a Building Permit. Water Supply: Please be advised that the proposed development site is located within the Cayman Water Company’s (CWC) piped water supply area. • The developer is required to notify the Cayman Water Company without delay, to be advised of the site-specific requirements for connection. • The developer shall provide water supply infrastructure per CWC’s specification and under CWC’s supervision. National Roads Authority “As per your memo dated April 15th, 2014 the NRA has reviewed the above- mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and recommendations based on the site plan provided.

Road Capacity Issues The impact of the proposed development is considered to be minimal. Access and Traffic Management Issues Two-way driveway aisles shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) ft. wide. Entrance and exit curves shall have no less than fifteen (15) feet radius curves, and have a width of twenty-two (22) ft. Tire stops (if used) shall be place in parking spaces such that the length of the parking space is not reduced below the sixteen (16) feet minimum. Stormwater Management Issues The applicant is encouraged to implement state-of-the-art techniques that manage stormwater runoff within the subject parcel and retain existing drainage characteristics of the site as much as is feasible through innovative design and use of alternative construction techniques. However, it is critical that the development be designed so that post-development stormwater runoff is no worse than pre-development runoff. To that effect, the following requirements should be observed: • The applicant shall demonstrate, prior to the issuance of any Building Permits, that the Stormwater Management system is designed to embrace storm water runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 2 inches per hour for one hour of duration and ensure that surrounding properties and/or nearby roads are not subject to stormwater runoff from the subject site. • The stormwater management plan shall include spot levels (existing and finished levels) with details of the overall runoff scheme. Please have applicant provide this information prior to the issuance of a building permit. • Curbing is required for the parking areas to control stormwater runoff. • Roof water runoff should not drain freely over the parking area or onto surrounding property. Note that unconnected downspouts are not acceptable. We recommend piped connection to catch basins or alternative stormwater detention devices. If catch basins are to be networked, please have applicant to provide locations of such wells along with details of depth and diameter prior to the issuance of any Building Permits. At the inspection stage for obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall demonstrate that the installed system will perform to the standard given. The National Roads Authority wishes to bring to the attention of the Planning Department that non-compliance with the above-noted stormwater requirements would cause a road encroachment under Section 16 (g) of The Roads Law (2005 Revision). For the purpose of this Law, Section 16(g) defines encroachment on a road as "any artificial canal, conduit, pipe or raised structure from which any water or other liquid escapes on to any road which would not but for the existence of such

canal, conduit, pipe or raised structure have done so, whether or not such canal, conduit, pipe or raised structure adjoins the said road;" Failure in meeting these requirements will require immediate remedial measures from the applicant.” Response to Agency Comments Fire Department The applicant has addressed the Fire Department's comments however a response from the Fire Department has not yet been received. LETTER FROM APPLICANT “Reference your email of 15th April 2014 item 3, the application requests the Central Planning Authority's approval to vary the setback from the southern boundary to the restaurant deck as shown in the drawings, noting as follows: * The proposed restaurant deck aligns parallel with the existing concrete dockside along the southern edge of the subject property. The restaurant deck does not precisely align with the rip/rap shoreline which has an uneven edge hence the deck extends partway into the setback. * The space between the restaurant deck and the shoreline is to be used for a pedestrian pathway. * The restaurant deck is just above existing grade and is viewed as a part of the landscaping. * The proposed restaurant is maritime themed and would enjoy a waterside location hence the terrace extends close to the water's edge.” PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The applicant is requesting a planning permission for a restaurant with bar. Zoning The property is zoned Hotel/Tourism and while the proposed use is a permitted use per Regulation 9 (8), the Department offers the following comments on certain specific issues addressed below. Specific Issues a) Setbacks Development & Planning Regulations Section 8 (10)(d) states in areas where the shoreline is a canal or inland waterway, all structures and buildings, including ancillary buildings, walls and structures, shall be setback a minimum of 20’ from the high water mark. The applicant is requesting a 12’ setback. There is ample space on the site to accommodate a 20’ setback and the Department is not of the opinion there is a hardship to prevent compliance.

2. 7 DESMOND KINCH Block 25C Parcel 160 (F98-0060) (P14-0367) ($22,000) (KA)

Application for a 5’ high wall. FACTS Location Shamrock Road, adjacent to Spotts Public Beach Zoning LDR Notice Requirements NA Parcel Size 0.64 acres Current Use Vacant

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following condition: 1) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is for a 5’ high wall along the front and north side boundary. The site is located on Shamrock road, adjacent to Spotts Public Beach. Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential and while the proposed use is a permitted use per Regulation 9 (8), the Department would offer comments on certain specific issues addressed below. Specific Issues a) Height The proposed wall would be 5’ high. The CPA draft Wall and Fence Guidelines Section 4.3.1 states no part of a solid wall should exceed 42 inches in height. Section 4.3.3 states that no part of a semi-transparent wall should exceed 60 inches in height. The Authority should assess if the wall should be reduced in height or re-designed with part of the wall semi-transparent to a maximum height of 60 inches.

2. 8 TODD HAZLEWOOD Block 4E Parcel 289 (F99-0078) (P14-0322) ($8,000) (CS)

Application for an eleven (11) lot subdivision, including; eight (8) house lots, one (1) road parcel and two (2) LPP parcels. FACTS Location Powell Smith Road, West Bay North West Zoning HDR Notice Requirements No Objectors Parcel Size 1.3 acres Current Use Vacant Proposed Use Subdivision Density 6.2 Allowable Density 8 Number of Parcels 11 BACKGROUND May 26, 1999 - The Authority granted planning permission for twenty four (24) apartments. June 29, 2005 (CPA/15/05; Item 2.10) - The Authority granted planning permission for twenty four (24) apartments. November 18, 2009 - Two detached houses were administratively approved.

Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions: 1) Prior to the commencement of any site works such as filling, grading and road construction (with the exception of minor land clearing needed to establish site levels for the preparation of a stormwater management plan), the applicant shall submit: a) Specifications of any proposed underground utilities; including location, type of utilities, and trench dimensions. b) A stormwater management plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Managing Director, NRA and approved by the Central Planning Authority. The plan shall be designed to embrace storm water runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 2 inches per hour for one hour of duration and should include, but not be limited to, the location of all drainage facilities and general grading details of the parcels (roads included). In general, the entire site shall be graded in such a manner that stormwater runoff is no more than that which occurred during

predevelopment conditions along private boundaries with any excess runoff directed to one central drainage facility or a series of facilities. The plan shall include proposed lot grading in order to facilitate the implementation of condition 2) b) below. Additionally, if the plan includes drainage swales then cross-sections of the swales must be provided. 2) Prior to the subdivision plan being finalized, the following conditions shall be satisfied: a) All underground utilities shall be inspected and approved by the relevant agencies prior to the utilities being buried. b) The property shall be filled in such a manner as to ensure that the subdivision road and a reasonable building envelope for each lot are filled to 4 feet above mean sea level, with the remaining subdivision land being filled and/or graded to a level that will assist in the drainage of the subdivision per the stormwater management plan required in condition 1) c) above. After filling the site, the applicant shall submit a plan prepared by a registered land surveyor indicating spot heights at regular intervals, including the finished grade of constructed access road (s), if any. c) The approved stormwater management system shall be installed on site. d) The final subdivision plan shall indicate a vehicular easement over the subdivision access road in favour of each lot. The final plan must be accompanied with the requisite grant of easement forms detailing the easements to be registered. e) The access road (s) abutting the proposed lots shall have a minimum of a 30' wide demarcated road parcel and shall be constructed with asphalt and approved by the Central Planning Authority prior to the lots being registered. The applicant shall liaise with the Managing Director, National Roads Authority (NRA), at predetermined stages of road construction to ensure compliance with the requisite standards. Failure to do so may render the project unacceptable. Please be advised that the road base shall be constructed to National Roads Authority (NRA) minimum design and construction specifications for subdivision roads. The NRA shall inspect and certify road base construction prior to road surfacing activities. f) The applicant shall provide water infrastructure for the entire sub-division. The applicant shall submit plans for the water supply system for approval by the Water Authority. The water supply system shall be installed to the Water Authority’s specifications, under the Water Authority’s supervision. Copies of these specifications are available at the Water Authority’s office on Red Gate Road. g) The applicant shall request to have the sub-division connected to the Water Authority’s public water system. This request will be acted upon after the pipelines on the sub-division have been installed in accordance with the WAC specifications and have passed all specified tests.

h) The surveyor's final drawing shall include the surveyed dimensions of all lots and shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for approval prior to the survey being registered.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is for an eleven (11) lot subdivision which includes eight (8) house lots, two (2) LPP parcels and one (1) road parcel. Zoning The property is zoned High Density Residential and is a permitted use per Regulation 9 (6), but the Department would raise certain issues outlined below. Specific Issues a) Lot Width The minimum required lot width in the HDR zone is 60’. Given the design of the subdivision, a significant portion of proposed lots 2, 4 and 7 do not comply with the required 60’ lot width. The Authority should determine if the width of those three lots is acceptable.

3.0 ENFORCEMENTS

3. 1 LOIS ANN ARTIAGA Block 14E Parcel 213 (CM)

Breach of planning conditions. FACTS Location South east corner of Anthony Drive and Holmes Turn, George Town South Zoning HDR BACKGROUND 1980 - A house was approved on the site. 1981 - Apartments were approved on the site. 2001 - The CPA approved a two (2) lot subdivision May 26, 2010 (CPA/13/10; Item 2.9) - The Authority granted planning permission for 8 apartments undergoing renovations, subject to the following conditions: 1) The applicant is required to obtain the necessary approvals form the Chief Building Control Officer.

2) Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans. The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to occupying the building.

Decision: It was resolved to authorise the issuance of an Enforcement Notice in accordance with Section 18 of the Development and Planning Law (2011 Revision, as amended). Enforcement Notice to take effect at the end of the period of 28 days from the date of service and compliance with the Enforcement Notice to be completed within the period of 28 days from the date when the Notice takes effect, subject to the provisions of Section 18(5) and (6) of the law.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS This matter was considered by the CPA on April 30, 2014 under the name of Martha Ebanks. It has come to the Department’s attention that Ms. Ebanks is deceased and that the ownership of the land has changed to her daughter, Ms. Artiaga. The matter has been brought back to the CPA so a new enforcement notice can be issued to the current owner. The Authority granted planning permission for the apartments with the conditions to obtain the necessary Building Control approvals. To date, the applicant has not submitted plans for Building Control review.

3. 2 MIRIAM M. MUIRHEAD Block 4B Parcel 504 (JM)

Illegal commercial vending. FACTS Location Florence Lane Zoning HDR Parcel Size 0.2 acres Current Use As noted BACKGROUND 04/29/2014- A check of the planning support system shows history for this site.

completed within the period of 28 days from the date when the Notice takes effect, subject to the provisions of Section 18(5) and (6) of the law.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS Inspection of site shows two (2) sheds that are alleged to be used for food distribution.

3. 3 REX A. EBANKS Block 22E Parcel 275 (JM)

Illegal rock climbing addition with concrete wall enclosure & shed. FACTS Location Crewe Road Zoning NC Parcel Size 2.2 acres Current Use As noted

Decision: It was resolved to authorize the issuance of an Enforcement Notice in accordance with Section 18 of the Development and Planning Law (2011 Revision). Enforcement notice to take effect at the end of the period of 28 days from the date of service and compliance with the Enforcement Notice to be completed within the period of 28 days from the date when the Notice takes effect, subject to the provisions of Section 18(5) and (6) of the law.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS Inspection of site shows that a new rock climbing feature has been constructed along with a shed, neither have planning permission. There is also a perimeter wall around the new feature. These features also have modified the site layout with loss of parking spaces.

3. 4 PIRATE COVE ESTATES LTD. Block 21B Parcel 19 (JM)

Parking lot expansion & site works. FACTS Location Anne Bonny Crescent

Zoning LDR Parcel Size 4.13 acres Current Use As noted

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS Inspection of site shows that the parking lot has been expanded and site works (beautification) have been performed without planning permission.

4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN MATTERS

5.0 PLANNING APPEAL MATTERS

6.0 MATTERS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

6. 1 CAYMAN SHORES DEVELOPMENT LTD. Block 12D Parcel 95 (KA)

An application for planning permission for 101 apartments has been submitted to the Department. The applicant has inquired with the Department if the radius for notifying adjacent land owners can be reduced. In this instance, the required radius of 450’ falls within the perimeter of the subject parcel. Regulation 8(12C) (b) states that where “the radius measured from the perimeter of a proposed development area (including a parking or service area) remains within the subject parcel of land”, “the notification requirements specified in subregulation (12A) (a) to (d) may be reduced by the Authority such that only the owners who are in reasonable proximity to the proposed development are required to be notified.” The Authority is being asked to reduce the notification radius per the above referenced regulation.

The Authority considered the matter and in accordance with regulation 8(12C)(b), the Authority reduces the notification requirement to only the immediately adjoining land owners.

6. 2 ROYAL PALMS BEACH CLUB LTD. Block 12E Parcel 84 (CS)

The Authority was advised that an application for after-the-fact planning permission has been submitted for a stage and 40’ storage container, but the applicant has not submitted a recent high water mark survey. The Authority reviewed the site plan and noted that the structures in question are located landward of the existing seawall. On this basis, the Authority determined that a new high water mark survey is not required.

6. 3 NHDT HOUSES Block 4B Parcel 673 (Lots 22, 24, 25 & 32)

The Authority was advised that a property boundary dispute has arisen and is affecting the ability to issue the Certificate of Occupancy for each of the four houses in question. It was noted that the issuance of a CO simply indicates that the building is safe for occupation and is not related to the apparent boundary dispute. The Authority considered the matter and determined that planning permission would be modified to delete the condition of approval requiring the subdivision to be finalized prior to the CO being issued. Decision 4B 673 (lot 22): It was resolved that having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations it is expedient to modify planning permission. Now therefore the Central Planning Authority in pursuance of Section 17 of the Development and Planning Law (2011 Revision) hereby orders that planning permission be modified to delete condition 3). Decision 4B 673 (lot 24): It was resolved that having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations it is expedient to modify planning permission. Now therefore the Central Planning Authority in pursuance of Section 17 of the Development and Planning Law (2011 Revision) hereby orders that planning permission be modified to delete condition 3). Decision 4B 673 (lot 25): It was resolved that having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations it is expedient to modify planning permission. Now therefore the Central Planning Authority in pursuance of Section 17 of the Development and Planning Law (2011 Revision) hereby orders that planning permission be modified to delete condition 3). Decision 4B 673 (lot 32): It was resolved that having regard to the Development Plan and other material considerations it is expedient to modify planning permission. Now therefore the Central Planning Authority in pursuance of Section 17 of the Development and Planning Law (2011 Revision) hereby orders that planning permission be modified to delete condition 3).

6. 4 ILLEGAL CHANGE-OF-USE Block 9A Parcel 56

The Authority was advised that an existing house on the property has been changed to a halfway house without obtaining planning permission. The Authority determined that the new use and the activities associated with it are institutional in nature and require planning permission.

7.0 CPA MEMBERS INFORMATION/DISCUSSIONS