CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY · 1 Central Planning Authority . Agenda for a meeting of the Central Planning Authority to be held on April 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference Room,

1

Central Planning Authority

Agenda for a meeting of the Central Planning Authority to be held on April 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference Room, 1st Floor, Government Administration Building, Elgin Avenue.

9th Meeting of the Year CPA/09/15

Mr. A. L. Thompson (Chairman) Mr. Robert Watler Jr. (Deputy Chairman) 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 Mr. Haroon Pandohie (Executive Secretary) Mr. Ron Sanderson (Deputy Director of Planning (CP))

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

2

List of Applications to be Presented at CPA/09/15

1. 1 Confirmation of Minutes of CPA/08/15 held on April 15, 2015. ........................ 3

2. 1 KEVIN GORING / KIRK OFFICE Block 14C Parcel 314 (F06-0149) (P15-0156) ($7,400) (CS) ................................................................................................ 4

2. 2 MICHAEL & PATRICIA MANDISH Block 12E Parcel 41 (F15-0037) (P15-0160) ($20,000) (KA) ............................................................................................. 5

2. 3 RITZ CARLTON/ TOM SPERANDEO Block 12C Parcel 393 (F97-0378) (P15-0196) ($20,000) (CS) ..................................................................................... 8

2. 4 STEFAN BARAUD Block 21C Parcel 122 (F14-0201) (P15-0211) (P15-0212) (P15-0213) (P15-0214) ($3.0807 million) (BES) ................................................. 10

2. 5 MORRITTS PROPERTIES Block 73A Parcel 102 (F06-0141) (P15-0202) (P14-1099) ($100,000) (CS) ................................................................................. 19

2. 6 LOOKOUT HOLDING LTD Block 43E Parcel 102 (F11-0209) (P15-0236) ($9,941) (CS) ........................................................................................................ 21

2. 7 SEVEN MILE BEACH RESORT Block 13B Parcel 102 (FA89-0271) (P15-0227) ($1.8 million) (CS) ..................................................................................... 23

2. 8 CENTRE ISLAND PROPRIETORS Block 12C Parcel 327 (FA80-0309) (P15-0297) ($3,500) (CS) .............................................................................................. 24

2. 9 EME PASCHALICLES Block 33M Parcel 30 (FA93-336) (P15-0142) (P15-0109) (P15-0143) ($50,000) (EJ) .......................................................................... 26

2. 10 SANDY PALMS CORP. LTD. Block 25C Parcel 162 (F15-0060) (P15-0252) ($55,000) (CS) ...................................................................................................... 27

2. 11 HARLEY BENNETT Block 59A Parcel 32 H2 (F15-0054) (P15-0226) ($220,000) (EJ) ..................................................................................................... 29

2. 12 MARLEN BROADBENT Block 13D Parcel 431 (F15-0070) (P15-0281) ($20,000) (KA) ..................................................................................................... 30

2. 13 VEARON HAMILTON Block 4E Parcel 711 (F11-0129) (P15-0195) ($2,000) (EJ) ........................................................................................................................ 32

2. 14 LIV DEVELOPMENT Block 15E Parcel 245 (F05-0477) (P15-0197) ($130,044) (KA) ...................................................................................................................... 33

2. 15 DIGICEL CAYMAN SERVICES LTD Block 19E Parcel 171 (F03-0468) (P15-0268) ($45,000) (CS) ............................................................................................ 34

3

APPLICANTS APPEARING BEFORE THE CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY

APPLICANT NAME TIME ITEM PAGE

Kevin Goring/Kirk Office (CS) 10:30 2.1 4

Michael & Patricia Mandish (KA)

11:10 2.2 5

Ritz Carlton/Tom Sperandeo (CS)

11:30 2.3 8

1.0 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

1. 1 Confirmation of Minutes of CPA/08/15 held on April 15, 2015.

4

2. 1 KEVIN GORING / KIRK OFFICE Block 14C Parcel 314 (F06-0149) (P15-0156) ($7,400) (CS)

Application for a sign.

Appearance at 10:30 FACTS Location Northwest corner of Compass Drive and

North Sound Road

Zoning G COM Notice Requirements No Objectors

Parcel Size 41,033 sq. ft.

Current Use Commercial

Proposed Use Sign

BACKGROUND June 14, 2006 (CPA/19/06; Item 2.3) - The Authority granted planning permission for a warehouse addition.

April 1, 2015 (CPA/07/15; Item 2.7) - The Authority resolved to adjourn the application to invite the applicant appear before the Authority to discuss details regarding the proposal.

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reason:

1. Compliance to sign guidelines.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The applicant is requesting planning permission for a 8’ high wrap around sign (285 sq. ft. total area).

Zoning The property is zoned General Commercial and while signage is allowed in this zone, the Department would offer comments on certain specific issues addressed below.

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

5

Specific Issues a) Compliance to Sign Guidelines (2014 Rev.)

Section 5.2 allows building signs up to 10% of a commercial building facade. The facade facing Compass Drive is approximately 3068 sq. ft. thereby allowing a sign up to 306 sq. ft. The sign proposed along this frontage will be 244 sq. ft. (8%).

However, the applicant will not be placing this sign on the actual facade. An 8’ high enclosure around the air conditioning units is proposed, to which a vinyl sign will be attached. The sign will wrap around the enclosure which will also add 41 sq. ft. of signage to the North Sound Road frontage.

The Authority is recommended to discuss whether the proposed signage is suitable.

SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS No changes have been made to the application as the Authority invited the applicant to appear before them to discuss the proposal.

2. 2 MICHAEL & PATRICIA MANDISH Block 12E Parcel 41 (F15-0037) (P15-0160) ($20,000) (KA)

Application for an after-the-fact pergola.

Appearance at 11:10 FACTS Location Lizard Run Drive, off West Bay Road

Zoning H/T Notice Requirements Objectors

Parcel Size 0.1 acres

Current Use House

Proposed Use Pergola Addition

BACKGROUND April 15, 2015 (CPA/08/15; item 2.6) – the Authority adjourned the application as an objection was received and both the applicant and objector have to be invited to appear before the Authority

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons: 1. Setbacks (1’ from boundary and 2’ from road).

2. Concerns of the objector

6

LETTER FROM APPLICANT “By means of this letter and the accompanying application, we are requesting planning approval for an open pergola that will be used as a partial shade structure for cars parked below The owners, Michael and Patricia Mandish, of Block 12E Parcel 41 started construction on concrete footings without realizing that planning approval was necessary for an open pergola or trellis structure. They received a notice to stop work on a garage from Chris Mcfield, a compliance office with the Planning Department. We are confirming that work on the project has ceased until approval for further construction is granted. As you will see on the site plan, the pergola structure will encroach the north setback line. Notifications have been sent to the owners of Block 12E Parcel 33. We also kindly request that a variance be granted to allow the structure to cover the driveway, which will provide the maximum amount of shading from the sun. The columns will be setback from the edge of the asphalt and will not impede traffic along the easement (private road, Lizard Run Drive). We acknowledge that the parcel is in a Hotel/Tourism zone, however the set precedent along the easement is for single and muti-family residential structures and we feel that this pergola will be in keeping with the scale and aesthetics that are currently present.”

OBJECTIONS “I write on behalf of Manuela Cornelssen who is the registered proprietor of Block 13E, Parcel 39, #35 Lizard Run Drive, which is located one lot away from the site of the proposed development and is the place of my residence. It has just today come to our attention that the captioned application has been submitted, and that such application is listed for hearing by the CPA tomorrow. It appears that the applicants may have only been required by the Development and Planning Regulations to notify the adjoining land owner, but, as this partially constructed development affects the use and enjoyment of all of the residents of Lizard Run Drive, we wish to register our objection. Firstly, it seems very peculiar that despite the fact that Mr. Mandish regularly “polices” every activity on Lizard Run Drive, he didn’t know that he needed planning permission for an open pergola. In fact, late last year, when we were constructing the enclosure of existing garages in accordance with planning permission that we obtained, he went around the neighbourhood trying to drum up support for a “petition to planning” against our construction. Yet he claims that he was not aware that he needed planning permission for this structure. This is clearly an outright lie, and it is sincerely hoped by us that he has had to pay the requisite penalty fees for an after the fact construction, as he so endeavoured to make all of the neighbors believe that we were constructing in breach of planning process. We would specifically object to the construction of this “Pergola Addition” as it is, unlike any other development on Lizard Run Drive, situated right at the edge of

7

the road, thereby encroaching on the setback line significantly, with concrete columns that rise out of the ground right along the edge of the roadway. No doubt, once a roof is placed on top of these columns, it will hang over Lizard Run Drive. Furthermore, the columns are located so close together that it takes some time and skill to maneuverer a car between them, and because they are located right at the side of the road, this means that any car navigating in and out of the pergola/carport will impede any traffic moving along Lizard Run Drive. We have recently had this experience a couple of times, where Mr. Mandish has had to make several attempts to turn in the road to line his car up to reverse into his yard between these columns and we have had to wait for a few minutes until he was out of the roadway. What makes matters worse is that Mr. Mandish has a very tall, dense hedge along the perimeter of Lizard Run Drive which would impede the view of the entrance to this carport, which in and of itself poses a hazard to anyone traversing this road. We are aware that there has been a similar pergola constructed across the road, and although we are not aware whether this was approved by the CPA or not, it should be noted that the same was constructed with a setback a number of feet from the edge of Lizard Run Drive, and, as it is more open and accessible, this pergola does not, in our view, constitute a traffic hazard and nuisance as does the one that Mandish is constructing. We would therefore hope that the CPA fully considers the foregoing and refuses the application as it is currently proposed.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The applicant started construction of a pergola and was advised by the Code Compliance Officer to cease construction and submit a planning application. The site is located on Lizard Run Drive, off West Bay Road.

Zoning The property is zoned Hotel/Tourism and while the proposed use is a permitted use per Regulation 10 the Department would offer comments on certain specific issues addressed below.

Specific Issues a) Setbacks

The existing road is part of an easement which runs along the front boundary of the parcel. The existing house is setback approximately 13’ from the edge of the existing road. The proposed pergola would be setback 1’ from the property boundary and about 2’ from the road edge. The Authority can view photos on file to see the placement of the concrete pillars. The minimum required setback from the road in a Hotel Tourism zone is 25’. The Department is of the opinion that the pergola should be no closer to the road than the existing house. The adjacent land owners were notified and no objections were received.

8

SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS No changes have been made to the application as the Authority invited the applicant and objector to appear before them to discuss the proposal.

2. 3 RITZ CARLTON/ TOM SPERANDEO Block 12C Parcel 393 (F97-0378) (P15-0196) ($20,000) (CS)

Application for after-the-fact planning permission to convert 69 valet parking spaces for storage areas, maintenance room and water tanks.

Appearance at 11:30 FACTS Location The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Seven Mile Beach

Zoning N COM Parcel Size 8.29 acres

Current Use Parking Garage

Proposed Use Storage

Required Parking 281

BACKGROUND April 15, 2015 (CPA/08/15; item 2.7) – the Authority adjourned the application to invite the applicant to appear to discuss the application

Recommendation: Discuss the application, for the following reasons:

1. Suitability of parking reduction.

2. Location of water tanks.

LETTER FROM APPLICANT “See attached our application form for our request for a change of Occupancy Use for the underground parking areas at The Ritz Carlton and the revised parking space numbers provided on site. Many of the original parking areas noted on the underground parking plan have since been fenced off and converted to storage and maintenance areas. A sketch is attached showing the existing parking spaces on site (this does not include the beach side). The drawings that were provided to us indicate parking space requirement of 231 in the original build. Refer to 'parking calculations' box in top left of attached drawings.

9

Our calculations indicate the following numbers of existing parking spaces: Above ground = 281 + 15 HC Below ground = 27 Total = 308 + 5 HC It appears that we comply with the minimum parking requirements noted on these drawings however the actual 'Parking Calculations' numbers on the plans in the Planning Department will need to be reviewed to match what we have. Additionally, our client would like to request an occupancy modification due to the areas at the underground parking changing to storage areas. 8,910 sq.ft. of parking area has been changed to Storage Occupancy S1. Additionally, 570 sq.ft. of parking area has been changed to 'paint booth'. We are not sure of this occupancy classification.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The applicant is requesting after-the-fact planning permission to convert 69 valet parking spaces for storage areas, maintenance room and water tanks.

Zoning The property is zoned Hotel/Tourism and while the proposed use is a permitted use per Regulation 10(1), the Department would offer comments on certain specific issues addressed below.

Specific Issues a) Parking

Per review of the past CPA approval for the hotel, a total of 281 parking spaces were required for the hotel. 287 surface parking stalls exist on the site and then the 27 remaining valet stalls in the garage. Therefore, the proposal complies with the Authority's previous decisions for parking.

The Department notes there appears to be a real need for additional parking as several employees park their cars along Safehaven Drive. The CPA is recommended to discuss whether additional formal parking should be required or whether the 69 spaces in the parking garage shall remain.

b) Location of Water Tanks The applicant has located water tanks close to the garage entrance. It measures 13’ from the driveway edge. The Department recommends the tanks be relocated to a more secure area.

SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS No changes have been made to the proposal as the Authority invited the applicant to appear before them to discuss concerns regarding the application.

10

2. 4 STEFAN BARAUD Block 21C Parcel 122 (F14-0201) (P15-0211) (P15-0212) (P15-0213) (P15-0214) ($3.0807 million) (BES)

Application for six (6) apartments, swimming pool, sign and fence.

FACTS Location West of Cayman Crossing on South Sound

Road

Zoning LDR Notice Requirements No Objectors


Building Size 20,538 sq. ft.

Density 9.09

Allowable Density 15

Building Coverage 16.9%

Parking Coverage 27.4%

Total Site Coverage 44.3%

Proposed Handicapped Spaces 1

Proposed Parking 12

Required Handicapped Spaces 1

Required Parking 9

BACKGROUND November 26, 2014 (CPA/28/14; Item 2.7) - CPA granted planning permission for a real estate sign.


1. The suitability of the site for apartments.

2. Bedroom density.

3. Lack of setback between driveways and adjacent land.

4. Site grades.

5. Building height.

6. DOE’s comments regarding storm water management

2.0 APPLICATIONS REGULAR AGENDA (Items 2. 4 TO 2. 15)

11

AGENCY COMMENTS Comments from the Department of Environment, Water Authority and National Roads Authority are noted below.

Department of Environment "Further to a review of the above referenced application, the Department of Environment (DOE) provides the following comments for consideration.

Overview

Figure 1: Aerial imagery showing the application site subject parcel outlined in blue (Source LIS 2013) The submitted proposal for the construction of apartments is located in South Sound in an area just north of the South Sound Road and in the vicinity of Cayman Crossing. The proposed site coverage is 7,147sqft. According to the submitted plans, the proposed development consists of multiple apartment units and a pool. The application site’s vegetation coverage is mostly comprised of secondary growth and classed as a ‘man modified’ area rather than the ecologically more important and previously undisturbed ‘primary habitat’. The surrounding area is mostly comprised of low lying seasonally flooded mangrove forest and woodland (see Figure 2).

12

Figure 2: DoE’s 2006 terrestrial habitat map showing the land cover types of the application site

Comments and Recommendations 1. The subject parcel is located in a larger wetland area previously identified as

the South Sound Drainage Basin (see Figure 3). This area serves as an important reservoir for seasonal rainwater and stormwater drainage and is subject to large fluctuations in water levels. The capacity to absorb surrounding stormwater drainage depends on its low lying nature and filling land in these areas critically reduces this capacity. The Department, and other reviewing agencies, believe that, prior to any further approval of developments in this area, a regional stormwater management policy is required to address flooding issues in areas adjacent to this low lying area and the increased flood threat posed by further development (see memo attached). Already a number of existing developments within the basin are repeatedly flooded during the wet season. These issues should be addressed and a stormwater management system clarified before any permissions are given for the proposed development.

13

Figure 3: A terrain elevation model showing the low lying area of the South Sound Drainage basin (outlined in red)

2. With reference to the plans provided, there are no details given regarding the intended stormwater drainage infrastructure. The rear portion of the subject parcel is currently very low lying (see figure 4) and may require a substantial quantity of fill material. The amount and source of this fill should be specified, given that flooding is a serious issue of to the surrounding properties (see Figure 4), and the shedding water to surrounding parcels should be avoided.

3. As this parcel appears to be a part of a subdivision, a stormwater management plan that complements the overall subdivision’s stormwater management plan should be developed. It is recommended that the stormwater management plan incorporates the natural gradient of the surrounding area and includes adequate green spaces and vegetated swales to retain runoff, as well as the use of permeable driveways and parking surfaces to increase the amount of natural rain water percolation.

Figure 4: A terrain elevation model showing the low lying area of the application site (L). A terrain elevation model showing the low lying area of the application site and surrounding parcels (R). The areas in green are at very low elevations (1-2ft above sea level) (Source LIS 2013)

14

4. If the CPA is minded to grant permission in the absence of a regional approach to a stormwater management plan for the South Sound Drainage Basin, then the application should be deferred pending the revision of plans to include greater detail of the stormwater management plan for the application site. In addition the applicant should clarify the number of apartments proposed as the plans submitted depicts 12, however the notes stated that there are 6 apartment units proposed.”

Water Authority "Please be advised that the Water Authority’s requirements for this development are as follows:

Wastewater Treatment • The developer is advised that the proposed apartments: (6) 3-bedroom units,

bring the development on this parcel to the maximum size/use allowed for treatment by septic tank(s). Further development on this parcel, including the “future building footprint”, that increases the estimated wastewater flows (e.g. residential to commercial; low-water-use commercial to high-water-use commercial) will require that all wastewater generated on the parcel; i.e., from proposed and existing structures, shall be treated in an onsite aerobic wastewater treatment system(s).

• The proposed apartments can be served by a 2,500 gallon septic tank, until and unless further development takes place on the parcel, at which time an upgrade will be required to ensure that all wastewater generated on the parcel is treated in an onsite aerobic treatment system(s).

• The septic tank shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards.

• All treated effluent shall be discharged into a disposal well; the invert level of the discharge pipe shall be at least two feet above the high water level in the well. The effluent disposal well shall be constructed prior to installation of the septic tank, in order to establish the flow line from the building sewer stub-out, through the septic tank, to a discharge invert level of at least two feet above the high water level in the disposal well.

• Disposal wells shall be constructed by a licenced driller in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards. Minimum required depth of borehole and length of grouted casing are site-specific and are obtained by licenced drillers before pricing or constructing an effluent disposal well.

Water Supply The proposed development site is located within the Water Authority’s piped water supply area. • The developer shall contact Water Authority’s Engineering Services

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

15

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

• The developer shall install the water supply infrastructure within the site, in strict compliance with the approved plans and the Water Authority’s Guidelines for Constructing Potable Water Mains and under the Water Authority’s supervision."

National Roads Authority "As per your memo dated March 20th, 2015 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 traffic demand to be generated by a residential development of a six (6) multi-family units has been assessed in accordance with ITE Code 220. Thus, the assumed average trip rates per dwelling unit provided by ITE for estimating the daily, AM and PM peak hour trips are 6.63, 0.51 and 0.62 respectively. The anticipated traffic to be added onto Marina Drive is as follows:

Expected Daily Trip

AM Peak Hour Total

Traffic

AM Peak 16% In

AM Peak 84% Out

PM Peak Hour Total

Traffic

PM Peak 67% In

PM Peak 33% Out

40 3 1 2 4 3 1

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

Access and Traffic Management Issues One-way driveway aisles shall be a minimum of twelve (12) to sixteen (16) ft. wide. Two-way driveway aisles shall be a minimum of twenty-two (22) ft. wide. Entrance and exit curves shall have no less than fifteen (15) feet radius curves, and have a width of twenty-four (24) ft. A six (6) foot sidewalk shall be constructed on South Sound Road, within the property boundary, to NRA standards. Tire stops (if used) shall be place in parking spaces such that the length of the parking space is not reduced below the sixteen (16) feet minimum.

Stormwater Management 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:

16

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

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

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

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

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

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

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is for six (6) apartments (3-storeys in height), swimming pool, sign (30 sq. ft.) and 3’ fence. The site is located west of Cayman Crossing on South Sound Road.

Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential and the Department would offer comments on certain specific issues addressed below.

17

Specific Issues a) Suitability

The surrounding land uses in the area are apartments, single-family dwelling houses, public boat ramp and vacant properties. It should be pointed out that are several apartments on Bel Air Drive similar in size of the proposal. In accordance with the section 9(8) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2013 revision, as amended), apartments are permissible in suitable locations.

In terms of density the proposal is in keeping with existing densities of apartments in the area. The Department would offer the following information of the nearby apartment developments in the area.

Block Parcel Parcel Size # of Units Density Height Location

21B 27 & 102

19.01 168 (Approved on Dec. 10, 2014)

8.83 3-storey Opposite South Sound Launching Ramp

21E 67 1.633 acre 19 11.6 2-storeys

Pirates Lair

21C 134 7.68 acres 111 14.5 2-storeys

Cayman Crossing

21C 95 0.5305 acre 8 15.1 2-storeys

Breezy Pine

21C 55 0.4506 acre 6 13.3 2-storeys

Belair Gardens

21C 132 0.9019 acre 13 14.4 3-storeys

Las Brisas

15E 317 and 319

12.47 acres 140 11.22 3-storeys

San Sebastian Apartments

Given the apartment developments in the area, the Department is of the view that the location is suitable for apartments.

b) Density Pursuant to Regulation 9(8)(c) of the Development and Planning Regulations, the maximum allowable apartments and bedrooms are noted below. The Department notes that the applicant is seeking approval for 3 bedrooms over the maximum allowable.

Proposed Lot Size

Sq. Ft.

Req’d Lot Size

Sq. Ft.

Proposed Apts

Proposed Bed Rms

Max. Allowable Apts

Max. Allowable Bed Rms.

28,749.6 25,000 6 18 9 15

18

c) Driveway setbacks The proposal has been designed with a one way driveway that enters the site along the westerly boundary, then circles the building to the exit along the easterly boundary. The design includes a 3’ perimeter wall on the boundary with the driveway right next to it. There is no setback for landscaping to buffer the driveway from adjacent properties.

d) Site grades The submitted plans show the site grades being raised from about 4’ to 6’ above sea level to 8.5’ to 11’ above sea level. The final grades will be noticeably higher than adjacent properties thereby raising the issue of containing drainage on the subject site. The applicant is proposing two 3’ perimeter walls along each side boundary and if the proposal is approved, the applicant will have to prepare a stormwater management plan. The Department raises the matter to determine if the Authority is of the view that anything additional is required to address site drainage in relation to the proposed finished site grades.

e) Building height In the Low Density Residential zone, maximum permissible building height is 40 feet or 3 storeys, whichever is less. The submitted plans include a basement level for parking spaces. The plans show that 5’ of the 7’-6” basement will be below grade, except at the rear of the building where the entrance to the basement parking is located. At this area of the building the entire floor is exposed which now creates a 4 storey building which doesn’t’ comply with the height limitations. Further, in the same area of the building, the height is measured at 40’ 8”, which also doesn’t comply with the regulations. The Department also questions the feasibility of a basement which will be at 0’ from sea level.

19

2. 5 MORRITTS PROPERTIES Block 73A Parcel 102 (F06-0141) (P15-0202) (P14-1099) ($100,000) (CS)

Application to modify planning permission for a recently approved restaurant, game room, cabana, pool and tennis courts.

FACTS Location Morritts, Queens Highway



Current Use Warehouse and Retail

Proposed Use Ancillary Hotel

Proposed Parking 29

BACKGROUND February 17, 2015 (CPA/04/15; Item 2.3) - The Authority granted planning permission for a restaurant with game room, cabana, pool and tennis courts, subject to the following condition:

1) The applicant shall submit a revised site plan showing:

a) The driveway and parking area surfaced with asphalt.

b) The portion of the proposed sidewalk from Queen’s Highway to the proposed new driveway continuous with no breaks near the existing warehouse. The sidewalk in this location can be at grade in order to facilitate access to the rear of the warehouse.


1. Whether to require two additional parking spaces for the second bar.

2. Whether to require the completion of the subdivision/combination as a condition of approval.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The applicant is requesting to modify planning permission for a recently approved restaurant, game room, cabana, pool and tennis courts. The applicant wishes to add a bar to the cabana and add a wastewater treatment plan.

20

Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential and Agriculture. While the CPA has previously approved the ancillary hotel use on this site, the Department would offer comments on certain specific issues addressed below.

Specific Issues a) Parking

The applicant is not proposing any additional parking with the addition of a second bar. The square footage of the structure is not changing, but there will now be bar seats and table seating. The parking calculation previously used for the cabana was 1 space per 300 square feet for a requirement of 5 parking spaces. The parking requirement for the bar is based on 1 space per 200 square feet for a requirement of 7 parking spaces. The Department is of the view that the site plan can be easily revised to provide 2 additional spaces.

b) Location of Wastewater Treatment Plant The applicant proposes a new wastewater treatment plant to be located on the adjacent site, Parcel 101. An application for a two lot subdivision has been submitted, the purpose of which is to be subdivided the area shown on the site plan and combine it with Parcel 102. However, the application is incomplete as the Department is awaiting new notifications and revisions. Should the Authority favourably view the modification application, the Department recommends that a condition of approval be imposed requiring the subdivision/combination to be completed.

21

2. 6 LOOKOUT HOLDING LTD Block 43E Parcel 102 (F11-0209) (P15-0236) ($9,941) (CS)

Application for a thirteen (13) lot subdivision.

FACTS Location Lookout Gardens, Bodden Town



Current Use Vacant

Proposed Use Subdivision

Number of Parcels 13

BACKGROUND There is no Planning history for this portion of Lookout Gardens.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission, subject standard conditions plus a condition requiring the existing right-of-way easement through Lots 11 and 12 being relocated or expunged prior to the subdivision being registered.

AGENCY COMMENTS Comments from the Water Authority and National Roads Authority are noted below.

Water Authority “Please be advised that the Water Authority’s requirements for this development are as follows:

Water Supply: • Please be advised that all proposed lots are adjacent to the Water Authority’s

piped water supply line in Lookout and Promenade Road. The developer shall contact the Water Authority’s Engineering Services at 949-2837, without delay, to be advised of the site-specific requirements for connection.

Wastewater Treatment: • Please be advised that wastewater treatment and disposal requirements for

built development are subject to review by the Water Authority.”

National Roads Authority “As per your memo dated March 26th, 20145 the NRA has reviewed the above-mentioned planning proposal. Please find below our comments and

22

recommendations based on the site plan provided.

Stormwater Management Issues Please note access to the 14,500 sq. ft. retention area per the original parent SWMP approved in 2011 needs to be retained. A comprehensive drainage plan needs to be provided by the applicant for the entire project. The applicant shall demonstrate that the Stormwater Management system can be designed to include storm water runoff produced from a rainfall intensity of 2 inches per hour for one hour of duration and ensure that surrounding properties that are lower, and nearby public roadways are not subject to stormwater runoff from this site. The applicant is encouraged to consider stormwater management techniques other than deep wells, and to contact the NRA for advice on these alternative control measures.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The applicant is requesting planning permission for a thirteen (13) lot subdivision.

Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential and complies with the Regulation 9(8) for lot size and lot width. The Department does have one recommendation, addressed below.

Specific Issues a) Existing Right-of-Way Easement

There is an existing easement that will run through proposed Lots 11 and 12, which will cause a conflict for future home development. This easement is no longer needed as a prior subdivision has realigned Lookout Road. The Department recommends this easement be relocated or expunged prior to obtaining Final Approval.

23

2. 7 SEVEN MILE BEACH RESORT Block 13B Parcel 102 (FA89-0271) (P15-0227) ($1.8 million) (CS)

Application for a two-storey hotel addition.

FACTS Location Seven Mile Beach Resort, Piper Way and

West Bay Road, Seven Mile Beach

Zoning H/T Notice Requirements No Objectors


Current Use Hotel

Proposed Use Hotel


Building Coverage 20%

Existing Parking 36

Proposed Parking 4

Required Parking 33

Number of Units 9

BACKGROUND The Seven Mile Beach Suites Hotel exists on this site.


1. Parking functionality.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The applicant is requesting planning permission to demolish the existing lobby building and construct a two-story hotel addition which will include the following:

• Hotel lobby and office

• Bar/lounge

• Gym

• Retail store

• Conference Room

24

• Manager’s apartment

• Eight hotel rooms

Zoning The property is zoned Hotel Tourism and the Department would offer comments on specific issues below.

Specific Issues a) Parking functionality

The applicant is proposing 4 new parking spaces in front of the new building addition. The parking spaces will reverse onto the existing 15’ wide road/driveway. The Department is concerned that it may prove very difficult to reverse out of these parking spaces as there is limited physical space available within the 15’ wide driveway.

2. 8 CENTRE ISLAND PROPRIETORS Block 12C Parcel 327 (FA80-0309) (P15-0297) ($3,500) (CS)

Application for reparcellation of two (2) parcels.

FACTS Location Palm Heights Drive, Snug Harbour

Zoning LDR Notice Requirements NA


Current Use Apartments

Proposed Use Reparcellation

BACKGROUND There are existing apartments on each parcel.


1. Side setbacks (0’ and 9’-6” vs. 10’)

LETTER FROM APPLICANT “We recently applied to the Register of Land for a re-parcellation of the common boundary on the above parcel to remove the encroachment of the shed. The Registrar gave us permission and we completed the survey. Attached is a copy of the Fixed Boundary plan that was submitted for registration. The client was in the process of moving the garbage containers when he discovered that there is a septic tank under a section of it. We have subsequently applied to the Registrar to

25

skirt the boundary around the septic tank to remove this encroachment as well. The Registrar has given her permission, subject to Planning approval. We ask for your permission to re-parcel the boundary so that all encroachments will be removed.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The applicant is requesting planning permission to reparcel two (2) lots.

Zoning The site 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) Side Setbacks

The two adjacent parcels have existing apartment developments. As mentioned in the applicant’s letter, there is a septic tank and pool house that cross over the common boundary. The applicant wishes to reconfigure the common boundary to eliminate the encroachment. As a result, the septic tank will have a zero side setback and the pool house will be 9’-6” from the new parcel line.

The Department supports the variance request as the proposal will ensure all existing development will be located on an individual parcel.

26

2. 9 EME PASCHALICLES Block 33M Parcel 30 (FA93-336) (P15-0142) (P15-0109) (P15-0143) ($50,000) (EJ)

Application for a swimming pool, cabana and additions to house.

FACTS Location Water Cay Road



Current Use House and Pool

Proposed Use House Addition etc.

Density 4

Allowable Density 1.85


Existing Parking 2

Required Parking 1

BACKGROUND

January 14, 1994 (ADMIN/APP/02/94; Item 1.4) - The Department granted permission for a three (3) bedroom house.

October 5, 1994 (CPA/31/94; Item 2.19) - The CPA granted permission for a swimming pool.


1. HWM setback variance request.

LETTER FROM APPLICANT “The Owners of the house in Block 33M Parcel 30 in the area of Rum Point are in the process of planning a few upgrades and additions to their house. One of them is the replacement of the old and deteriorated swimming pool with a larger improved one. The new pool and cabana will be located at the same distance from the house as the current pool and 65 Ft from the shore’s high water mark in the south-east corner and 85 Ft in the south-west corner of the cabana since the requirement is for a minimum of 75ft setback we respectfully request CPA to grant a setback variance to allow a portion of the Pool to be at less the 75 Ft from the shore. Agent for Breadfruit Properties Limited.”

27

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General Proposal The applicant is seeking the Authority’s permission for the proposed setback variances for the swimming pool, gazebo and house addition.


Specific Issues a) Rear (HWM), Regulation 8(10)(b)

The Department has no concerns for the proposed additions to the house and new cabana. The applicant is seeking the Authority’s permission for the proposed swimming pool which does not meet the required setback, proposed at 64’ from the high water mark instead of the required 75’ or a difference of 11’. On October 5, 1994 (CPA/31/94, Item 2.19), the Authority granted permission for the existing pool which the applicant wishes to replace with a larger pool. The existing pool is setback what appears to be 75’ from the HWM. There are several pools in the area that appear to have similar setbacks as the proposed pool.

2. 10 SANDY PALMS CORP. LTD. Block 25C Parcel 162 (F15-0060) (P15-0252) ($55,000) (CS)

Application for a 5’ high concrete wall.

FACTS Location Adjacent to Spotts Public Beach, Shamrock

Road, Spotts

Zoning LDR Parcel Size 40,075 sq. ft.

Current Use Vacant

Proposed Use Fence


1. Proposed height of wall.

2. Location of concrete wall from road.

28

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The applicant is requesting planning permission for a 5’ high concrete wall.

Zoning The property is zoned Low Density Residential and while the proposed use is a permitted use per Regulation 9 (8), the Department does offer the following comments in regards to the proposal below:

Specific Issues a) Location of Wall at Access Points

The applicant is proposing to locate a concrete wall along the front property line which fronts Shamrock Road. The Department is concerned that the current wall design would require incoming visitors to stop on a busy road to enter the driveway and also block the view of oncoming traffic for exiting vehicles.

The Department recommends the wall be modified to be set back 6’ from the property line and include 15’ truncations at the driveway location. However, it should be noted that the Authority approved a similar 5’ wall on 25C 160 at CPA/13/14 and did not require the wall to be shifted or truncations provided.

b) Height of Fence and Wall The applicant is requesting a 5’ concrete wall along the front boundary. Any walls/fences greater than 4’ require CPA consideration. As noted above, the Authority approved a similar 5’ wall on 25C 160.

29

2. 11 HARLEY BENNETT Block 59A Parcel 32 H2 (F15-0054) (P15-0226) ($220,000) (EJ)

Application for a two-storey house.

FACTS Zoning LDR Notice Requirements No Objectors


Current Use Vacant

Proposed Use House



Proposed Parking 1

Required Parking 1

BACKGROUND February 16, 2010 (CPA/03/11; Item 2.4) - The CPA granted permission for an eight (8) lot raw land strata subdivision.


1. Side setback variance request.

LETTER FROM APPLICANT “We are kindly asking your consideration in our proposal for the variation of the setback of the proposed building on existing raw land strata parcel in our Bello Horizonte Development. It is my understanding that the required setback between single storey buildings can be 10’ (feet), in addition we have a module the Cypress Point layout which have been functional and successful Raw Land Strata and has two storey buildings approximately 15-ft apart. [As owners of the adjacent parcels H1 and H3 we give our consent to the above mentioned parcel to be located 12-ft from the common boundary]. It should be noted that our buildings will be a minimum of 20ft apart on all the strata parcels that we currently owns and would kindly appreciate your consideration.”

30

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General Proposal The applicant is seeking the Authority’s permission for the proposed setback variances for the swimming pool, gazebo and house addition.


Specific Issues a) Side Setbacks, Regulation 9(8)(j)

The applicant is seeking permission from the Authority for the proposed two storey house which does not meet the required 15’ side setbacks, proposed at 12’ on each side or a difference of 3’.

The subject lot was approved on February 16, 2010 (CPA/03/11; Item 2.4), by the Authority as part of an eight (8) lot raw land strata; with the subject lot approved at 6,273 sq. ft. and 60’ in width; therefore, the proposed 35’ wide house leaves little room or approximately 12’ setback on each side instead of the required 15’ for two-storey structures. The Department would suggest that the floor plan can be redesigned to lessen the width of the house thereby complying with the required side setbacks.

The applicant has notified the adjacent parcels and no objections were received; the proposed meets planning requirements such as site coverage, parking, front and rear setbacks etc.

2. 12 MARLEN BROADBENT Block 13D Parcel 431 (F15-0070) (P15-0281) ($20,000) (KA)

Application for an 8’ fence.

FACTS Location Seymour Road, George Town

Zoning HI Notice Requirements No Objectors


Current Use Vacant

BACKGROUND CPA/07/15; item 2.17 – the Authority granted approval for an 8’ fence for the same applicant on 13D 433


31

1. Proposed height of fence (8’).

LETTER FROM APPLICANT “I wish to apply for a building permit to erect an 8 foot chain link fence for Block 13D 431 as indicated on the plan enclosed. I have informed the owners of the neighbouring parcels of land and enclose copies of all relevant paperwork.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is for the erection of an 8’ fence around the section of parcel fronting Seymour Road. The site is located just south of the access to the landfill, Seymour Drive, George Town

Zoning The site is zoned Heavy Industrial and the Department would offer comments on certain specific issues addressed below.

Specific Issues The site has been cleared of all material and the applicant would like to erect an 8’ fence along the boundary fronting the main road. The Authority recently granted permission for an 8’ fence on the vacant parcel across the street - 13D 433. The Department supports the construction of this fence in hopes that the land will no longer be used to store waste.

32

2. 13 VEARON HAMILTON Block 4E Parcel 711 (F11-0129) (P15-0195) ($2,000) (EJ)

Application for a two (2) lot subdivision.

FACTS Location Gunters Link

Zoning HDR Notice Requirements No Objectors

Parcel Size 0.15 (6,534 sq. ft.)

Current Use Duplex

Proposed Use Subdivision

Number of Parcels 2

BACKGROUND July 6, 2011 (CPA/14/11; Item 2.21) -CPA granted permission for a duplex.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General Proposal The applicant is seeking the Authority’s permission for the proposed two (2) lot subdivision.

Zoning The property is zoned High Density Residential (HDR) and while the proposed use is a permitted use per Regulation 9 (6), the Department would offer comments on certain specific issues addressed below.

Specific Issues a) Lot Size, Regulations 9 (6)(e)

The applicant is seeking permission to subdivide the subject parcel into two (2) lots with each lot proposed at 0.0055 acre or 238 sq. ft. each (or 14’ x 17’). The remaining parcel contains the existing duplex; therefore, the applicant is seeking a lot size variance for the proposed two (2) lots; mindful, that Regulations 9 (6)(e) requires a minimum of 5,000 sq. ft.; however, the subject lot is part of the parking area of the development. The purpose of the application is to provide 4 strata lots so that the duplex units can be sold. The Authority has granted permission several times in the past for the same situation.

33

2. 14 LIV DEVELOPMENT Block 15E Parcel 245 (F05-0477) (P15-0197) ($130,044) (KA)

Application to modify planning permission to relocate the existing garbage skip.

FACTS Location South Sound



Recommendation: Modify planning permission.

LETTER FROM APPLICANT “Further to the application submitted to relocate an existing Garbage Container for an approved Residential Development Block 15E Parcel 245, we hereby request for a Rear Set Back variance of which requires a minimum setback of 20 feet. We would appreciate your consideration for this variance request on the following basis: (1) The approved location of the Existing Garbage Container was already only 10 ft from the boundary between subject parcel and Block 15E Parcel 122. (2) Fairly recent applications have Garbage Containers approved at locations as near as 6 ft from boundary lines (regardless of side). (3) This is to give extra yard space & buffer for Duplex 5 – Unit 19. Furthermore, the total area for variance request is 121 sq. ft. There are existing Apartment complex on all adjacent properties. If you require additional information or further clarification, please don’t hesitate to contact us at the numbers & e-mail below. Thank you and God bless.”

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The application is for the re-location of the existing garbage skip within the site of this development, The Plantation, located on South Sound Road.

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.

34

Specific Issues a) Garbage skip location

The applicant is proposing to shift the existing garbage skip slightly closer to the north boundary in order to provide more space to Duplex # 5 - Unit 19. Regulation 8(7) requires a minimum setback of 6’ from adjacent property boundaries and the proposal would be 10’ from the boundary. The adjacent landowners were notified and no objections were received. DEH were consulted however they have not responded to our repeated attempts for comments.

2. 15 DIGICEL CAYMAN SERVICES LTD Block 19E Parcel 171 (F03-0468) (P15-0268) ($45,000) (CS)

Application for a telecom shelter.

FACTS Location Lancaster Crescent, George Town East

Zoning HI Notice Requirements No Objectors


Current Use Telecom Equipment

Proposed Use Same

Building Size 240 sq. ft.

Building Coverage 14%

BACKGROUND February 20, 2013 (CPA/04/13; Item 2.5) - The Authority granted planning permission for a 4,230 sq. ft. industrial building.

July 20, 2011 (CPA/15/11; Item 2.16) - The Authority granted planning permission for a data exchange building, storage shed, and guard house.

September 3, 2008 (CPA/28/08; Item 2.6) - The Authority granted planning permission for a 144' antenna, four (4) modular buildings and three (3) containers.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission.

PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS General The applicant is requesting planning permission for a 420 sq. ft. telecom shelter and storage building and to relocate a CUC service building.

35

Zoning The property is zoned High Industrial and the proposal complies with setbacks and site coverage. As the new building is for storage, the Department does not believe more parking should be required.

The Department has no concerns regarding the application.

3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN MATTERS

4.0 PLANNING APPEAL MATTERS

5.0 MATTERS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING

6.0 CPA MEMBERS INFORMATION/DISCUSSIONS

Documents

CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY · 1 Central Planning Authority . Agenda for a meeting of the Central Planning Authority to be held on April 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in the Conference Room,