CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
Minutes for a meeting of the Central Planning Authority held on December 10, 2003 at 12:30
pm. in the Planning Conference Room, 3rd Floor Tower Building.
35th Meeting of the Year
CPA/35/03
Mr. A. L. Thompson (Chairman)
Mr. Attlee Bodden (until 3:30)
Mr. Peter Campbell
Mr. Dean Evans (except items 2.02-3.01, 3.018-3.024)
Mr. Ernie Hurlstone (apologies)
Mr. John Hurlstone (apologies)
Mr. Ray Hydes
Mr. Barry Martinez
Mr. Steve McLaughlin
Mr. Rex Miller (apologies)
Mr Antonio Smith
Mr. Fred Whittaker (absent)
Mr. Troy Whittaker
Mr. Kenneth Ebanks (Executive Secretary)
Mr. Robert Lewis (Assistant Director – CP)
1.
2.
Confirmation of Minutes
Adjourned Applications
3.
New Applications
4.
Enforcements
5.
Development Plan Matters
6.
Matters from the Director of Planning
7.
CPA Members Information/Discussions
1
APPLICANTS APPEARING BEFORE THE CENTRAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
NAME
REASONS
TIME
ITEM
PAGE
Snug Harbour (NAW)
2:45
3.017
58
Wireless Ventures (BES)
(JAB)
3:53
3.0183.022
66-86
Cable & Wireless (RS)
(BES/RL)
5:12
2.022.04
4-16
1.0
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
1.01
Confirmation of Minutes of CPA/26/03 held on September 2003.
The Minutes were adjourned pending comments from the Ministry of Planning,
Communications, District Administration and Information Technology.
2.0
ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS
2.01
PROPRIETORS OF STRATA #89 Block 13B Parcel 102 (FA89-0271) (P030826) ($6,000) (EJ)
Application for two (2) signs.
FACTS
Location:
Piper Way between Seven Mile Resort and Comfort Suites, West
Bay Road
Zoning:
Hotel Tourism
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served to adjacent property
owners and no objections were received.
Background:
October 1, 2003 (CPA/28/03; item 3.17) the Authority
adjourned the application in order for the sign to be reduced
in size to comply with CPA signage guidelines of 32 sq. ft.
LETTER FROM APPLICANT’S AGENT
“Please disregard our letter dated October, 2003.
On 5th November, 2003 we met with Mr. Robert Lewis at 7 Mile Beach Resort.
The sign was originally designed to accommodate the 7 Mile Resort name and
logo and then to list in directory form the various businesses in the local.
At present the roadway is untidy and vehicle vision is obstructed by numerous
signs. The idea is to combine these into one well designed and attractive sign.
2
Reduction of the sign area to 32 sq ft. will make individual listings on the sign too
small to read, and therefore businesses / condos will not support the venture.
The following names may appear on the sign:
•
7 Mile Resort & Club Ltd.
•
7 Mile Watersports Ltd.
•
7 Mile Bar
•
Tamarind Bay Beach Villas
•
Marshalls Rent A Car
•
Don Fosters Dive Cayman
•
Stingers Bar
•
Spa La Cure
Please see attached photographs of the existing signage. These illustrate the
problem that we seek to resolve.
We therefore request approval of the sign as submitted.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
On October 1, 2003 the Authority adjourned the proposed in order for the
applicant to reduce its size to comply with CPA signage guidelines of 32 sq. ft.
The applicant is requesting the Authority to reconsider approval based on the
above mentioned letter.
The applicant is seeking planning permission to install two (2) signs located on
median at Piper Way, West Bay Road, 15’ from the road edge. The sign/display is
acceptable to the Department, which is less than 8 square feet each. However, the
overall 8.6’ high by 8.5’ wide structure is 73 square feet, and is in the
Department’s opinion excessive.
While the Department tend to agree with the applicant that the roadway is untidy
due to numerous signs. If the proposed sign will reduce the number of signs in
the area as implied by the applicant, the Department feels that this would be an
improvement to the current situation.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The applicant has not provided written confirmation from adjacent proprietors
regarding sharing the monument.
•
The applicant has not provided revised sign illustrations indicating how
signage from adjacent properties would be incorporated into the proposal.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reasons:
1)
Written confirmation from adjacent proprietors regarding sharing the
“monument” shall be provided.
3
2)
2.02
Revised sign illustrations shall be submitted indicating how signage from
adjacent properties would be incorporated into the proposal.
CABLE & WIRELESS Block 32B Parcel 188 (F98-0294) (P03-0286) ($40,000)
(RS)
Application for a communications mast, equipment storage building and fence.
Appearance at 3:15
FACTS
Location:
Near the Agricultural Pavilion, Lower Valley
Zoning:
Agricultural/Residential
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices and no objections were received
Proposed Use:
Communications mast and equipment storage building
Background:
On November 26th, 2003 (CPA/33/03; item 3.023) the
CPA resolved to adjourn the application pending written
confirmation of sharing agreement with at least another
telecommunications provider licensed by the ICTA.
On December 3, 2003 (CPA/34/03; item 2.07) the CPA
resolved to adjourn the application to invite the applicant to
address the Authority on December 10, 2003 at 3:15 p.m.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from MRCU are noted below
MRCU
“… it is our understanding that the towers are existing free standing towers
which are all painted in an appropriate manner for aircraft safety, namely with
alternating red and white (or orange and white) banding.
We would like to offer the following comments:
•
All towers / tower extensions should comply with the Aerial Spraying
Protection Law (1997 Revision), attached for your information. In particular,
section 3 of the law that specifies that the towers should be illuminated.
•
All towers / tower extensions should be free-standing and comply with the
ICAO provisions for aircraft safety, including, but not limited to, the
requirements for safety banding (red and white). Further details on these
requirements are available from the Civil Aviation Authority.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking approval for a communications mast (100’ in height) and
an equipment storage building. The entire utilities compound will be enclosed
4
with an 8’ high chain link security fence. The proposal is virtually the same as
several other utility compounds recently approved for Cable & Wireless.
It should be noted that the applicant had indicated that this particular tower will
not be shared with other communication service providers because there were no
takers. However, if there is a change in this status, the Department would
recommend that the CPA consider the application favourably.
Status: Applicant to reconfirm whether or not the tower will be shared with at
least another ICTA licensed telecommunications provider.
The following individuals appeared before the CPA at 5:12 p.m. on behalf of
the applicant.
Charles Quinn
Brian Eccles
Danielle Coleman
Cleavy Scott
CPA: Why are these three particular sites important?
Mr. Scott: These sites are crucial to us in order to deliver the required quality of
service to our customers, whether they are indoor, outdoor or in their vehicles.
Cayman is a top financial and tourism centre and as such it is important to attain
and maintain a high level of service. We would like to reduce customer
complaints. These three sites are in areas currently considered weak.
CPA: The CPA has a duty to protect the people and is unlikely to accept all
proposed towers.
Mr. Scott: We exerted a great deal of time and effort trying to secure sharing
agreements. Digicel has agreed to share eleven of our towers and we will be
sharing three of theirs. This eliminates the need for fourteen additional towers.
Cable & Wireless has been a leader in sharing efforts.
CPA: Is the Queens Highway location critical? Perhaps Cable & Wireless could
share with another company in this area.
Mr. Scott: It is a critical location, close to the ideal spot. In order to achieve
adequate coverage, the search ring cannot exceed a quarter of a mile.
CPA: It would appear that there are three towers on the Queens Highway.
Mr. Scott: Yes, including the Colliers site.
CPA: Are there plans to extend the tower at the end of Sunnyfield Drive?
Mr. Scott: Yes. One technical factor to consider is that for tower extensions
longer cables are required, possibly resulting in reduced quality of in-building
signals. The three new tower sites are crucial for in-building signals. Other
companies were invited to share these towers but there were no takers.
CPA: Was this due to cost issues?
Mr. Scott: Cable & Wireless’ investment must be considered. We can assure the
CPA that Cable & Wireless is not trying to make money by sharing infrastructure.
If there are any conflicts, it is part of the remit of the ICTA to resolve them. The
5
ICTA can mandate by law its will when disputes are formally brought to its
attention for mediation.
CPA: Cable & Wireless has suggested at a previous CPA meeting that these three
sites were not critical.
Mr. Scott: I don’t recall that being said. These are critical sites for the reasons
mentioned. We have a map illustrating coverage scenarios for urban, suburban
and rural areas. The proposed towers will provide the needed level of service.
We are sharing a government tower at Northward. We may also share a tower
with Aviation Communication.
CPA: Why do you require more towers than the competitors?
Mr. Scott: Competitors may be seeking just initial coverage at this time for
particular areas. I don’t know.
CPA: Fourteen towers appear sufficient for Wireless Ventures, why not for Cable
& Wireless?
Mr. Scott: They may ask for more towers later on. We have made great efforts to
share.
CPA: What type of towers are you erecting?
Mr. Scott: Mostly monopole towers where possible. On occasion for practical
reasons an open-web tower is used. An example is Cayman Brac, due to crane
restrictions.
CPA: Are others using similar technology?
Mr. Scott: Yes.
CPA: Why do your towers have to be so close to each other compared to the
distribution of towers by another applicant?
Mr. Scott: This is explained through population density. The western side of the
Island requires more towers due to its larger population.
CPA: Using your logic, does this mean that as the eastern districts become more
populated, additional towers will be needed?
Mr. Scott: Yes, particularly if large development happen there. However, it may
mean more antennae, not necessarily more towers. The necessity for towers is
dictated by several factors, including: whether digital or analogue equipment is
used; signal frequency; vegetation and building type. Additionally, limitations to
power outputs are regulated by the FCC.
Mr. Quin indicated that he had written submission for the record. He then
summarized those submissions after distributing them to the CPA.
LETTER FROM QUINN & HAMPSON
SUBMISSIONS OF APPLICANT
To:
The Central Planning Authority (“CPA”)
6
1.
Chronology
Cable and Wireless (“C&W”) has submitted three applications for
planning permission and building permits for mast and transmissions
antennae:1. Lower Valley Block 32B Parcel 188 submitted on 7th April 2003 by
DDL Architects (“DDL”).
2. Midland Acres Block 48C Parcel 11 submitted on 7th April 2003 by
DDL.
3. Queen’s Highway Block 69A Parcel 28 REM1 submitted on 18th
September 2003 by DDL.
At the hearing on the 14th May 2003 before the CPA of the applications
for Lower Valley and Midland Acres the CPA resolved to adjourn them
until such time as confirmation had been received from the Information
and Communications Technology Authority (“ICTA”) that an agreement
has been reached with C&W regarding infrastructure sharing. This
decision was confirmed in a letter dated 30th May 2003 from the CPA.
June 2003. C&W entered into discussions with the ICTA on infrastructure
and related issues.
10th July 2003. C&W entered into an agreement with the ICTA which
provided for infrastructure sharing. A copy of this agreement was
provided to the CPA on 6th August 2003. In addition C&W submitted a
report to the ICTA on the availability of space on its existing and planned
cellular and mobile towers.
2nd September 2003. C&W gave an undertaking to the ICTA to share the
outstanding towers.
From September throughout October and November – the ICTA chaired
and sponsored several meetings between the applicant, C&W and other
licensees. C&W had extended the invitation to new licensees to co-locate.
26th November 2003. AT & T Wireless Services (“AWS”) said they were
not interested and they were forming an agreement with others. Also
Digicel confirmed that at this stage they are not interested. C&W’s
applications to the CPA were deferred.
3rd December 2003. C&W’s applications to the CPA were deferred.
2.
Development and Planning Law
2.1 The three applications of C&W and filed by DDL were all served on adjacent
property owners as required by the law and no objections have been
submitted against any of the applications.
2.2 The three applications lodged meet all the requirements of the Development
and Planning Law and Regulations.
3.
Infrastructures Sharing Agreement supervised by ICTA
7
3.1 The CPA having regard to Sections 6 and 7 of the Development and Planning
Law, namely the likely impact on the infrastructure and the need to consult
with the ICTA (having duties and aims and objects relating to those of the
CPA) adjourned these matters in May of this year for C&W to reach
agreement on infrastructure sharing.
3.2 The ICTA have a Tower Plan which aim is to avoid 60 towers. The CPA have
indicated that whilst there is no written maximum number of towers a
desirable number would be around 30. In addition it is understood that
priority will be given to towers that share with three or two co-tenants but
with the clear understanding that a one-tenant tower is not precluded from
being erected.
3.3 In accordance with the ICTA’s policy C&W extended invitations to share to
all new licensees on a non-discriminatory basis.
3.4 C&W provided the ICTA with an undertaking to share the towers which will
accommodate co-tenants either now or in the future. This process involved a
great deal of expensive research and work with the ICTA. The CPA were
sensibly involved in these negotiations, chaired by the ICTA. The CPA has no
raised any objections to the process that was adopted nor the agreement
which C&W have reached with the ICTA on tower sharing.
4.
Quality of Telecommunications Service
4.1 The ICTA and C&W are committed to and required by the ICTA Law and
C&W’s license to provide optimum quality telecommunications service. C&W
believe that this commitment extends to outlying districts, like Lower Valley,
Midland Acres and the Queen’s Highway where the service is weak and often
unsatisfactory. ICTA has a policy to ensure that the percentage of dropped
calls must not be less than 2%. At present because there are no towers in
these areas, the signals are often too weak to initiate calls and also to receive
calls. Although outside communications are reasonably satisfactory, in-car
and in-building communications can be very erratic and unsatisfactory in the
Lower Valley, Midland Acres and Queen’s Highway areas. C&W are to be
commended for ensuring that all customers in the Cayman Islands have
access to an optimum quality telecommunications service.
4.2 The ICTA recognises that in order to provide optimum quality service to the
Cayman Islands and to accommodate customer demands for the new GSM
mobile service, C&W needs these three towers and the ICTA have endorsed
the manner in which C&W have encouraged active sharing and invested great
time, effort and expense in order to provide this new GSM product. The
application for these towers comply with the requirements of C&W’s license
and the requirements under the law which enables the ICTA to ensure that
C&W and potential future co-tenants will provide a service which will comply
with the highest international standards. Should C&W’s standards drop, they
would be subject to penalties from the ICTA which could actually jeopardise
their license.
8
4.3 As the new licensees mature, it is highly likely that they will share these
towers. At present Digicel and AWS have no need for this service. However,
CaymanTel expressed an interest before withdrawing their license. Two new
licensees, North Rock and Foster Cayman, are feasibly future co-tenants and
in fact the ICTA have confirmed that Foster Cayman has expressed an
interest. This clearly benefits C&W, customers, new licensees and it has an
overall benefit for the Cayman Islands. These three applications for these
special purpose development are together an issue of national importance. It
is imperative that island-wide telecommunications in the Cayman Islands are
of the highest possible standard so that Cayman can ensure that it maintains
its competitive edge in the Tourism and International Financial Services
Markets.
4.4 If the applications are not approved, the service will continue to be of poor
quality. There will be constant complaints from the customers. This not only
has a prejudicial effect on C&W but will have a prejudicial effect on Cayman
generally and it is the customers who are suffering and will continue to suffer.
4.5 The ICTA have confirmed with C&W that they have complied with all the
ICTA requirements. The ICTA fully endorses these applications before the
CPA and the urgent need to have them passed as soon as possible.
5.
Conclusion
Cable and Wireless submitted the Lower Valley and Midland Acres
applications on 7th April 2003 and the Queen’s Highway application on
18th September 2003. All three applications comply with the provisions of
the Development and Planning Law and Regulations. As requested C&W
have entered into an infrastructure sharing agreement under the
supervision of the ICTA and now wish to ensure that they can provide an
island-wide telecommunications service for Grand Cayman which
accommodates and encourages tower sharing. For the reasons above we
urge the CPA to grant these three applications today.”
CPA: Radiant barrier insulation appears to affect in building signals.
Mr. Scott: Some building materials do affect reception.
There being no further discussion with the applicant’s representatives, the
Chairman thanked them for appearing. They left at 5:52 p.m.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
No written evidence has been submitted of agreement to share the tower with
another company licensed by the ICTA. Accordingly, based on the stated
objective of sharing/non-proliferation of antenna, the CPA should not
support the application at this time.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reason:
1)
No written evidence has been submitted of agreement to share the tower
9
2.03
CABLE & WIRELESS Block 48C Parcel 11 (F03-0112) (P03-00288) (P030289) (P03-0407) ($60,000) (BES/RL)
Application for 100’ cellular tower and storage building
Appearance at 3:15
FACTS
Location:
East of Midland Acres Subdivision on Bodden Town Road
Zoning:
Low Density Residential and Beach Resort Residential
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors.
No objections were received.
Background:
On November 26, 2003 (CPA/33/03; item 3.024) the CPA
resolved to adjourn the application pending written
confirmation of sharing agreement with at least another
telecommunications provider licensed by the ICTA.
On December 3, 2003 (CPA/34/03; item 2.07) the CPA
resolved to adjourn the application to invite the applicant to
address the Authority on December 10, 2003 at 3:15 p.m.
Proposed Use:
Same as above
Parcel Size:
4,140 sq. ft. approximately
Site Coverage:
7.13%
Building Size:
Existing - 0
Proposed - 295 sq. ft.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from the Chief Fire Officer, MRCU and ICTA are noted below.
Chief Fire Officer
“Approved for planning permit only.”
MRCU
“… it is our understanding that the towers are existing free standing towers
which are all painted in an appropriate manner for aircraft safety, namely with
alternating red and white (or orange and white) banding.
We would like to offer the following comments:
•
All towers / tower extensions should comply with the Aerial Spraying
10
Protection Law (1997 Revision), attached for your information. In particular,
section 3 of the law that specifies that the towers should be illuminated.
•
All towers / tower extensions should be free-standing and comply with the
ICAO provisions for aircraft safety, including, but not limited to, the
requirements for safety banding (red and white). Further details on these
requirements are available from the Civil Aviation Authority.”
ICTA
“The Information and Communications Technology Authority (the Authority) is in
receipt of your correspondence dated 27 August 2003 concerning the above
referenced matter.
The Authority views as favourable the fact that the proposed towers can
accommodate up to two (2) additional mobile operators/networks subject to an
interference and intermodulation study. Please confirm arrangements with
respect to the base station at the foot of the tower. In particular, the Authority is
interested in knowing if arrangements with the land owner are on an exclusive
basis, whether there is additional land to accommodate another base station,
whether the Cable & Wireless base station can accommodate another Licensee
and any known matters which may impede another Licensee locating their radio
or microwave facilities on this site.
Additionally, please confirm that subject to the above referenced study and
financial arrangements with another Licensee(s), Cable & Wireless will share
these three (3) infrastructure towers.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting planning permission for three separate components,
which form a cellular phone utility compound. The first component is an antenna
mast (100’) on a 17’ x 17’ concrete foundation base and setback 10’ from the
eastern boundary and 20’ from the northern property line respectively. The
second is a 295 sq. ft. utility building to contain both equipment and generator
rooms. The last component is an eight feet (8’) high-galvanized chain link fence
enclosure around the antenna mast and utility building. It is also the applicant’s
intention to provide a landscape buffer strip along the northern boundary. The
Department feels that the landscape buffer strip should be extended along the
eastern and western boundaries to provide a visual buffer from all existing
surrounding residential buildings in the area.
With regard to the Telecommunication Officer comments, the Department would
also question whether or not an additional cellular phone tower is needed in close
proximity of two existing wireless facilities in the area.
It should be noted that the applicant had indicated that this particular tower will
not be shared with other communication service providers because there were no
takers. However, if there is a change in this status, the Department would
recommend that the CPA consider the application favourably.
11
Status: Applicant to reconfirm whether or not the tower will be shared with at
least another ICTA licensed telecommunications provider.
The following individuals appeared before the CPA at 5:12 p.m. on behalf of
the applicant.
Charles Quinn
Brian Eccles
Danielle Coleman
Cleavy Scott
CPA: Why are these three particular sites important?
Mr. Scott: These sites are crucial to us in order to deliver the required quality of
service to our customers, whether they are indoor, outdoor or in their vehicles.
Cayman is a top financial and tourism centre and as such it is important to attain
and maintain a high level of service. We would like to reduce customer
complaints. These three sites are in areas currently considered weak.
CPA: The CPA has a duty to protect the people and is unlikely to accept all
proposed towers.
Mr. Scott: We exerted a great deal of time and effort trying to secure sharing
agreements. Digicel has agreed to share eleven of our towers and we will be
sharing three of theirs. This eliminates the need for fourteen additional towers.
Cable & Wireless has been a leader in sharing efforts.
CPA: Is the Queens Highway location critical? Perhaps Cable & Wireless could
share with another company in this area.
Mr. Scott: It is a critical location, close to the ideal spot. In order to achieve
adequate coverage, the search ring cannot exceed a quarter of a mile.
CPA: It would appear that there are three towers on the Queens Highway.
Mr. Scott: Yes, including the Colliers site.
CPA: Are there plans to extend the tower at the end of Sunnyfield Drive?
Mr. Scott: Yes. One technical factor to consider is that for tower extensions
longer cables are required, possibly resulting in reduced quality of in-building
signals. The three new tower sites are crucial for in-building signals. Other
companies were invited to share these towers but there were no takers.
CPA: Was this due to cost issues?
Mr. Scott: Cable & Wireless’ investment must be considered. We can assure the
CPA that Cable & Wireless is not trying to make money by sharing infrastructure.
If there are any conflicts, it is part of the remit of the ICTA to resolve them. The
ICTA can mandate by law its will when disputes are formally brought to its
attention for mediation.
CPA: Cable & Wireless has suggested at a previous CPA meeting that these three
sites were not critical.
Mr. Scott: I don’t recall that being said. These are critical sites for the reasons
mentioned. We have a map illustrating coverage scenarios for urban, suburban
12
and rural areas. The proposed towers will provide the needed level of service.
We are sharing a government tower at Northward. We may also share a tower
with Aviation Communication.
CPA: Why do you require more towers than the competitors?
Mr. Scott: Competitors may be seeking just initial coverage at this time for
particular areas. I don’t know.
CPA: Fourteen towers appear sufficient for Wireless Ventures, why not for Cable
& Wireless?
Mr. Scott: They may ask for more towers later on. We have made great efforts to
share.
CPA: What type of towers are you erecting?
Mr. Scott: Mostly monopole towers where possible. On occasion for practical
reasons an open-web tower is used. An example is Cayman Brac, due to crane
restrictions.
CPA: Are others using similar technology?
Mr. Scott: Yes.
CPA: Why do your towers have to be so close to each other compared to the
distribution of towers by another applicant?
Mr. Scott: This is explained through population density. The western side of the
Island requires more towers due to its larger population.
CPA: Using your logic, does this mean that as the eastern districts become more
populated, additional towers will be needed?
Mr. Scott: Yes, particularly if large development happen there. However, it may
mean more antennae, not necessarily more towers. The necessity for towers is
dictated by several factors, including: whether digital or analogue equipment is
used; signal frequency; vegetation and building type. Additionally, limitations to
power outputs are regulated by the FCC.
Mr. Quin indicated that he had written submission for the record. He then
summarized those submissions after distributing them to the CPA.
LETTER FROM QUINN & HAMPSON
SUBMISSIONS OF APPLICANT
To:
The Central Planning Authority (“CPA”)
6.
Chronology
Cable and Wireless (“C&W”) has submitted three applications for
planning permission and building permits for mast and transmissions
antennae:1. Lower Valley Block 32B Parcel 188 submitted on 7th April 2003 by
DDL Architects (“DDL”).
13
2. Midland Acres Block 48C Parcel 11 submitted on 7th April 2003 by
DDL.
3. Queen’s Highway Block 69A Parcel 28 REM1 submitted on 18th
September 2003 by DDL.
At the hearing on the 14th May 2003 before the CPA of the applications
for Lower Valley and Midland Acres the CPA resolved to adjourn them
until such time as confirmation had been received from the Information
and Communications Technology Authority (“ICTA”) that an agreement
has been reached with C&W regarding infrastructure sharing. This
decision was confirmed in a letter dated 30th May 2003 from the CPA.
June 2003. C&W entered into discussions with the ICTA on infrastructure
and related issues.
10th July 2003. C&W entered into an agreement with the ICTA which
provided for infrastructure sharing. A copy of this agreement was
provided to the CPA on 6th August 2003. In addition C&W submitted a
report to the ICTA on the availability of space on its existing and planned
cellular and mobile towers.
2nd September 2003. C&W gave an undertaking to the ICTA to share the
outstanding towers.
From September throughout October and November – the ICTA chaired
and sponsored several meetings between the applicant, C&W and other
licensees. C&W had extended the invitation to new licensees to co-locate.
26th November 2003. AT & T Wireless Services (“AWS”) said they were
not interested and they were forming an agreement with others. Also
Digicel confirmed that at this stage they are not interested. C&W’s
applications to the CPA were deferred.
3rd December 2003. C&W’s applications to the CPA were deferred.
7.
Development and Planning Law
2.3 The three applications of C&W and filed by DDL were all served on adjacent
property owners as required by the law and no objections have been
submitted against any of the applications.
2.4 The three applications lodged meet all the requirements of the Development
and Planning Law and Regulations.
8.
Infrastructures Sharing Agreement supervised by ICTA
3.5 The CPA having regard to Sections 6 and 7 of the Development and Planning
Law, namely the likely impact on the infrastructure and the need to consult
with the ICTA (having duties and aims and objects relating to those of the
CPA) adjourned these matters in May of this year for C&W to reach
agreement on infrastructure sharing.
3.6 The ICTA have a Tower Plan which aim is to avoid 60 towers. The CPA have
14
indicated that whilst there is no written maximum number of towers a
desirable number would be around 30. In addition it is understood that
priority will be given to towers that share with three or two co-tenants but
with the clear understanding that a one-tenant tower is not precluded from
being erected.
3.7 In accordance with the ICTA’s policy C&W extended invitations to share to
all new licensees on a non-discriminatory basis.
3.8 C&W provided the ICTA with an undertaking to share the towers which will
accommodate co-tenants either now or in the future. This process involved a
great deal of expensive research and work with the ICTA. The CPA were
sensibly involved in these negotiations, chaired by the ICTA. The CPA has no
raised any objections to the process that was adopted nor the agreement
which C&W have reached with the ICTA on tower sharing.
9.
Quality of Telecommunications Service
4.6 The ICTA and C&W are committed to and required by the ICTA Law and
C&W’s license to provide optimum quality telecommunications service. C&W
believe that this commitment extends to outlying districts, like Lower Valley,
Midland Acres and the Queen’s Highway where the service is weak and often
unsatisfactory. ICTA has a policy to ensure that the percentage of dropped
calls must not be less than 2%. At present because there are no towers in
these areas, the signals are often too weak to initiate calls and also to receive
calls. Although outside communications are reasonably satisfactory, in-car
and in-building communications can be very erratic and unsatisfactory in the
Lower Valley, Midland Acres and Queen’s Highway areas. C&W are to be
commended for ensuring that all customers in the Cayman Islands have
access to an optimum quality telecommunications service.
4.7 The ICTA recognises that in order to provide optimum quality service to the
Cayman Islands and to accommodate customer demands for the new GSM
mobile service, C&W needs these three towers and the ICTA have endorsed
the manner in which C&W have encouraged active sharing and invested great
time, effort and expense in order to provide this new GSM product. The
application for these towers comply with the requirements of C&W’s license
and the requirements under the law which enables the ICTA to ensure that
C&W and potential future co-tenants will provide a service which will comply
with the highest international standards. Should C&W’s standards drop, they
would be subject to penalties from the ICTA which could actually jeopardise
their license.
4.8 As the new licensees mature, it is highly likely that they will share these
towers. At present Digicel and AWS have no need for this service. However,
CaymanTel expressed an interest before withdrawing their license. Two new
licensees, North Rock and Foster Cayman, are feasibly future co-tenants and
in fact the ICTA have confirmed that Foster Cayman has expressed an
interest. This clearly benefits C&W, customers, new licensees and it has an
overall benefit for the Cayman Islands. These three applications for these
15
special purpose development are together an issue of national importance. It
is imperative that island-wide telecommunications in the Cayman Islands are
of the highest possible standard so that Cayman can ensure that it maintains
its competitive edge in the Tourism and International Financial Services
Markets.
4.9 If the applications are not approved, the service will continue to be of poor
quality. There will be constant complaints from the customers. This not only
has a prejudicial effect on C&W but will have a prejudicial effect on Cayman
generally and it is the customers who are suffering and will continue to suffer.
4.10 The ICTA have confirmed with C&W that they have complied with all the
ICTA requirements. The ICTA fully endorses these applications before the
CPA and the urgent need to have them passed as soon as possible.
10.
Conclusion
Cable and Wireless submitted the Lower Valley and Midland Acres
applications on 7th April 2003 and the Queen’s Highway application on
18th September 2003. All three applications comply with the provisions of
the Development and Planning Law and Regulations. As requested C&W
have entered into an infrastructure sharing agreement under the
supervision of the ICTA and now wish to ensure that they can provide an
island-wide telecommunications service for Grand Cayman which
accommodates and encourages tower sharing. For the reasons above we
urge the CPA to grant these three applications today.”
CPA: Radiant barrier insulation appears to affect in building signals.
Mr. Scott: Some building materials do affect reception.
There being no further discussion with the applicant’s representatives, the
Chairman thanked them for appearing. They left at 5:52 p.m.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
No written evidence has been submitted of agreement to share the tower with
another company licensed by the ICTA. Accordingly, based on the stated
objective of sharing/non-proliferation of antenna, the CPA should not
support the application at this time.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reason:
1)
2.04
No written evidence has been submitted of agreement to share the tower
with another company licensed by the ICTA. Accordingly, based on the
stated objective of sharing/non-proliferation of antenna, the CPA does not
support the application at this time.
CABLE & WIRELESS Block 69A Parcel 28 Rem1 (F01-0092) (P03-0959)
(P03-0289) (P03-0960) ($60,000) (BES/RL)
Application for 100’ cellular tower, storage building and fence
16
Appearance at 3:15
FACTS
Location:
Sunnyfield Drive, off Queen’s Highway
Zoning:
Agriculture/Residential
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors.
No objections were received.
Background:
On November 26th, 2003 (CPA/33/03; item 3.025) the
CPA resolved to adjourn the application pending written
confirmation of sharing agreement with at least another
telecommunications provider licensed by the ICTA.
On December 3, 2003 (CPA/34/03; item 2.07) the CPA
resolved to adjourn the application to invite the applicant to
address the Authority on December 10, 2003 at 3:15 p.m.
Proposed Use:
Same as above
Parcel Size:
65 acres
Site Coverage:
Less than 1%
Building Size:
Existing - 0
Proposed - 295 sq. ft.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from the Chief Fire Officer, MRCU and ICTA are noted below.
Chief Fire Officer
“Approved for planning permit only”.
MRCU
“… it is our understanding that the towers are existing free standing towers
which are all painted in an appropriate manner for aircraft safety, namely with
alternating red and white (or orange and white) banding.
We would like to offer the following comments:
•
All towers / tower extensions should comply with the Aerial Spraying
Protection Law (1997 Revision), attached for your information. In particular,
section 3 of the law that specifies that the towers should be illuminated.
•
All towers / tower extensions should be free-standing and comply with the
ICAO provisions for aircraft safety, including, but not limited to, the
requirements for safety banding (red and white). Further details on these
requirements are available from the Civil Aviation Authority.”
17
ICTA
“The Information and Communications Technology Authority (the Authority) is
in receipt of your correspondence dated 27 August 2003 concerning the above
referenced matter.
The Authority views as favourable the fact that the proposed towers can
accommodate up to two (2) additional mobile operators/networks subject to an
interference and intermodulation study. Please confirm arrangements with
respect to the base station at the foot of the tower. In particular, the Authority is
interested in knowing if arrangements with the land owner are on an exclusive
basis, whether there is additional land to accommodate another base station,
whether the Cable & Wireless base station can accommodate another Licensee
and any known matters which may impede another Licensee locating their radio
or microwave facilities on this site.
Additionally, please confirm that subject to the above referenced study and
financial arrangements with another Licensee(s), Cable & Wireless will share
these three (3) infrastructure towers.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting planning permission for three separate components,
which form a cellular phone utility compound. The first component is an antenna
mast (100’) on a concrete foundation base and setback 10’ from the northern
boundary and 69’-9” from the boundary line with Sunnyfield Road. The second
is a 295 sq. ft. utility building to contain both equipment and generator rooms.
The last component is an eight feet (8’) high-galvanized chain link fence
enclosure around the antenna mast and utility building. It is also the applicant’s
intention to provide a 6’-6” landscape buffer strip along the northern boundary.
The Department feels that the landscape buffer strip should be extended along the
eastern and western edges of the fence to provide a visual buffer.
It should be noted that the applicant had indicated that this particular tower will
not be shared with other communication service providers because there were no
takers. However, if there is a change in this status, the Department would
recommend that the CPA consider the application favourably.
Status: Applicant to reconfirm whether or not the tower will be shared with at
least another ICTA licensed telecommunications provider.
The following individuals appeared before the CPA at 5:12 p.m. on behalf of
the applicant.
Charles Quinn
Brian Eccles
Danielle Coleman
Cleavy Scott
CPA: Why are these three particular sites important?
Mr. Scott: These sites are crucial to us in order to deliver the required quality of
service to our customers, whether they are indoor, outdoor or in their vehicles.
Cayman is a top financial and tourism centre and as such it is important to attain
18
and maintain a high level of service. We would like to reduce customer
complaints. These three sites are in areas currently considered weak.
CPA: The CPA has a duty to protect the people and is unlikely to accept all
proposed towers.
Mr. Scott: We exerted a great deal of time and effort trying to secure sharing
agreements. Digicel has agreed to share eleven of our towers and we will be
sharing three of theirs. This eliminates the need for fourteen additional towers.
Cable & Wireless has been a leader in sharing efforts.
CPA: Is the Queens Highway location critical? Perhaps Cable & Wireless could
share with another company in this area.
Mr. Scott: It is a critical location, close to the ideal spot. In order to achieve
adequate coverage, the search ring cannot exceed a quarter of a mile.
CPA: It would appear that there are three towers on the Queens Highway.
Mr. Scott: Yes, including the Colliers site.
CPA: Are there plans to extend the tower at the end of Sunnyfield Drive?
Mr. Scott: Yes. One technical factor to consider is that for tower extensions
longer cables are required, possibly resulting in reduced quality of in-building
signals. The three new tower sites are crucial for in-building signals. Other
companies were invited to share these towers but there were no takers.
CPA: Was this due to cost issues?
Mr. Scott: Cable & Wireless’ investment must be considered. We can assure the
CPA that Cable & Wireless is not trying to make money by sharing infrastructure.
If there are any conflicts, it is part of the remit of the ICTA to resolve them. The
ICTA can mandate by law its will when disputes are formally brought to its
attention for mediation.
CPA: Cable & Wireless has suggested at a previous CPA meeting that these three
sites were not critical.
Mr. Scott: I don’t recall that being said. These are critical sites for the reasons
mentioned. We have a map illustrating coverage scenarios for urban, suburban
and rural areas. The proposed towers will provide the needed level of service.
We are sharing a government tower at Northward. We may also share a tower
with Aviation Communication.
CPA: Why do you require more towers than the competitors?
Mr. Scott: Competitors may be seeking just initial coverage at this time for
particular areas. I don’t know.
CPA: Fourteen towers appear sufficient for Wireless Ventures, why not for Cable
& Wireless?
Mr. Scott: They may ask for more towers later on. We have made great efforts to
share.
19
CPA: What type of towers are you erecting?
Mr. Scott: Mostly monopole towers where possible. On occasion for practical
reasons an open-web tower is used. An example is Cayman Brac, due to crane
restrictions.
CPA: Are others using similar technology?
Mr. Scott: Yes.
CPA: Why do your towers have to be so close to each other compared to the
distribution of towers by another applicant?
Mr. Scott: This is explained through population density. The western side of the
Island requires more towers due to its larger population.
CPA: Using your logic, does this mean that as the eastern districts become more
populated, additional towers will be needed?
Mr. Scott: Yes, particularly if large development happen there. However, it may
mean more antennae, not necessarily more towers. The necessity for towers is
dictated by several factors, including: whether digital or analogue equipment is
used; signal frequency; vegetation and building type. Additionally, limitations to
power outputs are regulated by the FCC.
Mr. Quin indicated that he had written submission for the record. He then
summarized those submissions after distributing them to the CPA.
LETTER FROM QUINN & HAMPSON
SUBMISSIONS OF APPLICANT
To:
The Central Planning Authority (“CPA”)
11.
Chronology
Cable and Wireless (“C&W”) has submitted three applications for
planning permission and building permits for mast and transmissions
antennae:1. Lower Valley Block 32B Parcel 188 submitted on 7th April 2003 by
DDL Architects (“DDL”).
2. Midland Acres Block 48C Parcel 11 submitted on 7th April 2003 by
DDL.
3. Queen’s Highway Block 69A Parcel 28 REM1 submitted on 18th
September 2003 by DDL.
At the hearing on the 14th May 2003 before the CPA of the applications
for Lower Valley and Midland Acres the CPA resolved to adjourn them
until such time as confirmation had been received from the Information
and Communications Technology Authority (“ICTA”) that an agreement
has been reached with C&W regarding infrastructure sharing. This
decision was confirmed in a letter dated 30th May 2003 from the CPA.
20
June 2003. C&W entered into discussions with the ICTA on infrastructure
and related issues.
10th July 2003. C&W entered into an agreement with the ICTA which
provided for infrastructure sharing. A copy of this agreement was
provided to the CPA on 6th August 2003. In addition C&W submitted a
report to the ICTA on the availability of space on its existing and planned
cellular and mobile towers.
2nd September 2003. C&W gave an undertaking to the ICTA to share the
outstanding towers.
From September throughout October and November – the ICTA chaired
and sponsored several meetings between the applicant, C&W and other
licensees. C&W had extended the invitation to new licensees to co-locate.
26th November 2003. AT & T Wireless Services (“AWS”) said they were
not interested and they were forming an agreement with others. Also
Digicel confirmed that at this stage they are not interested. C&W’s
applications to the CPA were deferred.
3rd December 2003. C&W’s applications to the CPA were deferred.
12.
Development and Planning Law
2.5 The three applications of C&W and filed by DDL were all served on adjacent
property owners as required by the law and no objections have been
submitted against any of the applications.
2.6 The three applications lodged meet all the requirements of the Development
and Planning Law and Regulations.
13.
Infrastructures Sharing Agreement supervised by ICTA
3.9 The CPA having regard to Sections 6 and 7 of the Development and Planning
Law, namely the likely impact on the infrastructure and the need to consult
with the ICTA (having duties and aims and objects relating to those of the
CPA) adjourned these matters in May of this year for C&W to reach
agreement on infrastructure sharing.
3.10 The ICTA have a Tower Plan which aim is to avoid 60 towers. The CPA
have indicated that whilst there is no written maximum number of towers a
desirable number would be around 30. In addition it is understood that
priority will be given to towers that share with three or two co-tenants but
with the clear understanding that a one-tenant tower is not precluded from
being erected.
3.11 In accordance with the ICTA’s policy C&W extended invitations to share
to all new licensees on a non-discriminatory basis.
3.12 C&W provided the ICTA with an undertaking to share the towers which
will accommodate co-tenants either now or in the future. This process
involved a great deal of expensive research and work with the ICTA. The
CPA were sensibly involved in these negotiations, chaired by the ICTA. The
21
CPA has no raised any objections to the process that was adopted nor the
agreement which C&W have reached with the ICTA on tower sharing.
14.
Quality of Telecommunications Service
4.11 The ICTA and C&W are committed to and required by the ICTA Law and
C&W’s license to provide optimum quality telecommunications service. C&W
believe that this commitment extends to outlying districts, like Lower Valley,
Midland Acres and the Queen’s Highway where the service is weak and often
unsatisfactory. ICTA has a policy to ensure that the percentage of dropped
calls must not be less than 2%. At present because there are no towers in
these areas, the signals are often too weak to initiate calls and also to receive
calls. Although outside communications are reasonably satisfactory, in-car
and in-building communications can be very erratic and unsatisfactory in the
Lower Valley, Midland Acres and Queen’s Highway areas. C&W are to be
commended for ensuring that all customers in the Cayman Islands have
access to an optimum quality telecommunications service.
4.12 The ICTA recognises that in order to provide optimum quality service to
the Cayman Islands and to accommodate customer demands for the new GSM
mobile service, C&W needs these three towers and the ICTA have endorsed
the manner in which C&W have encouraged active sharing and invested great
time, effort and expense in order to provide this new GSM product. The
application for these towers comply with the requirements of C&W’s license
and the requirements under the law which enables the ICTA to ensure that
C&W and potential future co-tenants will provide a service which will comply
with the highest international standards. Should C&W’s standards drop, they
would be subject to penalties from the ICTA which could actually jeopardise
their license.
4.13 As the new licensees mature, it is highly likely that they will share these
towers. At present Digicel and AWS have no need for this service. However,
CaymanTel expressed an interest before withdrawing their license. Two new
licensees, North Rock and Foster Cayman, are feasibly future co-tenants and
in fact the ICTA have confirmed that Foster Cayman has expressed an
interest. This clearly benefits C&W, customers, new licensees and it has an
overall benefit for the Cayman Islands. These three applications for these
special purpose development are together an issue of national importance. It
is imperative that island-wide telecommunications in the Cayman Islands are
of the highest possible standard so that Cayman can ensure that it maintains
its competitive edge in the Tourism and International Financial Services
Markets.
4.14 If the applications are not approved, the service will continue to be of
poor quality. There will be constant complaints from the customers. This not
only has a prejudicial effect on C&W but will have a prejudicial effect on
Cayman generally and it is the customers who are suffering and will continue
to suffer.
4.15
The ICTA have confirmed with C&W that they have complied with all the
22
ICTA requirements. The ICTA fully endorses these applications before the
CPA and the urgent need to have them passed as soon as possible.
15.
Conclusion
Cable and Wireless submitted the Lower Valley and Midland Acres
applications on 7th April 2003 and the Queen’s Highway application on
18th September 2003. All three applications comply with the provisions of
the Development and Planning Law and Regulations. As requested C&W
have entered into an infrastructure sharing agreement under the
supervision of the ICTA and now wish to ensure that they can provide an
island-wide telecommunications service for Grand Cayman which
accommodates and encourages tower sharing. For the reasons above we
urge the CPA to grant these three applications today.”
CPA: Radiant barrier insulation appears to affect in building signals.
Mr. Scott: Some building materials do affect reception.
There being no further discussion with the applicant’s representatives, the
Chairman thanked them for appearing. They left at 5:52 p.m.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
No written evidence has been submitted of agreement to share the tower with
another company licensed by the ICTA. Accordingly, based on the stated
objective of sharing/non-proliferation of antenna, the CPA should not
support the application at this time.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reason:
1)
No written evidence has been submitted of agreement to share the tower
with another company licensed by the ICTA. Accordingly, based on the
stated objective of sharing/non-proliferation of antenna, the CPA does not
support the application at this time.
3.0
NEW APPLICATIONS
3.01
CABLE & WIRELESS LTD. Block 73A Parcel 19 (F01-0269) (P03-1068)
($13,000) (RS)
Application to extend the height of an existing communication tower to 131.2 feet
(40 metres)
FACTS
Location:
Across from Royal Reef Resort, Colliers
Zoning:
Agricultural/Residential
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices and one objection was received (See
“Objections” below)
23
Proposed Use:
Communications mast and equipment storage building
OBJECTIONS
“As the registered owner of 73A 90 we have never received any notice regarding
an application to the Planning Department for the erection of an antenna.
However, recently we received notice that an application has been made to extend
the existing antenna to 131 feet.
We would like to object to this antenna for the following reasons:
1.
Being the adjacent land owner the antenna will detract from the value of
the property.
2.
The required notices were not properly served when the original
application was submitted.”
Response to Objection
The Department would like to respond briefly to the matter of notification of the
original application for the tower. The applicant’s agent has stated that the
ownership information used to send out the required notices was obtained from
the Lands and Survey Department and at that time, January 9, 2003, the registered
owner was Mr. Mcford McLean. It appears; however, that just prior to that date,
(November, 2002) the ownership of parcel 90 was transferred to the current
objectors, Mr. & Mrs. Frederick. The applicant’s agent contends that the land
register information must not have been updated when they obtained the
necessary land ownership information from the Lands and Survey Department
and that they in fact did send the notice to the registered owner at that time.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking approval to extend the height of the existing free
standing tower to 131.2 ft. ICTA has advised the Department that this tower has
been identified as a tower that will be shared by communication service providers.
The Department has no particular concern with the application provided the
requirements of MRCU are implemented and that the Authority is satisfied that
the original notification requirements for the tower were properly executed.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The extension to the tower is considered acceptable
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
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.
2)
The tower shall comply with the Aerial Spraying Protection Law (1997
Revision), specifically section 3 therein regarding illumination.
24
3)
3.02
The tower shall comply with ICAO provisions for aircraft safety,
including, but not limited to, the requirements for safety banding (red &
white or orange & white).
WESTSTAR TV LTD. Block 14C Parcel 320 (F03-0408) (P03-1026)
($1,400,000) (JAB)
Application for an office building with storage.
Appearance at 1:40
FACTS
Location:
Next to the existing TV Center, Eclipse Dr., George Town
Zoning:
General Commercial
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served to adjacent property
owners. No objections were received
Existing Use:
Vacant
Proposed Use:
Office / storage
Parcel Size:
0.3434 acre (14,958.50 sq. ft.)
Site Coverage:
64.2%
Building Size:
Proposed - 18,072 sq. ft.
Parking:
Required - 27
Proposed – 27
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from the Water Authority, Chief Engineer and Chief Environmental
health officer are noted below.
Water Authority
“Please be advised that the proposed development will be approved upon
compliance with the following requirements:
•
The developer shall provide a septic tank with a capacity of at least 2,000 US
gallons. The septic tank shall be constructed in strict accordance with the
Authority’s standards.
•
The effluent from the septic tank shall be discharged into a disposal well. The
disposal well shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Authority’s
standards. The discharge pipe from the septic tank shall enter the disposal
well at a height of at least two feet above the water table level in the well.
Please be advised that this development is situated within the Water Authority’s
public water supply area and will be connected to the system upon request by the
owner. The location of that connection will be at the discretion of the Water
25
Authority.”
Chief Engineer
“As per your memo dated October 14, 2003, PWD has reviewed the abovementioned planning proposal.
Please find below our comments and
recommendations.
Traffic Management Issues
Driveway aisles shall be a minimum of twenty-two ft wide with entrance and exit
curves having no less than fifteen (15) feet radius curves.
Stormwater Management Issues
This is an area that is easily prone to flooding, even during relatively moderate
rainfall events. PWD has observed, in the past 12 months, that the applicant’s
current operation on the neighbouring parcel 14C 186 and the whole of Eclipse
Drive were subject to considerable overland flow run-off due to a significant
increase in impervious surface area in the last 2 years.
PWD notes that, with nearly 90% site coverage as shown in this proposal, drain
wells will not have sufficient capacity to accommodate all generated stormwater
run-off. As an alternative and for the long-term benefit of the development, PWD
would encourage the applicant to consider installing, infiltration trenches of a
depth of 6-8 feet, with 1-2 drains, along the eastern and northern setback buffer.
This facility would also accommodate the required system for control of roof
water runoff.
In an effort to maximize ground infiltration, PWD would advise the developer to
use for the parking area and walkways, a grasscrete surface as opposed to
asphalt or concrete.
Parking areas should be sloped towards the stormwater drains.
No trench drains at the driveway will be permitted. Instead, construct a hump
(entrance/exit ramp) at the driveway to prevent stormwater runoff from and onto
the access road.”
Chief Environmental Health Officer
“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:
1. The solid waste facility shall be site such that the service vehicle is not
obstructing part of the roadway while servicing the container.
2. No wires or other overhead obstructions shall be located in the vicinity of the
facility.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting permission to construct a 18,072 sq. ft. office / storage
building on parcel 320. Although the proposal meets minimum requirements for
site coverage and aesthetics, there is concern with the design of the parking lot,
26
setbacks, pedestrian circulation and location of service area. These concerns are
noted below in detail.
•
Parking – the applicant has proposed a total of twenty seven (27) parking
spaces to service the site. The parking area is split into two separate parking
lots which leads to concerns regarding vehicular circulation. The Department
would recommend a one-way connection from one parking lot to the other to
alleviate the circulation problem. This will also allow the entrance, driveway
and exit to be only 15’-0” wide. In addition, although the applicant has
provided three (3) handicap spaces, the Department is of the opinion that all
three spaces are proposed in the wrong locations as there is no direct access
from these spaces to the entrance of the building. The Department would
recommend that the spaces be moved closer to the entrance of the building for
easier access and an additional access be proposed from the parking lot to the
lobby. In addition to that stated above, at least three of the proposed spaces
do not function at present due to their proposed locations.
•
Setbacks – Section 8(8)(b&c) of the Development and Planning Regulations
(2003 revision), state that in a commercial zone the minimum road setbacks
shall be twenty feet and parking areas shall not be provided within road
setbacks, unless otherwise specified by the Authority. The Department would
note that the building itself is setback 12’-0” from the road however the
parking lot is as close as 6’-0” feet from the road boundary.
•
Pedestrian Circulation – the entry to the proposed building is located at the
western end of the structure which means that all persons wishing to enter the
building from the parking lot would have to walk completely around the
building in order to do so, as there is no access to the lobby from the parking
lot. The Department would recommend that the ground floor be redesigned to
include an entry point from the parking lot to the lobby.
•
Service Area – the applicant has dedicated an area in the parking lot as a
service area. However, the proposed location of the service area renders two
(2) parking spaces unusable as access to and from these spaces would be
obstructed any time the service area would be in use. In addition, access to
the service area by delivery vehicles would be limited as the entrance to the
parking lot is only 11’-6” high.
In summary the Department would like to point out that although the proposed
office building appears aesthetically pleasing, the parking lot does not function
adequately due to the site being used to its maximum potential. It is the opinion
of the Department that because parcel 320 is relatively small and does not
accommodate this proposal adequately, the development should be cut back and
redesigned to accommodate the concerns noted above.
The applicant’s agent was scheduled to appear at 1:40 p.m., but did not
appear.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reasons:
27
1)
3.03
The applicant shall submit a revised site plan illustrating the following
information at a minimum:
a)
The building shall be redesigned to conform with setback
requirements per Regulation 8(8)(b) of the Development and
Planning Regulations (2003 Revision), the minimum road setbacks
shall be twenty feet (20’). Proposed side and rear setbacks are
acceptable.
b)
The space allocated for servicing conflicts with at least two
parking spaces. The plans shall be revised to eliminate the
conflicts.
c)
The proposed handicap parking spaces shall be a minimum of
thirteen feet (13’) in width and shall be as close as possible to the
entrance of the building.
d)
The proposed design illustrates parking under the building without
direct pedestrian access to the interior of the building. The plans
shall be redesigned to address this matter.
e)
The applicant shall relocate the solid waste facility such that the
service vehicle is not obstructing part of the roadway while
servicing the container. In addition, no wires or other overhead
obstruction shall be located in the vicinity of the facility.
LOVISA VERNON HAMILTON Block 4E Parcel 458 (F03-0441) (P03-1125)
($190,000) (EJ)
Application for duplex (2x2).
The applicant was scheduled to appear at 1:20 p.m.
FACTS
Location:
Corner of Powell Smith Road & Fig Close, West Bay
Zoning:
High Density Residential
Notice Requirements: Letter of Consent from effected parcels received.
Background:
N/A
Parcel Size:
0.17 acres (7,405 sq. ft.) 6,500 sq. ft. required
Site Coverage:
33.14% (40% allowable)
Proposed Use:
Duplex
LETTER FROM APPLICANT’S AGENT
“Please find attached copies of Architectural drawings for submittal to the
Planning Authority regarding a proposed duplex for the above-mentioned project.
I would like to request a variance for this project for the infringement of the
setbacks on the west and south border of this property with the following
28
explanations.
My client, the owner, has found it a more practical solution for them to build a
duplex on this property, as this will provide them with the additional income for
them to financially maintain this project. I was instructed to design a layout
suitable to my client’s requirements and needs, thus producing the attached
design. The infringements on the setbacks was unavoidable as the property is a
corner lot and bordered by two fronting roads on the north and west side
resulting in setbacks not standard in practice by having the front, rear and one
side of this property with 20’-0” setbacks and one side 10’-0” setback. I would
like to also indicate that Parcel 459 is owned by my client’s family, who have no
objections to the proximity of this proposed project.
I hope that this explanation will suffice, as this lot does not provide flexible
alternatives to my client’s needs for a duplex development.
Thank you for your kind attention and we look forward to your favourable
response.”
LETTER OF CONSENT
“This is to certify that we the undersigned do not have any objections to the
building plans submitted by our daughter Lovisa Antonette Vernon-Hamilton.
We agree to the proposed duplex to be situated on Block 4E Parcel 458.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting three setback variances from the Authority for the
subject duplex. The proposed duplex does not meet the required 20’ road setback,
proposed approximately 18’ from Powell Smith and 18’ from Fig Close, 2’ under
the required regulations. The third variance is for the rear setback proposed
approximately at 12’ rather than the required 20’ minimum rear setback.
The proposed meets all other planning requirements for site coverage, lot width
and parking.
The Authority is reminded of Regulation 8 (13) Notwithstanding sub-regulation
(1), Regulation 9 (6), (7) and (8), and Regulation 10, the Authority may grant
permission to carry out development that does not comply with all or any of those
provisions if the Authority is satisfied(a) that an exceptional circumstance exists; and
(b) that there is a sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.
The applicant was scheduled to appear at 1:20 p.m, but the CPA felt that the
applicant’s presence was not required.
The CPA further discussed the following:
(a) that an exceptional circumstance exists; and
(b) that there is a sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.
29
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
1)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief
Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
2)
Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central
Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in
accordance with the approved plans which you will receive when the
above condition is complied with.
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 finished floor level should be at least five feet
(5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two ft (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].
The applicant is also reminded that the proposed development is subject to
compliance with the Public Health Law, Fire Brigade Law, Water Authority Law
and Roads Law.
To prevent potential delays and save money, the applicant may wish to coordinate
with the following agencies prior to commencing any construction: Caribbean
Utilities Company, Cable & Wireless and the Cayman Water Company
and/or the Water Authority - Cayman.
The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to
occupying the building.
3.04
MICHEAL FINELLI Block 1D Parcel 352 (FA81-0282) (P03-1020) ($65,000)
(EJ)
Application for a one (1) bedroom house.
FACTS
Location:
North West Point Road in West Bay.
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Background:
N/A
Existing Use:
House
Proposed Use:
House.
Parcel Size:
.50 (21,780 sq. ft.)
Site Coverage:
8.38%
Building Size:
Existing – 1,066 sq. ft.
30
Proposed – 760 sq. ft.
Total – 1,826 sq. ft.
Parking Required:
2
Parking Proposed:
3
LETTER OF VARIANCE
“The above proposed private dwelling (with existing dwelling on site) is situated
in low density residential zoning, and as such with the parcel being 21,780 sq. ft
of the required 25,000 sq. ft., we are requesting a variance of 3,220 sq. ft.
Our client’s father is the owner of the existing dwelling and wants to help his son.
Hoping you will consider favourably our proposal.”.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking a lot size variance from the Authority for an additional
one bedroom house, since the subject lot exists at 21,780 sq. ft. (3,220 sq. ft.),
under the required lot size. Under the current low-density residential zone the two
houses would need 25,000 sq. ft. total (12,500 sq. ft. for each house).
The Department has no major concerns other than any precedence it may set for
the area. The proposed meets planning regulations and requirements for site
coverage, lot width, parking, front, rear and side setbacks.
The Authority is reminded of Regulation 8 (13) Notwithstanding sub-regulation
(1), Regulation 9 (6), (7) and (8), and Regulation 10, the Authority may grant
permission to carry out development that does not comply with all or any of those
provisions if the Authority is satisfied(a) that an exceptional circumstance exists; and
(b) that there is a sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The lot can be accessed from two roads and therefore can have two road
frontages
•
That an exceptional circumstance exists and that there is a sufficient reason
why the permission should be granted.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
1)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief
Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
2)
Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central
Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in
31
accordance with the approved plans which you will receive when the
above condition is complied with.
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 finished floor level should be at least five feet
(5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two ft (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].
The applicant is also reminded that the proposed development is subject to
compliance with the Public Health Law, Fire Brigade Law, Water Authority Law
and Roads Law.
To prevent potential delays and save money, the applicant may wish to coordinate
with the following agencies prior to commencing any construction: Caribbean
Utilities Company, Cable & Wireless and the Cayman Water Company
and/or the Water Authority - Cayman.
The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to
occupying the building.
3.05
DEXTER BUSH Block 9A Parcel 661 (F03-0448) (P03-1136) ($5,000) (EJ)
Application for a three (3) lot subdivision.
FACTS
Location:
Off Adonis Drive, west of the Shore subdivision, in West
Bay
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors
and no objections were received.
Background:
N/A
Parcel Size:
0.96 acres (41,818 sq. ft.)
Site Coverage:
0%
Proposed Use:
Subdivision
Subdivision:
Lot A = 0.3289 acres (14,330 sq. ft.), Lot B = 0.3312 acres
(14,430 sq. ft.), Lot C = 0.2997 acres (13,058 sq. ft.) Total =
0.96 acres (41,818 sq. ft.)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting permission from the Authority to subdivide the subject
parcel into three (3) lots. All exceed the minimum 12,500 sq. ft. lot size for low
density residential zone.
32
The Department has no concerns since the proposed meets all planning
requirements for minimum lot size, lot width and road access.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
3.06
1)
The surveyor’s final drawing shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval prior to the survey being registered.
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.
NCB PROJECT MANAGEMENT Block 27C Parcel 743 (F03-0437) (P031118) ($3,000) (KG)
Application for sign and wall.
FACTS
Location:
Savannah
Tarpon Island Drive, Sunrise Landing, off Hirst Road,
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Background:
No previous CPA action
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors
and no objections were received
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting planning permission for a sign to be affixed to a wall
at the above mentioned property. The size of the sign is as follows:
Length: 4.6’; Width: 3.0’; Area: 13.75 sq. ft. and reads “TARPON ISLAND”
In addition, the applicant is proposing a wall 6’-0” in height at its highest point
and 3’-8” at it lowest point. The wall would be affixed to entrance columns 8’-9”
in height similar to some other subdivisions entrances on the island.
The proposed wall and sign are in keeping with the Central Planning Authority
decisions on subdivision entry features. The Department has no specific concerns
with the application.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
1)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief
Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
2)
Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central
Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in
33
accordance with the approved plans which you will receive when the
above condition is complied with.
3.07
ADEL LTD Block 2C Parcel 68 (F03-0432) (P03-1091) ($34,000) (EJ)
Application for house addition.
FACTS
Location:
North West Point Road, near Invicta Drive, West Bay
Zoning:
Beach Resort Residential
Background:
N/A
Existing Use:
House, cabana and swimming pool
Proposed Use:
House addition
Parcel Size:
.80 (34,848 sq. ft.)
Site Coverage:
7.01%
Building Size:
Existing – 2,038 sq. ft.
Proposed – 405 sq. ft.
Total – 2,443 sq. ft.
Parking:
Required – 1
Proposed - 1
LETTER OF VARIANCE
“Please accept this letter as a request for a side setback variance to allow the
proposed addition to remain, as shown on the attached drawings, for the
following reasons:
•
The immediate neighbour (2C 117) has provided written consent to the
location of the proposed addition.
•
The applicants have strong reservation in carrying out development that
extends closer to the coastline in fear of possible damages from inclement
weather, as has been experienced by neighbouring developments like Dolphin
Point Condos.
•
Also, the existing house layout is such that all the sleeping rooms & gathering
areas take advantage of panoramic views of Seven Mile Beach, George Town
and South Sound. The proposed additional bedroom is situated to enjoy the
views as mentioned above.
•
The section of parcel 2C 68 between the house and the fronting road does not
lend itself to development due to its narrow state.
•
The location of the structure, in my opinion, will not be detrimental or have an
adverse affect on the present status or the future of the development on the
34
adjacent parcel (2C 117).
•
The application is in compliance with all other requirements.
I trust that this information will be adequate for the approval of this application.”
LETTER OF CONSENT
“I acknowledge that I have seen the drawings for a single story extension to Villa
Adel 497 North West Point Road Lot 2C and Parcel 68 WB which is adjacent to
my property namely Tradewinds Point 495 North West Point Road.
I give my permission for a variance to be made for that extension to be within the
10 foot setback from my property line as detailed in the drawings which I have
also signed provided that the extension adjoining my property is a single story.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a variance setback from the Authority for the subject
house addition, proposed 5’ from the East (side) of the existing house, which
would bring the addition 5’ from the boundary instead of the required 15’ side
setback.
With the property existing at .80 of an acre, the Department see no reason why the
subject addition could not be situated on the property to meet all setbacks, bearing
in mind the close proximity of the house on the effected parcel and the
Department’s usual concerns for fire etc.
The proposed meets all other planning requirements for site coverage, lot width,
parking, front & rear setbacks.
The Authority is reminded of Regulation 8 (13) Notwithstanding sub-regulation
(1), Regulation 9 (6), (7) and (8), and Regulation 10, the Authority may grant
permission to carry out development that does not comply with all or any of those
provisions if the Authority is satisfied(a) that an exceptional circumstance exists; and
(b) that there is a sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.
The applicant’s agent was scheduled to appear at 1:20 p.m., but informed the
Department that he chose not to appear.
The CPA further discussed the following:
Facts:
The proposed development does not meet regulation 15(4)(b)(I) of the
Development and Planning Regulations (2003 Revision.
Findings:
The Central Planning Authority does not have the discretion to vary required side
building setbacks in the Beach Resort Residential zone.
35
Decision: It was resolved to refuse the application, for the following reason:
1)
The Central Planning Authority does not have the discretion to vary
setbacks in the Beach Resort Residential zone.
The Authority wishes to remind the applicant of the right to appeal pursuant to
Section 48(1) of the Development and Planning Law (2003 Revision). Such
appeal shall be made by Notice in writing, and referred to as a “Notice of
Appeal”. It shall be signed by yourself or your attorney-at-law and filed, along
the prescribed CI$50.00 filing fee, in the offices of the Permanent Secretary,
Planning, Communications, District Administration & Information Technology
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.
3.08
WESLEYAN HOLINESS CHURCH Block 5B Parcels 278 and 268 (F01-0082)
(P03-1095) ($60,000) (EJ)
Application for garage and storage building.
FACTS
Location:
Off Crescent Close in West Bay.
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Background:
N/A
Existing Use:
Vacant
Proposed Use:
Garage and storage building for car and bus.
Parcel Size:
.12 acres (5,227 sq. ft.) (12,500 sq. ft.)
Site Coverage:
24.28%
Building Size:
Existing – 0
Proposed – 1,269 sq. ft.
Total – 1,269 sq. ft.
Parking:
Required – 1
Proposed - 2
LETTER OF VARIANCE
“We are asking for the dispensation of the Board over the setbacks, and enclose
the written consent of the adjoining owners bounding the site on the North, South,
and East of our property to the setbacks as shown on our plans.
We enclose also the statutory copy of the index map of the site together with a
36
copy of the Register.
We thank you for your consideration of this proposal.”
LETTER OF CONSENT
“We hereby confirm that we have no objections to the proposed garage being
erected with the setbacks as shown on this plan.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking a setback variance from the Authority for permission to
construct a double garage with storage area. The proposed garage/storage
structure is proposed 10’ from the rear of the boundary instead of the required 20’
setback and is under the required lot size, existing at 5,227 sq. ft. (7,273 sq. ft.)
below the required minimum 12,500 sq. ft. lot size for low-density residential
area.
The plan is to demolish the existing garage located on parcel 268 and rebuilt it on
parcel 278 which has no registered access. However, access is proposed over 268
off crescent close.
The Department is of the opinion that the proposed structure could be shifted 10’
(west) to meet the required 20’ rear setback with no impact on the driveway
access. The Department has no major concerns for the following reasons: 1) the
applicant has received consent from the effected parcels, 2) the proposed structure
is for vehicles only and not for habitation, 3) a variance is needed for the rear
setback only, 4) access is switched from the busy North West Point Road to a
minor road (Crescent Close), 5) lots can be combined to address
accessibility/undersized lot.
The Authority is reminded of Regulation 8 (13) Notwithstanding sub-regulation
(1), Regulation 9 (6), (7) and (8), and Regulation 10, the Authority may grant
permission to carry out development that does not comply with all or any of those
provisions if the Authority is satisfied(a) that an exceptional circumstance exists; and
(b) that there is a sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The applicant should submit a revised site plan illustrating the proposed
building located in compliance with the minimum required twenty feet (20’)
rear setback
•
The subject parcel should be combined with the Church parcel.
•
Access should be from the Church property only.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
In addition to Building Permit requirements, conditions (1-2) listed below shall be
37
met before a Building Permit can be issued.
1)
The applicant shall submit a revised site plan illustrating the following
information at a minimum:
a)
3.09
The proposed building at a minimum of twenty feet (20’) from the
rear boundary.
2)
The subject parcel shall be combined with the Church parcel (268). Proof
of an application to the Lands and Survey Department to combine shall be
submitted to the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of a Building
Permit.
3)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief
Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
4)
Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central
Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in
accordance with the approved plans which you will receive when all of
the above conditions are complied with.
5)
Access shall be from Northwest Point Road over parcel 268.
EVELYN ROCKETT Block 25B Parcel 337 (F98-0157) (P03-1108) (P03-1255)
($384,000) (EJ)
Application for change-of-use from house with helper’s quarters to preschool and
helper’s quarters and 5’ chainlink fence.
FACTS
Location:
Orange Drive in Prospect Park
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices sent to adjacent proprietors. The
application was also advertised in a newspaper and no
objections were received.
Background:
Three (3) bedroom house with helper’s quarters was
administratively approved on August 16, 2002
Proposed Use:
Preschool and helper quarters.
Parcel Size:
0.64 acres (27,878 2ft)
Site Coverage:
18.23% (25% allowable)
Building Size:
Existing – 5,083 sq. ft.
Change of use to: Preschool – 4,720 sq. ft.
Helper Quarters – 363 sq. ft.
Total – 5,083 sq. ft.
38
Parking:
Required – 10 (1:500)
Proposed – 6
LETTER FROM APPLICANT
“I would greatly appreciate you considering my request for a “Change of Use”
for the building on Block 25B Parcel 337 from a dwelling home to a Pre School.
I am presently renting the property across the road at Block 25B Parcel 74
however, the rent has increased drastically and it is impossible for me to make
ends meet.
Last week I was fortunate enough to have a meeting with staff members of the
Planning Department who were extremely informative in guiding me through the
necessary process for this change. I was informed that no structural, electrical or
plumbing changes had to be made. The surrounding dwelling is mostly rental
properties with a few single dwelling homes.
Please find enclosed the necessary documents required for this request. Thanking
you in advance for your assistance.”
LETTERS OF SUPPORT/CONSENT
Letter #1
“This is to confirm that I support the application for a pre-school on Orange
Drive, Prospect Park:
•
This area of Orange Drive is easily accessed by area residents through the
internal network of roads in Prospect Park without having to use the main
road (Shamrock)
•
It is considered to be safer from a traffic perspective than the four way
intersections of Orange with Logwood, Birch and Mahogany where drivers
have a tendency to speed in the north-south directions.”
Letter #2 (from Education Department)
“Our Department is in favour of the proposed pre-school application for Ms.
Evelyn Rockett. We give our permission to proceed to process the application.”
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from Chief Environmental Health Officer and Water Authority are
noted below.
Chief Environmental Health Officer
“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:
Kitchen
1. The proposed access to the kitchen is not secure. A means of preventing the
children having access to the kitchen should be provided.
39
2. Provision shall be made for the adequate cleansing of utensils used for the
preparation and service of food. To facilitate this either a three-compartment
sink or a dishwasher shall be provided.
3. If a dishwasher is provided specification for the dishwater shall be submitted
to the DEH for review and approval. The specifications shall include the
following:
•
The wash capacity of the dishwasher, racks per hour
•
The size of the racks, inches
•
The volume of water per rack in the wash cycle, gallons
•
The wash cycle time, seconds
•
The pump capacity, gpm
•
The rinse cycle volume, gallons
•
The rinse cycle time, seconds
4. If it is proposed to use a three-compartment sink, the sink shall be provided
with a booster heater capable of heating the water to a temperature of not less
than 180 degrees Fahrenheit.
5. In addition to the two-compartment preparation sink, a wash hand basin shall
be provided. This facility shall be supplied with hand sanitizer and approval
hand-drying facilities.
Cistern
1. The purpose of the proposed water cistern should be stated.
2. Design details for the cistern should be submitted for review and approval.
The details shall include the following:
•
Volume of the cistern
•
Dimensions of the cistern
•
Method of pre-filtration
•
Method of disinfection
•
Plumbing layout
•
Pump capacity
3. The water from the cistern shall be used only for flushing the toilets. In no
case shall water from the cistern be used for cooking, hand washing, or
drinking purposes.
Solid Waste
1. A minimum of 4 33-gallon garbage bins shall be provided.
2. The location of the onsite solid waste facility is satisfactory.”
40
Water Authority
“Please be advised that the above development is subject to approval upon
compliance with the following requirements:
•
The developer shall provide a septic tank with a capacity of at least 2,500 US
gallons. 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 disposal well
shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Authority’s standards.
•
The discharge pipe from the septic tank shall enter the disposal well at a
height of at least two feet above the water table level in the well.
•
The developer shall also provide a grease interceptor with a liquid volume of
at least 600 US gallons to treat the wastewater from the kitchen sinks prior to
discharging into the treatment plant mentioned above. The grease interceptor
shall be constructed in accordance with the Water Authority standards.
Please be advised that this development is situated within the Water Authority’s
public water supply area and will be connected to the system upon request by the
owner. The location of that connection will be at the discretion of the Water
Authority.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is seeking permission to change the existing approved house with
helper quarters into a pre-school, with the existing helper quarters to remain. The
change is for 4720 sq. ft. for the preschool leaving the remaining 363 sq. ft. as
approved for the helper quarters. There is no proposal for any additional square
footage.
The site plan has been revised to include six (6) parking spaces, two for staff and
four for clients. Under parking requirements for commercial development, the
proposed preschool would require nine (9) parking spaces (1:500) and one (1)
space for the helpers unit for a total of 10 spaces. The proposal provides for a
play area and some shaded trees. However, it is the Department’s opinion that
additional landscaping should be required along the boundaries of the subject
parcel. After consulting with the applicant, she has informed us of her concerns
with children playing around hedges and being trapped.
Authority should note that the applicant has been informed that there are no
provisions for the usually required sidewalk.
The proposed meets all other planning requirements for massing, scale,
proportion, design for the area and also meets site coverage, minimum lot size, lot
width, parking and all setbacks.
The Authority is reminded of Regulation 8 (13) Notwithstanding sub-regulation
(1), Regulation 9 (6), (7) and (8), and Regulation 10, the Authority may grant
permission to carry out development that does not comply with all or any of those
provisions if the Authority is satisfied41
(a) that an exceptional circumstance exists; and
(b) that there is a sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
1)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief
Building Control Officer. The change of use shall not commence prior to
the issuance of a Building Permit.
2)
Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central
Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in
accordance with the approved plans which you will receive when the
above condition is complied with.
Additionally, once construction has started, conditions (3-9) shall be complied
with before a final Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.
3)
4)
The following requirements are applicable to the kitchen:
a)
The proposed access to the kitchen is not secure. A means of
preventing the children having access to the kitchen shall be
provided.
b)
Provision shall be made for the adequate cleansing of utensils used
for the preparation and service of food. To facilitate this either a
three-compartment sink or a dishwasher shall be provided.
c)
If a dishwasher is provided specification for the dishwater shall be
submitted to the DEH for review and approval. The specifications
shall include the following:
•
The wash capacity of the dishwasher, racks per hour
•
The size of the racks, inches
•
The volume of water per rack in the wash cycle, gallons
•
The wash cycle time, seconds
•
The pump capacity, gpm
•
The rinse cycle volume, gallons
•
The rinse cycle time, seconds
d)
If it is proposed to use a three-compartment sink, the sink shall be
provided with a booster heater capable of heating the water to a
temperature of not less than 180 degrees Fahrenheit.
e)
In addition to the two-compartment preparation sink, a wash hand
basin shall be provided. This facility shall be supplied with hand
sanitizer and approval hand-drying facilities.
The following requirements are applicable to the cistern:
42
a)
The purpose of the proposed water cistern shall be stated.
b)
Design details for the cistern shall be submitted for review and
approval. The details shall include the following:
c)
5)
•
Volume of the cistern
•
Dimensions of the cistern
•
Method of pre-filtration
•
Method of disinfection
•
Plumbing layout
•
Pump capacity
The water from the cistern shall be used only for flushing the
toilets. In no case shall water from the cistern be used for cooking,
hand washing, or drinking purposes.
The following requirements are applicable to solid waste:
a)
A minimum of four 33-gallon garbage bins shall be provided.
6)
The applicant shall provide a septic tank with a capacity of at least 2,500
US gallons. The septic tank shall be constructed in strict accordance with
the Water Authority’s standards.
7)
All treated effluent shall be discharged into a disposal well. The disposal
well shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Water Authority’s
standards.
8)
The discharge pipe from the septic tank shall enter the disposal well at a
height of at least two feet above the water table level in the well.
9)
The applicant shall also provide a grease interceptor with a liquid
volume of at least 600 US gallons to treat the wastewater from the kitchen
sinks prior to discharging into the treatment plant mentioned above. The
grease interceptor shall be constructed in accordance with the Water
Authority standards.
Please be advised that this development is situated within the Water
Authority’s public water supply area and will be connected to the system
upon request by the owner. The location of that connection will be at the
discretion of the Water Authority.
The applicant is reminded that a TV dish, shed or sign is subject to a separate
application.
The applicant is also reminded that the proposed development is subject to
compliance with the Public Health Law, Fire Brigade Law, Water Authority Law
and Roads Law.
The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to
occupying the building.
43
3.010
GARFIELD & CARLTON EBANKS Block 15C Parcel 252 (F98-0034) (P031100) ($700,000) (KG)
Application for eight (8) apartment units, swimming pool and gazebo.
FACTS
Location:
Fair Lawn Road, Off Fairbanks Road, George Town
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served to adjacent proprietors
and no objections were received
Background:
March 11th 1998, CPA approved previous application for
apartments for the subject site.
Existing Use:
Vacant
Proposed Use:
Apartments
Parcel Size:
.4360 acre (18,992.16 sq. ft.)
Site Coverage:
24.7% (max. allowable 25%)
Building Size:
Proposed – 9,024 sq. ft.
Footprint – 4,692 sq. ft.
Parking:
Existing – 0
Required – 8
Proposed (CPA Guidelines) – 12
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from the Chief Fire Officer and Chief Environmental Health Officer
are noted below.
Chief Fire Officer
“Approved for planning permit only.”
Chief Environmental Health Officer
“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:
Solid Waste
1. The location of the proposed solid waste facility is not satisfactory. In order
to access the facility the vehicle would have to block part of the highway.
2. The facility shall be relocated to satisfy the following conditions:
•
The facility should be centrally located, and so place, as to allow easy
access for servicing by the Department’s vehicles.
•
The container must be located so that the vehicle can access the container
44
directly and have adequate room to lift it into the discharge position.
•
The service vehicles should be able to enter and exit the site without having
to reverse onto the highway.
•
The facility should be located away from overhead power lines and other
protrusions that can cause electrical shock, injury, or other difficulties
during servicing.
•
Where there is a canopy or other overhead projection under which the
service must pass to access the onsite solid waste facility the minimum
vertical clearance of 15 feet must be provided.
•
Enclosures should be placed at the end of the access way or at the side of
the access way.
•
Where an enclosure is located at the side of an access way the angle of
approach should not exceed 22.5 degrees.
•
A minimum clear space of 50 feet should be provided directly in front of the
facility to allow the vehicle sufficient area to back out of the facility.
3. The facility shall be designed to satisfy the following criteria:
•
The floor slab should be constructed of reinforced concrete with a
minimum thickness of 6 inches.
•
The enclosure should be constructed of suitable material and should have
a minimum height of 5 ft 6 in.
•
The floor slab should have a floor drain located at the center of the slab,
or some other convenient point. This drain should discharge into a deep
well or other approved liquid waste disposal system.
•
The facility should be provided with water under pressure. A tap and hose
should be provided to facilitate wash down.
Swimming Pool
1. Insufficient details have been submitted with this application to allow an
adequate assessment as to whether the swimming pool’s recirculation system
is designed to meet the environmental health requirements necessary to
ensure that the quality of the water can be maintained to protect the health of
the users.
2. One copy of specifications, and of drawings drawn to scale with sufficient
clarity and detail to indicate the nature and character of the work, should
accompany any application. Such information should include these items:
(a)
Plot plans with site grades, dimensioned and drawn to scale of not less
than 1/8 in. to 1 ft and showing at least the following:
•
the proposed pool shape of the pool,
•
the location of existing structures adjacent to the pool,
45
•
the proposed deck work configuration and its drainage, and
•
the overall drainage of the pool site.
(b)
A mechanical plan showing at least:
•
the volume, system flow rate in gallons per minute, and turnover in
hours.
•
the type and size of filtration system and means of waste disposal.
•
the pool-piping layout with all sizes shown and types of material to be
used, and showing the location of the main outlet, surface skimmers,
and inlets.
•
the rated capacity of the pool pump in gpm at the design head with the
size and type of motor indicated in horsepower.
•
the total dynamic head.
•
the method of adding makeup water.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The proposal is for a two storey, eight (8) apartments units, pool and gazebo to be
located at the above mentioned site. There are six (6) two (2) bedrooms units and
two (2) one (1) bedroom units.
The proposal has met all of the requirements such as rear, front and side building
setbacks, parking and lot size. However the Department would like to bring the
Authority’s attention to the following issues.
1. Aesthetics
The rear elevation should be consistent with the front façade of the building. The
rear elevation consists of a series of windows, triple sliding glass doors and a very
clean monolithic roof form. However, the applicant’s agent has stated that the
proposed development would profoundly improve the architectural context and
conditions of the area.
2. Solid Waste
The garbage container would be more efficient in another location. Current
placement is unsuitable (see DEH comments).
The CPA further discussed the following:
The location of the solid waste facility is unsatisfactory. It should be relocated to
the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Health.
The aesthetics of the rear elevations should be revised. The applicant should liaise
with the Planning Department in this regard.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reasons:
1)
The aesthetics of the rear elevations shall be revised. The applicant should
46
liaise with the Planning Department in this regard.
2)
3.011
The location of the solid waste facility is unsatisfactory. It shall be
relocated to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Health.
AMELIAH M. CARZANA Block 28C Parcel 135 (FA87-0047) (P03-1194)
(KG)
Application for after-the-fact duplex.
FACTS
Location:
Butterfly Circle, off Hirst Road, Savannah
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Notice Requirements: N/A
Background:
No previous CPA action.
Existing Use:
Occupied residence
Proposed Use:
After-the-fact conversion of house to 1 by 2 bedroom
duplex.
Parcel Size:
0.29 acre (12,632.4 sq. ft.)
Site Coverage:
18.1% (max. allowable 25%)
Building Size:
Existing – 1,300 sq. ft.
Proposed – 988 sq. ft.
Parking:
Existing - 2
Required - 2
LETTER FROM APPLICANT
“I would like to apply for a building permit for an existing house located on BLK
28C PARCEL 135 in the name of Ameliah Carzana. The house was constructed
about sixteen years ago and subsequently changed into a duplex five years later.
The house currently has one meter and now the owner would like a separate
meter installed. The extension was completed without planning permission so
therefore it cannot be determined where the plumbing, structure, and electrical
lines are located.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to a
prompt reply.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The proposal is to convert a single storey residence into a duplex. As stated in the
above letter, this residence was constructed sixteen years ago, and was converted
into a duplex five years after construction.
The proposal does comply with all of the requirements such as setbacks, parking,
47
and site coverage. However, the lot size at 12,632 sq. ft. is less than the minimum
required 13,500 sq. ft. for a duplex in this zone (LDR). That being said, there are
several duplexes and an apartment complex of 14 units in the neighbourhood. As
a result of the lot size, the applicant has requested a variance.
The Authority is reminded of Regulation 8 (13) Notwithstanding sub-regulation
(1), Regulation 9 (6), (7) and (8), and Regulation 10, the Authority may grant
permission to carry out development that does not comply with all or any of those
provisions if the Authority is satisfied(a) that an exceptional circumstance exists; and
(b) that there is a sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
There are duplexes in the subdivision on similar lot sizes.
•
That an exceptional circumstance exists and that there is a sufficient reason why the
permission should be granted.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
1)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from 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 which you will receive when the
above condition is complied with.
3)
The parking lot and drive way aisles surfaced with asphaltic concrete or
equivalent and tire stops provided for each parking space which must be
striped.
The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy).
3.012
GLACESTER VERNON Block 14D Parcel 192 (FA84-0142) (P03-1183)
($110,000) (CH)
Application for one (1) dwelling unit addition to existing house to create a duplex.
FACTS
Location:
Oak Mill Street, off Anthony Drive, Templeton Pines,
George Town
Zoning:
Medium Density Residential
Notice Requirements: N/A
Background:
May 16, 1984 – permission was granted for a house.
July 24, 1991 (CPA/18/91; item 7.2) the Authority
48
resolved to advise the applicant that the application was
being considered for refusal.
October 30, 1991 (CPA/28/91; item 7.2) outline planning
permission was granted for a duplex on the parcel.
March 25, 1992 (CPA/07/92; item 7.6) application for
proposed apartment and garage was deferred for the
following reason:
1) The proposal does not comply with the current
Regulation and the Central Planning Authority intends
to make recommendations regarding their amendment.
November 4, 1992 (CPA/26/92; item 7.6) the Authority
resolved to grant planning permission for an apartment and
garage.
Existing Use:
Single family dwelling
Proposed Use:
Two (2) bedroom addition to create a duplex
Parcel Size:
0.21 acre (9,147.6 sq. ft.)
Building Size:
Existing – 1,300 sq. ft.
Proposed – 1,088 sq. ft.
Parking:
Required – 2
Proposed – 3
LETTER FROM APPLICANT’S AGENT
“The above proposed Duplex (from private dwelling) is situated in medium
density residential zoning adjoining a high density residential area. As such with
the parcel being 9,148 sq. ft. of the required 10,000 sq. ft., we are requesting a
variance of 852 sq. ft.
Hope you will consider our proposal.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to add a two storey, two (2) bedroom dwelling unit to
an existing house to create a duplex. The Department would note that the size of
the subject parcel is 9,147.6 sq. ft. In accordance with Regulation 9(7)(e) of the
Development and Planning Regulations (2003 Revision), the minimum allowable
lot size for a duplex is 10,000 sq. ft. Consequently the applicant is requesting a
variance of 852.4 sq. ft.
It should be noted that a similar proposal was approved at CPA/26/92; item 7.6.
A site visit conducted by the Department revealed that predominantly apartments
and duplexes exist within the immediate vicinity. The Department would note
that the parcel is adjacent to high density zone, therefore the proposed
development is consistent with surrounding developments. Consideration should
49
be given to the agent’s letter.
The application meets planning requirements regarding setbacks distances, site
coverage and parking.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
There are duplexes and apartments in the area on similar lot sizes.
•
That an exceptional circumstance exists and that there is a sufficient reason why the
permission should be granted.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
1)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief
Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
2)
Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central
Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in
accordance with the approved plans which you will receive when the
above condition is complied with.
3)
The parking area shall be of asphaltic concrete or equivalent hard surface.
Provisions 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 obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to
occupying that part of the building.
3.013
MARTIN & NORA BURKE Block 12D Parcel 53 (F03-0276) (P03-1211)
($230,000) (CH)
Application to modify (increase area of building, swimming pool/deck) planning
permission, and also application for entrance gate, cabana, garbage enclosure and
temporary six (6) feet chain link fence.
FACTS
Location:
Britannia Drive off West Bay Road
Zoning:
Hotel/Tourism Zone
Notice Requirements: N/A
Background:
July 16, 2003 - planning permission granted for a house,
swimming pool, garage with maids quarter. The application
was reviewed administratively.
Existing Use:
Vacant
Proposed Use:
Single Family Dwelling
50
Parcel Size:
0.59 acre (25,879 sq. ft.)
Site Coverage:
18% (40% allowed)
Setbacks:
Required – front – 25’, Rear – 25’, Sides – 19’ (50% x 38)
Proposed – front: 60’, rear: 10’ (pool, cabana, deck) Sides 10’ and 28’
Building Size:
Approved 10, 860 sq. ft.
Proposed – 1130.5 sq. ft.
Total = 11,990.5 sq. ft. (Including cabana)
LETTER FROM APPLICANT
“Attached is the amended planning application for a single-family residence on
Block 12D Parcel 53.
We request variance to the side & rear set backs for the pool, pool deck and
cabana.
As we understand a 10’-0” side setback for a single story building can be
considered acceptable. In this case a 10’-0” setback could be suitable when
considering that the construction mentioned is mostly open deck and ancillary to
the main residence.
Additionally these items are set directly towards private land for public use
(Britannia Golf Course) therefore not interfering with any privacy issues to
neighboring property.
Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Your earliest approval of this request is appreciated.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting approval to modify approved house plans, which
includes increase in the area of the building (internal arrangements) and increase
in pool/deck area. The proposal also includes a garbage enclosure, ten (10) feet
high gate with 13’8” high columns, cabana and a temporary six (6) feet high chain
link fence to enclose the parcel during construction. The applicant is seeking rear
and side setback variances for the cabana and swimming pool /deck.
It should be noted that the planning application is subject to Regulation 10(2)
which states “In certain cases unrelated development may be permitted by
Authority within a Hotel/Tourism zone but it will be required to conform to the
setback requirements applicable to hotels as well as other requirements
applicable to its own particular type of development.”
In accordance with the aforementioned Regulation, the minimum allowable rear
setback distance, including the swimming pool and stairs of the deck shall be 25’.
Therefore, the applicant is seeking a setback variance of 15’ for the swimming
pool/deck and cabana. Regulation 10(1)(g) states that the minimum rear setback
should be 25’. The Department would like to note that the rear parcel boundary is
51
roughly 130’ from the North Sound Coastline. In a telephone conversation the
agent was asked to relocate the swimming pool closer to the house so as not to
infringe too much within the setback distance. The agent indicated to table the
plan as proposed to CPA.
The minimum allowable side setback distances should be 19’, which is 50% the
height (38’) of the proposed building. The Authority should note that the building
has been approved administratively at the height indicated on the plans and a
setback of 15’. Subsequent changes done by the applicant was on the assumption
that the height and setbacks were fine. The changes as reflected in this addition
regarding building height are consistent with the earlier permission. The
applicant is requesting a variance of 4’ from the side parcel boundary for the
cabana. The east elevation of the proposed cabana shows that it is an open
structure that faces the side parcel boundary, and having a proposed height of 16’.
The applicant indicated that the cabana is ancillary; however, the Regulations
state that all structures are subject to setback requirements.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
That an exceptional circumstance exists and that there is a sufficient reason why the
permission should be granted.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
1)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief
Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
2)
Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central
Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in
accordance with the approved plans that you will receive when the above
condition is complied with.
3)
The temporary chain link fence shall be removed prior to the issuance of a
Final Certificate.
Provisions 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 is reminded that the finished floor level should be at least five feet
(5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two ft (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].
The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to
occupying the building.
3.014
MARTIN & NORA BURKE Block 12D Parcel 78 (F03-0277) (P03-1213)
($710,000) (CH)
Application for house addition, swimming pool/deck area increase, entrance gate
and cabana.
52
FACTS
Location:
Britannia Drive off West Bay Road
Zoning:
Hotel/Tourism Zone
Notice Requirements: N/A
Background:
July 16, 2003 planning permission granted for a house,
swimming pool and garage with maids quarter. The
application was reviewed administratively.
Existing Use:
Vacant
Proposed Use:
Single Family Dwelling
Parcel Size:
0.57 acre (24,786 sq. ft.
Site Coverage:
21% (40% allowed)
Setbacks:
Required – Front – 25’, Rear – 25’, Sides: 19’ (50% X 38)
Proposed – Front - 29’, Rear - 10’ (pool/deck/cabana),
Sides: 10’ and 28’
Building Size:
Approved 11, 055.32 sq. ft.
Proposed – 3904 sq. ft.
Total = 14,959.32 sq. ft. (including cabana)
LETTER FROM APPLICANT’S AGENT
“Attached is the amended planning application for a single-family residence on
Block 12D Parcel 78.
We request variance to the side & rear set backs for the pool, pool deck and
cabana.
As we understand a 10’-0” side setback for a single story building can be
considered acceptable. In this case an 10’-0” setback could be suitable when
considering that the construction mentioned is mostly open deck and ancillary to
the main residence.
Additionally these items are set directly towards private land for public use
(Britannia Golf Course) therefore not interfering with any privacy issues to
neighboring property.
Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Your earliest approval of this request is appreciated.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting approval for modification to approved house plan,
which includes an increase in the area of the building (internal arrangements) and
increase in pool/deck area. The proposal also includes a ten (10) feet high gate
with 13’8” high columns and cabana. The applicant is seeking rear and side
53
setback variances for the swimming pool /deck and cabana.
It should be noted that the application is subject to Regulation 10 (2) which states
“In certain cases unrelated development may be permitted by Authority within a
Hotel/Tourism zone but it will be required to conform to the setback requirements
applicable to hotels as well as other requirements applicable to its own particular
type of development.”
In accordance with the aforementioned Regulation, the minimum allowable rear
setback distance, including the swimming pool and stairs of the deck should be
25’. Therefore the applicant is seeking a setback variance of 15’ for the
swimming pool/deck and cabana. The Department would note that Regulation
10(1)(g) states “the minimum rear setbacks are 25 feet from the road edge or lot
boundary as the case may be”. In a telephone conversation the agent was asked to
relocate the swimming pool closer to the house so as not to infringe within the
setback distance. The agent indicated to table the plan as proposed to the CPA.
The minimum allowable side setback distances should be 19’, which is 50% the
height (38’) of the proposed building. The Department notes that Regulation
10(1)(f) states “the minimum side setbacks are fifty per cent of the height of the
building with a minimum of 15 feet”. The Authority should note that the building
has been approved administratively at the height indicated on the plans and at a
setback of 15’. Subsequent changes done by the applicant was on the basis of the
approved side building setback. The applicant is requesting a variance of 5’ from
the side parcel boundary for the cabana. The east elevation of the proposed
cabana shows that it is an open structure that faces the side parcel boundary, and
having a proposed height of 16’. The applicant indicated that the cabana is
ancillary; however, the Regulations indicate that all structures are subjected to
setback requirements.
Consideration may be given to the agent’s letter pointing to the rear and side
parcel boundaries adjoining public open space (Britannia Golf Course).
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
That an exceptional circumstance exists and that there is a sufficient reason why the
permission should be granted.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
1)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief
Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
2)
Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central
Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in
accordance with the approved plans that you will receive when the above
condition is complied with.
Provisions shall be made for the removal of solid waste, including construction
54
and demolition waste, from the site on a regular basis during the construction
period.
The applicant is reminded that the finished floor level should be at least five feet
(5’) above mean sea level, [i.e. two ft (2’) above the Vidal Bench Mark].
The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to
occupying the building.
3.015
HENDERSON HOLDINGS LTD. Block 11C Parcel 311 (F03-0466) (P031175) ($5,300) (CMH)
Application for two (2) lot subdivision.
FACTS
Location:
Peninsula Ave, between Magellan Quay and Jellicoe Quay,
Governor’s Harbour, off West Bay Road.
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent parcel
owners and no objections were received.
Background:
No prior CPA action on this application
Size of Parcels:
Parcel A – 0.500 acre (21,780 sq. ft.)
Parcel B – 0.5193 acre (22,620.71 sq. ft.)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting permission for a two (2) lot subdivision. In accordance
with Regulation 9(8) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2003
Revision) the lots are sufficiently sized for detached, duplex and semi-detached
development. However the lots are inappropriate for apartments and guesthouse
development unless variances are granted by the Central Planning Authority. It
should be noted that plans are in place to upgrade the portion of Peninsula Ave
shown on the plan from an access road to a bypass. Thus access to Parcel “B”
should be from Jellicoe Quay. The proposal meets all other planning requirements
therefore the Department has no further concerns with the proposed subdivision.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
1)
The surveyor’s final drawing shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval prior to the survey being registered.
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 is advised that access to any future development on lot “B” shall be
from Jellicoe Quay road. The applicant is further advised that the proposed lot
55
sizes are inadequate for apartments.
3.016
CRITON HOLDINGS Block 17A Parcel 8 Rem1 (F00-0049) (P02-0404) (P020405) (P02-0406) (P02-0228) ($1,055,000) (JAB)
Application for a private marina with associated excavation.
FACTS
Location:
North of the existing Crystal Harbour Subdivision, off
West Bay Road
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served to the adjacent owners
and notice of the application was advertised twice in the
newspaper on 10th and 17th May 2002 respectively. No
objections were received.
Background:
Decision of CPA/15/02; item 5.10(C): The applicant is
advised that the Central Planning Authority will not
consider seawalls, excavation, boat slips and docks until
(unless) a coastal works license is granted by the Governor
in Council (EXCO) for excavation of the seabed.
Existing Use:
Vacant / Filled
Proposed Use:
Private marina
Building Size:
Six (6) storage buildings @ 130 sq. ft. each – 780 sq. ft.
Parking:
18 spaces
Docks:
Seven (7) docks and seawall
Excavation:
10,000 cubic yards
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from the Department of the Environment and Water Authority are
noted below:
Department of Environment
“Further to review of the above-noted, the Department provides the following for
consideration.
1. The DOE has no objection to the relocation of the marina to lots 10 and 11.
2. It is noted that the retention of a mangrove buffer was not required on these
lots; instead a seawall was to be constructed on the boundary. If this wall has
already been constructed the DOE would recommend that it be left in place
until after the excavation has been completed and internal marina walls
reveted. Otherwise the DOE would insist on the installation of silt screens
and other containment prevention measures for the duration of works in order
56
to mitigate sedimentation of Governor’s Creek.
3. Details as to whether the marina will house fuelling facilities have still not
been provided. If so intended, plans should be submitted for review, including
operation, maintenance and spill contingency procedures to the Chief
Petroleum Inspector. The DOE would be happy to provide additional
recommendations for such facilities based on recognized IMO guidelines for
marinas, which include standard sewage pump-out requirements.
4. As noted in Figure 1, a ledge of varying depth (3.8 ft to 4.5 ft) exists offshore
the subject parcels. Access to the southern lot should be uninhibited as depths
from previous dredging activity place the seabed in this area at 11 ft at the
cut, dropping to 16 ft final depth. While these depths could accommodate
most vessels currently entering Governor’s Creek, the DOE was of the
understanding that the applicant intended vessels drawing up to 8 ft to utilize
this facility by dredging the nearshore to 10 ft. While Governor’s Creek
channel itself has a limiting depth of 8 ft in some areas, the applicant is
reminded that a coastal works licence must be secured in order to deepen the
seabed offshore the subject lots.”
Water Authority
“With respect to the proposed excavation as indicated on the site plan:
Under the Water Authority Law, the developer is required to obtain a canal
permit for this excavation. A canal permit will be issued upon receipt of the
following:
1. Proof of Planning Permission.
2. A completed canal permit application form.
3. The canal permit fee payable to the Water Authority. The fee for a canal
permit is $0.03 per square metre.
4. Proof of third party liability insurance, if blasting will be carried out for this
excavation. All blasting for the canal shall be carried out in strict accordance
with the directives of the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department.
The excavation shall be carried out in a manner that ensures that no
contaminants are introduced into the groundwater. All fuel and lubricant storage
containers shall have secondary containment with a volume of at least 1.1 the
volume of fuel or lubricant stored.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting permission to develop a private marina in the “Lalique
Phase” of the Crystal Harbour Subdivision. The development was previously
proposed on lot #12 of the subdivision; however, the applicant has stated that
obtaining a coastal works license to access the proposed marina was deemed to be
too time consuming and expensive.
The applicant has now proposed to relocate the marina to lots #10 & 11 and a
57
portion of lot #12. The applicant contends that this location will not require the
need to excavate outside of their parcel boundaries to access the marina, and
therefore will not require a coastal works license. Based on the comments
provided by the Department of Environment and 1999 aerial photography, the
proposal as submitted seems feasible as opposed to the previous location which
was clearly too shallow for boat access without excavating the “Queens Bottom”.
As can be seen from the photographs provided, the subject property has been
cleared and filled and therefore no environmental concerns should remain.
However, as a result of a condition of CPA30/00; item 3.01 (regarding the
original subdivision approval), which states “You are reminded that seawalls or
like structures are not permitted to be constructed on parcels ten (10) to eighteen
(18)”, the Authority should discuss whether to modify this condition in order to
allow the proposed marina, as the seawall is an essential element for a marina.
The Department is of the opinion that the aforementioned condition was included
in the subdivision approval as a result of environmental concerns raised by the
DOE in a memorandum to the Department dated March 16, 2000. The concerns
raised in the memorandum were specifically aimed toward the development of the
peninsula lots and therefore should not have as much bearing on the lots in
question as they are located on the periphery of the peninsula. The current
memorandum from the DOE dated November 5, 2003, also endorses the proposed
location for the proposed development.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
Clarification is needed on whether a Coastal Works License is required.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reason:
1)
3.017
Clarification on whether a Coastal Works License is required.
SNUG HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Block 12C Parcel 373 (F010055) (P03-0995) ($0) (NAW)
Modification of application to reduce Lands for Public Purposes removing 65’ in
width mangrove frontage.
Appearance 2:30
FACTS
Location:
Eastern edge of Snug Harbour development, off West Bay
Road
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Notice Requirements: Notices were served on all residents of the snug harbour
subdivision and expired on 5 December 2003. No
objections were received.
Existing Use:
Uncleared Mangrove
58
Proposed Use:
Residential Lots
Lot Size
1.22 Acres
Background
At a meeting held on August 8, 2001 (CPA/25/01; item
4.01) an application for a 10 lot subdivision of the Lands
for Public Purposes, a 6’ vinyl fence, park, and gazebo
were approved for Block 12C Parcel 373.
At a meeting held on December 5, 2001 it was brought to
the Authority’s attention that the planning permission
granted on August 8, 2001 was deficient to the extent that it
did not address the complete decision of the Authority.
On October 1, 2003 the applicant submitted the application
to modify planning permission in order to remove the
restriction to maintain a 65’ mangrove buffer on Lot A.
At a meeting held on October 15, 2003 (CPA/29/03; item
6.02) the applicants letter requesting that only those
members of the subdivision not previously objecting to the
subdivision be notified was considered and it was resolved
to invite the applicant in.
At a meeting held on November 12, 2003 the letter was
again considered and it was resolved that all landowners
within the subdivision be notified prior to the modification
being considered by the CPA.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from the Department of Environment are noted below.
Department of Environment
“Further to review of the above-noted application, the Department’s Technical
Review Committee provides the following comments for consideration.
1. The 65-foot mangrove buffer is on the subdivision approved plans and the
Department would not be in favor of this condition being compromised. The
DoE has no doubt that the CPA is aware of the importance of mangrove
ecosystems to Cayman and the rest of the world. Shoreline stabilization,
habitat for juvenile fish and other marine life, habitat for resident and
migratory birds, and a filtration system for nutrients before they reach the
North Sound are only a few of the functions this mangrove ecosystem
provides. This fringing mangrove provides some storm protection to the
coastal development beyond. In addition, a small mangrove cay sited offshore
(parcel 366) is the nighttime roost for approximately 700 Snowy Egrets, and a
smaller number of Frigate birds and other species.
2. This application has highlighted a disturbing recent trend with developments
bordering mangrove ecosystems – the inclusion of buffers on plans for review,
59
only to apply to remove or alter them when the plan is approved. The
Department has been given similar assurances by other developers in the
recent past to maintain undisturbed mangrove buffers, only to have future
requests made to trim or clear these areas at great detriment to the ecological
function of the ecosystem and to the coastal development itself. If an applicant
has no intention of maintaining a mangrove buffer then why put it in plans for
approval?
3. The Department would like to reiterate comments provided on the initial
application, dated 12 April 2001, your reference F01-55. A poor president
will be set if permission is granted to remove the restriction on maintaining
the mangrove buffer. Approved plans indicate a 65-foot buffer and removing
this restriction will jeopardize the environmental integrity of the property.
Please do not hesitate to contact the Department should you have queries
regarding the above or require further assistance.
APPLICANTS LETTERS
Letter #1
“We refer to your letter to ourselves dated 20 December 2001 wherein you
confirmed that the Central Planning Authority has granted us planning
permission (“Planning Permission”) to subdivide the aforementioned parcel
subject to certain conditions. Also enclosed for your ease of reference is the
approved subdivision plan (“Plan”) for the aforementioned parcel.
One of the conditions (“Mangrove Buffer Condition”) of the Planning
Permission is that we maintain a 65’ wide mangrove buffer on Lot A shown on the
Plan. Please find enclosed our application to modify the Planning Permission by
removing the Mangrove Buffer Condition.
Also enclosed is a fact sheet, which describes some of the significant facts in
relation to our application.
Please note that we intend to provide notices of our application to all of the
persons to whom we provided notice of our original application. Such persons
include (i) the proprietors within the notification zone surrounding Parcel 373;
and (ii) the proprietors within Snug Harbour to whom we hand delivered our
initial application but who did not give their consent (which group of proprietors
includes all of the persons within Snug Harbour who objected to our initial
application).
You have indicated to us that in your view we should be required to notify all of
the proprietors within Snug Harbour of our modification application, even those
persons who gave their consent to our initial application. However, we
respectfully ask the CPA to not require us to notify anyone other than those
persons described in the preceding paragraph. As set out in the Fact Sheet,
SHDL did not present to any of the proprietors who gave their consent that it
would maintain a mangrove buffer on Lot A and none of such proprietors made it
a condition of their consent that SHDL maintain a mangrove buffer. Accordingly,
we believe that it would not achieve any useful purpose if the CPA were to require
60
us to notify the proprietors who gave their consent to our initial application.
We would also respectively ask the CPA to grant us a hearing to present our case.
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require anything further in order
to process our application.”
Letter #2
“We refer to our letter to you dated 1 October 2003 and the hearing of the
Central Planning Authority (“CPA”) that took place on 12 November 2003,
which we attended.
At the aforementioned hearing the acting Chairman of the CPA asked us to make
submissions in relation to the issue of whether Snug Harbour Development
Limited (“SHDL”) should be required to provide notice of its current application
to those proprietors within Snug Harbour who gave their consent to SHDL’s
initial application (“Consenting Proprietors”).
We understand that,
notwithstanding our submissions at the aforementioned hearing, the CPA has
ruled that we should notify all of the Consenting Proprietors of our current
application. Accordingly, we have sent to all of the Consenting Proprietors
notice of our current application. Please find enclosed copies of all of the
relevant notices and the registered post receipts for those notices.
We would like to emphasise the following points in relation to our current
application:
•
As a result of the planning approval that SHDL received in December 2001,
the LPP in Snug Harbour currently comprises 8.3% of the land and
approximately 2/3rds of the waterfront land in Snug Harbour. In no other
sub-division on Grand Cayman has the CPA placed such stringent
requirements on the developer.
•
The mangrove buffer on Lot A is approximately 185 feet in length and
amounts to only 0.3 of an acre. In the view of SHDL, the removal of such a
small amount of mangrove buffer would have a relatively insignificant impact
on the environment.
•
It should be borne in mind that the Park Parcel shown on the approved
subdivision plan (“Plan”) comprises approximately 2/3rds of the waterfront
land in Snug Harbour and has approximately 2 acres of mangrove buffer on
it and SHDL has no intention of removing or disturbing that mangrove buffer.
•
Lot A has the same or similar zoning to the following parcels: the waterfront
parcel on the point at the eastern end of Palm Heights Drive, the waterfront
parcel on the point at the eastern end of the Britannia Development, the
waterfront parcels at the eastern end of Canal Point, the waterfront parcels at
the eastern end of Safe Haven, the waterfront parcels at the eastern end of the
Cayman Islands Yacht Club and Vista Del Mar, the waterfront parcels at the
northern end of Cayman Grand Harbour, and the waterfront parcels in
Mangrove Point (which development is to the west of, and adjacent to, Sunrise
Landing). None of those parcels are subject to a restriction to maintain a
61
mangrove buffer. If the CPA did not require the developers of the
developments in which those parcels are located (many of whom are nonCaymanians), unlike the owners of SHDL) to maintain a mangrove buffer, we
submit that it would be unfair for the CPA to require SHDL to maintain a
mangrove buffer on the sole “waterfront” lot that SHDL has been able to
obtain.
SHDL is not seeking any special treatment in relation to it application. SHDL is
simply asking to be treated in a similar manner to that in which the developers of
the other waterfront developments on Grand Cayman have been treated. Please
keep in mind that we are talking about only one parcel of land a relatively small
amount of mangrove. It is the sole waterfront lot that the developer has been able
to acquire and we feel that it is only fair that the lot should be free of mangrove
buffer restrictions when you consider that (i) other similar lots are free of such
restrictions and (ii) the relevant developers of those lots have not been required to
incur the vast expense of enhancing the LPP in their respective developments that
SHDL has been required to incur.
We would respectfully ask the CPA to grant us a second hearing to allow us to
present our arguments in support of our current application.
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require anything further in order
to process our application.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
Lot A of the original Lands for Public Purposes was approved with a 65’
Mangrove Buffer strip. The applicant is proposing to remove this mangrove
buffer strip. Contrary to the applicant’s letter this 65’ buffer was not a condition
of planning approval, rather, it was introduced as part of the proposal by the
applicant on the approved plan which was received May 15, 2001. As such, the
Central Planning Authority had no need to impose a condition of approval for this
purpose.
Based on review of the application the Department would recommend that the
maintaining of a mangrove buffer strip along the west coastline of North Sound
has consistently been a recommendation backed by the Central Planning
Authority. Such instances include but are not limited to Section 2.3(b) of the
Development Plan 1997,
2.3(b) A comparable situation arises where developments are proposed in
the mangrove wetlands. Consideration must be given to the type of
mangrove that would be disturbed, to the ecological and biological effects
and to whether the storm and hurricane protection of the Islands would be
reduced.
New developments proposed in the mangrove areas or wetlands may be
subject to the environmental analysis provisions contained in Appendix 3
and other relevant provisions of the Statement in a manner which enables
the Authority to be satisfied that62
(i)
the application site is suitable for the use and form of development
proposed;
(ii)
the development will not have a detrimental impact on the natural,
human and built environments of the area; and
(iii)
the scale, density and design of development take proper account
of a site’s physical and environmental characteristics.
Sections 2.2, 3.16, 3.19 of the Proposed Amendments 2003 to the Development
Plan 1997 also support maintaining such a buffer.
2.2 Ownership of land has always been an important part of the way of
life in Grand Cayman, hence a flexible approach to land zoning has been
adopted as the policy of this development plan.
The area of Grand Cayman Island is 76.4 square miles but a substantial
percentage of this area consists of "wetlands", namely the mangrove
wetlands. As explained later in this statement, certain areas of mangrove
must be retained since they are performing important ecological,
biological and storm protection functions but there remains a
considerable acreage of land available for development.
3.16(a)Clustering of lots, which may be less than the required minimum
parcel size, to allow the permitted density of development to be situated on
the property in such a way as to allow for the protection and retention of a
variety of natural features, including but not limited to: drainage, wildlife
habitat, mangroves, topographic features, and mature vegetation.
3.19 There is a high degree of interconnection between the ecological and
physical processes on land and in the sea. This is of particular concern
for islands such as Grand Cayman, where there is a symbiotic relationship
between the land and the sea that requires that the effects of development
on both systems should be considered in concert when making
development decisions. This is most critical where the coastline is either
beach or mangrove.
Vision 2008 which has been adopted by the Legislative Assembly further
supports maintaining the Mangrove on this site as stated by Strategy XI Action
Plan 4(1,3) and Action Plan 8(9) which state:
AP4(1) Officially declare the North Sound and its remaining fringing
mangroves an area of national importance.
AP4(3) Amend immediately the Planning Law to prohibit any further
removal of remaining mangroves (with the exception of access channels)
within 300ft. of the outer edge of the mangroves fringing the Western and
Southern periphery North Sound, which contribute to any ecological,
physical or aesthetical benefits related to the North Sound.
63
AP8(9) Prohibit removal (with the exception of limited access channels) of
any mangroves lying within the intertidal zone.
In this instance the Department would suggest exercising the powers instated in
Appendix 3 of the Development Plan 1997 which allows the CPA to require an
Environmental Impact Statement.
Appendix 3 The submission of an environmental impact statement (EIS)
for development projects which, because of the characteristics of the site
or the particulars of the proposal, may be required in order for the
Authority to carefully examine the potential impacts of the development
prior to the determination of the application.
An environmental impact statement shall include the appropriate plans,
information and data in sufficient details to enable the Authority to
determine, examine and assess the potential environmental impacts of the
proposal.
The Department would further note that it is in support of the Department of
Environment’s comments. It is also recommended that the Central Planning
Authority consider changing the zoning of this 65’ strip of mangrove to Mangrove
Buffer.
SUMMARY
In summary the Department does not concur with the proposal to remove the
mangrove buffer strip as proposed by the applicant. In addition, all mangrove
buffer along the west coast of the North Sound should be maintained with the
exception of implementation of an access channel. In this particular instance the
Department does not see the need even for an access channel as it would not
provide substantial public benefit as it would only appear to serve the proprietors
of lot A. As such the Department recommends that the Central Planning
Authority adhere to the original approved plan in accordance with CPA/25/01 and
CPA/37/01.
The following individuals appeared before the CPA on behalf of Snug
Harbour Development (SHDL).
William Reid
Bryan Hunter
Jennifer Hunter
Mr. Hunter: SHDL would like to remove the buffer for the following reasons:
•
The LPP is 8.3% which is much larger than the 5% normally required.
•
Two thirds of the shoreline is buffer.
•
The coastline of no other subdivision has been restricted like this one.
•
The use of lot “A” is substantially reduced by mangroves.
•
Mr. Reid is to occupy lot “A”. He would like access to the shoreline and
64
benefit from the sea breeze.
•
The buffer is only 1/3 of an acre. Removing it would have insignificant
impact on the environment.
•
The vast majority of mangrove is to be retained.
•
The CPA may note that the park is probably the nicest in any subdivision on
the Island and is to be maintained by SHDL for ten years. SHDL spent about
$280,000 on the park.
Mr. Reid: The CPA should note that the park is finished.
Mr. Hunter: Residents of Snug Harbour frequently use the park, including young
children, and they are happy with the park. No one else has been required to do a
park like ours. Lot “A” is zoned similar to others on the waterfront. No
mangrove buffer was required on the waterfront of subdivisions such as Palm
Heights, Britannia, Canal Point, Safe Haven, Cayman Islands Yacht Club, Vista
Del Mar, Grand Harbour and Mangrove Point. It is unfair for the CPA to require
SHDL to maintain a buffer on the only waterfront lot that SHDL has been able to
obtain.
CPA: Is the subject land adjacent to Canal Point?
Mr. Reid: No, it adjoins Palm Heights.
Mr. Hunter: It appears that we are being unfairly singled out. Our initial
proposal for the sixty-five feet wide buffer was consistent with that of Crystal
Harbour. However, that buffer was reduced by the CPA. We notified all
proprietors in the area as required and there were no objections. If the CPA had
required all developers to maintain 2/3 of their waterfront, there would not be an
issue with the buffer. However, that has not been the case. It appears that we are
now being unfairly targeted. The comments from the Department of Environment
have little relevance to our plan. The CPA may note that initially Snug Harbour
was filled to the sea. Mangroves have grown since then along the waterfront. We
submit that our plan would cause no adverse environmental impact. We are not
asking for special treatment, just fairness. This is the sole waterfront lot and other
developments were not restricted. No one else was required to develop a park.
There were no objections.
Mr. Reid: The waterfront is 500 feet in length. Three hundred and fifty feet of it
is to remain untouched.
CPA: The park appears to be quite an asset to the area. You mentioned that the
CPA required the applicant to develop the park. This is not the case.
Mr. Hunter: It was a requirement of permission based on our application. When
we asked to reduce the LPP a majority of landowners had to approve. They
would only approve if amenities were installed.
CPA: Did you always intend to do a park?
Mr. Hunter: Yes.
65
CPA: This is not the only subdivision with a mangrove buffer. For example at
Sunrise Land only three or four lots have water frontage. The original proposal
for Snug Harbour included a 100 feet buffer.
Mr. Reid: A previous Director of Planning designed the Snug Harbour
subdivision plan.
Ms. Hunter: Two-thirds of the water frontage is LPP. That is not the case at any
other subdivision.
Mr. Hunter: Also, no other subdivision has 8.3% LPP or amenities.
There being no further discussion with the applicant’s representatives, the
Chairman thanked them for appearing. They left at 3:06 p.m.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
Although there is a mangrove shoreline, the subject property in its entirety is
zoned Low Density Residential.
•
Based on all the information provided, the applicant’s request appears
reasonable.
•
The shoreline should be composed of a seawall with low foliage. The
applicant should liaise with the Department in this regard.
Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission of August 8, 2001
(CPA/25/01; item 4.01) to remove mangrove frontage from lot “A”, subject to
the following condition:
1)
3.018
An application shall be submitted for a seawall at the seaward edge of lot
“A”. The seawall edge shall be designed to incorporate low foliage. The
applicant is advised to liaise with the Planning Department in this regard.
WIRELESS VENTURES Block 25B Parcel 535 (F03-0337) (P03-0863) (P030864) (P03-0865) ($260,000) (BES)
Application for 117’ cellular tower, 8’ fence, telecom shelter and generator.
Appearance at 3:53
FACTS
Location:
Poindexter Drive, Spotts
Zoning:
Low Density Residential.
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors
and objections were received (see “Objections” below)
One person wrote withdrawing his objection.
Proposed Use:
Same as above
66
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments form the Director of Chief Environmental Health Officer and Director
of Civil Aviation are noted below. The Department is awaiting comments from
the Chief Fire Officer, Director of MRCU and Director of ICTA Authority.
Chief Environmental Health Officer
“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:
1. Secondary containment should be provided for the fuel tank.
2. Details of the proposed containment facility should be submitted for review
and approval.
3. A toilet should be provided.
4. Provision should be made to reduce the impact of noise from the generator on
the community.”
Civil Aviation Authority
“On June 29th, 2003, an MRCU aircraft conducting mosquito control operations
in the West Bay Ares during twilight hours, narrowly avoided collision with an
unlighted communications tower painted green. Fortunately the incident was a
near miss, however, it may well have resulted in loss of life.
In recognition of the seriousness of this breach of safety, a meeting was concluded
on July 22, 2003, to determine the circumstances surrounding this mishap and to
review the approval process for the erection of communication towers, in order to
ensure that such an incident does not reoccur.
Present at the meeting were: CAA – Mr. David Frederick, D/DCA, Mr. Kerith
McCoy, Head of Airport Operations, Mr. Jeremy Jackson, Head of Air Traffic
Services, Mr. Ian Scott, Head of Flight Operation; MRCU – Mr. Bill Petrie,
Director; C&W – Mr. Albert Anderson & Mr. Cleavy Scott; CPA – Mr. Adrian
Bodden.
It was unanimously agreed by all present, that the approval process related to the
erection of all future communication towers, which may constitute an aviation
hazard, shall be in accordance with the following:
•
To ensure adequate daytime visibility, the tower shall be painted in alternative
sections of orange and white or red and white. The standard related to this
requirement may be found in International Civil Aviation Organisation Annex
14, Volume 1. A copy of the relevant section is attached.
•
To ensure adequate nighttime visibility, the tower shall be lighted in
accordance with the requirements of the Aerial Spraying Protection Law,
1974. Luminescence and candela requirements may also be found in ICAO
Annex 14, Volume 1.
•
The CPA has agreed to address the problem of temporary lighting during
construction of a tower.
67
It was further agreed, that if necessary, additional meetings would be scheduled
to address any further issues concerning the satisfactory resolution of this
matter.”
OBJECTIONS
Letter #1 (signed by 13 objectors)
“As a concerned group of residents who will be adversely affected by the erection
of the above proposed antenna, we wish to register our objection to this venture.
We feel that the proposers of this development have been remiss in their duties as
they have not informed all parties likely to be affected by their development.
There are 12 apartments at Willor Pointe (with a further 6 under construction,
and largely pre-sold) and, as far as we can establish, only 2 of the resident
owners were informed of the proposed development. In addition, the notice by the
developer stated that all owners had been informed on the 21st August 2003, and
had been given 21 days to submit any objections.
In truth, of the two owners mentioned above, one only received the notice on the
27th August, and the other only received it on the 2nd September, thereby reducing
the period in which to inform other owners and formulate an objection to only 10
days, instead of 21 days. In this regard, we feel that the actions of the developers
have been misleading and irresponsible.
The reasons for our objections to the erection of this antenna are fourfold:
•
Firstly, research suggests that in areas where base station antennas are
erected, neighbouring properties generally suffer from a reduction in value to
the tune of 10 – 20%. Obviously, as owners, we do not want our investments
to suffer in this way. The antenna is likely to be an eyesore in what is
otherwise a pleasant country lane.
•
Secondly, there has been much recent international press coverage about the
perceived health risks associated with these masts. Various articles have been
printed off the internet, and are enclosed with this letter, to substantiate this
objection. Currently there is not long-term research into low-level microwave
radiation exposure. What we are seeing reported in the press, are stories of
people having lived for 3 years next to a mast becoming ill with cancerrelated illnesses. We believe that there is a real danger from radiation, and
that we should not be experimented on.
From the enclosed research, it can be deduced that those people in the vicinity
of the antenna could be exposed to the following health risks: lowered
melatonin production, resulting in sleep problems, lethargy, mood alterations,
phychiatric disorders, impaired immune system and Alzheimers disease;
altered brain activity, including EEG and reaction times, memory loss,
headaches, fatigue, concentration loss and dizziness; impaired learning;
altered blood pressure and heart rythym; increased risk of suicide; reduced
sperm count; increased miscarriage and congenital abnormalities; damage to
DNA strands and chromosome cells; increased incidence of many types of
68
cancer, including leukaemia, brain tumor, testicular cancer, genitourinary
and breast cancer.
•
Thirdly, Government is proposing to build the new Spotts School on the
adjacent site. We believe that as custodians of the adults of the future, it is
Government’s duty to safeguard the health and wellbeing of these
schoolchildren (and teachers), who will be exposed to low-level microwave
radiation for a considerable part of each weekday. Non-thermal effects of low
level emissions, such as tumours, headaches, memory loss and loss of
concentration are certainly not the sort of influences you want on children in
a learning environment. “Children, because of their size, tend to act as
resonant aerials at cellular-phone frequencies, thus enhancing the signal
levels in their bodies”.
How will the futures of these schoolchildren be affected, not only in terms of
their physical health and wellbeing, but also in terms of tertiary education
and employment possibilities that may well be jeopardized as a result of their
exposure to the emissions from the mast, and the effect that this exposure had
on their learning abilities?
•
Fourthly, in addition to the long-term health risks posed to the schoolchildren,
there exists the short-term risk of serious accidents occurring on the site of the
antenna. Children, being children, are very likely to regard climbing the mast
as a rite of passage and a chance to gain kudos among their peers, and
regardless of the fencing or security measure taken, children will always find
a way to gain access to the antenna. Serious accidents are inevitable as a
result.
We believe that it will be irresponsible of Government and the Planning
Department to listen only to the developers, who will ensure than any evidence
they present will prove their standpoint on safety. There is too much evidence
available to support our view to the contrary.
In the absence of exclusive evidence that this antenna will be safe, something that
cannot be proven without substantial properly structured research, we believe
that it is necessary to use common sense and prudent avoidance. It is not our
intention, or desire, to hinder progress in Cayman, however, we do believe that
the health and welfare of neighbouring residents and the pupils and staff of the
proposed Spotts School will be best served by locating this antenna in a location
which is less densely populated, and thereby more suitable for this purpose.
We trust that a mature and responsible decision will be made regarding this
application.”
Letter #2
“We are the owners of 5, Willow Pointe, 80 Poindexter Road, George Town
(Block and Parcel No. 25B 5261111) and reference is made to our letter of 17th
October 2003.
Your office has now confirmed that we should have been consulted about the
69
above application and that due to a technical issue at Lands and Survey the
information the information of our ownership was not available to the applicant.
We understand that it is in order for us to still make an objection to the
application and we hereby do so.
It may be that there are other property owners who have not been consulted and if
so this needs to be rectified. Our neighbour at Number 4 told us that he had not
received a letter about the application.
There are a number of factors that should be taken into consideration in regard to
the application by Wireless Ventures (Cayman Islands) Ltd.
The area in which the antenna is proposed is a pleasant country residential
neighbourhood and a mast of the stated height (or any mast) and associated
buildings will ruin the ambiance of the area. With the necessary top lighting it
will be a definite nuisance to residents in its vicinity.
The distance from our front door to the proposed site of the mast is approximately
150 ft. This is an outrageously short distance and it is fundamentally unfair to
erect such an eyesore and nuisance so close to residential accommodation. It is
obviously damaging for the comfort of residents and will be a cause for the loss of
value of property and thereby impact on the development of other residences.
Of utmost importance and of very deep concern to us is that evidence shows that
people residing in close proximity to transmission masts are likely to suffer
serious health problems from the waves emitted. The diseases include cancers,
stress related illness and sleep disorders to name but a few. The long-term effects
are most likely to also impact on the children residing in the locality and those
attending the new Prospect School.
We therefore respectfully suggest that it is imperative for full consultation to be
held with the Medical Officer of Health, the Director of Environment and the
Chief Education Officer regarding not only this proposal but in regard to other
sites for masts on all three islands.
We recognise that the development of telecommunications is very important and
we do not wish to hinder progress. We are however convinced that it is in the
interests of the islands, the population, service providers, landowners on whose
property masts are erected and the relevant authorities to seek a solution
regarding the erection of masts that will benefit all and that the application
should be denied.”
Letter #3
“I am writing in regards for the application for planning permission for the
purpose of constructing a Wireless Antenna, fence and ancillary components on
Block 25B Parcel 526 near to my residence of Willow Pointe (Block 25B Parcel
526 H4).
I want you to know that I strongly object to this development. Pleas refer to the
previously sent petition, signed in objection by many residents of Willow Pointe.
We are particularly concerned with the health problems associated with
70
prolonged exposure to wireless antennas.
Not only within our residential
community but the teachers and children at the future school, yards away from
this proposed antenna. Having done some research, these antennas have been
banned in populated areas in the UK, New Zealand and the US. Please ensure
that extensive research is done before long-term problems arise here in Cayman.
Not only are there health issues with the development of the antenna the value of
my property will decrease dramatically. Would you want to buy or live in a home
with an antenna as your view? I choose this area for its beauty. Slowly but
surely this is being taken away from our community.
I am also particularly concerned with the fact that not all of the residents of
Willow Pointe have been notified of this development and the fact that notification
was only received 10 days ago. Please ensure that they are all notified
immediately.
Once again please accept this fax as my objection.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting planning permission for a cellular phone utility
compound. The first component is a one hundred and seventeen ft. (117’) antenna
mast on a 16’-0” x 16’-0” concrete foundation base. The second is a 131.82 sq. ft.
utility building to contain the telecommunication equipment. The third is a
generator on an 8’-0”x12’-0” concrete pad. The last component is an eight feet
(8’) high galvanized chain link fence to form an enclosure around the antenna
mast, utility building and generator pad to safeguard the public from the new
equipment.
The Department is of the opinion that knowing the number of applications that
have been submitted for facilities such as this throughout the island, the Authority
should ensure that each facility is proposed to be used to its fullest potential. This
can only be achieved if a number of competing cellular phone companies share
existing / proposed cellular infrastructure in order to limit the number of antennae
throughout the island.
The Department would recommend that the Authority seriously consider each
application of this nature at a national level as opposed to a site specific level in
order to limit the amount of additional antennae proposed on Grand Cayman.
Additionally, the Department would question whether or not an additional cellular
phone tower is needed in close proximity of existing towers in the area
No landscape buffer is shown. The Department would recommend the submission
of a landscape plan illustrating buffering.
The following individuals appeared before the CPA at 3:53 p.m.
For the Applicant
For the Objectors
Gene Thompson
Gary Murphy
Samuel Jackson
Melanie Cumber
Nancy McGinn
71
Raul Nicholson-Coe
Dale Crighton
Norberg Thompson
CPA: There are objections from Willow Point Development. Did all owners
object?
Ms. Cumber: Some did not receive a notice.
Mr. Murphy: The compound has been moved further away from Willow Point.
CPA: How would the objectors feel about the revised location?
Ms. Cumber: Aesthetically it is better. However, there are still medical concerns,
particularly to the children at the school next door.
CPA: You can take the revision back to the other objectors.
Ms. Cumber: I will do that. In the meantime our objections should remain.
CPA: It is likely that some owners were not notified because their names have not
yet been transferred to the register.
Mr. Jackson: There is no accepted medical evidence that this type of
development is harmful.
Ms. Cumber: Our research show that this type of project is not allowed in certain
areas, such as near schools. She submitted documentation supporting her opinion.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: The evidence indicate that at a height of 117 feet there is no
medical issue. He submitted documentation in support of his opinion.
There being no further discussion with those appearing on this application, the
Chairman thanked them for their input. The objectors left at 4:10 p.m. The
applicant’s representatives stayed on to discuss their other applications with the
CPA.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The application should be adjourned in order for the objectors to get an
opportunity to review the revised plans.
•
The applicant has not shown proof of sharing with another ICTA licensed
entity.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reason:
1)
3.019
No written evidence has been submitted of agreement to share the tower
with another company licensed by the ICTA. Accordingly, based on the
stated objective of sharing/non-proliferation of antenna, the CPA does not
support the application at this time.
WIRELESS VENTURES Block 65A Parcel 62 (F03-0338) (P03-0863) (P030867) (P03-0868) ($260,000) (BES)
72
Application for 117’ cellular tower, 8’ fence, telecom shelter and generator.
Appearance at 3:53
FACTS
Location:
Queens Highway, North East Coast
Zoning:
Low Density Residential.
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors
and objections were received (see “Objections” below)
Proposed Use:
Same as above
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments form the Director of Chief Environmental Health Officer and Director
of Civil Aviation are noted below. The Department is awaiting comments from
the Chief Fire Officer, Director of MRCU and Director of ICTA Authority.
Chief Environmental Health Officer
“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:
1. Secondary containment should be provided for the fuel tank.
2. Details of the proposed containment facility should be submitted for review
and approval.
3. A toilet should be provided.
4. Provision should be made to reduce the impact of noise from the generator on
the community.”
Civil Aviation Authority
“On June 29th, 2003, an MRCU aircraft conducting mosquito control operations
in the West Bay Ares during twilight hours, narrowly avoided collision with an
unlighted communications tower painted green. Fortunately the incident was a
near miss, however, it may well have resulted in loss of life.
In recognition of the seriousness of this breach of safety, a meeting was concluded
on July 22, 2003, to determine the circumstances surrounding this mishap and to
review the approval process for the erection of communication towers, in order to
ensure that such an incident does not reoccur.
Present at the meeting were: CAA – Mr. David Frederick, D/DCA, Mr. Kerith
McCoy, Head of Airport Operations, Mr. Jeremy Jackson, Head of Air Traffic
Services, Mr. Ian Scott, Head of Flight Operation; MRCU – Mr. Bill Petrie,
Director; C&W – Mr. Albert Anderson & Mr. Cleavy Scott; CPA – Mr. Adrian
Bodden.
It was unanimously agreed by all present, that the approval process related to the
erection of all future communication towers, which may constitute an aviation
73
hazard, shall be in accordance with the following:
•
To ensure adequate daytime visibility, the tower shall be painted in alternative
sections of orange and white or red and white. The standard related to this
requirement may be found in International Civil Aviation Organisation Annex
14, Volume 1. A copy of the relevant section is attached.
•
To ensure adequate nighttime visibility, the tower shall be lighted in
accordance with the requirements of the Aerial Spraying Protection Law,
1974. Luminescence and candela requirements may also be found in ICAO
Annex 14, Volume 1.
•
The CPA has agreed to address the problem of temporary lighting during
construction of a tower.
It was further agreed, that if necessary, additional meetings would be scheduled
to address any further issues concerning the satisfactory resolution of this
matter.”
OBJECTIONS
Letter #1
“Reference is made to the captioned matter and to the Notice of Application for
Planning Permission, dated August 21, 2003 in relation to same.
I am the registered proprietor of lands at North East Coast, Block 61A, Parcel 37,
(“the Objector’s Lands”) which are adjacent to the lands on which the Applicant
wishes to erect a transmission antenna, fence and ancillary components.
Pursuant to the provisions contained in Section 16(5) of the Development and
Planning Law (1999 Revision), I write to offer my objection to the grant of the
permission sought by the Applicant. The reasons for my objection are as follows:
1) Permission was granted sometime ago for the erection by Cable & Wireless
(Cayman Islands) Ltd. Of a transmission tower (“the Existing Tower”) with
antenna and ancillary components on lands adjacent to the Objector’s Lands,
on the West side. The Existing Tower remains erected and in use. It should
be possible for the appropriate authority to require that C&W permit use of
the Existing Tower for the establishment of the transmission facilities not
proposed by the Applicant. Modifications to the Existing Tower and the
attendant facilities may be required, and presumably those cost would have to
be borne by the Applicant, but the Applicant would have had to bear cost in
any event, for the establishment of the facilities, the subject of this Objection.
The above-suggested course would seem preferable to avoid the unnecessary
proliferation of transmission tower structures in the area.
2) Users of the Objector’s lands AND users of other lands in the area are
already at risk, in the event of the unintended collapse of the Existing Tower.
The risks to users of the Objector’s lands is made that much greater by the
erection of a second tower (as proposed by the Applicant), particularly so, as
the new tower will be erected at a site where the reach of the new tower
74
(across the Objector’s lands) will be far greater than the reach of the Existing
Tower.
3) There are likely available to the Applicant other sites within the district where
the erection of a new transmission tower would impose less risks (as regards
personal injury or property damage) to the users of land in the area.
4) The erection of a new tower on the site proposed by the Applicant will give
rise to significant diminution in value to the Objector’s lands, which need not
be suffered, having regard to the ground of objection at (3) above.
I therefore respectfully request that the Authority give due consideration to the
above grounds of my objection, and deny the Applicant the permission presently
being sought.
If it is considered desirable that I make further submission on the objection now
made, I would be happy to make myself available and to appear before
representatives of the Authority at the appropriate time.
I look forward to hearing further from the Authority in relation to the Objection
now made.”
Letter #2
“We act for Maurice Sixbey and Teresa Sixbey, the registered proprietors of
Block 61A Parcels 66, 67, 68 and 69.
Our clients have received notices pursuant to Section 18(4) of the Development
and Planning Law (Revised) concerning an application for planning permission
by Wireless Ventures (Cayman Islands) Ltd to erect a transmission antennae,
fence and ancillary components on Block 65A, Parcel 62.
From our initial enquiries it would appear that the ancillary components referred
to include a fuel tank but the documentation we have seen does not indicate the
capacity of that tank.
Our clients property is located in a residential area and given the type of
development proposed, they wish to object to the application for planning
permission.
In the circumstances, we will be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this
letter and in due course confirm the date and time for the hearing of this
application before the Central Planning Authority.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting planning permission for a cellular phone utility
compound. The first component is a one hundred and seventeen ft. (117’) antenna
mast on a 16’-0” x 16’-0” concrete foundation base. The second is a 131.82 sq. ft.
utility building to contain the telecommunication equipment. The third is a
generator on an 8’-0”x12’-0” concrete pad. The last component is an eight feet
(8’) high galvanized chain link fence to form an enclosure around the antenna
mast, utility building and generator pad to safeguard the public from the new
75
equipment.
The Department is of the opinion that knowing the number of applications that
have been submitted for facilities such as this throughout the island, the Authority
should ensure that each facility is proposed to be used to its fullest potential. This
can only be achieved if a number of competing cellular phone companies share
existing / proposed cellular infrastructure in order to limit the number of antennae
throughout the island.
The Department would recommend that the Authority seriously consider each
application of this nature at a national level as opposed to a site specific level in
order to limit the amount of additional antennae proposed on Grand Cayman.
Additionally, the Department would question whether or not an additional cellular
phone tower is needed in close proximity of existing towers in the area
No landscape buffer is shown. The Department would recommend the submission
of a landscape plan illustrating buffering.
The following individuals appeared before the CPA at 3:53 p.m.
For the Applicant
Gene Thompson
Gary Murphy
Samuel Jackson
Raul Nicholson-Coe
Dale Crighton
Norberg Thompson
For the Objectors
Arden McLean
Mr. McLean: I own Block 61A Parcel 37 which is adjacent to the subject parcel.
A cable & Wireless tower is already located next to me. However if is not shown
accurately on the map. I am all for development and progress, but I do have a
problem with another tower being placed next to my land. The CPA and the
ICTA should force carriers to share and to bear the cost of any required increase
in height. I would support an extension in height to the existing Cable & Wireless
antenna, but not a new tower. With two towers located close to each other, users
of my land when it is developed will be more at risk. With antenna located in
front and to the rear, my property will be devalued. With the towers in place, I
could not use my property for speculation. Government owns over 600 acres
nearby. That property is about twenty feet higher than mine and Cable &
Wireless. I am objecting to a second tower near me and the proliferation of
towers. I have the greatest respect for the applicant, but I object to the proposed
tower location.
Mr. Crighton: Would it be ok if we move the tower to the east?
CPA: When was the Cable & Wireless tower erected?
Mr. McLean: It was either late 1999 or in 2,000. Relocation of the proposed
tower on site will not satisfy me. One tower in the area is enough. If the tower is
placed on higher property further away, I would not object.
76
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: There is an issue with the number of operators possible on
one tower. We are negotiating with others including North Rock on sharing
agreements. One tower cannot accommodate four companies.
Mr. McLean: I understand the economics of the matter and the perceived need
for dominance or significant market share. I know that you have to fight for
customers. Pay me 1.5 million dollars for my land. In all seriousness though, my
land was passed on to me by family and would like to save if for my children.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: I respect your position. However, we would not like East
End to loose service due to insufficient towers. Another important matter to be
considered is that if towers are shared, when it goes down there is a coverage
problem.
Mr. McLean: If the tower is placed away from my land, I would not object.
Mr. Jackson: This is a “Not in my backyard” type of project. Like utility poles,
the towers are a necessary evil which we have to put up with. In order for the
tower to be refused it must be proven that demonstrable harm would result to a
recognized interest. If not, the tower must be approved. There is no proof that
the objector’s property would be devalued.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: The area does not exist in a pristine condition because a
tower already exists.
Mr. McLean: If the application is approved I may have to resort to legal
recourse.
There being no further discussion with those appearing on this application, the
Chairman thanked them for their input. The objector left at 4:32 p.m. The
applicant’s representatives stayed on to discuss their other applications with the
CPA.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The applicant has not shown proof of sharing with another ICTA licensed
entity.
•
It would appear unreasonable to approve a second tower near the objector’s
land.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reason:
1)
3.020
No written evidence has been submitted of agreement to share the tower
with another company licensed by the ICTA. Accordingly, based on the
stated objective of sharing/non-proliferation of antenna, the CPA does not
support the application at this time.
WIRELESS VENTURES Block 75A Parcel 158 (F03-0189) (P03-0479) (P030480) ($260,000) (BES)
Application for 117’ cellular tower, 8’ fence, telecom shelter and generator.
Appearance at 3:53
77
FACTS
Location:
East End
Zoning:
Low Density Residential.
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors
and objections were received (see “Objections” below)
Proposed Use:
Same as above
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments form the Director of Chief Environmental Health Officer and Director
of Civil Aviation are noted below. The Department is awaiting comments from
the Chief Fire Officer, Director of MRCU and Director of ICTA Authority.
Chief Environmental Health Officer
“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:
1. Secondary containment should be provided for the fuel tank.
2. A sanitary facility must be provided in the utility/storage building.
Civil Aviation Authority
“On June 29th, 2003, an MRCU aircraft conducting mosquito control operations
in the West Bay Ares during twilight hours, narrowly avoided collision with an
unlighted communications tower painted green. Fortunately the incident was a
near miss, however, it may well have resulted in loss of life.
In recognition of the seriousness of this breach of safety, a meeting was concluded
on July 22, 2003, to determine the circumstances surrounding this mishap and to
review the approval process for the erection of communication towers, in order to
ensure that such an incident does not reoccur.
Present at the meeting were: CAA – Mr. David Frederick, D/DCA, Mr. Kerith
McCoy, Head of Airport Operations, Mr. Jeremy Jackson, Head of Air Traffic
Services, Mr. Ian Scott, Head of Flight Operation; MRCU – Mr. Bill Petrie,
Director; C&W – Mr. Albert Anderson & Mr. Cleavy Scott; CPA – Mr. Adrian
Bodden.
It was unanimously agreed by all present, that the approval process related to the
erection of all future communication towers, which may constitute an aviation
hazard, shall be in accordance with the following:
•
To ensure adequate daytime visibility, the tower shall be painted in alternative
sections of orange and white or red and white. The standard related to this
requirement may be found in International Civil Aviation Organisation Annex
14, Volume 1. A copy of the relevant section is attached.
•
To ensure adequate nighttime visibility, the tower shall be lighted in
accordance with the requirements of the Aerial Spraying Protection Law,
78
1974. Luminescence and candela requirements may also be found in ICAO
Annex 14, Volume 1.
•
The CPA has agreed to address the problem of temporary lighting during
construction of a tower.
It was further agreed, that if necessary, additional meetings would be scheduled
to address any further issues concerning the satisfactory resolution of this
matter.”
OBJECTIONS
Letter #1
“I strongly object to this proposed antenna being placed towards the back area of
our parcel (75A 225).
I feel that having an existing antenna towards the front area of our parcel is
enough. The parcels in this area are residential and to have another antenna so
near to each other will be out of character for this area.
To have to see a antenna in front of us and now one will be in back, I feel will be
a little too much.”
Letter #2
“After receiving a registered letter, dated May 21st 2003, from the Burns Conolly
Group, Ltd., regarding the above named company and Block 75A Parcel 158, we
would like to voice our objection to the venture.
We own property located next to this site and with the erection of the proposed
antenna, fence and ancillary components we feel that this would definitely hinder
any sale of our property and also reduce the residential value of the land itself.
Presently there is an existing antenna to the front of our property belonging to
Cable and Wireless and we believe that the addition of another commercial
component will greatly diminish the aesthetic and monetary value of our
investment, therefore we strongly oppose this proposed structure.
If there is any further information that we can provide to you please do not
hesitate to contact us. Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting planning permission for a cellular phone utility
compound. The first component is a one hundred and seventeen ft. (117’) antenna
mast on a 16’-0” x 16’-0” concrete foundation base. The second is a 131.82 sq. ft.
utility building to contain the telecommunication equipment. The third is a
generator on an 8’-0”x12’-0” concrete pad. The last component is an eight feet
(8’) high galvanized chain link fence to form an enclosure around the antenna
mast, utility building and generator pad to safeguard the public from the new
equipment.
The Department is of the opinion that knowing the number of applications that
79
have been submitted for facilities such as this throughout the island, the Authority
should ensure that each facility is proposed to be used to its fullest potential. This
can only be achieved if a number of competing cellular phone companies share
existing / proposed cellular infrastructure in order to limit the number of antennae
throughout the island.
The Department would recommend that the Authority seriously consider each
application of this nature at a national level as opposed to a site specific level in
order to limit the amount of additional antennae proposed on Grand Cayman.
Additionally, the Department would question whether or not an additional cellular
phone tower is needed in close proximity of existing towers in the area
No landscape buffer is shown. The Department would recommend the submission
of a landscape plan illustrating buffering.
The following individuals appeared before the CPA on behalf of the
applicant at 3:53 p.m. The objectors did not appear.
Gene Thompson
Gary Murphy
Samuel Jackson
Raul Nicholson-Coe
Dale Crighton
Norberg Thompson
This item is considered in conjunction with items 3.021 - 3.023 below.
Mr. Murphy: We have an access agreement from an area proprietor and we are
also submitting an amendment.
CPA: The objectors were invited but not appear.
Mr. G. Thompson: We are in talks with North Rock and Telecayman. They will
be providing services such as internet access.
CPA: Will these companies require towers?
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: They don’t need as many. Seven to ten towers will probably
be enough for them.
CPA: Are they licensed by the ICTA? Is the February 1st deadline feasible?
Mr. G. Thompson: Yes to the first question. We are in a time crunch. WE are
committed to working everyday to meet deadlines, except Christmas Day.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: Our company has already leased a number of sites.
Mr. G. Thompson: We don’t want to be 2nd on the market. We are trying hard to
secure co-location agreements. Fourteen towers plus two rooftop locations are
needed.
CPA: Cay you make do with less towers?
Mr. G. Thompson: No. The towers operated as a network. Signals are passed
from tower to tower.
80
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: There must be some overlap in coverage in order to attain
best signals. Black spots happen due to lack of towers.
Mr. G. Thompson: The CPA should note that site identification took awhile
because some proprietors did not want this type of structure on their property.
CPA: The applicant should recognize that the proliferation of antenna and the
resulting aesthetic blight on our landscapes is of concern. The CPA is charged
with protecting the population. Monopoles are less objectionable than the open
web tower design.
Mr. Murphy: All our towers are monopoles. Aesthetically they have minimal
impact on the environment compared to the open web design.
CPA: You are insisting on 14 towers. Can’t you consider less?
Mr. G. Thompson: We absolutely need fourteen.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: We have already secured long-term leases for the proposed
sites.
Mr. Jackson: With respect Mr. Chairman, our position is that the CPA is not in a
position to mandate sharing. That should only happed if policy is sanctioned by
Cabinet and the L.A. Section 5 of the Development Plan is clear in this regard.
The law defines the powers of the CPA. In order to avoid ad-hoc or
inconsistent/arbitra4ry decisions, policy must be established in accordance with
the Development Plan. Policy may be needed, but the CPA has no power legally
to make policy. There fore any co-location policy established by the CPA alone
must be unlawful. Each application should be considered on its merit. If the
proposed development is not deemed harmful to a recognized interest, it should
be approved.
CPA: The national interest is important.
Mr. Jackson: The legislation may be outdated, but the law is the law. That is
what the courts uphold.
Mr. Crighton: Due to competition, ultimately two sets of towers will be required.
We tried to have a standard lease agreement with Cable & Wireless, but its terms
were prohibitively costly. Their terms could maintain the status quo regarding
monopoly.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: Competition on infrastructure as well as services is
important to minimize monopoly.
CPA: If there were price disagreements, the ICTA can mediate.
Mr. Crighton: Cable & Wireless has employed stalling tactics to delay the
competition. Their infrastructure is already paid for.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: We tried arbitration at one time but Cable & Wireless filed
an injunction. Cable & Wireless is using towers to make money. Their terms for
sharing are prohibitive. The ICTA is aware of the situation.
81
There being no further discussion with the applicant’s representatives, the
Chairman thanked them for appearing. They left at 5:05 p.m.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The monopole designs proposed are better aesthetically than the open web
towers.
•
The applicant has not provided proof of sharing with another ICTA licensed
entity.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reason:
1)
3.021
No written evidence has been submitted of agreement to share the tower
with another company licensed by the ICTA. Accordingly, based on the
stated objective of sharing/non-proliferation of antenna, the CPA does not
support the application at this time.
WIRELESS VENTURES Block 49A Parcel 19 (F03-0190) (P03-0487) (P030486) ($260,000) (BES)
Application for 117’ cellular tower, 8’ fence, telecom shelter and generator.
Appearance at 3:53
FACTS
Location:
Off Hutland Road, near Canaan Land, North Side
Zoning:
Agricultural/Residential.
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent proprietors
and objections were received (see “Objections” below)
Proposed Use:
Same as above
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments form the Director of Chief Environmental Health Officer and Director
of Civil Aviation are noted below. The Department is awaiting comments from
the Chief Fire Officer, Director of MRCU and Director of ICTA Authority.
Chief Environmental Health Officer
“The following comments are submitted with respect to the above application:
1. Secondary containment should be provided for the fuel tank.
2. A sanitary facility must be provided in the utility/storage building.”0
Civil Aviation Authority
“On June 29th, 2003, an MRCU aircraft conducting mosquito control operations
in the West Bay Ares during twilight hours, narrowly avoided collision with an
unlighted communications tower painted green. Fortunately the incident was a
82
near miss, however, it may well have resulted in loss of life.
In recognition of the seriousness of this breach of safety, a meeting was concluded
on July 22, 2003, to determine the circumstances surrounding this mishap and to
review the approval process for the erection of communication towers, in order to
ensure that such an incident does not reoccur.
Present at the meeting were: CAA – Mr. David Frederick, D/DCA, Mr. Kerith
McCoy, Head of Airport Operations, Mr. Jeremy Jackson, Head of Air Traffic
Services, Mr. Ian Scott, Head of Flight Operation; MRCU – Mr. Bill Petrie,
Director; C&W – Mr. Albert Anderson & Mr. Cleavy Scott; CPA – Mr. Adrian
Bodden.
It was unanimously agreed by all present, that the approval process related to the
erection of all future communication towers, which may constitute an aviation
hazard, shall be in accordance with the following:
•
To ensure adequate daytime visibility, the tower shall be painted in alternative
sections of orange and white or red and white. The standard related to this
requirement may be found in International Civil Aviation Organisation Annex
14, Volume 1. A copy of the relevant section is attached.
•
To ensure adequate nighttime visibility, the tower shall be lighted in
accordance with the requirements of the Aerial Spraying Protection Law,
1974. Luminescence and candela requirements may also be found in ICAO
Annex 14, Volume 1.
•
The CPA has agreed to address the problem of temporary lighting during
construction of a tower.
It was further agreed, that if necessary, additional meetings would be scheduled
to address any further issues concerning the satisfactory resolution of this
matter.”
OBJECTIONS
Letter #1
“I wish to object to the erection of the transmission tower, antenna, fence and
ancillary components at the above-captioned location.
I am not in favour of allowing these towers to be built. They clutter the
landscape, look ugly and will de-value our adjoining property.”
Letter #2
“I wish to object to the erection of the transmission tower, antenna, fence and
ancillary components at the above-captioned location.
I am not in favour of allowing these towers to be built. They clutter the
landscape, look ugly and will de-value our adjoining property.”
83
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting planning permission for a cellular phone utility
compound. The first component is a one hundred and seventeen ft. (117’) antenna
mast on a 16’-0” x 16’-0” concrete foundation base. The second is a 131.82 sq. ft.
utility building to contain the telecommunication equipment. The third is a
generator on an 8’-0”x12’-0” concrete pad. The last component is an eight feet
(8’) high galvanized chain link fence to form an enclosure around the antenna
mast, utility building and generator pad to safeguard the public from the new
equipment.
The Department is of the opinion that knowing the number of applications that
have been submitted for facilities such as this throughout the island, the Authority
should ensure that each facility is proposed to be used to its fullest potential. This
can only be achieved if a number of competing cellular phone companies share
existing / proposed cellular infrastructure in order to limit the number of antennae
throughout the island.
The Department would recommend that the Authority seriously consider each
application of this nature at a national level as opposed to a site specific level in
order to limit the amount of additional antennae proposed on Grand Cayman.
Additionally, the Department would question whether or not an additional cellular
phone tower is needed in close proximity of existing towers in the area
No landscape buffer is shown. The Department would recommend the submission
of a landscape plan illustrating buffering.
The following individuals appeared before the CPA on behalf of the
applicant at 3:53 p.m. The objectors did not appear.
Gene Thompson
Gary Murphy
Samuel Jackson
Raul Nicholson-Coe
Dale Crighton
Norberg Thompson
This item is considered in conjunction with items 3.020 and 3.022.
Mr. Murphy: We have an access agreement from an area proprietor and we are
also submitting an amendment.
CPA: The objectors were invited but not appear.
Mr. G. Thompson: We are in talks with North Rock and Telecayman. They will
be providing services such as internet access.
CPA: Will these companies require towers?
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: They don’t need as many. Seven to ten towers will probably
be enough for them.
CPA: Are they licensed by the ICTA? Is the February 1st deadline feasible?
84
Mr. G. Thompson: Yes to the first question. We are in a time crunch. WE are
committed to working everyday to meet deadlines, except Christmas Day.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: Our company has already leased a number of sites.
Mr. G. Thompson: We don’t want to be 2nd on the market. We are trying hard to
secure co-location agreements. Fourteen towers plus two rooftop locations are
needed.
CPA: Cay you make do with less towers?
Mr. G. Thompson: No. The towers operated as a network. Signals are passed
from tower to tower.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: There must be some overlap in coverage in order to attain
best signals. Black spots happen due to lack of towers.
Mr. G. Thompson: The CPA should note that site identification took awhile
because some proprietors did not want this type of structure on their property.
CPA: The applicant should recognize that the proliferation of antenna and the
resulting aesthetic blight on our landscapes is of concern. The CPA is charged
with protecting the population. Monopoles are less objectionable than the open
web tower design.
Mr. Murphy: All our towers are monopoles. Aesthetically they have minimal
impact on the environment compared to the open web design.
CPA: You are insisting on 14 towers. Can’t you consider less?
Mr. G. Thompson: We absolutely need fourteen.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: We have already secured long-term leases for the proposed
sites.
Mr. Jackson: With respect Mr. Chairman, our position is that the CPA is not in a
position to mandate sharing. That should only happed if policy is sanctioned by
Cabinet and the L.A. Section 5 of the Development Plan is clear in this regard.
The law defines the powers of the CPA. In order to avoid ad-hoc or
inconsistent/arbitra4ry decisions, policy must be established in accordance with
the Development Plan. Policy may be needed, but the CPA has no power legally
to make policy. There fore any co-location policy established by the CPA alone
must be unlawful. Each application should be considered on its merit. If the
proposed development is not deemed harmful to a recognized interest, it should
be approved.
CPA: The national interest is important.
Mr. Jackson: The legislation may be outdated, but the law is the law. That is
what the courts uphold.
Mr. Crighton: Due to competition, ultimately two sets of towers will be required.
We tried to have a standard lease agreement with Cable & Wireless, but its terms
were prohibitively costly. Their terms could maintain the status quo regarding
monopoly.
85
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: Competition on infrastructure as well as services is
important to minimize monopoly.
CPA: If there were price disagreements, the ICTA can mediate.
Mr. Crighton: Cable & Wireless has employed stalling tactics to delay the
competition. Their infrastructure is already paid for.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: We tried arbitration at one time but Cable & Wireless filed
an injunction. Cable & Wireless is using towers to make money. Their terms for
sharing are prohibitive. The ICTA is aware of the situation.
There being no further discussion with the applicant’s representatives, the
Chairman thanked them for appearing. They left at 5:05 p.m.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The monopole designs proposed are better aesthetically than the open web
towers.
•
The applicant has not provided proof of sharing with another ICTA licensed
entity.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reason:
1)
3.022
No written evidence has been submitted of agreement to share the tower
with another company licensed by the ICTA. Accordingly, based on the
stated objective of sharing/non-proliferation of antenna, the CPA does not
support the application at this time.
WIRELESS VENTURES Block 4D Parcel 335 (F03-0195) (P03-0496) (P030497) ($260,000) (JAB)
Application for an antenna mast, fence and utility building.
Appearance at 3:53
FACTS
Location :
West Church Street, West Bay
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent land owners
and one (1) objection was received (see “Objections”
below)
Height of Antenna:
117’-0”
Height of Fence:
8’-0”
Building Size:
131.82 sq. ft.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from the MRCU and Civil Aviation Authority are noted below:
86
MRCU
“Although no plans were enclosed with your memo, it is our understanding that
the towers are existing free standing towers which are all painted in an
appropriate manner for aircraft safety, namely with alternating red and white (or
orange and white) banding.
We would like to offer the following comments:
•
All towers / tower extensions should comply with the Aerial Spraying
Protection Law (1997 Revision), attached for your information. In particular,
section 3 of the law that specifies that the towers should be illuminated.
•
All towers / tower extensions should be free-standing and comply with the
ICAO provisions for aircraft safety, including, but not limited to, the
requirements for safety banding (red and white). Further details on these
requirements are available from the Civil Aviation Authority.”
Civil Aviation Authority
“I refer to your memo of November 7, 2003, regarding the extension of existing
towers by Cable and Wireless Ltd.
The Civil Aviation Authority have no objections to the proposed extensions
provided they are lighted and marked in accordance with the requirements of
ICAO Annex 14, a copy of which was submitted to your organization.”
OBJECTIONS (signed by 10 objectors)
“As owners of nearby parcels, we are objecting to the erection of a transmission
antenna, fence and ancillary components on 4D, Parcel 335 near the West Bay
Police Station. An application for planning permission was submitted on behalf
of Wireless Ventures (Cayman Islands) Ltd.
There is already an antenna in the area on property owned by Cable and
Wireless. We believe that it would not be in our best interest to place another in a
highly residential neighbourhood because antennas often emit radiation and are
not attractive landscaping. Structures such as the above mentioned can
depreciate residential properties because of the unattractive visual effects. For
these reasons we are opposed to this project.
We kindly ask that our objection be given consideration and request that in your
capacity as Director of Planning you would convince the Central Planning
Authority to refuse this application.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting planning permission for four separate components
which form a cellular phone utility compound. The first component is a one
hundred and seventeen feet (117’) antenna mast on a 5’-0” x 5’-0” concrete
foundation base. The second is a 131.82 sq. ft. utility building to contain the
telecommunication equipment. The third component is an 8’-0” x 12’-0” concrete
87
pad housing both a fuel tank and generator. The last component is an eight feet
(8’) high galvanized chain link fence to form a 50’-0” x 50’-0” enclosure around
the antenna mast, utility building and generator pad to safeguard the public from
the new equipment. The proposed fence is setback 15’-0” from the neighbouring
parcels.
The Department is of the opinion that knowing the number of applications that
have been submitted for facilities such as this throughout the island, the Authority
should ensure that each facility is proposed to be used to its fullest potential. This
can only be achieved if a number of competing cellular phone companies share
existing / proposed cellular infrastructure in order to limit the number of antennae
throughout the island.
The Department would recommend that the Authority seriously consider each
application of this nature at a national level as opposed to a site specific level in
order to limit the amount of additional antennae proposed on Grand Cayman.
The following individuals appeared before the CPA on behalf of the
applicant at 3:53 p.m. The objectors did not appear.
Gene Thompson
Gary Murphy
Samuel Jackson
Raul Nicholson-Coe
Dale Crighton
Norberg Thompson
This item is considered in conjunction with items 3.020 and 3.022.
Mr. Murphy: We have an access agreement from an area proprietor and we are
also submitting an amendment.
CPA: The objectors were invited but not appear.
Mr. G. Thompson: We are in talks with North Rock and Telecayman. They will
be providing services such as internet access.
CPA: Will these companies require towers?
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: They don’t need as many. Seven to ten towers will probably
be enough for them.
CPA: Are they licensed by the ICTA? Is the February 1st deadline feasible?
Mr. G. Thompson: Yes to the first question. We are in a time crunch. WE are
committed to working everyday to meet deadlines, except Christmas Day.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: Our company has already leased a number of sites.
Mr. G. Thompson: We don’t want to be 2nd on the market. We are trying hard to
secure co-location agreements. Fourteen towers plus two rooftop locations are
needed.
CPA: Cay you make do with less towers?
88
Mr. G. Thompson: No. The towers operated as a network. Signals are passed
from tower to tower.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: There must be some overlap in coverage in order to attain
best signals. Black spots happen due to lack of towers.
Mr. G. Thompson: The CPA should note that site identification took awhile
because some proprietors did not want this type of structure on their property.
CPA: The applicant should recognize that the proliferation of antenna and the
resulting aesthetic blight on our landscapes is of concern. The CPA is charged
with protecting the population. Monopoles are less objectionable than the open
web tower design.
Mr. Murphy: All our towers are monopoles. Aesthetically they have minimal
impact on the environment compared to the open web design.
CPA: You are insisting on 14 towers. Can’t you consider less?
Mr. G. Thompson: We absolutely need fourteen.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: We have already secured long-term leases for the proposed
sites.
Mr. Jackson: With respect Mr. Chairman, our position is that the CPA is not in a
position to mandate sharing. That should only happed if policy is sanctioned by
Cabinet and the L.A. Section 5 of the Development Plan is clear in this regard.
The law defines the powers of the CPA. In order to avoid ad-hoc or
inconsistent/arbitra4ry decisions, policy must be established in accordance with
the Development Plan. Policy may be needed, but the CPA has no power legally
to make policy. There fore any co-location policy established by the CPA alone
must be unlawful. Each application should be considered on its merit. If the
proposed development is not deemed harmful to a recognized interest, it should
be approved.
CPA: The national interest is important.
Mr. Jackson: The legislation may be outdated, but the law is the law. That is
what the courts uphold.
Mr. Crighton: Due to competition, ultimately two sets of towers will be required.
We tried to have a standard lease agreement with Cable & Wireless, but its terms
were prohibitively costly. Their terms could maintain the status quo regarding
monopoly.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: Competition on infrastructure as well as services is
important to minimize monopoly.
CPA: If there were price disagreements, the ICTA can mediate.
Mr. Crighton: Cable & Wireless has employed stalling tactics to delay the
competition. Their infrastructure is already paid for.
Mr. Nicholson-Coe: We tried arbitration at one time but Cable & Wireless filed
an injunction. Cable & Wireless is using towers to make money. Their terms for
89
sharing are prohibitive. The ICTA is aware of the situation.
There being no further discussion with the applicant’s representatives, the
Chairman thanked them for appearing. They left at 5:05 p.m.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The monopole designs proposed are better aesthetically than the open web
towers.
•
The applicant has not provided proof of sharing with another ICTA licensed
entity.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reason:
1)
3.023
No written evidence has been submitted of agreement to share the tower
with another company licensed by the ICTA. Accordingly, based on the
stated objective of sharing/non-proliferation of antenna, the CPA does not
support the application at this time.
DIGICEL Block 19E Parcel 171 (F03-0468) (P03-1179) (P03-1180) (P03-1181)
($710,000) (JAB)
Application for an antenna mast, utility building and office building.
FACTS
Location :
Lancaster Crescent, off Sparky Drive, Industrial Park
Zoning:
Heavy Industrial
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent land owners
and no objections were received.
Height of Antenna:
100’-0”
Building Size:
Office Building: 630 sq. ft.
Utility Building: 320 sq. ft.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from the MRCU and Civil Aviation Authority are noted below.
MRCU
“Although no plans were enclosed with your memo, it is our understanding that
the towers are existing free standing towers which are all painted in an
appropriate manner for aircraft safety, namely with alternating red and white (or
orange and white) banding.
We would like to offer the following comments:
•
All towers / tower extensions should comply with the Aerial Spraying
Protection Law (1997 Revision), attached for your information. In particular,
section 3 of the law that specifies that the towers should be illuminated.
90
•
All towers / tower extensions should be free-standing and comply with the
ICAO provisions for aircraft safety, including, but not limited to, the
requirements for safety banding (red and white). Further details on these
requirements are available from the Civil Aviation Authority.”
Civil Aviation Authority
“I refer to your memo of November 7, 2003, regarding the extension of existing
towers by Cable and Wireless Ltd.
The Civil Aviation Authority have no objections to the proposed extensions
provided they are lighted and marked in accordance with the requirements of
ICAO Annex 14, a copy of which was submitted to your organization.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting planning permission for the main switch site for
“Digicel”. The proposal has three separate components which form a cellular
phone switch compound. The first component is a one hundred (100’) antenna.
The second is two (2) utility switch containers (320 sq. ft.) to contain the
telecommunication equipment. The third component is a 630 sq. ft. office
building which houses the guard house, restrooms, kitchen, storage and power
room.
The Department is of the opinion that knowing the number of applications that
have been submitted for antenna throughout the island, the Authority should
ensure that each facility is proposed to be used to its fullest potential. This can
only be achieved if a number of competing cellular phone companies share
existing / proposed cellular infrastructure in order to limit the number of antennae
throughout the island. In this case, this proposal is for the switch center for
“Digicel” which is the headquarters for the operation.
The Department would recommend that the Authority seriously consider each
application for “Digicel” to ensure that the individual proposals are to be used to
their fullest potential. Applications of this nature should be considered at a
national level as opposed to a site specific level in order to limit the amount of
additional antennae and switch sites proposed on Grand Cayman.
The Authority should note that as the main switch (hub) site the ICTA has
indicated that this site should not be required to be shared with another
telecommunications provider. The Authority may note that accordingly it has
approved another hub site for Wireless Ventures at Trinity Square, off Eastern
Avenue, George Town.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
In addition to Building Permit requirements, condition (1) listed below shall be
met before a Building Permit can be issued.
1)
The applicant shall submit a landscape plan which shall be subject to
91
review and approval by the Director of Planning.
2)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief
Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
3)
Unless specifically authorized in writing by the Central Planning
Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance
with the approved plans which you will receive when all of the above
conditions are complied with.
4)
The tower shall comply with the Aerial Spraying Protection Law (1997
Revision), specifically section 3 therein regarding illumination.
5)
The tower shall be free-standing and comply with ICAO provisions for
aircraft safety, including, but not limited to, the requirements for safety
banding (red & white or orange & white).
The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to
occupying the building.
3.024
DIGICEL Block 4C Parcel 139 (F03-0402) (P03-1189) (P03-1188) ($250,000)
(JAB)
Application for an antenna mast, fence, generator pad and two (2) utility stations.
FACTS
Location :
Off Capt. Reginald Parsons Drive, West Bay
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Notice Requirements: Section 15(4) notices were served on adjacent land owners.
No objections were received.
Height of Antenna:
117’-0”
Height of Fence:
8’-0”
Building Size:
24 sq. ft.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments from the MRCU and Civil Aviation Authority are noted below.
MRCU
“Although no plans were enclosed with your memo, it is our understanding that
the towers are existing free standing towers which are all painted in an
appropriate manner for aircraft safety, namely with alternating red and white (or
orange and white) banding.
We would like to offer the following comments:
•
All towers / tower extensions should comply with the Aerial Spraying
Protection Law (1997 Revision), attached for your information. In particular,
92
section 3 of the law that specifies that the towers should be illuminated.
•
All towers / tower extensions should be free-standing and comply with the
ICAO provisions for aircraft safety, including, but not limited to, the
requirements for safety banding (red and white). Further details on these
requirements are available from the Civil Aviation Authority.”
Civil Aviation Authority
“I refer to your memo of November 7, 2003, regarding the extension of existing
towers by Cable and Wireless Ltd.
The Civil Aviation Authority have no objections to the proposed extensions
provided they are lighted and marked in accordance with the requirements of
ICAO Annex 14, a copy of which was submitted to your organization.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting planning permission for four separate components
which form a cellular phone utility compound. The first component is a one
hundred and seventeen (117’) antenna mast on a 24’-0” x 24’-0” concrete
foundation base. The second is two (2) 12 sq. ft. radio base stations to contain the
telecommunication equipment. The third component is a 4’-0” x 10’-0” concrete
pad housing a generator. The last component is an eight feet (8’) high galvanized
chain link fence to form a 65’-0” x 65’-0” enclosure around the antenna mast,
utility stations and generator pad to safeguard the public from the new equipment.
The Department is of the opinion that knowing the number of applications that
have been submitted for facilities such as this throughout the island, the Authority
should ensure that each facility is proposed to be used to its fullest potential. This
can only be achieved if a number of competing cellular phone companies share
existing / proposed cellular infrastructure in order to limit the number of antennae
throughout the island.
The Department would recommend that the Authority seriously consider each
application of this nature at a national level as opposed to a site specific level in
order to limit the amount of additional antennae proposed on Grand Cayman.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
In addition to Building Permit requirements, condition (1) listed below shall be
met before a Building Permit can be issued.
1)
The applicant shall submit a landscape plan which shall be subject to
review and approval by the Director of Planning.
2)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief
Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the
issuance of a Building Permit.
93
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 which you will receive when all of the
above conditions are complied with.
4)
The tower shall comply with the Aerial Spraying Protection Law (1997
Revision), specifically section 3 therein regarding illumination.
5)
The tower shall be free-standing and comply with ICAO provisions for
aircraft safety, including, but not limited to, the requirements for safety
banding (red & white or orange & white).
The applicant shall obtain a Final Certificate (of Fitness for Occupancy) prior to
occupying the building.
3.025
JOHN LEVY Block 67A Parcel 23 (F03-0456) (P03-1254) (P03-1255)
($478,800) (EJ)
Application for two (2) three (3) bedroom houses.
FACTS
Location:
High Rock Drive, East End
Zoning:
Agriculture Residential
Notice Requirements: N/A.
Background:
Vacant
Parcel Size:
1.946 acres (84,767 sq. ft.) (87,120 sq. ft. required)
Site Coverage:
6.64%
Proposed Use:
Two (2) three (3) bedroom houses
Building:
Existing - 0
Proposed – 2,816.30 sq. ft.
Total – 5,632.60 sq. ft. for both houses
Parking:
Required – 1 per house
Proposed – 1 per house
LETTER OF VARIANCE
“We submitted this letter of variance on behalf of Mr. John Levy for a minimum
parcel size variance to construct the two proposed residences which will be
located in the Agriculture zoning which allows for one house per acre, with the
parcel being below the required two acre required by the Development and
Planning Law by approximately 2,353.00 sq. ft. (87120.00 sq. ft.). We would like
to request a variance to allow the application to be approved as submitted.
We would appreciate the Board’s favourable decision to our request.”
94
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a lot size variance for the proposed two houses. The
subject lot is currently zoned agriculture residential, which requires one house per
acre; however, the two houses are proposed on a parcel of land that exist at 1.946
acre, 0.054 acres (2,353 sq. ft.) under the required 2 acres.
The Authority is reminded that there are several lots of similar size in the area;
however, the proposed meets all other planning requirements for site coverage, lot
width, parking and all setbacks.
The Authority is reminded of Regulation 8 (13) Notwithstanding sub-regulation
(1), Regulation 9 (6), (7) and (8), and Regulation 10, the Authority may grant
permission to carry out development that does not comply with all or any of those
provisions if the Authority is satisfied(a) that an exceptional circumstance exists; and
(b) that there is a sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The property size is less than required for two houses.
•
The applicant should be advised that an application can be submitted for a
Designating Order to the Cabinet through the Ministry of Planning,
Communications, District Administration and information Technology.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reason:
1)
The property size is less than required for two houses.
Per Regulation 21 of the Development and Planning Regulations (2003 Revision)
the applicant is advised to apply to Cabinet for a Designating Order.
3.026
CATHERINE KINCH Block 25C Parcel 169 (F03-0458) (P03-1157) (P031158) ($60,000) (EJ)
Application for swimming pool and two (2) gazebos.
FACTS
Location:
Shamrock Road in Spotts
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Background:
N/A
Existing Use:
Vacant lot
Proposed Use:
Swimming pool and two (2) gazebos
Parcel Size:
0.68 acre (29,620 sq. ft.)
Site Coverage:
0.68% (25% allowed)
Building Size:
Existing – 0 (House)
95
Proposed – 200 sq. ft. (Gazebos)
Parking:
Existing – 0
Required - 0
APPLICANT’S LETTER
“My husband and I as owners of the above mentioned parcel wish to construct a
swimming pool on the parcel of land. We own the adjacent parcel to the east,
Parcel 170, where we have lived for several years. Our application is in variance
to the normal 50 foot setback for ironshore.
We wish to set back the swimming pool a bit less than 50 feet because we feel that
it would considerably improve the aesthetics of the disappearing edge, both from
the poolside and from the sea. In addition, a setback of 30-35 feet fits in best with
the view from our house and the elevation of our lawn on the seaside of the house.
Furthermore, varying the setback by 15-20 feet would appear to make no
perceptible difference to the risk of damage from the sea and it certainly would
not effect erosion by the sea in any way. The parcel is on a cliff, elevated roughly
16 feet above sea level. In addition, wave action against the cliff is mild during
normal conditions because there is a protective barrier reef offshore.
Should you have any questions or wish further information on my application,
please feel free to contact me.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a setback variance from the Authority for the proposed
swimming pool and gazebos, proposed as close as thirty ft. (30’) from what
appears to be the iron shore edge or High Water Mark, twenty ft. (20’) under the
required 50’ setback for ironshore.
The Department would like to bring the following to the Authority’s attention:
1)
The variance requested is of an aesthetic nature and not due to a physical
restriction of the parcel; and
2)
no major development on the subject parcel. Traditionally the Authority
would not consider a ancillary application without a main application and
if on separate parcels, the Authority would required subject lots to be
combined.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The CPA considered the proposed structures acceptable, as they would be
located adjoining the applicant’s house.
Decision: It was resolved to grant planning permission, subject to the following
conditions:
2)
The applicant is required to obtain a Building Permit from the Chief
Building Control Officer. Construction shall not commence prior to the
96
issuance of a Building Permit.
3)
Unless specifically authorized otherwise in writing by the Central
Planning Authority, the Development shall be carried out strictly in
accordance with the approved plans which you will receive when the
above condition is complied with.
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.
3.027
MR. & MRS. PINTARD Block 5C Parcel 308 (F03-0477) (P03-1220)
($294,000) (EJ)
Application for duplex (3x3) and 4’ fence.
FACTS
Location:
Spurgeon Close & Hillard Drive, West Bay
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Notice Requirements: N/A
Background:
N/A
Parcel Size:
0.2880 acres (12,565 sq. ft.) (13,500 sq. ft. required)
Site Coverage:
29.33% (25% allowable)
Proposed Use:
Duplex with 4’ block and steel rail fence
Building Size:
Existing – 0
Proposed – 3,680 sq. ft.
Total – 3,680 sq. ft.
Parking:
Required – 2
Proposed - 4
LETTER OF VARIANCE
“It with great pleasure that I am applying for the grant to an undersized lot
variance.
The existing square footage is 12,545 and the required amount is 13,500 sq. ft. for
LDR Zoning, which is a difference of 955 sq. ft.
We would also like a variance of over-site coverage proposed 29.33%, the
allotted amount is 25% which is a difference of 4.33% over.
We would really appreciate the opportunity to build our home in Grand Cayman,
which has been a dream of mine to have a home in the land that my Grand Father
is from. This really has sentimental reason to us and I hope that my request will
be accepted.”
97
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting two variances from the Authority for the proposed
duplex: 1) the subject parcel is undersized existing at 12,545 sq. ft., 955 sq. ft.
under the required 13,500 sq. ft. for duplexes in LDR zone, 2) the applicant is also
seeking a site coverage variance of 4.33% over the maximum allowable 25% in
LDR zone for a total of 29.33%.
The Department has no concerns with the proposed 4’ block & steel rail wall with
5’-10” columns; however, is of the opinion that the subject duplex could be
redesigned to comply with the usually required site coverage.
Based on Department’s records, development in the immediate area consist of
houses only.
The Authority is reminded of Regulation 8 (13) Notwithstanding sub-regulation
(1), Regulation 9 (6), (7) and (8), and Regulation 10, the Authority may grant
permission to carry out development that does not comply with all or any of those
provisions if the Authority is satisfied(a) that an exceptional circumstance exists; and
(b) that there is a sufficient reason why the permission should be granted.
In this instance the Department is not convinced that the reasons submitted meet the
criteria.
Decision: It was resolved to adjourn the application, for the following reasons:
1)
The property size is less than required for a duplex in the Low Density
Residential zone per Regulation 9(8) of the Development and Planning
Regulations (2003 Revision).
2)
The proposed site coverage exceeds the maximum allowable per
Regulation 9(8) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2003
Revision).
3)
Per Regulation 8(13) of the Development and Planning Regulations (2003
Revision), the Authority finds that an exceptional circumstance was not
proven and there is insufficient reason why the permission should be
granted.
4.0
ENFORCEMENTS
5.0
DEVELOPMENT PLAN MATTERS
5.01
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2003
The Department is awaiting comments from the new Minister of Planning,
Communication, District Administration and Information Technology.
98
5.02
MEOW LTD. Block 11D Parcel 36 (RZ03-0005) (HP)
Application to change the zoning from NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMERICAL, to
HOTEL / TOURISM.
FACTS
Location:
The site in question presently houses The
Cayman Falls Shopping Plaza. Located
along West Bay Road, the Safe Haven
Development bounds the site on its Northern
and Southern boundaries, and the Sunshine
Suite Development on its eastern boundary.
Directly across the street is the Westin
Casuarina Resort.
Zoning:
Neighbourhood Commercial
Existing Uses:
Shopping centre with retail uses on the
ground floor and apartments on the upper
storey of one building.
Recently Approved Development:
An application to change the upper storey of
one unit from a night-club to 7 Apartments
was approved on March 27, 2002
(CPA/07/02 Item 5.01 (c) (P02-0162, JAB).
Parcel Size:
3.206 acres
BACKGROUND
Site is currently home to the Cayman Falls Shopping Centre, with three retail
establishments and four restaurants. The space formerly utilised by the Sharky’s
night-club is now utilised for seven apartments.
LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT
“The surrounding properties including the adjoining property to the East,
Sunshine Suites Hotel, and the property to the West, Westin Hotel Resort, and the
adjacent new Ritz Carlton Resort, are all Hotel Zone properties.
We wish to develop our property into a Hotel Type Development and therefore
are requesting a change of zoning to “Hotel” Zone.”
No documentation outlining details of the proposed development have been
provided by the applicant at the time of writing this agenda report. If submitted
before the meeting copies will be provided to the members at the meeting.
AGENCY COMMENTS
The application was circulated to the Chief Engineer, Water Authority, and
Department of Tourism on April 15, 2003. Comments were received from the
Chief Engineer and Water Authority. These are as follows:
99
Chief Engineer
“PWD has no objections to the proposed rezone.”
Water Authority
“The Water Authority has no objection to the proposed rezoning of this parcel.”
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
Development Features
Through meetings with the applicant’s agents the Department has learnt that this
rezone is being sought to facilitate the expansion of development on the site to
include three, four storey apartment buildings with a centre court yard and pool
area. It is proposed, to rent or lease these units out to persons employed by the
Ritz Carlton development or the Medical School. Exact details concerning the
number of units are to be determined and submitted in a later development
application. A letter outlining these plans was requested from the applicant’s
agent. At the time of writing this agenda report no documentation outlining future
development plans has been provided. If submitted before the meeting copies will
be provided to the members at the meeting.
Issues/Concerns
At its present zoning, the applicants feel that the site would not allow them to
develop their project as envisioned, as it would not allow the needed density. As
the Authority is aware under the Neighbourhood Commercial zone regulations
residential uses are permitted, only on one upper storey of a multi-storied
building. Additionally, buildings in this zone are limited to three storeys.
The current retail and restaurant uses of the existing buildings on the site can be
construed as being related primarily to the needs of the tourism industry. As such
would not be out of character with a change of zoning to Hotel/ Tourism.
The site exceeds the minimum lot size requirement for hotels and apartments,
which is half an acre.
The existence of Hotel/ Tourism zoned land that abuts the parcels would make a
change in zoning to Hotel/ Tourism on the site, an extension of the existing
Hotel/Tourism zone.
Recommendation: Discuss whether applicant has submitted sufficient detail to
justify a change in zoning to Hotel/Tourism. If the Authority determines that
sufficient detail has been provided, the Department recommends initiating the
process for an amendment to the Development Plan 1997, as set forth in the
Development and Planning Law (1999 Revision).
Decision CPA/ 17/03 Item 6.02
It was resolved to initiate the process for an amendment to the Development Plan
1997, as set forth in the Development and Planning Law (1999 Revisions).
100
Decision CPA/ 26/03 Item 5.01
It was resolved to submit to the Ministry of Planning, Communication, Works and
Information Technology for forward transmission to the Legislative Assembly.
Prior to submission to the Ministry the Department noticed that due to a Cayman
Net News error the rezone was forwarded to the Central Planning Authority
prematurely and therefore must be reconsidered.
FURTHER BACKGROUND
Application was advertised on the following days in the Cayman Net News:
1. July 8, 2003
2. July 9, 2003
3. July 14, 2003
4. July 15, 2003.
The public comment period expired on September 13, 2003 with no objections
being received.
Decision: It was resolved to submit to the Ministry of Planning, Communication,
District Administration and Information Technology for forward transmission to
the Legislative Assembly.
6.0
MATTERS FROM THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
6.01
ALFRED POWERY Block 13D Parcel 302 (F97-0037) (JAB)
Application to modify the approval for a five (5) unit apartment building.
FACTS
Location:
Neils Godfrey Subdivision, Woodlake Drive, George Town
Zoning:
High Density Residential
Background:
CPA/09/98; item 7.06 the Authority resolved to approve
eleven (11) apartments, office and laundry building.
CPA/34/98; item 7.03 the Authority resolved to grant an
amendment to the original approval. The laundry building
was eliminated and laundry facilities replaced the office
space.
CPA/26/99; item 7.02 the Authority resolved to grant an
amendment to the original approval.
CPA/13/03; item 3.11 the Authority resolved to grant
planning permission for the 5 five apartments, subject to
101
conditions, including condition “1) regarding revised
building elevations.
Existing Use:
Five (5) unit apartment building with laundry – Building
“B”
Proposed Use:
Modify planning permission of CPA/13/03; item 3.11 to
delete condition “1)”.
Parcel Size:
0.50 acre (21,780 sq. ft.
Site Coverage:
27.8% (27.4% previous approval)
Building Size:
Approved – 5,971 sq. ft.
Parking Approved – 14
Proposed – 88 sq. ft.
Parking Required – 15
Total – 6,059 sq. ft.
Parking Proposed – 16
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
Planning permission was granted for a five (5) unit apartment building
(CPA/13/03; item 3.011), subject to condition 1) regarding revised elevations.
The applicant has requested the deletion of that condition on the grounds that the
proposed building elevations are consistent with development in the area.
The CPA further discussed the following:
•
The Authority is in agreement with the applicant. Accordingly, condition 1) of
CPA/13/03; item 3.011 should be deleted.
Decision: It was resolved to modify planning permission of CPA/13/03; item
3.011 by deleting condition 1).
6.02
CHM2HILL
REPORT/AGGREGATE
RECOMMENDATIONS
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
The recommendations are to be discussed at the next CPA meeting.
6.03
BEACH REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
The report is to be discussed at the next CPA meeting.
6.04
CPA MEETING SCHEDULE 2004
A draft 2004 CPA meeting schedule was endorsed by the Authority.
6.05
CRITON DEVELOPMENT LTD. Block 33D Parcel 21 Rem 5 (F03-0339)
(P03-0951) (RS)
Application for a subdivision.
102
FACTS
Location:
Rum Point Drive
Zoning:
Low Density Residential
Background:
Approval has been granted for two phases of a subdivision
of the subject lands.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS
On November 12, 2003 (CPA/32/03; 3.11) the Authority granted planning
permission for Phase II of the Criton Development subdivision (167 lots). The
minutes of CPA/32/03 were confirmed on December 3, 2003.
It was just recently brought to the Department’s attention that a letter of objection
to the proposed subdivision had been submitted to the Department on October 10,
2003, which fell within the 21 day waiting period. The letter of objection was
inadvertently misfiled and was only discovered on Monday, December 8, 2003.
The unfortunate misfiling of the objection letter has now created a serious
procedural problem with the granting of planning permission for the subdivision.
As the objector was not invited to appear before the Authority and nor was the
letter available for the Authority’s consideration, there has been a clear breach of
natural justice. In order to rectify this problem, the Department must strongly
recommend that the Authority revoke the planning permission that was granted on
November 12, 2003, pursuant to Section 17 (1) of the Development and Planning
Law (2003 Revision). Subsequently, the objector and applicant can both be
invited to another meeting of the Central Planning Authority at which point a new
decision can be rendered.
Decision: It was resolved to revoke the planning permission granted on
November 12, 2003 (CPA/32/03; 3.11), for the following reason:
1)
6.06
An objection to the application was received prior to the CPA decision of
November 12, 2003 (CPA/32/03; 3.11). Accordingly, the applicant and
objector are invited to address the Central Planning Authority at its
meeting to be held on January 14th, 2004, at 1:40 pm in the Planning
Department’s Conference Room, third floor, Tower Building, George
Town.
CPA CHRISTMAS PARTY
To be held at the Verandah, Safehaven, December 17, 2003 at 7:30. Staff is
invited to attend.
7.0
CPA MEMBERS INFORMATION/DISCUSSIONS
103
7.01
FOI EXEMPTION PER SECTION 20 OF THE FOI LAW
This item of the Minutes is exempt per section 20(b) and (d) of the Freedom of
Information Law, 2007, which reads: “(b) its disclosure would, or would likely to,
inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation;” or
“(d) its disclosure would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely to prejudice, the
effective conduct of public affairs.
7.02
FOI EXEMPTION PER SECTION 20 OF THE FOI LAW
This item of the Minutes is exempt per section 20(b) and (d) of the Freedom of
Information Law, 2007, which reads: “(b) its disclosure would, or would likely to,
inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation;” or
“(d) its disclosure would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely to prejudice, the
effective conduct of public affairs.
7.03
FOI EXEMPTION PER SECTION 20 OF THE FOI LAW
This item of the Minutes is exempt per section 20(b) and (d) of the Freedom of
Information Law, 2007, which reads: “(b) its disclosure would, or would likely to,
inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation;” or
“(d) its disclosure would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely to prejudice, the
effective conduct of public affairs.
7.04
FOI EXEMPTION PER SECTION 20 OF THE FOI LAW
This item of the Minutes is exempt per section 20(b) and (d) of the Freedom of
Information Law, 2007, which reads: “(b) its disclosure would, or would likely to,
inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation;” or
“(d) its disclosure would otherwise prejudice, or would be likely to prejudice, the
effective conduct of public affairs.
104
The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Central
Planning Authority is scheduled for Wednesday 17th December 2003 at 12:30
p.m. in the Planning Department’s Conference Room, Third Floor Tower
Building.
A. L. Thompson
Chairman
cc:
Kenneth S. Ebanks
Executive Secretary
All members of the Central Planning Authority
Hon. Minister (P.C. W. & IT)
Chief Immigration Officer
Solicitor General
Chief Fire Officer
Chief Engineer, PWD
Chief Education Officer
Director, Department of Environmental Health
Director, Department of Environment
Managing Director, Caribbean Utilities Company
105
List of Applications Presented at CPA/35/03
1.01
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.04
3.01
3.02
3.03
3.04
3.05
3.06
3.07
3.08
3.09
3.010
3.011
3.012
3.013
3.014
3.015
3.016
3.017
3.018
3.019
3.020
3.021
3.022
3.023
3.024
3.025
3.026
3.027
5.01
5.02
6.01
6.02
6.03
6.04
6.05
6.06
7.01
7.02
7.03
7.04
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF CPA/26/03 HELD ON SEPTEMBER 2003. ..................................................2
PROPRIETORS OF STRATA #89 BLOCK 13B PARCEL 102 (FA89-0271) (P03-0826) ($6,000) (EJ) ........2
CABLE & WIRELESS BLOCK 32B PARCEL 188 (F98-0294) (P03-0286) ($40,000) (RS) ...........................4
CABLE & WIRELESS BLOCK 48C PARCEL 11 (F03-0112) (P03-00288) (P03-0289) (P03-0407) ($60,000)
(BES/RL)......................................................................................................................................................10
CABLE & WIRELESS BLOCK 69A PARCEL 28 REM1 (F01-0092) (P03-0959) (P03-0289) (P03-0960)
($60,000) (BES/RL) .....................................................................................................................................16
CABLE & WIRELESS LTD. BLOCK 73A PARCEL 19 (F01-0269) (P03-1068) ($13,000) (RS) .................23
WESTSTAR TV LTD. BLOCK 14C PARCEL 320 (F03-0408) (P03-1026) ($1,400,000) (JAB) ...................25
LOVISA VERNON HAMILTON BLOCK 4E PARCEL 458 (F03-0441) (P03-1125) ($190,000) (EJ) .........28
MICHEAL FINELLI BLOCK 1D PARCEL 352 (FA81-0282) (P03-1020) ($65,000) (EJ)............................30
DEXTER BUSH BLOCK 9A PARCEL 661 (F03-0448) (P03-1136) ($5,000) (EJ) .........................................32
NCB PROJECT MANAGEMENT BLOCK 27C PARCEL 743 (F03-0437) (P03-1118) ($3,000) (KG) .......33
ADEL LTD BLOCK 2C PARCEL 68 (F03-0432) (P03-1091) ($34,000) (EJ)..................................................34
WESLEYAN HOLINESS CHURCH BLOCK 5B PARCELS 278 AND 268 (F01-0082) (P03-1095) ($60,000)
(EJ) ...............................................................................................................................................................36
EVELYN ROCKETT BLOCK 25B PARCEL 337 (F98-0157) (P03-1108) (P03-1255) ($384,000) (EJ) .......38
GARFIELD & CARLTON EBANKS BLOCK 15C PARCEL 252 (F98-0034) (P03-1100) ($700,000) (KG)44
AMELIAH M. CARZANA BLOCK 28C PARCEL 135 (FA87-0047) (P03-1194) (KG)................................47
GLACESTER VERNON BLOCK 14D PARCEL 192 (FA84-0142) (P03-1183) ($110,000) (CH) ................48
MARTIN & NORA BURKE BLOCK 12D PARCEL 53 (F03-0276) (P03-1211) ($230,000) (CH)................50
MARTIN & NORA BURKE BLOCK 12D PARCEL 78 (F03-0277) (P03-1213) ($710,000) (CH)................52
HENDERSON HOLDINGS LTD. BLOCK 11C PARCEL 311 (F03-0466) (P03-1175) ($5,300) (CMH) ....55
CRITON HOLDINGS BLOCK 17A PARCEL 8 REM1 (F00-0049) (P02-0404) (P02-0405) (P02-0406) (P02
-0228) ($1,055,000) (JAB) ............................................................................................................................56
SNUG HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED BLOCK 12C PARCEL 373 (F01-0055) (P03-0995) ($0)
(NAW)..........................................................................................................................................................58
WIRELESS VENTURES BLOCK 25B PARCEL 535 (F03-0337) (P03-0863) (P03-0864) (P03-0865)
($260,000) (BES)..........................................................................................................................................66
WIRELESS VENTURES BLOCK 65A PARCEL 62 (F03-0338) (P03-0863) (P03-0867) (P03-0868)
($260,000) (BES)..........................................................................................................................................72
WIRELESS VENTURES BLOCK 75A PARCEL 158 (F03-0189) (P03-0479) (P03-0480) ($260,000) (BES)77
WIRELESS VENTURES BLOCK 49A PARCEL 19 (F03-0190) (P03-0487) (P03-0486) ($260,000) (BES) 82
WIRELESS VENTURES BLOCK 4D PARCEL 335 (F03-0195) (P03-0496) (P03-0497) ($260,000) (JAB) 86
DIGICEL BLOCK 19E PARCEL 171 (F03-0468) (P03-1179) (P03-1180) (P03-1181) ($710,000) (JAB) .....90
DIGICEL BLOCK 4C PARCEL 139 (F03-0402) (P03-1189) (P03-1188) ($250,000) (JAB) ..........................92
JOHN LEVY BLOCK 67A PARCEL 23 (F03-0456) (P03-1254) (P03-1255) ($478,800) (EJ)........................94
CATHERINE KINCH BLOCK 25C PARCEL 169 (F03-0458) (P03-1157) (P03-1158) ($60,000) (EJ) ........95
MR. & MRS. PINTARD BLOCK 5C PARCEL 308 (F03-0477) (P03-1220) ($294,000) (EJ) ........................97
DRAFT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2003.....................................................................................................98
MEOW LTD. BLOCK 11D PARCEL 36 (RZ03-0005) (HP) ...........................................................................99
ALFRED POWERY BLOCK 13D PARCEL 302 (JAB) ...............................................................................101
CHM2HILL REPORT/AGGREGATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS .......102
BEACH REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT....................................................................102
CPA MEETING SCHEDULE 2004 .........................................................................................................102
CRITON DEVELOPMENT LTD. BLOCK 33D PARCEL 21 REM 5 (F03-0339) (P03-0951) (RS) ............102
CPA CHRISTMAS PARTY .....................................................................................................................103
CARS NEAR SAMMY’S AIRPORT INN, AIRPORT.......................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
CARS NEAR NORTH SOUND BARCADERE..................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
ROADSIDE LANDSCAPING AT KKG DEVELOPMENT, EAST ENDERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
CONSTRUCTION IN OPPORTUNITY ACRES, WEST BAY ........ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
106