Development Applications Board minutes of a meeting held on Wednesday, 31 October.WarwickP0321/12 WHITE Mr. Sergio(Received: 28 Sep, 2012) (Revised: 14 November 2012)4 Wellman Lane, WarwickProposed Internal Conversion to Create Fourth (4th) Dwelling Unit.Planner: Victoria CaroloRecommend approvalConditionsPlanning Permission - Building Permit - General - Garbage storageLandscaping - Proposed Outdoor Space - PrivateAmenity -2008 PlanParkingPembrokeP0311/12 FIDELITY INTERNATIONAL(Received: 6 Sep, 2012)42 Crow Lane, PembrokeProposed Septic Chamber Assembly and Disposal Borehole - Listed Building Site.Planner: Larry WilliamsRecommend approvalConditionsPlanning Permission - Building Permit - General - BoreholesDevonshireP0263/12 WELCH Mr. Walter(Received: 19 Jul, 2012) (Revised: 19 October 2012) (Addn Info: 29 October 2012)12 Chaingate Hill, DevonshireProposed 2 Storey Addition of Living Room and Storage on Lower and Master Bedroom Ensuite on Upper.Planner: Tamsyn DoranRecommend approvalConditionsPlanning Permission - Building Permit - General Design - Bermuda StoneWallExcavated Material -RemovalHighways - Run-off Disposal Landscaping - Protection ofExisting vegetationLandscaping - Proposed Outdoor Space - PrivateAmenity -2008 PlanParkingMeeting to be held on Wednesday, 14 November. Board minutes of 24 October 2012 and 31 October 2012 to be confirmed. Committee minutes of 9 November 2012 to be confirmed.Final Applications - Recommendation Approval.P0117/12 ROSEBUD TRUST (WILLLIAM COX)WATERFRONT PROPERTIESHawkins Island, WarwickProposed Retroactive Application for 2 Prefabricated Storage Huts.Planner: Victoria CaroloP0214/12 ROE, Mr./Mrs. W.19 Wilkinson Avenue, HamiltonProposed Additions to Existing - New Master Bedroom Ensuite, Living Room,Addition of Second (2nd) Dwelling Unit, and New Entrance from Wilkinson Avenue to Replace Existing.Planner: Tamsyn DoranWade, Mrs. Ianthia225 Middle Road, SouthamptonProposed Two Attached Floating Docks.P0100/12 Type: Final Decision: RefusePlanner: Tamsyn DoranDiscussion: The technical officer presented the application details to the Board.The Board was not satisfied that additional docks were required to serve the residential property given that one dock already existed.The Board was also satisfied that historical precedents should not influence the determination of the current proposal.The Board supported the technical officer’s recommendation and refused the application.The Board RESOLVED:To refuse the application, as received 23 March, 2012 with additional information received 6 July 2012 for the following reason(s):1. The proposal is contrary to Policies COA. 7 and 9 in that the dock width and area both exceed requirments at 80 feet width and over 1000 square feet in area.2. The proposal does not comply with the Objective of the Coastal DevelopmentChapter (COA(2)) in that the physical and visual impact of the development has not been minimized as much as possible.Bean, Ms. Nelda5 Bridge View Lane, SandysProposed Reinforced Concrete Seawall (4’-0’’ to 12’-0’’ Max Height).P0156/12 Type: Final Decision: ApprovePlanner: Tamsyn DoranDiscussion: The technical officer presented the application to the Board with a recommendation of approval. One Board member questioned whether the 4 foot high wall would protect against erosion. Another Board member requested that a condition be added to ensure safety fencing be installed and that the finish of the wall would be more appropriate as a cement wash plaster finish.The technical officer confirmed that the wall was stamped by a registered engineer and had been reviewed by the Structures Section of the Ministry of Public Works and as such the height was considered to be appropriate. Further, the technical officer confirmed that the erosion which has occurred is a result of extreme, infrequent storm events and not day to day conditions. After infrequent events the applicant may have to replace some soil and grass which may be removed behind the wall during high extreme storm surge. It was also noted thatthe site is within a moderate erosion risk zone as classified under the Smith WarnerInternational Report as opposed to the South Shore which is in a high risk zone and as suchmay require taller structures. The technical officer confirmed a condition would be added todeal with the safety fencing and condition 4 would be adjusted to address the finish of the wall.Clarification was sought regarding whether the wall fell beyond the HWM given that the plansannotated “HWM + 2 feet”. This would determine if the proposed condition, relating to licensingwith the Estates Section, was required or not. The technical officer contacted the agent whoconfirmed in an email dated 31 October 2012 that the proposed sea wall projected beyond theHWM. As such, the condition which requires licensing from Estate is required to be added tothe approval. Following that clarification, the Board resolved to support the officerrecommendation.The Board RESOLVED:To approve the application, as received 3 May, 2012 and revised 11 October 2012 subject tothe following condition(s):1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 2 (two)years from the date of this permission.2. For the avoidance of doubt the consent hereby granted is for planning permissiononly. Prior to the commencement of building operations a separate application for abuilding permit must be made and approved.3. A Construction Methodology Plan containing details of staging and storage areas(outside of the Coastal Reserve) and mitigation measures relating to environmentalimpacts on the marine environment etc. shall be submitted to the Department ofPlanning for review and approval with the submission of a Building PermitApplication.4. In the interest of visual amenity, the hereby approved wall shall be faced with acement wash finish to match the surrounding shoreline, and completed prior to theissuance of a Certificate of Completion and Occupancy.5. In the interest of visual amenity, there shall be no deposition or storage of excavatedmaterial on site or within the Coastal Reserve zoning and all excess unusedmaterial shall be removed from the site during the course of building operations andprior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion and Occupancy.6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall reach an agreementwith the Ministry of Government Estates and Information Services regarding theleasing of the foreshore area where encroachments are proposed. Either a copy ofthe executed lease, or a letter from the Ministry of Government Estates andInformation Services outlining their agreement to lease, shall be provided with thesubmission of a building permit application.7. In order to safeguard the visual amenity of the coastal environment, no part of thehereby approved seawall shall exceed 4 feet in height ( along the shoreline) or 12feet in height (along the northern boundary) above the final grade level as shown onthe hereby approved plans.Page #38. For the avoidance of doubt the grade behind the wall shall be bermed at a slope nogreater than 1:3 which shall be planted out with grass prior to the issuance of aCertificate of Completion and Occupancy Permit.9. All Buttonwood shall be retained in place or, relocated within the Coastal Reservezoning, if impacted by the construction of the seawall, prior to the issuance of aCertificate of Completion and Occupancy. Any Buttonwood plants, which die orwhich become seriously damaged shall be replaced by Buttonwood and SeaOyede plants of similar size to those that originally existed.10.For the avoidance of doubt a safety barrier is required to be provided with thesubmission of a Building Permit application given that a 4 foot high seawall isproposed. The barrier fencing must be installed prior to the issuance of aCertificate of Completion and Occupancy Permit.Development Applications Committee AgendaAgenda Date: Friday, 16 November 2012Approved and refused applications are included on this report. Where appropriate, reference numbers are listed for anyStandard Conditions. “Other” indicates additional, non-standard conditions.Report Date: 16 November, 2012Applications are listed by parish, sorted west to east, with City of Hamilton & Corporation of St. George groupedseparately. Within each parish, applications are sorted by number.