11-storey redo of 7MB condos faces major backlash
(CNS): Dozens of condo owners in complexes next to Aqua Bay Club on Seven Mile Beach are objecting to a proposal by the owners there to redevelop the existing apartments into a glass tower, which the planning department has said is at least eleven storeys. The Department of Environment has also raised concerns about the project, which, if it goes ahead, will be the second high-rise re-development on Cayman’s disappearing famous beach.
According to the application by the Butler Development Group, the $60 million project will see the demolition of the 35-year-old condos and the construction of a single high-rise apartment block. But more than 40 owners neighbouring the site have sent objection letters to the Central Planning Authority, which is expected to hear the application today (Wednesday).
The project was first raised more than three years ago when the owners voted to redevelop following the implementation of amendments to the planning laws to allow taller buildings in certain zones.
But the aesthetics, size, density and traffic, as well as significant environmental concerns, have been raised by owners at Silver Sands and The Palms condos, who are objecting to the development. They say the glass tower will block out the sun and daylight from their properties, ruin their views, erode the beach and subject them to an increase in traffic noise and fumes. It will also disturb nesting turtles, a point supported by the experts at the DoE.
The Department of Planning has said that the current proposal is too high as it includes an underground parking garage and two rooftop structures that push the tower beyond the height limits. The plans also propose four more apartments than the size of the lot permits.
The neighbouring owners, who used what appears to be a template letter, all raise “strenuous” objections, saying the proposed project is out of character and inconsistent with their neighbourhood. The letters all urge the CPA to reject the proposal.
The DoE screened the project for an environmental impact assessment on behalf of the National Conservation Council but concluded one was not necessary, not because there are no detrimental environmental impacts but because the DoE has been able to determine the main problems. The department has drafted conditions which, under the conservation law, must be applied if the CPA approves the project.
The main environmental concern is the fact that the beach in front of the Aqua Bay Club is a critical turtle nesting habitat where the DoE has recorded a significant increase in the number of nests. While 2023 is proving to be a bumper season for this endangered species, its recovery is still in its infancy, and this project poses a catalogue of problems to the female turtles that are now returning each season as well as their hatchlings.
Lighting, noise, vibrations, erosion, dangerous equipment and many other issues could seriously impact progress in the conservation of turtles in this area of Seven Mile Beach throughout and after construction.
With more than ten storeys of glass frontage, installing turtle-friendly lighting on the grounds alone will not protect the baby turtles from disorientation because of the light that will come from inside the apartments. The DoE said this is now one of the biggest threats to turtles, undermining many years of work to bring turtles back from the brink of local extinction.
The DoE also warned that if this project is approved, other redevelopment projects would follow, which would increase activity on this area of the beach and compound beach erosion problems and disturbance of marine life.
The developers have defended their plans, saying the owners are dealing with constant repairs at the current ageing condos and a lack of amenities. They also claim that in order to make the project viable, it needs to create 38 units, as opposed to the maximum of 34 as currently allowed.
“The existing regulation related to density is imbalanced and prohibits the financial viability of redevelopment,” Butler executives said in their planning application.
Despite the catalogue of concerns by adjacent owners, the developers argue that their project will not be detrimental to the neighbourhood and that because of the redesign, the new swimming pool will be moved further back and create a deeper beach, increasing the space for turtles.
The issues listed by the planning department for the CPA to consider when it hears from the applicants this week are the objectors’ concerns, the number of apartments, the height of the building, and the need to “determine if there is adverse effect per Section 41(3) of the National Conservation Act”.
See the application by Butler Development on the CPA agenda in the CNS Library.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Local News
What a fantastic prospect, a brand new building for the owners at Aqua bay. Will be great for the value of their property too. As long as they keep the turtle lighting and don’t touch the beach then no real issue. Dont listen to the jelous naysayers!
Butler is trying for the Islands Club redevelopment too. Another LOCAL developer is snapping up IC units as fast as she can(offering twice what they were selling for) to sway the vote to allow development and has gone out on her own to solicit a proposal from Butler.
I hope everyone realizes now that dart is the best developer on the island. At least he try’s to put back cayman plants and hire as much caymanians as possible. These other folks only look out for themselves a friends.
Look around Camana Bay — any business — and count the Caymanians.
Get it now?
Isn’t that on the business owners of those establishments?
How about no more properties allowed on the beach? Build across the road from the beach.
Dear Gina and her team must be so tired of this bull crap over and over again. The greedy don’t care people won’t care about the turtles, heck they don’t care about the people around the soon to come monstrosity.
I sure hope this will not happen. They started this BS with LaCovia which should have never been approved (never mind Watercolours and Fin).
I realise that money is their god , but really after all these years if they are still gabbing and desperate for more that ” four more” would keep them the poverty line then I feel sorry for them. MORE IS NEVER ENOUGH! ,TRY TO ENJOY WHAT YOU HAVE. Think about the neighbors, suppose the shoe was on the other foot! This developer has been developing for about the last fifty years! Take a break mate!
Watercolours was completed in 2014. Maybe you mean Watermark?
From 3 stories to 11? How come?
You know why.
$$$
For the ministers kids who make sure it was approved.
The law allows that.. thanks Mac.
I don’t understand the objections. We need to build up not out. 29 stories would be a sensible limit.
CPA ram it thru as we need more development!
No we don’t . We need to let a little light shine through!
and see more than a glimpse of the sea…
Question are developers charged fees for increasing the land fill? To me, the general populace should not have to pay to up keep the land fill with debris that only a select few benefits.
A very important question that has not been asked enough since the pushing of 100,000 people on island. How is the dump handling all of these people? can they ?
Don’t forget water, roads, sewage, schools and yes, the dump. Wasn’t that agreement supposed to be signed in September🤔🤔🤔
I have a individual house bought it for 225K, now worth around 500K. Can I build a 10 story on it please.
If it is in the right zone
I’m afraid zoning here is almost a waste of time with the exception of perhaps industrial. Clearly there are some older properties that were built pre-zoning but in reality, the CPA approve whatever, wherever so don’t worry about zoning. Just send the nice bottle of red wine to the right person.
Change my zone to Rt zone as you increased the levels.
Start making donations to election funds and anything is possible.
“ “The existing regulation related to density is imbalanced and prohibits the financial viability of redevelopment,” Butler executives said in their planning application.”
That is the whole point of regulation!! To limit growth in line with the desires of the wider community, not just the few. Not all growth is good growth. We don’t want this. Stop it!!
They also claim that in order to make the project viable, it needs to create 38 units, as opposed to the maximum of 34 as currently allowed.
“The existing regulation related to density is imbalanced and prohibits the financial viability of redevelopment,” Butler executives said in their planning application.
The law is the law if 34 units is the number then that’s it. If the developer when he costs it out can’t make money with 34 then move on don’t say the laws wrong. If this application isn’t thrown out then the quiet end of SMB (Or is it three mile Beach) and the turtles are doomed. 😳😳😳
If it’s not financially viable within the existing rules, then it’s not financially viable.
Butler et Al is used to having our political misfits pander to their every whim. That is why we are where we are today with the Beach.
Cease snd desist Butler @ company your glory days are over you have made more than ten thousand caymanians will ever make in a dozen life times. Enough is most definitely enough. You are hereby being told .
Just a heads up. If you notice there are very few condos in older 3 story SMB buildings for sale. Each one of these complexes already has an offer from a developer to tear down and go 10 stories. They are all just waiting to see if Lacovia gets off the ground. Once that one goes another 10 will follow.
They will all topple like dominos at Sunsets bar on a Friday night. The greedy realtors must be just drooling at the prospects.
We own at Discovery Point Club and I can assure you we do not have an offer from a developer to tear down and rebuild. Lacovia will get off the ground and Aqua Bay will get approved. Not saying I want either to happen but CPA will approve Aqua Bay, maybe require a few changes but it will happen. And then others will follow…although I hope DPC will remain a quaint three story property but in the long run when the next hurricane comes through and causes major damage rebuilding will be the only option and all of these old properties won’t return as they are now.
I guess Lacovia must have known the right people to get three ten story towers
Consultant is a member
To be fair, the “consultant” you refer to is a decent professional who would , I am certain, recuse himself from conflicted situations.
Hahahahah
10 storeys is permitted in Law but no more
I’d be interesting knowing how far from the high water mark this building would have to be to comply with the planning law.
One of the reasons behind the rebuilding pleaded by the owners is that the poor construction of the current building was due to the rusting rebar mixed with sand from the sea was creating a structural problem. Lo and behold they then reemploy the same builder, Brian Butler.
I don’t know Brian Butler, but I doubt that he was the one loading the cement mixer. This is an issue that should be addressed by the Planning Department, same as they would if there was no steel at all.
The point is that we all know he’s going to build it on the cheap and move on to rip off the next set of gullible snowbirds.
I doubt if Butler would recognize a cement mixer if he saw one. The buck stops at the top my friend. Where was the QS and the employees?
You missed the point.
QS…?
You haven’t been here very long have you..?
If you have, then you’ll understand .
Only plus 40 years. What the heck do you know about it. Do you have anything constructive to say.
Yep. Strange logic.
Better the Devil you know aside, follow the Planning Regulations ffs
As a starter, the CPA should NOT ALLOW ANY DEVELOPMENT which does not meet the law and regulations..
If the planning laws and regulations are ignored, then why have a CPA/Planning board..?
The root of the problem is the decision to increase the height of the buildings. Which Government was that? It’s their legacy.
Thanks Mac.
I posted about this a couple years back, SMB will be the next S Beach. People have a couple choices, complain, biatch, and blame CIG, or or stand ground on the development of these projects. Make sure they are off the beach enough NOT to destroy it. Developers have the money and can pay their way to pave the project, nothing can be done about that. What can be done is making sure it’s done in a beach friendly way.
there is 84,000 people on this island. If they had spines i assure you 100% something can be done about it! Problem is people sit down and wait until after the ship has sailed, well when the last ship sails from cayman wont be anything left to cry over. The beaches will be gone, the environment will be gone and so will all the Cayman loving expats.
It’s a harsh but fair comment.
Those who can vote seem more content to sit around and feel sorry themselves rather than organise anything meaningful. And those who can vote seem to be content to back absolute clowns as long they get a new roof / car / microwave and then point fingers elsewhere for their woes.
Cayman gone.
You say that but who can we vote for who is against this? People voted for Panton thinking he was more environmental and would put a stop to runaway development. That is not the case. PACT is as bad if not worse than PPM. If every option to vote for is pro construction what can we do?
Also a fair comment.
Not one single person in Newlands voted for Panton because of his environmental stance.
and what is wrong with s beach?
if ppl wanted no development they would head to the brac…btw how is brac doing?
Brac property value has skyrocketed because people are moving there because they don’t enjoy the overdevelopment of Grand Cayman. Probably not the point you were hoping to make, I’d imagine.
Brac has a decent airport, infrastructure, hospital , supermarkets….and most importantly high and dry land safe from the forecasts of more intense storms .
Hopefully the Grand Cayman overdevelopment , and uncontrolled undesirable immigrant lessons have been learnt..
Let us pray that the authorities will have some vision to create a low density haven within the coveted Cayman Islands jurisdiction.
Sold..!
I’m moving.
The adjacent neighbors all own units that the average Caymanian will never be able to afford, and are upset that other wealthy people are coming to further gentrify the area.. the irony..
.. as if they feel like they laid their flag so no others can come disturb “their” beach ..
As a Caymanian, go on and build it. Fk it, go to 100 stories. Let’s sink the whole island. We have sold out grand Cayman by allowing gentrification by wealthy expats for PR points (with a ONE OFF property tax) while importing poverty that has decimated the standard of life for lower class Caymanians.
Meanwhile, the sister island’s economy is shit because we can only focus tourism on GCM.
And again, only we have the Caymanians who inherited dozens of acres and family wealth only to sell it out to blame.
Agreed, seems to me they’re all nimby’s
Thanks again McKeeva, the change in height limits along SMB is your enduring gift to Cayman.
One of his many gifts……
McKeeva himself is the gift that keeps on giving.
Like a lump of coal in our stockings every year.
“They also claim that in order to make the project viable, it needs to create 38 units, as opposed to the maximum of 34 as currently allowed.”
This tells you everything. You can bet they’ve had to factor in CIREBA commissions; developers multi million profits instead of a couple of million; etc, etc
Hopefully, just hopefully, this development gets crushed in Planning and it can be the flag bearer for the future reduction in utterly insane development in Cayman’s 7MB corridor (or is it really 3MB these days?)
I would bet my last dollar that this will be given the green light. The CPA are conflicted everywhere.
any one care to guess how this will end.
Aside from the proposed project, WHERE DEMOLITION DEBRIS WILL BE TAKEN? WHAT IS COST OF DISPOSITION OF THE DEBRIS? OR IT IS FREE?
At this point nothing can save Cayman from urbanization, other than Cat.5 direct hit. I don’t wish this to happen to anyone – we are still recovering from Ian in SWFL, I am just stating the fact that only Nature has the power to throw any village, town, city or an island back in times.
100% of these buildings gets trucked away and piled unsorted onto the landfill.
Not the landfill, the next closest empty lot.
Or Barkers
A lot of the bomb debris from London after WW2 was shipped and used as fill in Manhattan. The Island got bigger using the debris of the Luftwaffe’s handiwork.
Can be used as rough fill in low lying areas rather than quarry .
Why are developers also pushing for more than what is allowed?! It is insane that Butler can not make money from doing the 34 condos that is allowed, especially given the prices these are being sold at. Utter greed.
Butler has been in this game long enough to very well know the rules. CPA should not only reject applications that don’t conform to regulations, but sanction or banish proposers that are deliberately attempting to exploit due process and knowingly exceed limits. If developers and their agents risked collective banishment from making further applications for a period of time on violation, their submissions would look very different.
Has Butler (for ALL the years that he has been developing) ever done anything for the C.I. except build condos and make a BIG profit? NEVER heard of any scholarships, charitable contributions, etc. from this organization – HAVE YOU? It’s so SAD what WE are allowing to continue to happen on OUR LAND!!!
That is how the developer makes money. The developer has to give a new unit to the existing owners, so they need to recover the $60M build cost from sale of the additional units.
Then their business model is flawed.
An additional 38 units at an average price of $5m = $190m
Not bad for a guy who doesn’t know what a cement mixer looks like.
Your math is a little off, there are 22 existing units, so the developer has to replace those. At 34 units he gets to sell the additional 12 at say $5M for a total of $60M which is the build cost so that is why it is not viable at 34 units. Butler needs 38 because the additional 4 @5M is his buffer of $20M for profit to cover cost overruns, financing and any other issues. So if he makes $10M over 3 years it is Not a great return for the risk.
At ABC there are only 21 units, not 22. They do not have a #13, goes from #12 to #14