On Tuesday, the St. Thomas Coastal Zone Management Committee approved more beachfront hotel rooms at Botany Bay, but only after insisting the buildings be set back at least 75 feet from the shoreline, a requirement imposed in an earlier permit condition that was never reflected on updated site plans.
In a 3–0 vote, the committee approved the eighth modification to the Botany Bay hotel permit, allowing second stories on three guest-room buildings near the shoreline at Estate Botany Bay. The change adds 12 hotel rooms.
Commissioners also voiced frustration that the Botany Bay plans keep changing and intensifying development close to the shoreline.
Michael Milne of Barefoot Design, speaking on behalf of the developers, said the extra rooms are meant to offset rising construction costs by stacking a second floor on buildings already approved, without changing the project’s footprint.
“It came down to construction costs,” Milne said. “The cost of the overall project has increased more than expected, and the common areas have cost a great deal of money. The way to recoup some of that money is to have more rooms.”
Much of the hearing focused on how close the buildings could sit to the shoreline.
Committee Chair Jawanza Hilaire reminded Milne that a previous CZM condition required the bedroom blocks to be set back at least 75 feet from the shoreline’s mean high‑water mark, but the plans before the committee still showed a 50‑foot setback line.
Hilaire warned that permit conditions mean little if contractors are still working from outdated drawings.
“I guarantee 100 percent of the time, [if] a contractor gets this, he’s building where he sees these, unless he’s notified,” Hilaire said. “That’s how something just goes right by, and then we totally forget about that condition.”
To address the issue, the committee added a new condition requiring revised plans and on‑site staking before construction can begin.
Assistant Director Gregory Richards said the site plan must be revised to show the 75‑foot setback “prior to any construction activity,” and the setback line must be physically marked on the property.
Milne agreed to have a surveyor stake the line and to submit updated drawings before construction begins.
Milne also emphasized that the design was not intended to expand the project’s footprint. “The intent was to add additional rooms without adding disruption to the site,” he said, noting that the second stories “don’t do any more damage to the site” because they do not change the buildings’ footprint.
Staff also recommended conditions requiring flood permits, stormwater and sediment controls, and restrictions on heavy equipment in natural drainage guts near the site.
Milne said only a small section of a parking area lies within a mapped flood zone, while the beachfront buildings themselves are outside the designated flood plain.
Near the end of the hearing, Hilaire noted that commissioners had repeatedly asked whether more changes would be needed as the project continued to be modified.
“This project has been going and, like stated, this is the eighth modification,” Hilaire said. “I want to make sure that we could get this project completed … hopefully there isn’t any other major changes or vision in what you guys are trying to do down there.”
Despite those concerns, Hilaire joined Commissioners Vance Pinney and Calford Martin in approving the modification with the added conditions.
