Taliesin NV, on behalf of NLGY Development, continued rock drilling over the weekend and went beyond the legally permitted boundaries, while throwing debris over a retaining wall onto the neighbour's property.
PHILIPSBURG--Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure VROMI Patrice Gumbs, representing Party for Progress (PFP), must answer to the Ombudsman of St. Maarten regarding the construction of The West Vue, a luxury condo hotel in Cupecoy, which was approved under a residential permit. On March 4, the Ombudsman requested a response within one week, but no later than Tuesday, March 11, 2025.
On February 14, homeowners of Jordan Road 12 filed a complaint with the Ombudsman about ongoing preparations for the construction of a 56-metre-high building. This commercial development, located in an area zoned as residential under the 2013 draft zoning policy, is encroaching on their properties in violation of Article 22 of the Building Ordinance, which requires a 27-metre distance from all property borders.
The developers continue excavation work less than five metres from surrounding properties and have constructed large barracks to house foreign workers in front of residents’ two-storey apartment buildings, blocking vehicle access to their homes.
Gumbs was made aware of the homeowners’ precarious situation on October 15, 2024. Attorney Vivian Choennie of Fox and Associates sent Gumbs, who was appointed VROMI Minister on June 25, 2024, a letter via email and also hand-delivered a copy to the Government Administration Building, where it was officially stamped for receipt.
Choennie informed the minister: “Attached, you will find several pictures taken on Wednesday, October 9, 2024. You will notice a gate; this was the entrance for the owners residing at Jordan Road 12. These owners no longer have access to their property. […] Based on the deed, there is an easement in place, which the new owner [NLGY Development – Ed.] totally ignores.”
The attorney further pointed out to Gumbs that the homeowners have pressing questions, including:
1. How was a building permit granted for a 121-unit condo development without considering that a community of homeowners has an easement that is now blocked?
2. How can residents navigate the narrow pathways within the development?
3. In the event of an emergency, how would an ambulance or fire truck be able to pass?
Therefore, Choennie said, “The request to review the building permits and obtain copies of the building plans is urgent so that we can assist our clients with further legal procedures. We trust that we have informed you accordingly and look forward to scheduling an appointment at your earliest convenience, as construction activities are in full force.”
Despite the urgency, five weeks later the attorney was still waiting for a reply to her letter. On November 21, 2024, she reminded the Ministry – specifically Policy Advisor Timothy Baly – that “several reminders were sent by email, but up until today, no response has been received.”
On December 5, 2024, Chris Sargeant, Technical Administrator at the Permits Department of the Ministry of VROMI, proposed December 11, 2024, for the review of the requested drawings and apologised for the delayed response.
Gumbs met with the homeowners for the first time on March 4, 2025, two weeks after they contacted The Daily Herald, which led to the publication of the February 17, 2025, article: “Cupecoy residents protest high-rise condo hotel and related disruptions.”
In WhatsApp conversations with The Daily Herald, Gumbs said he needed to review the case. He later followed up, indicating that he had been informed that the residents had lost a court case against the developer.
With this statement, Gumbs was referring to a January 24, 2025, court hearing that resulted in a mutual agreement, recorded in a Proces-Verbaal, in which the developers agreed to remove a fence and a roof to allow homeowners access to their vehicles, which had been trapped next to their building. While there were no winners or losers in this case – there was no verdict – the developers maintain that the court ruled in their favour.
Asked by The Daily Herald for rebuttal regarding the homeowners’ complaints about the new development blocking their access and view, the newspaper received a message from NLGY Development co-owner Nkomo Lake, “After discussion with our legal counsel, and the manner by which this situation was thrown and presented even after a court verdict in which we were successful against those individuals and a signed verdict before a judge, we have declined to provide any response concerning this matter.”
The legal counsel referred to is attorney Richard Gibson Jr. of Gibson and Associates, a firm that represents the Government of St. Maarten as Landsadvocaat. Gibson Jr. chose to represent NLGY Development, a company that was established in Nevis on June 29, 2022, and was registered at the St. Maarten Chamber of Commerce and Industry on March 29, 2023, using the homeowners' address.
The January 25, 2025, court hearing was a case of Jordan Road 12 homeowners against NLGY Development, which was holding office at Jordan Road 12 without the homeowners’ permission and without the company physically having an office in one of the privately-owned apartments.
One of the documents submitted by the defendants was a letter sent to the homeowners on June 6, 2024, captioned “Dear Resident Owners”, informing them that the development project would start on June 7, 2024, and that they were no longer allowed to use their parking spots. Daily construction would commence from 7:00am to 5:00pm for a period of 36 months, the developer announced, saying that notifications would be made in advance if work would exceed the time frame mentioned.
However, the defendants' lawyer, Gibson Jr., asked the Court to impose a parking ban on the residents, not only for their usual parking spots but also on the public road, Tigris Road, “in the immediate vicinity of” the billboard with the image of The West Vue.
According to the attorney, as stated in his pleadings, “It is not in dispute that the defendant is legally in possession of a building permit to carry out the work.” The attorney did not mention that the permit in question is a residential permit – not allowing commercial development – for the former parking lot, while unauthorised excavation works are taking place outside of the 013/1968 residential permit-covered meetbrief, on four lots for which the Certificates of Admeasurement have not been published for public review.
In addition, the construction company, on behalf of the developers, has excavated a fifth parcel, with Certificate of Admeasurement 073/1981, for which it is unclear if a building permit or a civil works permit was issued. This parcel, which the developer plans to incorporate into the construction of an underground parking garage, is not authorised for any construction. Based on Article 7 of the Building and Dwelling Ordinance (“the Building Ordinance”), it is prohibited to erect a building without a building permit.
Contrary to the developers’ claims, the Proces-Verbaal issued by the Court outlines that NLGY had to allow the homeowners access to their cars by removing a fence and a roof, giving them the opportunity to drive out. The document further stated that the plaintiffs may use their rights of way until October 2025 via the temporary road [for pedestrians – Ed.]. By October 2025, the temporary road must be relocated by NLGY to restore vehicle access along the original right-of-way.
If servicing the residences’ septic tanks becomes unfeasible via the current road, both parties will seek a solution. Plaintiffs agreed not to park in front of the NLGY billboard. Both sides agreed to negotiate a broader resolution, including parking rights, as a best-effort obligation. Each party would cover its own legal costs, and the case would be struck from the docket.
While the new development, as stipulated by law, is required to maintain a 27-metre distance from the outer boundaries of the entire plot, the construction company, during excavation, encroached on neighbouring properties, leaving a distance of no more than five metres on one side while excavating up to a wall on the other side and throwing rocks onto and over the wall onto the neighbour's property. This newspaper sent a photograph as evidence to the VROMI Ministry.
