There were no apologies.

Pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Chairman called for late items to be accepted. There were none.

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on 20 April 2000 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC00/23 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on 4 May 2000 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC00/24 Tregidga/Gordon CARRIED

Cr Gordon withdrew from the hearing and took no part in the discussions.

On the 28^th April 2000 a notice of Classification of a Dangerous Dog under Section 31(2) of the Dog Control Act was served via registered post on Charles McClelland. The notice was served on the basis of sworn evidence received on the 27^th April 2000 from a Mrs Sarah Pauli attesting to the aggressive behaviour of Mr McClelland’s male, grey, Japanese Akita dog name "Tyer" on the 21^st April 2000.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 9.15 am. The hearing commenced at 9.20 am.

Mr C McClelland (Dog Owner), Mrs D McClelland (witness), Mr T Pauli (complainant) and Mrs S Conn (witness) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr McClelland (Dog Owner) tabled a written submission from G McClelland, D McClelland and S McClelland, outlining the incident. A submission from S McKenzie in support of the dog was also tabled.

Mr Pauli (complainant) tabled a written submission outlining the dog attack on his son Samuel and himself.

He stated that his report was late due him having been in England and he had only just returned.

Cr Tregidga clarified that Council’s job was to administer the Dog Control Act and to decide whether the dog should be classified as dangerous or not.

A sworn statement was tabled from Marge Crocker who was present at the time of the dog attack.

Mrs S Conn read her written submission as a witness to the dog attack. Her major concern was the safety of children and other patrons stopping at the Garden Kafe in Patetonga where the dog resides.

Mr Pauli commented that the fence was wide enough for a child to get their arm through, and it was his opinion that it should have been constructed in such a way that no-one could get through the fence to the dog.

Cr Tregidga asked if Mr Pauli had any idea why the dog may have attacked the child.

Mr Pauli did not think that there was any reason why the dog had attacked the child as he was only patting it.

Mr Sexton (Dog Control Officer) commented that in his discussions with Mrs McClelland, an allegation had been made that Mr Pauli had lifted the child over the fence and placed him on the child’s back and this was why the dog attacked the child. No sworn statement had been given stating this. This was the first complaint that had been received regarding the dog.

Mr McClelland commented that he acknowledged that the dog had bitten the arm of Mr Pauli, but he could not understand why the dog had suddenly acted in an aggressive manner. He had owned the dog for along time and knew it well.

Delwyn McClelland commented that she worked in the Kafe and was doing so at the time of the attack. She had heard the dog growl and wondered why. When she looked out she saw Mr Pauli pulling the child through the fence.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager advised what under the Dog Control Act, on the basis of sworn affidavits and evidence, Council was obliged to make a decision on whether the dog was dangerous or not.

He advised that in considering any objection the Committee should have regard to:

The evidence which formed the basis for the original classification

Any steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of any person

Any matters advanced in support of the objection

Any other relevant matters.

Cr Tregidga commented that these types of cases were coming before Council far too often and this was of concern.

The hearing closed at 9.50 am.

The Committee reserved its decision until consideration had been given to the evidence and all other relevant matters.

The applicants, GJ & LJ Steele have applied for subdivision consent to subdivide their rural property (legally described as Section 166 Block XVI Ohinemuri Survey District) into two lots – a non-complying lifestyle lot and a general lot.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 9.45 am. The hearing commenced at 9.50 am.

Mr Andrew Chaplin (Planning Consultant) and Mr Steele (applicant) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Chaplin tabled a written submission outlining the application.

In conclusion Mr Chaplin on behalf of Mr and Mrs Steele, asked that the Council consider the application favourably given that it was consistent with the Resource Management Act and the District Plan and the proposal had no adverse effect on the environment.

Mr Steele advised that the reason why they wanted the subdivision was so that he could sell the existing house and build a smaller one and develop the back portion of the farm. His intention was to carry on farming the land.

Miss Shanks clarified some of the points raised in Mr Chaplin’s report.

Miss Shanks advised that when considering this application she had looked at similar applications that had been dealt with in the past. However, she noted that each application needed to be considered on their own merit. Her main concern was the fragmentation of the Class II land at the front of the property.

Cr Tregidga commented that the application could not be looked at as a surplus house lot. Miss Shanks agreed that the applicant had not applied for a surplus house lot and she had not assessed the application as such.

Miss Shanks advised that the application had been looked at in regard to the subdivision rules, and the objectives and policies of the District Plan, particularly with regard to the fragmentation of the Class II land at the front of the property. The majority of the front portion of the land was Class II. With Class I-III land creation of a lifestyle lot was only provided for when the land was physically severed.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager outlined what the proposed new subdivision rules would be pertaining to this type of subdivision.

Cr Tregidga advised that when looking at these types of subdivisions some consistency was needed.

Mr Chaplin commented that the lot had no adverse effect and no significant fragmentation. It was not at odds with the objectives and policies of the District Plan.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager commented that regarding some previous applications there were differences in the type of land. He had concerns regarding the precedence effect. He supported the staff report and appreciated the difficulties involved in assessing this application.

Cr Tregidga commented that it was important that a precedence was not set to be used on other applications in the future.

The hearing closed at 10.35 am.

The Committee reserved its decision until consideration had been given to the evidence and all other relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 10.35 am until 10.50 am.

The applicant, CP Stanley (Vaughan Baker on behalf of) had applied for subdivision consent to subdivide her rural property (legally described as Lot 2 DPS 33032) into two non-complying lifestyle lots.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 10.30 am. The hearing commenced at 10.50 am.

Mr G Stanley and Mrs C Stanley (applicants) and Mr V Baker (Surveyor) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

A written submission was tabled from Mr and Mrs Stanley in support of their application.

Mr Baker (surveyor) commented that the application was non complying as the minimum lot size for a general lot in the Rural zone is 4 hectares, and most of this part of Waikino had been subdivided into smaller blocks. He felt that to create lots of 2 hectare areas was a general conformity for this area.

Mr and Mrs Stanley advised that the existing property of approximately 5 hectares was too large for them to physically carry out the work necessary to establish an intensive passionfruit operation. Sale of the surplus land would generate the capital necessary to enable them to establish their business. The subdivision of the land would not change in any way the character of the area, as there were many small blocks located adjacent to the property.

Mr Baker advised that the proposed entrance to the property could be improved substantially by cutting back the bank to increase the visibility and the entranceway could also be built up to increase the site distance. If the entrance was undesirable and not acceptable the subdivision could be re-arranged to provide an adequate entranceway.

Cr Tregidga advised that the main issue was the subdividing of the land into two which would need to be addressed first and then the vehicle crossing could be considered second.

Mr Stanley advised that the land had been stagnant for some time and they now wanted to utilise it by creating a passionfruit operation. They would need to sell part of the land to finance the proposed operation.

Mr Stanley advised that the entranceway had not been developed into a proper entranceway but it could be developed into a better one. In his opinion, the entranceway that was currently being used by the existing dwelling was actually more dangerous.

Miss Shanks advised how the application did not comply with the subdivision rules for either lifestyle lots or general lots in the Rural zone, therefore, making the application a non complying one.

Clarification of the physical topography of the land and the productivity of the land were sought by Cr Tregidga.

Miss Shanks advised that the application had been assessed on how it had been submitted, and the applicant really had not provided any justification for creating the non complying lots. She stressed that it is not her role to provide justification of the proposal for the applicant.

Mr Whittaker (Manager Technical Services) outlined his concerns regarding the access way. The existing crossing was not suitable for any vehicle other than a 4 wheel drive vehicle due to its steepness. The problem was the inadequate sight distance. 195m to the northeast was the sight distance required to meet the District Plan requirements. Mr Whittaker did not think that this distance could be met.

Cr Tregidga advised that the main issue was the subdivision issue and if consent were granted then the upgrading and location of the entranceway would need to be addressed.

Mr Baker noted the differences with this land with land on the Plains, particularly, the topography and the existence of many small lots in the area and that it was up to the Committee to decide whether the land could be used productively if subdivided.

The hearing closed at 11.25 am.

The Committee reserved its decision until consideration had been given to the evidence and all other relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 11.25 am until 11.30 AM.

Cr Carmine left the hearing at 11.25am.

The applicants, C & T Wallace have applied for subdivision consent to subdivide their rural property (described as Lot 1 DPS 56151) into two lifestyle lots.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 11.00 am. The hearing commenced at 11.30 am.

Mr Wallace (applicant), Mr Sangster (Planning Consultant) and Mr Chaplin (Consulting Planner on behalf of the Hauraki District Council) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Sangster tabled a written submission outlining the application.

Cr Carmine attended the hearing at 11.40 am.

Mr Sangster advised that his client was satisfied with the recommendations in the Planners report.

Mr Whittaker (Manager Technical Services) advised that the District Engineer, the Councils Roading Asset Manager and himself did not agree with the allowance of a departure from the formation of the right of way.

Mr Chaplin advised that he did not think that the departure was a problem.

Mr Sangster advised that if there was difficulty with the formation it was more a private matter to be addressed by the owner.

Mr Wallace advised that he and his staff did not have any difficulty using the access at present.

Mr Chaplin advised that the right of way did not necessarily have to be the only entranceway to the lot, and that future owners could form an alternative access to the site.

The hearing closed at 11.50 am.

The Committee reserved its decision until consideration had been given to the evidence and all other relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 11.52am until 1.50 pm.

After deliberation the Committee decided that:

RESOLVED

That pursuant to Sections 104 & 105 of the Resource Management Act 1991 resource consent be granted to C & T Wallace to subdivide Lot 1 DPS 56151 Blk. IX Wharekawa Survey District, located at 495 Back Miranda Road, Waitakaruru, into two lifestyle lots as described in the application from Thames Environmental Consultancy dated 17 April 2000.

Consent is granted as:

the subdivision has no adverse effects on the environment;

subject to upgrading the existing driveway, the gradient is acceptable for use by two lots;

the subdivision satisfies the objectives and policies for rural subdivision in the Hauraki District Plan;

the subdivision is consistent with Part II of the Resource management Act 1991.

Except that, pursuant to Sections 108 & 220 of the Act the following conditions shall apply.

The subdivision shall proceed in general accordance with Plan Ref. Tec91 prepared by Thames Environmental Consultancy, dated March 2000;

2.0 That the following easement be created:

HC00/25 Gordon/Tregidga CARRIED

After considering all the evidence the Committee decided:

RESOLVED

THAT the Dangerous Dog Classification on the male, grey, Japenese Akita dog named "Tyer" be upheld.

HC00/ 26 Tregidga/Carmine CARRIED

Attached was a report from the District Licensing Inspector regarding an application for an On/Off Licence for the Criterion Hotel in Paeroa.

RESOLVED

THAT pursuant to Sections 34 of the Sale of Liquor Act 1991 an Off Licence in the prescribed format be granted to CH and GF Driessen with the following conditions. As per Section 40 of the Act any new licence granted would be for a duration of 1 year.

CONDITIONS

This licence is subject to the following conditions:

No liquor shall be sold on Good Friday, Easter Sunday or Christmas Day or before 1.00pm on ANZAC Day:

(b) Liquor may be sold or delivered only on the following days and during the following hours:

Monday to Saturday 7.30am to 1.00pm the following day Sunday 9am to 10pm (7.30am to 12.00 midnight on the Thursday before Good Friday, Easter Saturday, Christmas Eve and the day before ANZAC Day)

(c) Each of the following parts of the premises is designated as a supervised area: The public Bar, Lounge Bar and Casino Bar.

The licensee shall have in place and make available to all staff a host responsibility plan detailing the steps to be taken by the licensee to ensure a safe drinking environment.

The licensee shall ensure that the provisions of the Act relating to the sale and supply of liquor to prohibited persons are observed and shall display appropriate signs adjacent to every point of sale detailing the statutory restrictions on the supply of liquor to minors and the complete prohibition on sales to intoxicated persons.

HC00/27 Tregidga/Carmine CARRIED

Attached was a report from the District Licensing Inspector regarding an application for an On/Off Licence for the Criterion Hotel in Paeroa.

HC00/28 Tregidga/Carmine CARRIED

Attached was an application by Marilyn Joy Annan of Whiritoa for the granting of a General Manager’s Certificate. Pursuant to Section 117 of the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act 1999 the Licensing Agency is duly authorised to consider and may grant such a certificate from 1 April 2000 if there is no opposition.

A detailed report was attached.

RESOLVED

THAT pursuant to Sections 121 and 122 of the Sale of Liquor Act 1991, that a General Managers Certificate be granted to Marilyn Joy Annan as per the following prescribed format.

Subject to the requirements of the Act relating to fees, and to the provisions of the Act relating to the suspension and cancellation of Manager’s Certificates, this certificate shall continue in force.

Until the close of the period of 1 year commencing with the date of its issue; or

If an application for the renewal of the certificate is duly made, until the application is determined; or

If the certificate is renewed, until the close of the period for which it is renewed.

HC00/29 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 1.30 pm to undertake a site visit to the Steele and Stanley properties.

THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 11.30 AM ON THURSDAY 15 JUNE 2000.

After undertaking a site visit the Committee decided that:

RESOLVED

That pursuant to Section 105 of the Resource Management Act, Council grant consent to this non notified non complying activity application to subdivide Section 166 Block XVI Ohinemuri Survey District, located at 569 Trig Road, Waihi, into two rural lots.

Subject to the following proviso:

That Lot 1 be increased in size to contain all the area which is physically severed by the drain which crosses Section 166 Block XVI Ohinemuri Survey District as shown on the attached plan (81.757836 Steele Subdivision – Plan showing increased size of Lot 1)

For the following reason:

Lot 1 (increased in size to encompass all of the land that is physically severed from the balance of the farm by the stream) will be approximately 2 hectares in area (the minimum for a "productive" lot) and will be logically defined by physical features to provide the most practicable boundary for both lots.

And subject to the following conditions:

That a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1842.94 plus GST be paid to Council for the creation of one additional lot (Waihi Ward).

That the subdivider shall provide separate telephone connections for Lots 1 and 2 or written confirmation from the appropriate supply authority that these are available at no extra cost.

That appropriate easements be placed over any service which crosses one lot to serve another lot.

That pursuant to Section 36(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Applicant shall pay Council charges for receiving, processing and granting the Resource Consent.

That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay an administration fee of $60.00 for administration of the consent.

That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay all Council’s costs for monitoring this consent including all costs associated with the consideration and certification of plans and details associated with the consent as appropriate.

Advisory Notes:

That the existing vehicle entrance serving the dwelling on Lot 1 should be upgraded to a Class C (standard rural residential vehicle entrance) as specified in section 9.3.3 of the District Plan. This can be enforced by the Council’s District Engineer under the Council’s Roads and Road Traffic Bylaw 1992.

That the existing vehicle entrance serving the dairy shed on Lot 2 should be upgraded to a Class A (standard rural heavy vehicle entrance) as specified in section 9.3.3 of the District Plan. This can be enforced by the Council’s District Engineer under the Council’s Roads and Road Traffic Bylaw 1992.

REASONS FOR CONDITIONS

Condition 1 is imposed in accordance with Section 10.2.11 (Community Recreation Facilities) of the District Plan.

Condition 2 is imposed to ensure compliance with Section 9.3.11 (Telecommunications and Power).

Condition 3 is imposed to ensure that each of the lots will have access to services for use, maintenance and repair purposes.

Conditions 4-6 are imposed as a matter on Council policy.

HC00/30 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

After undertaking a site visit the Committee decided that:

RESOLVED

That pursuant to Section 105 of the Resource Management Act, Council grant approval in principle to the subdivision of Lot 2 DPS 33032, located at 45B Pukekauri Road, Waihi, into two approximately equally sized rural lots.

Subject to an amended plan being submitted which provides for vehicle access to the eastern most lot from the optimal access point (adjacent to the western boundary of the property) and which satisfies the other assessment criteria of the District Plan including the criteria for the location of the boundaries (Section 10.1.5.4.B(p) – General Assessment Criteria).

A final decision (including conditions of consent) will be made after consideration of any amended plan submitted.

The following reasons are given for the approval of the subdivision in principle:

The surrounding land in the area contains many small lots. Therefore, the subdivision of this land into two small lots (approximately 2 hectares) will not affect the existing character of the area.

The two lots will be large enough to be utilised in a productive manner if the present or future owners of the land choose to do so, as they will be approximately 2 hectares in area (the minimum area for a "productive" lot on Class I-III land).

The proposed crossing place for Lot 2 has unsatisfactory sight distances and is located on the intersection between Pukekauri Road, and Hollis Road. The subdivision will need to be redesigned so as each of the lots can utilise the existing vehicle crossing to the south east of the property which has better sight distances.

HC00/31 Tregidga/Carmine CARRIED

The meeting closed at 11.46 am.

CONFIRMED

J Tregidga

July 2000