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.

HC01/36 Carmine/Tregidga CARRIED

There were no matters arising.

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on 7 June 2001 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC01/37 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

There were no matters arising.

The applicants J&M van Duyvenbooden have applied to subdivide Lot 1 DPS 59856 (CT49A/145) located on the northern corner of Trig Road North and Heard Road, Waihi into three lots

A detailed report was attached.

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

Mr V Baker (Surveyor) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Baker advised that Mr van Duyvenbooden had passed away last week but the family wished to proceed with the subdivision application.

Mr Baker tabled an aerial photograph showing the property. He agreed with the information covered in the Planners report. It was recommended in the report that Lot 1 be approved as a lifestyle lot and the applicants would like the house separated from the bulk of the productive land on Lot 2. The house on Lot 3 had been used as a farm stay and was a large house and would be more saleable on a smaller piece of land. The effects on Lot 2 and 3 were minor in themselves but the question was whether this would set a precedent for other subdivisions in the future.

It was noted that Lot 2 was presently used for grazing purposes.

Mr Chaplin advised that he had some difficulty in dividing Lots 2 and 3. It was reasonable to assume that the house and buildings would be replicated on the other lot. The objectives and policies of the District Plan do not encourage this to happen. This was a small property now and the subdivision would make it smaller.

It was suggested that Lot 1 be allowed and Lots 2 and 3 remain together.

Mr Chaplin advised that it was important to note that under the proposed Plan Change people could apply to subdivide pieces of land like this as a discretionary activity.

Mr Baker commented that the applicant’s main objective was to subdivide Lot 1 off and their secondary desire was to subdivide Lot 3 also.

The hearing closed at 9.40 am.

The Committee advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 9.45 until 10.00 am.

After considering all the evidence the Committee decided:

RESOLVED

That pursuant to Section 105(2A) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council, in the matter of a non notified application for a non complying activity to subdivide Lot 1 DPS 59856, Trig Road North, Waihi, into three rural lots for J & M van Duyvenbooden

A. Grant consent to the creation of Lot 1 on ‘Plan of Proposed Subdivision of Lot 1 DPS 59856’, drawn by Vaughan D Baker, Ref. No. 3444, dated May 2001, on the grounds that

the effects of the subdivision are not more than minor, and the subdivision satisfies the objectives in the District Plan, Part II and Section 105(2A) of the Act; and

B. Refuse consent to the subdivision of Lots 2 & 3 on ‘Plan of Proposed Subdivision of Lot 1 DPS 59856’, drawn by Vaughan D Baker, Ref. No. 3444, dated May 2001, on the grounds that the subdivision is contrary to the objectives and policies in the District Plan and does not constitute sustainable management in terms of Part II of the Act.

Pursuant to Sections 108 & 220 of the Act the following conditions shall apply:

That the subdivision of Lot 1 and a balance lot shall proceed in general accordance with ‘Plan of Proposed Subdivision of Lot 1 DPS 59856’, drawn by Vaughan D Baker, Ref. No. 3444, dated May 2001 except that only two lots shall be created.

That separate power and telephone connections shall be provided to the boundary of Lot 1 hereon or that letters shall be supplied from the relevant supply authorities confirming that a connection is available at the standard charge

That a consent notice shall be registered against the Certificates of Title for Lots 1 & the balance lot pursuant to Section 221 of the Act stating that a maximum of one residential dwelling may be erected on each lot.

That the subdivider shall pay a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1,842.94 + GST to Council for the creation of one additional 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 $75.00 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.

HC01/38 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

Cr Gordon stood down from the Committee at this stage due to personal interest in the following hearing.

The applicants, A & S Gordon, have applied for consent to subdivide Section 17 Block XI Piako Survey District, South Road, Mangatarata, into two lots.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 10.15 am. The hearing commenced at 10.15 am.

Andrew and Sharon Gordon along with Bruce Gordon attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr A Gordon tabled a written submission. Mr Gordon advised that they were comfortable with the conditions of the consent except that they disputed condition 7, that a financial contribution of $16,380 plus GST be made to the upgrading of South Road in relation to 624 metres of road. This had been brought about by the AADT being recorded as 57 vehicle movements per day.

Mr Gordon outlined in the submission the reasons why the AADT was so high and offered a more accurate reflection of vehicle movements on South Road. He advised that the AADT at the gateway was 27 vehicle movements per day as detailed in the submission. A description of a peak usage week was given recommending 47 vm’s per day for the week of 16^th March 1999.

This was the only condition that the applicants were unhappy with.

Comment was made that the road had been upgraded a number of years ago. It had been widened enough for two cars to pass. The main farm access was on the first 40 metres just off State highway 27.

When asked what the potential for further subdivision on the road would be Mr A Gordon advised that there were two other properties on the road and he did not think that either had any intentions of subdividing.

The Roading Manger commented on the traffic counter. He advised that the traffic counter was a pivotal point to the whole issue and the validity of the counter should be checked then issues would become clearer.

Regarding future sealing of part of the road, this was not within the next 5 year time frame.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager asked for clarification regarding truck and trailer movements. The Roading Manager explained that the applicants had correctly interpreted the way the traffic counter worked and a truck and trailer movement should be taken as two traffic movements.

Mr Chaplin (Planner) commented that discussions regarding the traffic counts/counters indicated that the basic RAMM counts were not necessarily reliable for application in the District Plan. He strongly suspected that the AADT was less than 50 and therefore a contribution was not payable, but he did not know what the actual count was and did not know if there was any merit in doing another count. The traffic count had been taken very close to the intersection on the State highway and if it had been taken past the Gordon’s driveway (serving two houses) he thought the count would drop dramatically.

Cr Tregidga asked for clarification on what was required for the roading upgrade.

The District Engineer advised that a reasonable contribution was required but after hearing the discussion today this was questionable.

It needed to be determined whether there was any merit in undertaking another traffic count or calculations done to lessen the contribution.

Mr A Gordon advised of other traffic counts that had been carried out.

The Chairman advised that either a lesser contribution would be imposed or the decision delayed while another traffic count was taken.

The District Engineer and the Planning & Environmental Services Manager agreed that the AADT was a proven method of counting traffic movements that was used widely around the country.

The hearing closed at 10.55 am.

The Committee advised that Councils decision was reserved until it had considered all the evidence presented and all relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at 11.00 am until 11.10 am.

Cr Gordon rejoined the Committee at 11.10 am.

The applicant, Orokawa Farms Ltd, have applied to subdivide Lots 1 & 7 DPS 79167, Heard Road, Waihi, into three lots.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 11.00 am. The hearing commenced at 11.10 am.

Mr N Worker (applicant) and Mr T Davies (surveyor) attended the meeting for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Davies tabled a written submission outlining concerns with Condition 5 regarding the road upgrading condition. The applicant was not happy with this condition.

Mr Davies outlined the background of previous applications for subdivisions and contributions paid. A recommended amended condition was presented.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager clarified that the calculation used in each case in the past was for that particular application. The decision was made by the District Engineer at that stage.

Mr Worker commented that the contribution asked for had come as a surprise and he had budgeted on an amount similar to what had been requested for other subdivisions he had done on Heard Road. He agreed that some roading contribution should be paid but this was a substantial increase on what had been levied in the past. He noted that the demand for lifestyle subdivisions in the Hauraki area was expanding and suggested that the developers be involved in an exercise with Council regarding the situation of roading contributions.

Mr Chaplin thanked Mr Davies and Mr Worker for their comments. Relating to the equation, Council had not changed the formula, but was more rigorous in the calculation of the cost to upgrade the road – a complete upgrade, not just a seal coat. The result was a realistic estimate of the cost to upgrade the road to the required standard, but the question was to what extent the developer should have to contribute. He suggested some alternatives but a discussion on the engineering issues was necessary.

The Roading Manger advised that the cost of $40/m² was all inclusive.

The District Engineer commented that the problem was not with the numbers but how they were applied to the formula.

Mr Chaplin suggested some alternative options that could be considered.

The Planning & Environmental Services Manager commented that a decision on what was an appropriate formula was being worked on by staff at present. An interpretation of the formula needed to be used as a ‘stopgap’ that was fair and equitable until a formal plan change was made.

The hearing closed at 12.10 pm.

The Committee advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered all the evidence presented and all relevant matters.

The meeting adjourned at for lunch at 12.10 pm until 1.00 pm.

Attached was a report from the District Licencing Inspector regarding an application by the Waihi Rugby Football and Sports Club for the renewal of their licence with variation.

RESOLVED

As there are no objections to the application I recommend that the renewal be granted in the prescribed format with the hours as set out in condition (e) below.

CONDITIONS:

This licence is subject to the following conditions:

(a) The club must have a secretary at all times.

(b) Within 10 working days of the appointment of a new secretary, the club must inform the Secretary of the District Licensing Agency of the name of the new secretary.

(c) All proceeds from the sale of liquor belong to the club.

(d) The club must have available for consumption on the premises, at all times when the club is open for the sale of liquor, a reasonable range of non-alcoholic and low-alcohol refreshments.

(e) Liquor may be sold only on the following days and during the following hours:

Monday to Wednesday 10:00 am to 10:00 pm

Thursday 10:00 am to 12 midnight

Friday and Saturday 10:00 am to 1:00 am the following day

Sunday 12 noon to 8:00 pm

Food must be available for consumption on the premises as follows:

At all times when the premises are authorised to be open for the sale of liquor, food of a range and style similar to that shown on any menu submitted or a range of snack foods in the nature of pies, sandwiches, filled rolls, pizzas and the like, must be conveniently available for all members and their guests and the availability of those foodstuffs must be notified to them by appropriate notices throughout the premises.

(f) The licence must ensure that signs are prominently displayed within the licensed premises detailing information regarding alternative forms of transport from the premises.

(g) The licensee must implement and maintain the steps proposed in the application for the licence aimed at promoting the responsible consumption of liquor.

(h) The Club Committee must ensure that the provisions of the Act relating to the sale and supply of liquor to prohibited persons are observed.

HC01/39 Tregidga/Carmine CARRIED

The Hearings Committee debated the financial contribution (roading) requirements at length. The Committee stressed the need to amend the District Plan to introduce a ‘fair and reasonable’ requirement that is equitable. In the interim, the cost to upgrade roads should be based upon the cost to seal only – based upon $6.00/m².

After considering all the evidence the Committee decided:

RESOLVED

That pursuant to Section 105(2A) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council grants consent to a non notified non complying activity to subdivide Lots 1 & 7 DPS 79167, Heard Road, Waihi, into three lots for Orokawa Farms Limited.

Consent is granted on the following grounds:

a) The subdivision provides for lifestyle development on land with limited productive potential.

b) The subdivision has access to power, telephone and water supply.

c) Increased traffic on Heard Road is mitigated by a financial contribution toward the cost of upgrading the road.

d) The shape and dimensions of Lot 3 ensures a substantial separation distance between building sites on adjacent sites.

e) The proposal satisfies Section 105(2A) and Part II of the Act.

Pursuant to Sections 108 & 220 of the Act this consent is subject to the following conditions:

1. That the subdivision be carried out in general accordance with the ‘Plan of Proposed Subdivision of Lots 1 & 7 DPS 79167 Orokawa Farm Limited’, drawn by Trevor C Davies & Associates, Ref. No. 1076SP/1, dated April 2001.

2. That Lots 1 & 2 hereon be held in the same Certificate of Title. See B (to be advised).

3. That any necessary power, telephone, and water supply easements shall be granted or reserved.

4. That in the matter of DPS 56361 and pursuant to Section 243(f)(ii) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the existing water easement over Lot 2 DPS 87456 in favour of Lot 1 DPS 79167 created by document H.971284.2 and set out in the memorandum of easement on the said plan be cancelled.

5. That the subdivider shall pay $3,588.30 + GST to Council as a contribution towards the cost of upgrading Heard Road to the required standard as defined in the District Plan.

The contribution is based upon the following calculation:

Length of Heard Road from Trig Road to Lot 3 1329m

Required Width of Upgraded Carriageway 6m

Cost to seal coat $6/m²

Additional AADT 7 vehicle movements per day

Existing AADT (Estimated) over 1329m 86 vehicle movements per day

Contribution = (1329 x 6 x 6) x 7 / (7 + 86)

= 47 844 x 0.075

= $3,588.30

6. That the subdivider shall pay a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1,842.94 + GST to Council for the creation of one additional lot.

7. 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.

8. That pursuant to Section 36(1)(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the applicant shall pay an administration fee of $75.00 for administration of the consent.

9. 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.

HC01/40 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

Due to personal interest Cr Gordon with drew from the Committee and took no part in the discussions.

After discussion the Committee decided:

HC01/41 Carmine/Tregidga CARRIED

There were no late items.

The meeting closed at 1.30 pm.

CONFIRMED

J Tregidga

July 2001