There were no apologies.

There were no late items.

MEETING HELD THURSDAY 17 JUNE 2004

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 17 June 2004 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC04/21 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE A RURAL ZONED PROPERTY INTO FIVE RURAL LOTS H M STANFIELD, 639 STATE HIGHWAY 25, WAITAKARURU (81.925.687)(49KB)

The application has been received to subdivide the existing 4.59ha property into five rural lifestyle lots and one lot to be vested to Hauraki District Council for road.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.05am. The hearing commenced at 9.12am.

Mr B Miller (Surveyor) and Mr Stanfield (Owner) were present for the benefit of the hearing. A written submission from Mr D Sangster (Planner) was tabled.

Mr Miller spoke to the meeting in support of the application stating that the application was presented to the Hearings Committee on 16 June 1999 who resolved to grant approval to the subdivision on the basis that the proposal would have no more than minor adverse effects on the environment and met the objectives and policies for subdivision in the Rural zone.

Resource consent was granted approval on 6 July 1999 by the Hearings Committee. The survey plan was subsequently approved on 6 June 2000. The applicant did not complete compliance with the conditions imposed on the subdivision consent within the three year time limit and the subdivision consent lapsed. The applicant now wishes to re-lodge the original application.

Mr Miller explained the reasons for the lapse of time since the original application was lodged. He outlined the background to the application stating that he agreed with the recommendations as outlined in the Planner’s Report with the exception of condition 3.2, be altered to add advice for potential purchasers of the future availability of the Waitakaruru Wastewater Treatment System.

The Chairman asked the owner for more details on the ponding problems on the land. Mr Stanfield advised that the banks of the canal have been raised to resolve the issue of flooding.

Councillor Gordon raised questions in relation to the wording of Conditions 5 and 13, seeking to have them reworded to clarify their intent.

In relation to Condition 16, the owner stated he wished for the control building to be left when the piggery is shut down. As proposed, all buildings are to be demolished or removed from the site. There was discussion on the discretion provided to the Manager in relation to this.

Ms van Steenbergen advised that the condition outlined in the recommendation states that all buildings need to be demolished or removed to the satisfaction of Council and a completion certificate would not be signed until this had happened i.e. before titles could be issued.

The owner stated he wished for the two smaller buildings alongside the Waitakaruru Stream to be left on the property if acceptable for future use within the subdivision.

The Chairman stated that Council would consider his request to keep these two smaller buildings on the property if they complied with the District Plan.

Ms Pillay spoke to the meeting outlining the conditions of the consent and recommendations to be considered. It was advised that this application is identical to the original application which was made by Mr Stanfield in 1999.

Ms van Steenbergen stated that she has spoken to the Utilities Engineer regarding the connection to the reticulation system and was advised that the new effluent disposal plant would be operational in the 2004/05 financial year.

It was requested that Condition 14 be deleted if the effluent disposal system is existing to connect to.

Mr Stanfield stated that the property would be connected to the Waitakaruru Sewerage Scheme.

In relation to Condition 16, Cllr Hayden asked why the removal of the buildings was necessary – because of the activity on the building itself.

Ms van Steenbergen stated that due to the poor condition of the main building on the property where the piggery operation is located, it should be removed, as well as the activity itself ceasing.

Members asked if the two smaller buildings could be retained for other purposes.

It was emphasised that the application is for a subdivision for lifestyle blocks and not for the purpose of business therefore the buildings should be demolished or removed.

It was asked what information was relayed to the surrounding properties which were surveyed. Mr Stanfield stated that he had informed the property owners that the piggery operation would be non operational in April of 2004 and stated that he has applied for a 3 year extension to the operation from that date. He advised that the property owners he had spoken with did not seem to have any objection to the continuing piggery operation.

Ms Pillay stated that the main building must be removed and the owner must apply to retain the two smaller buildings.

Ms van Steenbergen stated that the land classification is Class (II) which requires the land to be kept in larger lots and not to be subdivided into smaller lots, in accordance with Change 4 of the District Plan. She pointed out the features that distinguish this proposal from other proposals recently considered by the Council.

The hearing closed at 9.50am.

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

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

That pursuant to Section 104A of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council grant consent to this non-notified discretionary activity application to subdivide Sec 1 SO 58768 Secs 19 22 23 25 26 27 Blk X Wharekawa SD, located at 639 State Highway 25, Waitakaruru into five lots, on the grounds that:

The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the productive capacity of the land,

The proposed subdivision will provide a rural lifestyle development for the community

The proposed subdivision will allow the development of an already fragmented site, and

The proposal will have no more than minor adverse effects on the environment.

Subject to the following conditions:

The subdivision shall be carried out generally in accordance with the Surveyors report titled "Subdivision – HM Stansfield, SH 25, Waitakaruru" prepared by FW Millington Ltd, dated 15 March 2004 and the Consultant Planners report titled "Assessment of Compliance with the Operative District Plan, District Plan Change 4 and Assessment of Effects on the Environment", prepared by Thames Environmental Consultancy, dated 29 April 2004.

That a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1,935.86 plus GST per lot be paid to Council for the creation of two additional lots (Plains Ward).

That the consent holder shall provide land drainage outlets for Lots 1-5 to the Council Land Drainage System. Drains shall be constructed if needed and shall be in accordance with the requirements of Section 9.3.20 of the District Plan. These drains and sufficient land for drain maintenance purposes shall be covered by an easement. "Note: the roadside drain on SHWY 25 is not part of Councils Land Drainage System."

That a land drainage easement be created along the eastern boundary of Lot 1 and Lot 2, 11.4m wide in accordance with Section 9.3.20 of the District Plan in favour of the Hauraki District Council for the purposes of cleaning and depositing spoil from the council owned drain situated in the Canal West Road extension road reserve.

That an easement be created along the north-western boundaries of Lots 2, 3, 4 and northwestern and western boundaries of Lot 5, 15m wide (from the toe of the existing stopbank) in favour of the Hauraki District Council for the purposes of maintenance and construction of the council owned stopbank on the unformed Road alongside the Waitakaruru Stream.

That the subdivider shall provide separate telephone connections for Lots 1-5 or written confirmation from the appropriate supply authorities that these are available at no extra cost if these do not already exist.

That the subdivider shall provide separate power connections for Lots 1-5 or written confirmation from the appropriate supply authorities that these are available at no extra cost, if not already existing. Note: That if United Networks Ltd are to be the providers of the power service then the following work will be required to be undertaken by the applicant:

a. Install a three phase 400 volt underground cable beneath SH25 to a distribution box on the road boundary of Lots 4 and 5.

b. From this distribution box install a further 400 volt cable along the road berm to a distribution box on the boundary of Lots 3 and 4.

That a corner splay of 15m be provided on the corner of Canal West Road extension and State Highway 25.

That a right of way access be provided to serve Lot 1 over Lot 3 or vice versa to cover the joint access to these lots, and that an appropriate easement be placed over this right of way.

That the abovementioned right of way shall be constructed by the subdivider in accordance with the appropriate standard as specified in Section 9.3.19 of the District Plan. In this case, the appropriate standard is: Rural Zone Serving no more than 2 allotments <250m length

That the existing entrance to Lot 1 located on the Canal West Road extension frontage be permanently closed due to its unsafe standard. Note: That any future access to Lot 1 from the Canal West Road Extension frontage shall be for the purpose of access to Canal West Road Extension and not to the State Highway.

That the subdivider provide a joint Class B (Standard Rural Vehicle Crossing) at the locations shown on the submitted scheme plan for Lots 1/3, and Lots 4/5.

All new dwellings, and new habitable buildings constructed within Lots 1-5 are to have a minimum floor level of 3.4 metres above mean sea level. Note, that this may be provided by way of a filled building platform.

That prospective purchasers be advised that they shall have to connect to the Waitakaruru Wastewater Treatment System once it is operational. Temporary on site effluent disposal systems will need to be in accordance with the requirements of the Waikato Regional Council's Proposed Regional Plan, and the requirements of the Hauraki District Council's District Plan. Engineer designed solutions are to be submitted for the approval of the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services.

That each of Lots 1-5 be restricted to one dwelling in total per lot.

That the piggery operation be permanently closed. All buildings utilized for the housing of pigs shall be demolished and/or removed. All other buildings shall also be demolished and/or removed unless prior approval has been obtained from the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services.

That Canal West Road Extension shall be raised to a minimum height of RL 2.9 amsl, to the satisfaction of the District Engineer. Engineering plans are to be submitted to the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services for approval.

That Engineering drawings and specifications covering all engineering works shall be submitted to the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services for consideration and approval prior to commencement of any work.

That three copies of "as built" plans shall be submitted to Council upon completion of construction showing the details as required by NZS 4404:1981.

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.

That the subdivider should provide Lots 1-5 with separate metered water connections located at the property boundary in accordance with NZS 4404:1981. The water meters are to be those specified by the District Engineer at the time of construction.

That any water pipes that cross from one proposed Lot to another proposed Lot are to be disabled to avoid cross connection.

That the peak summer usage of the public water supply shall not exceed 450 litres/ha/day.

Conditions 13, 14 and 15 are ongoing conditions under Section 221 of the Resource Management Act.

That the consent holder advise prospective purchasers of Lot 1 that the intent of Condition 16 is to ensure that the residential amenity of the lot is maintained and the any livestock farming or industrial activity is discouraged. Hauraki District Council does not wish to encourage the continuation of a non-residential operation which is incompatible with the residential lifestyle proposed for the surrounding lots. The requirement for the approval of the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services will ensure that the retention of one or more of the existing buildings is at the discretion of Council.

HC04/22 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

OBJECTION TO CONDITIONS OF SUBDIVISION CONSENT : MAGUIRE, 11 ADAMS STREET, WAIHI (82.602.106)(37KB)

The applicant has lodged an objection pursuant to section 357(1A) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) to the conditions imposed by Council in relation to the non notified application for subdivision consent at 11 Adams Street, Waihi.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 10.15am. The hearing commenced at 10.20am.

Mr P Rogers (Surveyor) was present for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Rogers presented a video of the property outlining the position of the property and pointed out features of relevance to the subdivision.

The sight distances from the proposed access and the speed limit of the street were clarified. He stated that the safety aspects comply with the conditions stated in the District Plan.

Mr Rogers proposed that there be separate entrances and driveways for each lot as this would reduce traffic restrictions to both property owners.

A further report was tabled in support of the application.

It was commented that the location of the proposed garage site was unsuitable due to the limited area that would be allowed for manoeuvring.

The Chairman commented that speed along the road could increase once kerb and channeling and associated road widening is constructed.

Mr Rogers advised that the backing out of the driveway is acceptable under the District Plan.

Ms van Steenbergen stated that the separate entrance way is not acceptable due to the decreased sight distance available, particularly from vehicles being backed onto the road. The combination of entrances and creation of rights of way is to be encouraged to minimize and more clearly define access points along a road and maximize availability of land for other uses.

Mr Bryant advised that if the garage was positioned in front of the house, there would not be ample room for turning, therefore vehicles would have to back out which would limit the sight distances onto the roadway and become unsafe.

A grass strip in the centre of concrete strips is unacceptable in the District Plan. The grass strip could cause foreign bodies to be washed out onto the roadways, due to the slope of the land.

It was commented that due to the two different levels of the land under the individual driveways, it would be unacceptable when kerb and channeling is to be constructed due to uneven ground levels. The power pole would have to be removed to allow for the extra driveway.

Mr Rogers stated that the driveway proposed would consist of two strips of concrete with a centre grass strip and advised that this was the most suitable type of driveway as the grass strip would absorb water therefore reducing the quantity of stormwater flowing out onto the street.

He stated that the proposed garage site is in the most appropriate position due to the access from the road and practicability on the property.

The hearing closed at 11.10am.

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

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT pursuant to section 357 of the Resource Management Act 1991, the objection by S. Maguire to the decision issued in respect of a non notified, subdivision consent to amend Condition 8 be dismissed in full. The decision remains, as issued.

HC04/23 Gordon/Hayden CARRIED

The meeting closed at 11.35am.

CONFIRMED

J P Tregidga

July 2004