MEETING HELD THURSDAY 8 JULY 2004

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 8 July 2004 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC04/24 Carmine/Tregidga CARRIED

NOTICE UNDER SECTION 31(2) DOG CONTROL ACT 1996 DANGEROUS DOG

A hearing was scheduled for 9.05am. The hearing commenced at 9.10am.

&#A report from the Dog Control Officer, Mr Sexton was presented to the meeting providing background to an incident that occurred in June where Mr Newland’s dog had bitten a Mr Eastmure.

The incident demanded a dangerous dog classification which Council staff had issued. The classification was being objected to by Mr Newland. Mr Sexton had recommended to the Hearing the Mr Newland be heard in support of his objection.

Messrs Newland and Eastmure were present to speak on the matter. Staff tabled nine items of correspondence relating to the case.

The Chairman explained the procedure that the Hearing would take, and that the item of legislation in force was the Dog Control Act. The purpose of the Hearing was to consider whether or not the classification should be upheld.

&#Mr Newland gave a verbal explanation of how he believed the incident occurred and contended that he did not expect Mr Eastmure to follow him from the office out into the yard. Mr Newland told the meeting that he had placed a wooden pallet with a sign attached ‘Keep out – Dogs’ on the ground outside of the rear door to the office to warn customers not to venture into the area. The sign had been on site for about 10 years.

He kept his two dogs 24/7 on the property to help safeguard his equipment and stock. He believed his dog was defending the property rather than attacking Mr Eastmure. The property was not perimeter fenced hence the dog being kept on a ‘running wire’ and chain.

The dog had been in Mr Newland’s possession for approximately 8.5 years and had not been a cause of concern to anyone in that time.

Mr Eastmure to present his case, tabled a letter dated July 14, 2004, explaining his experience at the site on June 10, 2004. He questioned why the dog wasn’t fenced away from customers, he believed the current situation of securing of the dog allowed anyone, including children to come across the dog from anywhere on the premises and be attacked.

The Dog Control Officer believed that the existence of the ‘Keep out – Dogs’ sign was an admission of liability in respect to the presence of the dog. The only method of enforcing that the dog is properly contained behind a fence; was to enforce the classification of dangerous dog. The dog was only doing the job expected of it; protecting Mr Newland’s self and property. Mr Newland has been a good dog owner prior to the incident and to continue to be just that, the dog had to be contained. The Dog Control Act does not distinguish between residential and commercial property.

&#

In his right of reply, Mr Newland stated that he had not fenced the property because there had not been any previous reason for that, and to do so was an expensive matter.

Hearing members questioned Mr Newland about the possibility of containing the dog within a fenced enclosure of reasonable dimension, and if that was achievable then it was possible that the matter of the classification could be reconsidered.

Messrs Newland and Eastmure left the meeting.

The hearing closed at 9.50am.

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

DECISION

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the matter be held over until the next Hearings Committee meeting on August 19, 2004 and that the Supervisor of Council’s Environmental Services present a report outlining the options the committee can consider.

HC04/25 Tregidga/Carmine CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 9.55am

The meeting reconvened at 10.05am

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION OF CLAUSES 8 TO 10 OF THE SCHEDULE TO THE FENCING OF SWIMMINGS POOL ACT

An application has been received for an exemption from the requirement of clauses 8 to 10 of the schedule of the Fencing of Swimming Pool Act.

A detailed report from the Supervisor of the Environmental Services division was presented outlining the matter.

The hearing commenced at 10.05am.

Neither the applicants nor their representatives were in appearance.

The Supervisor Environmental Services explained that the Hearing Committee only could make the decision to provide the exemption. That apart from the two issues, all other requirements had been complied with.

The hearing closed at 10.10am

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

DECISION

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the request from Mr and Mrs Edlin seeking exemption from the requirement of clauses 8 to 10 of the schedule to the Act be granted on the grounds that it would be unreasonable and also impossible for the access to the pool from the house to comply with the Act. Clause 11 of the Schedule to the Act allows for this specific situation on condition that the doors are fitted with a lock that, when properly operated, prevents the door from being opened by children under 6 years of age. Allowing the exemption would not significantly increase danger to young children. The exemption is subject to the following conditions:

AND THAT all doors with access from the house into the pool area be fitted with a lock that when properly operated prevents the door from being readily opened by children under the age of 6 years.

AND THAT the doors with access from the house directly to the pool area be locked shut when the pool is not in use and under adult supervision.

HC04/26 Gordon/Hayden CARRIED

APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS J & J McINTYRE, 10 GILMOUR STREET WAIHI (38KB)

The applicant has applied to subdivide Section 69B Waihi of 713sqm into two lots.

A detailed report from the Consulting Planning Officer was presented for the committee’s consideration.

A hearing was scheduled for 10.05am. The hearing commenced at 10.18am

Mr Rogers of Peter Rogers Surveyors Ltd was present to represent the absent applicants, Mr & Mrs McIntyre. An updated surveyors report was tabled to support the application.

The procedural matters relating to the conduct of the hearing were read out, there were no witnesses other than Mr Rogers present.

A short video of the site was shown for members information. Mr Rogers pointed out that neighbouring car garages were located so as to necessitate vehicles to reverse out onto the road. In his address to the application, Mr Rogers stated he did not get the full detailed report from the Council engineers, however with what information he did get, he agreed with the Manager, Technical Services in respect to the concerns relating to the vehicular access as proposed in the application. To accommodate the concerns, a new scheme plan was submitted which endeavours to satisfy the concerns (No. 1418A). It was believed that the new scheme plan complies with the District Plan, in relation to access.

The site allowed for gravity aided outflow to the respective services in Gilmour St from the proposed Lot 1. Soil conditions on site appeared to be suitable and further tests did not seem to be required.

Reading from his updated report, Mr Rogers believed that the adjustments he had made to accommodate the concerns raised by the staff had been satisfied and that acceptance of those amendments would not detract from the level of amenity of the surrounding neighbourhood. The agreement of all (7) neighbours to the development had been obtained. The development was close to the town centre and this would appeal to the more elderly group of property purchasers.

In answer to questions put by the Committee, Mr Rogers responded that the existing dwelling, on what would be Lot 2, was currently being renovated. If the dwelling was to be replaced by a larger dwelling, then that would require an appropriate consent at the time.

In response to a suggestion that if the accessway was reduced to 3.0m which would allow the non complying lot to retain the area of land that would otherwise be lost to it if the accessway was kept at 3.5m, Mr Rogers agreed that the services could adequately be accommodated in the 200mm strip of unsealed accessway whether it be in the middle or to the side of the formed access strip.

Mr Rogers left the hearing.

The hearing closed at 11.30am.

In considering the application and the understandings reached during the Hearing, it was agreed that the extent of non compliance of the proposal should be kept to a minimum by narrowing the accessway, and that there was a need to have smaller lots within easy reach of the town centre for use by elderly residents. Approval of the proposal would not create a loss of amenity level within the immediate neighbourhood, agreement by the neighbours and proposed Lot 2 would retain some of the open character of the area.

It was considered that future applications for smaller lots would not be unduly influenced if consent was granted to this application as modified.

DECISION

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT pursuant to Section 94 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council approve consent to this non-notified, discretionary activity application to subdivide Sec 69B Waihi at 10 Gilmour Street, Waihi for the following reasons:

The applicant has obtained the written approval of all the adjoining property owners,

Due to the location of the existing dwelling within the front yard, Proposed Lot 2 can still retain a high level of open character and a reasonable level of amenity, and

The proposed subdivision will result in a complying development of Proposed Lot 1.

Subject to the following conditions:

THAT the subdivision shall be carried out generally in accordance with the amended plan titled "McIntyre Subdivision 10 Gilmour Street, Waihi, Section 69B Town of Waihi" prepared by Peter Rogers Surveyors Ltd, dated 19 July 2004 and amended report titled "Resource Consent Application – Hearing 19/07/04, 82.657.125, McIntyre Subdivision 10 Gilmour Street, Waihi" prepared by Peter Rogers Surveyors Ltd, dated 22 July 2004

AND THAT a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1,842.94 plus GST per lot be paid to Council for the creation of one additional lots (Waihi Ward).

AND THAT the vehicle crossing serving Lot 1 and Lot 2 be constructed in accordance with the Class E standards contained within Rule 9.3.3.3E of the Hauraki District Council District Plan.

AND THAT the proposed right of way to service Lot 1 and 2 is to be constructed to a legal width of 3.0m and formed to a width of 2.8m. The right of way is to be constructed and formed in all other respects in accordance with Part 3 of the Code of Practise for Urban Land Subdivision (NZS 4404:1981) contained within Rule 9.3.19.3 of the Hauraki District Council District Plan.

AND THAT the subdivider shall provide each lot with separate sewer connections in accordance with NZS 4404:1981 and performance standard 9.3.7 of the District Plan.

AND THAT the subdivider shall provide Lot 1 with a separate metered water connection in accordance with NZS 4404:1981. This connection is to be installed by the Hauraki District Council at the cost of the developer.

AND THAT separate stormwater connections be provided for each lot, in accordance with NZS4404:1981

AND THAT three copies of "as built" plans be submitted to Council upon completion of construction, showing the details required by NZS 4404:1981

AND 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 the commencement of any work.

AND THAT the subdivider shall provide Lot 1 with separate power and telephone connections, or written confirmation from the appropriate supply authorities that these are existing, or are available at the standard connection fee.

AND 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.

AND 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.

AND 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.

14) AND THAT access to Lots 1 and 2 shall be via a shared right of way, the following easement shall be created:

Purpose Shown Dom. Ten Serv. Ten

ROW A Lot 1 Lot 2

HC04/27 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

LAND USE CONSENT APPLICATION FOR TWO ENTRANCES TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT AN IHC HOUSE FOR IHC NEW ZEALAND AT 14 BUCHANAN ST PAEROA (25KB)

The applicant has applied for two entrances to be constructed at the IHC House for IHC New Zealand at 14 Buchanan Street Paeroa.

A detailed staff report was presented for consideration by the Committee, the applicant was not present to support the request.

A hearing was scheduled for 11.00am. The hearing commenced at 11.35am.

In the discussion on the application, it was agreed that the original vehicle crossing was in compliance with the District Plan but the second crossing was not. It was considered as compromising traffic safety particularly as it was sited within the circumference field of the intersection roundabout.

Knowledge of internal site development works indicated that the developers intended to allow vehicles to manoeuvre on site so as to exit in a forward direction. Generally, it was questioned why the additional vehicle crossing was necessary to the operation of the finished development.

The hearing closed at 11.43am.

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

DECISION

IHC NEW ZEALAND AT 14 BUCHANAN ST PAEROA

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT pursuant to Section 94 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council decline consent to this non-notified, discretionary activity application to create an additional access way at 14 Buchanan Street, Paeroa for the following reasons:

The proposed additional access point will compromise the objectives and policies of the District Plan for entrances in the 50 – 70 kph zones.

The proposed additional access point will compromise the integrity of the District Plan and affect public confidence in its consistent administration

The proposed additional access point will create a dangerous situation that could easily be avoided.

HC04/28 Carmine/Hayden CARRIED

The meeting closed at 11.45am

CONFIRMED

J P Tregidga

August 2004