There were no apologies.

There were no late items.

MEETING HELD THURSDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2005

HC05/04 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

Subdivision Application to create two rural lots S.k Brown, J.L Brown and O. Dunning, Heath Road, Waihi (82.665.165) (55KB)

The applicants have proposed to subdivide the site at Heath Road, Waihi into two lifestyle lots.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.15am. The hearing commenced at 9.30am.

Mr J L Brown (Applicant) and Mr P Rogers (Surveyor) were present for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Rogers tabled a report and spoke in support of the application by Mr Brown to subdivide his property into two lifestyle lots. He stated Mr J Brown purchased the land with the intent of living there as a lifestyle change. He did not buy the land for its productive nature. He bought the land for its close proximity to the township of Waihi and the tranquillity of the area as an ideal retirement location.

He outlined details of the application to subdivide the land into two lots stating that while it did not comply with all the rules of the District Plan, it did not compromise the objectives and policies of the District Plan. The reasons were outlined in the report. He considered that the classification of the land was incorrect due to the lack of productivity that could be gained from the land because of its small size and low lying nature. He believed that the lot sizes were larger than the lot size range provided for lifestyle blocks in a rural zone.

Mr Rogers presented a letter from Mr Andrew Honeyfield, a registered farm consultant who reported on an inspection carried out by him of the property for the purposes of classifying the land using the landuse capability classes developed by the National Water and Soil Conservation Organisation. Mr Honeyfield advised that only the free-draining, elevated and sloping land which was above the flood level should be classified as Class II land and not the entire area of the property. He commented that the land classification for some of the land was Class IV as the land has limited productivity potential due to the retention of water. He identified the low area at the southern end of the proposed Lot 2 which is the access strip and approximately 3000M2 as being Class IV.

He further stated that the land class of the floodable land would depend on the return interval of flooding. With the lack of reliable information about the frequency and duration of flooding he was unable to determine the land class for this area.

Mr Brown spoke in support of his application of the proposed Lot 2 and outlined the reasons why he had initially purchased the land. He wished to use the land for his bee keeping and honey supply business. Due to a change in family circumstances, he has now decided to subdivide the land into two lifestyle lots.

He stated that the flooding of the land is significant and substantially reduces the productivity of the land. There is small amount of productive land but the majority of the land is prone to flooding.

It was asked how much of the land is flood prone. Mr Rogers stated that approximately 50% of the land is prone to flooding. He explained the areas where flooding is apparent - referring to a plan and photographs of the property included in his report. It was clarified that only two of the photos were of the subject site, the other two being of a neighbour’s property. Mr Rogers also outlined two cases of subdivision consents from other districts where a similar situation had occurred.

It was asked where the water lay when the land does flood and does it affect the access to Lot 1. In response, Mr Brown stated that Lot 1 is generally unaffected by flooding to the higher ground level of the lot. If the land becomes inaccessible due to flooding, the property can be accessed by one of the paper roads located adjoining the property.

It was asked what the land is presently being used for. Mr Brown stated that presently a farmer grazes cattle on the property. It was asked if the land drains and dries out very quickly. In response, Mr Brown stated that the water drains away quickly though the ground can stay waterlogged for some time afterwards.

It was asked why the area is often wet. It was reported that a water source is located where the swamp land is situated in the lower lying section of the property which does not allow the water to drain away.

Cr Bubb asked how much stock is carried on the land. Mr Brown replied that approximately 20 cattle are grazed on the land at one time. The land is also used for the production of hay.

Ms van Steenbergen spoke to the Planner’s report. She advised that the application had been fully assessed and considered the application to be contrary to the anticipated environmental results and objectives and policies in the District Plan. Council wish to reduce fragmentation of the more productive land into small lots which reduces their potential for productive use and reduces the open rural character of the area which is required to be preserved. On these grounds, she recommended that consent should not be granted.

In view of Mr Honeyfield's report regarding the issue of flooding, a member asked if the classification of the land could be reviewed. In response, Ms van Steenbergen stated that the hearing should be adjourned to allow staff time to fully evaluate the additional information.

Mr Brown stated that he proposed to service the house sites with an appropriate water supply and would supply power to both sites.

Mr Rogers advised that the original plan for subdivision has not changed significantly.

The Chairperson adjourned the hearing at 10.00am and informed the participants that the hearing would reconvene at the site of the property at Heath Road, Waihi at 2.00pm.

The hearing reconvened at the site of the property at 2.20pm.

The Committee and staff walked around the property with Mr Brown where he explained the site plan of the proposed subdivision and the creation of Lots 1 and 2. He pointed out the areas which received significant flooding. Mr Rogers attended the site visit at 2.30pm.

The meeting adjourned at the site at 2.45pm.

In conclusion of the site visit, it was proposed that the hearing be reconvened on Monday, 14 March 2005 at 1.30pm for further consideration of the application.

HC05/05 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

SUBDIVISION APPLICATION TO CREATE TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS – V M & J M MORIARTY, 81 VICTORIA STREET, WAIKINO (82.763.169) (44KB)

The applicants have proposed to subdivide the site at 81 Victoria Street, Waikino into two residential lots.

A detailed report is attached.

A hearing has been scheduled for 10.15am. The hearing commenced at 10.20am.

Mr Vince Moriarty and Mrs Joan Moriarty (Applicants) and Mr Morris O’Neill Services (Surveyor) were present for the benefit of the hearing.

Cr Hayden was in attendance as a witness on behalf of the applicants.

Mr O’Neill presented the background and history of the Moriarty family and also gave an account of his professional background.

The property was purchased by the Moriarty’s in 2001. The family now wish to subdivide their 3.7955ha property into two lots, one of which they wish to reside on, being Lot 2, and the other being Lot 1 which they wish to sell to raise funds for the development of Lot 2.

Mr O’Neill gave an overhead projection presentation of the plan of the property which outlined the proximity of the house to the road. The staff report recommended that Council to take a portion of the corner (a corner splay) of the section to be used as road with the view to improving sight lines to an unformed road proposed to be an access road to the Waikino Reserve at the rear of the property (corner at south west corner of Lot 2).

He outlined the effects the bringing of the road closer to the house in the form of the taking of a corner splay would have on the family due to the traffic noise and privacy which would be lost. It was also expressed that it would create a safety issue that the house would be exposed to the possibility of a vehicle accident occurring in close proximity to their home and undermining of its foundations. The possibility that both Cadman Road and Bush Road would be formed in the future to provide access to the reserve at the rear was unclear.

He presented a summary of costs to his clients derived from all costs related to surveying of the area and administration of the application.

He explained alternative options to relieve the problem of the limited sight lines of the road, stating that there were no significant road safety issues apparent at the location due to the low density traffic flow.

Mrs Moriarty spoke briefly in support of Mr O’Neill’s presentation and stated that she considered the corner splay should not be taken to be used as road as there was no necessity due to the minimal vehicle use the road receives.

Cr Hayden spoke in support to the objection to the corner splay being taken. He considered that the condition to take the corner splay as road should be deleted due to the fact that the road has low traffic use and would encroach on the Moriarty’s home significantly.

Ms Quax spoke to her report. She stated that when assessing the application as a whole, no persons were considered to be adversely affected by the proposed subdivision, and, other than the proposal to provide no corner splays, that it complies with the District Plan rules.

Mr Bryant stated that the corner splay was requested as a requirement of any subdivision relating to sight lines as provided for in Performance Standard 9.3.The main reason for the take of land is to improve sight lines to ensure safety on the roads. Due to the safety implications, he considered that the bank located across the road in front of the property (being Lot 2) should be cut away to improve sight lines. He stated that the Roading Manager had stated that the Bush Street access would be developed to provide access to the Domain at some time in the future.

It was asked why the Roading Manager considers the Bush Street reserve is to be used as access to the reserve area.

He stated that the Roading Manager considered that the development of Bush Street was the logical access to the reserve.

In response to a question regarding road safety, Ms van Steenbergen advised that if the Committee believes traffic issues outweigh the needs and opinions of the property owners, and resulting reduction in front yard requirements, it could require the land to be vested notwithstanding the increased non-compliance of the dwelling.

Cr Gordon suggested that if Bush Street is to be formed, that this be done towards the Southern side of the road reserve, as far from the house as possible and eliminating the need for a corner splay.

Mr O’Neill stated that he considered that to widen and extend the road would require kerb and channeling and services to be provided as required in an urban area. Indications have been received from the residents of the community that they do not wish to see the area developed into an urban area with the services related to that type of development and therefore consider this proposal unwarranted.

In conclusion, Mr O’Neill stated that this corner splay taken for road would encroach on the Moriarty’s home and would devalue the property significantly. As the Moriarty’s wish to sell Lot 1 to assist in financing the development of Lot 2 for their own personal lifestyle, this would compromise their future plans considerably.

The hearing closed at 12.05am

The Chairperson proposed that the Committee and staff briefly visit the Moriarty’s property at the conclusion of the meeting to clarify the physical appearance of the roadway concerned.

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

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

That pursuant to Section 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council grant consent to this discretionary activity application to subdivide Section 64 Blk XIV Ohinemuri SD, located at 81 Victoria Street, Waikino into two lots, on the grounds that:

The proposed subdivision has no adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor;

The proposal is consistent with the intensity, form and character anticipated for the Residential Zone.

That no corner splay be required due to the unlikelihood of the road being formed in the near future, and that if it were formed, there is ample width in the 20m road reserve to allow for reasonable visibility without compromising the safety of vehicle users and would therefore remove the requirement for a corner splay.

Subject to the following conditions:

The subdivision shall be carried out generally in accordance with O’Neill Services Amended Scheme Plan ref. ONS 0222 MORIARTY_AMM1 dated November 2004.

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

That Lot 2 hereon and Sections 34, 45 and 48 and 54 Waikino Township and Sections 63 and 65 Block XIV Ohinemuri Survey District be held in one Certificate of Title.

See request 407476.

That the subdivider shall provide Lot 1 with a separate power connection.

That pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act the storm water from Lot 1 must be disposed of to soakholes designed by a suitably qualified engineer in accordance with E1 of the Building Code.

That the subdivider shall provide Lot 1 with a separate metered water connection in accordance with NZS 4404:2004. The water meter is to be 15mm Kent PSM meter and is to be placed on the road frontage just inside the road reserve, within 0.5m of the property/road reserve boundary.

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.

That three copies of "as built" plans be submitted to Council upon completion of construction, showing the details 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.

HC05/06 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

APPLICATION FOR OBJECTION – N CARTER, 21 BENNETT STREET, PAEROA (63.100.027) (11KB)

A detailed report was attached.

An appeal has been lodged.

A hearing was scheduled for 11.00am. The hearing commenced at 12.10pm.

Mr Carter (Applicant) was present for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Carter spoke in support of his objection to have his dog classified as Menacing. He provided the background of his dog Sheba, a 10 year old speyed female. He stated that his dog was in the care of Mr Damian Finn at the time of the attack who also resides at 21 Bennett Street, Paeroa. At the time of the incident Sheba was walking with Mr Finn but was not on a lead. Mr Finn has received an infringement notice for failure to keep a dog under control.

He outlined an attached letter which had been received from Ms Susie Prince (the Complainant) stating that she was a postie for NZ Post, and while undertaking her duties, was nipped by the dog belonging to Mr

Carter. In the letter Ms Prince stated that she may have given Sheba a fright which caused the dog to nip her, she therefore considered that it was unnecessary to classify the dog as menacing. Following the incident, her employer informed her that she must adhere to NZ Posts’ Health and Safety Policy by registering a complaint with Council of the incident.

Mr Sexton stated that the Postmaster contacted him to inform him of the incident. The complaint was made due to the health and safety policy as adopted by NZ Post.

He stated that he considered this menacing classification was justified due to the fact that Mr Finn was in breach of the Dog Control Bylaw as the dog was unleashed in a public place, therefore, Mr Carter’s dog would have to comply with the penalties related to the classification.

It was asked what relationship Mr Finn had to the applicant. In response, Mr Carter replied that Mr Finn was his partner’s son and had been requested to keep the dog on a lead when out in public. It was asked if Mr Finn had paid the fines relating to the infringement notice issued on 12 January 2005. Mr Carter stated that his stepson had not yet paid the fines but advised he would investigate further to ensure the fines were paid.

Mr Carter stated that he disagreed with the statement that his dog ‘attacked’ Ms Prince. He considered that his dog was frightened and reacted in fear and only caused a minor abrasion to Ms Prince’s body and did not actually bite her.

The hearing closed at 12.30pm.

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:

HC05/07 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

PLANNING INSTITUTE 2005 CONFERENCE (01.014.999) (11KB)

Attached was a report from the Planning and Environmental Services Manager inviting an elected member to represent the Hauraki District Council at the Planning Institute 2005 Conference which is to be held in Auckland from 27– 30 April.

HC05/08 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED

The meeting closed at 12.40pm.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

March 2005