.gif){kind=small}
(47KB)HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL
HEARINGS COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WILLIAM STREET, PAEROA ON THURSDAY 21 JULY 2005 COMMENCING AT 9.00AM AND THE RECONVENED HEARING OF THURSDAY 28 JULY 2005 COMMENCING AT 12.45PM
|
PRESENT |
Crs D M Carmine (Chairperson), B A Gordon and J M Bubb |
|
IN ATTENDANCE |
Mr M Buttimore (Planning & Environmental Services Manager), Miss M van Steenbergen (Supervising Officer - Consents), Ms J Shepherd (Consents Officer) Mr R Bierre (Supervising Officer - Monitoring), Mr M Sexton (Dog Control Officer) and Ms C Black (Council Secretary) |
APOLOGIES
There were no apologies.
LATE ITEMS
There were no late items.
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
MEETING HELD TUESDAY 3 MAY 2005
RESOLVED
THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Tuesday 3 May 2005 be taken as read and confirmed.
HC05/22 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED
APPLICATION FOR RESOURCE CONSENT UNDER SECTION 88(F) THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991
The applicant has proposed to carry out a boundary adjustment with the neighbour and to subdivide the site at State Highway 2, Waihi to create two lifestyle lots as follows:
Lot 1 has 1.0 ha and will obtain access over the Waitete Stream via Orchard Road.
Lot 2 has 1.18 ha with frontage to State Highway 2 via an existing access strip and bridge over the Waitete Stream.
The application also proposes to create two small lots, one to be transferred to the owner of Section 122 Blk XV Ohinemuri SD (Lot 3 has 2100m2) and one to be retained by that owner (Lot 4 has 1050m2). Proposed Lot 1 will contain the existing dwelling, home stay, part of the blueberry orchard and part of the hillside to the north-west. Proposed Lot 2 contains part of the blueberry orchard and has a house site on the hillside to the north-west. As the subdivision involves a boundary adjustment with the neighbouring property, the area of the existing titles will alter. The neighbour’s title will be slightly reduced by the new arrangement of the lots.
A detailed report and plan of the proposed subdivision from the Planning Consents Officer was attached.
A hearing had been scheduled for 9.15am. The hearing commenced at 9.15am.
RESOLVED
THAT the report be received.
HC05/23 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED
Mr and Mrs Muir (Applicants) and Mr Donald Sangster (Surveyor, Thames Environmental Consultancy) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.
Applicants
Mr Muir tabled a ‘personal statement’ from himself and his wife outlining their ownership of the property. He stated the land contour is mainly flat and has a mixture of uses, a blueberry orchard and a house and homestay. Their proposal is to subdivide the property into two lots. Mr Muir stated they wished to keep the lot with their present house on it, (being Lot 1 approx. 1ha) and sell the other land with the blueberry orchard on it (being Lot 2 approx 1.18ha) which would include a proposed house site on the steeper area of the lot. Mr Muir informed the members that they needed to reduce the size of their property due to the lack of viability of the blueberry business and difficulties in managing the property due to health problems.
Mr Sangster tabled a detailed report in support of the Muir’s application to subdivide. He considered that the proposal is a discretionary activity, stating that environmental effects will be minimal, and that the subdivision complies with all relevant objectives, policies and performance standards of the Hauraki Operative District Plan.
Mr Sangster stated that the Muirs have complied with the objectives outlined in the Resource Management Act relating to the social wellbeing of the community and the safeguarding of the soil resource by not altering the productivity of the land in any way or by causing any detrimental affects to the wellbeing of the neighbouring properties.
In relation to access to the property from the State Highway, Mr Sangster advised that consultation has been undertaken with Transit NZ regarding the accessways to the subdivision. Transit NZ has recommended that Lot 2 be allowed access to State Highway 2 subject to a covenant restricting the use of Lot 2 to a single dwelling house, and rural activities, but not including a homestay. Transit NZ have stated that the sight distances from the existing entrance are in not in compliance. Mr Sangster stated that the sight distances required are those in the District Plan not Transit NZ’s revised ones.
In relation to the responsibility of the Muir’s to construct a bridge over the Waitete Stream to create the accessway through to Orchard Road, Mr Muir was asked by a member what he envisaged the cost would be to construct a bridge and upgrade the road. Mr Muir stated that the estimated cost for the construction of a bridge and the upgrade of road would be around $100,000 which he agreed was his responsibility. He stated that the sale of the subdivided lot would cover these and other costs.
It was asked if the public could access the property on the legal road from State Highway 2. Mr Muir replied that it would not be a problem as the existing access was not a public road.
The members asked if the access road onto the proposed Lots 1 and 2 from State Highway 2 was suitable. Mr Sangster stated that the road from the State Highway could be used for access but due to safety reasons as outlined by Transit NZ, this was not the preferred option of access.
In conclusion, Mr Sangster stated that this subdivision does not compromise the productivity of the land by fragmentation and considered that the adverse effects of the activity on the environment are minor.
Staff Report
Ms Shepherd provided a summary of her report stating that the application has been assessed under the objectives of the District Plan. It was considered the way the subdivision is proposed does fragment the high quality land, therefore the productivity of the land will be reduced. This being a primary factor for consideration, it was recommended that the subdivision be declined.
Cr Carmine asked how the potential of the land would be reduced if the amount of land which is already productive, being the blueberry orchard, is not altered in any way.
Ms van Steenbergen responded that under the rules of the District Plan, fragmentation of land classified as 1-3, which this area of land is classified, reduces the practical possibilities and the likelihood of productive use.
The applicants have proposed to gain access to Lot 1 via Orchard Road which will require the road being further extended and a bridge being constructed across the Waitete Stream. This cost is expected to be met by the Muirs, not the Council.
The applicants have also been advised by Transit New Zealand that both Lots 1 and 2 should gain entry to the lots via the Orchard Road extension and that no entry should come from State Highway 2. Council does not consider Transit NZ to be an affected party in this case. The unformed road is proposed to be formed by the applicants to road standard to serve Lot 1 only. This will be at the applicants cost as it is not a road that Council has any plans to form.
Right of Reply
Mr Sangster stated that he considered that the issue of the public using the private road coming off State Highway 2 is not a problem as the road would not be recognized as a public road.
He considered the issue regarding the potential productivity of the land is unaffected as the subdivision would not alter the actual productive area of the property in any way.
Mr Muir considered that the land which is presently used for blueberries is not a viable operation due to the small size of the area of the orchard and due to the factors which have limited the sale of the fruit overseas, it had become unprofitable.
It was proposed that the Committee adjourn the hearing for deliberations on the application and to reconvene on Thursday, 28 July 2005 after the Council meeting for further consideration of staff recommendations and for a decision to be made.
The hearing adjourned at 10.30am.
THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 12.50PM ON THURSDAY, 28 JULY 2005
|
PRESENT |
Crs D M Carmine (Chairperson), B A Gordon and J M Bubb |
|
IN ATTENDANCE |
M Buttimore (Planning and Environmental Services Manager, M van Steenbergen (Supervisor Officer – Consents, Ms J Shepherd (Consents Officer) , Mr K Thompson (District Engineer - from 1.00pm – 1.10pm) and Ms C Black (Council Secretary) |
A report from the Consents Officer – Planning was tabled outlining proposed conditions for the Committees’ consideration.
The matter of the proposed bridge class was raised by Cr Gordon. Miss van Steenbergen advised that Class 1 had been recommended by the District Engineer.
The District Engineer attended the meeting to provide information pertaining to the classification of the bridge which is proposed at the subdivision. It was advised that the bridge, in question, would be Class 1 which relates to the loading or weight allowed on the bridge.
The Planning and Environmental Services Manager advised, as a condition of consent, the owner of the lot would have the responsibility of maintaining the bridge.
The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.
The hearing closed at 1.20pm.
DECISION
M. MUIR, 9137 STATE HIGHWAY 2, WAIHI (82.902.203)
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 non-notified discretionary activity application to subdivide Sections 106 & 125 Block XV Ohinemuri SD and Lot 3 DPS 85472, located at 9137 State Highway 2, Waihi into two lifestyle lots and two small lots to be amalgamated with Section 122 Blk XV Ohinemuri SD, on the grounds that:
The Class I – III land is able to be protected by way of a consent notice being placed on the title stating that any buildings are to be constructed on the Class IV – VI land;
The Class IV – VI land is suitable for lifestyle development;
The land directly across the stream to the east is zoned rural residential;
The Class I – III land is isolated by the stream and the contour at the rear of the site, from any other productive land.
The permitted baseline permits two dwellings to be constructed on the parent lot. Subdivision will not alter the number of dwellings permitted to be built, however the environmental outcome will be improved as the second dwelling will be restricted to the Class IV – VI land, which is not now the case.
Subject to the following conditions:
The subdivision shall be carried out generally in accordance with Thames Environmental Consultancy Scheme Plan ref. 318 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 the subdivider shall provide each lot 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.
That pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991 a consent notice be placed on the titles of Lots 1 and 2 stating that all buildings (other than those existing on Lot 1 as at 21 July 2005) shall be constructed on the Class IV – VI land.
That pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991 a consent notice be placed on the title of Lot 1 stating that Lot 1 may only have access to the lot via Orchard Road.
That pursuant to Section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991 a consent notice be placed on the title of Lot 1 stating that the owners of Lot 1 are to be responsible for the maintenance of Orchard Road, including the bridge, from the turning head existing at the end of the road as at 21 July 2005 to the vehicle entrance to Lot 1, in perpetuity.
That the existing right of way for Lot 1 over Lot 3 DPS 85475 to State Highway 2 is to be cancelled.
That Lot 2 hereon be held with Lot 3 DPS 85472 (balance CT SA67C/866) and that one Certificate of Title be issued in accordance therewith. See Request 444138.
That Lot 3 hereon be transferred to the owners of Section 122 Block XV Ohinemuri Survey District (balance CT SA34D/61) and the one Certificate of Title be issued to include both parcels. See Request 444138.
That Lot 4 hereon and Section 122 Block XV Ohinemuri Survey District (balance CT SA34D/61) be held in one Certificate of Title. See Request 444138.
That the subdivider shall construct a sealed Class C entrance, off the turning head at the end of Orchard Road, serving Lot 1. It is to be sealed back for a minimum of 8m.
That the subdivider shall form the access road to Lot 1, from the turning head in Orchard Road to the new proposed bridge, in accordance with section 9.3.17.3.B of HDC District Plan (new roads) for a local road as set out in NZS 4404: 2004. The road structure is to comply with section 3.3.3 of NZS 4404: 2004. However, the pavement width is to be 4m, may be left unsealed, but is to be provided with side drains. The proposed design is to be submitted to HDC for approval before construction may begin. The section of access on the far side of the bridge may be formed as an internal access, in accordance with 9.3.19.3 of the HDC District Plan.
That the subdivider shall construct a bridge to cross the Waitete Stream. The bridge shall be designed by a Registered Engineer to carry Class 1 loading traffic in accordance with standards approved by the District Engineer.
That Engineering drawings and specifications covering all engineering works shall be submitted to the District Engineer 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 4404:2004.
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.
Advice Notes:
A potable water supply is to be provided for both Lots. It is to comply with the Ministry of Health Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand, and with HDC and NZS 4404: 2004 requirements
Any work undertaken in the road reserve will require a street opening permit and traffic management plan be submitted for approval before work commences. A currently licenced STMS will be required to oversee the works.
As-built drawings of all works are to comply with NZS 4404: 2004, schedule 1D. All works are to be presented on a single plan by the applicant. Attention is drawn to the requirement for co-ordination of all utility surface features. All co-ordinates are to be presented in New Zealand Transverse Mercator Projection.
The Developer is to comply with the requirements of Waikato Regional Council for the construction of the proposed bridge.
The proposed bridge to Lot 1, if approved by the Waikato Regional Council, will require that a building consent be issued before construction may begin. It is to be designed by a suitably experienced and qualified chartered professional engineer. The design is to be submitted to HDC for approval.
That storm water on both Lots shall be contained within the Lots. Roof water is to be discharged either to approved soak holes, designed in accordance with the requirements of the NZ Building Code E1, or shall be piped to a natural watercourse.
The existing septic tank serving Lot 1 is to meet Environment Waikato and Hauraki District Council standards, in accordance with NZS 4404:2004. It is to be shown to be contained within the boundaries of the lot it serves.
Effluent from proposed Lot 2 is to be disposed of by septic tank. This is to meet Environment Waikato standards and is to be designed and installed at the time of building consent.
HC05/24 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED
NOTICE UNDER SECTION 33(C) DOG CONTROL ACT 1996 MENACING DOG
On 7 April 2005 a notice under Section 33(c) of the Dog Control Act 1996 was served on Mr B Taituha of 13 Arapito Street, Ngatea.
An appeal has been lodged.
Attached was a detailed report from the Dog Control Officer.
A hearing had been scheduled for 10.30am. The hearing commenced at 10.45am.
Mr Taituha (objector/dog owner) and Ms Julie Gibson (property owner) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.
Dog Owner
Mr Taituha stated his case as to why he considered his dog, a black male Labrador named "Boof" should not be classified as menacing. He provided the background of an earlier complaint which resulted from an incident which had occurred on 26 March 2004 in which a meter reader from Genesis Energy was threatened by Boof while entering the property at 2a Darlington Street, Ngatea - Mr Taituha’s previous address. As a result of this complaint, Boof was classified as menacing while registered under the owner’s name at the time of Ms D Fisher.
This second complaint relates to an incident which occurred on 11 May 2005 at his current address 13 Arapito Street, Ngatea while he was in hospital. Mr Taitahu presented letters of support from neighbours to the character of his dog and stated that Boof is chained up and does not wander; neighbouring children do not feel threatened by the dog. Mr Taituha advised that the property is not fenced but the dog is on a long length of chain.
Ms Gibson stated that she was not at the Arapito Street property at the time of the incident. Mr Taitahu was in hospital at the time and she was visiting him on that day. Ms Gibson stated Boof barks a lot and runs to the boundary of the property but does not leave the property. Children who pass by the property from school have been told not to tease the dog. Ms Gibson stated that the dog was not on the chain at the time of the incident and that it was an oversight on her behalf that he was unrestrained on the day the incident occurred but stressed that Boof never leaves the property if he is unchained at any time.
Staff Report
Mr Sexton stated that Council received a complaint on the 11th of May 2005 that a black dog rushed out from the property, 13 Arapito Street, Ngatea and that the dog bailed up the complainant and her child.
Mr Sexton outlined the requirements under the new legislation pertaining to a menacing dog classification for the benefit of the members and the dog owners. He stressed that a complaint must be actioned by Council. Under the new amendments to the Act, it is not acceptable for a dog to be running free on the property, it must be under the owners’ direct control and the property must be fenced.
The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.
The hearing adjourned at 11.20am.
The hearing reconvened at 1.30pm.
DECISION
B. TAITUHA, 13 ARAPITO STREET, NGATEA
After considering all of the evidence the Committee:
RESOLVED
THAT as the Committee do not have any power to rescind the original classification, which still stands, this classification is not relevant.
HC05/24 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED
The meeting closed at 2.00pm
CONFIRMED
D M Carmine
Chairperson
August 2005