RESOLVED

THAT the apology of Cr D M Carmine be received and sustained.

HC06/10 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED

There are no late items.

MEETING HELD THURSDAY 23 MARCH 2006

Due to the absence of Cr Carmine the minutes of the meeting of 23 March 2006 could not be confirmed, therefore it was agreed that the minutes would be confirmed at the following hearing on 20 April 2006.

APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE ONE LIFESTYLE LOT AND A BALANCE RURAL LOT – B COTTER, 66 OLD ROTOKOHU ROAD, KARANGAHAKE (82.380.326)  (88KB)

The applicant proposes to subdivide the site at 66 Old Rotokohu Road, Karangahake into three lots.

A detailed report was attached.

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

Mr B Cotter (Applicant), Mr Morrie Dunwoodie and Ms Marilyn Dodds of Dunwoodie & Green, Surveyors were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

A number of documents were tabled for the consideration of the Committee:

• Letters from DOC to V Baker (Surveyor) dated 25 May 2000 and 15 December 2000 re Possible Exchange of Lands – DOC and B H Cotter, Karangahake
• Copy of Area Plan dated 30 March 2006
• Letter to Mr B Cotter from DOC dated 25 May 2000 re Proposed Exchange of Lands
• Letter to Mr V Baker dated 25 July 2001 re Survey – Exchange of Lands
• Letter to the Hauraki District Council dated 21 March 2002 re Subdivision Application – B H Cotter and the Department of Conservation

Ms Dodds tabled and presented her submission in support of the application.

Ms Dodds stated that she agreed with the Staff Planner’s report that this application is a Discretionary Activity because it does not meet all of the standards for the creation of lifestyle lots on Rural zoned land.

In relation the dwelling site on Lot 1, she stated that the slope of the site meets the standard required for normal domestic drainage purposes.

Ms Dodds advised that the applicant accepts that the access road to the subdivision needs to be upgraded and is in agreement that he may have to contribute to an upgrade if the subdivision is approved.

With regard to the issue of the title date, Ms Dodds disagreed with the planner’s interpretation of the rule and assessment. She stated that the rule provides for land with a title date before 26 September 2000 to be subdivided into a maximum of 5 lots. Mr Cotter’s previous subdivision that resulted in the current title being issued after the cut off date was set in motion well before the middle of 2000. Unfortunately, DOC took some time to process the transaction and achieve issue of the title of the land exchanged between the two parties. Resulting from the land exchange, Mr Cotter acquired a lifestyle block which was not part of his original title and he had to pay for all the transactions costs.

Ms Dodds stated that due to the extenuating circumstances involved as outlined, she considered the issue of the title date was ‘unique’ and warranted the specific consideration of the Committee.

Mr Cotter advised the Committee that he has swapped up to 40ha of his land containing bush with the Department of Conservation. He stated that he does not intend to cut into the native bush area he has left but to allow the native bush to flourish and added that he intends to plant out further areas in bush. He has no intention of building on the dwelling site shown on proposed Lot 1 himself.

Mr Cotter tabled photographs of the land in Lot 1 including the dwelling site and the access roads to Lot 1.

Mr Eccles spoke to his report.

With reference to the residential area issue raised by Ms Dodds, Mr Eccles stated that this could be dealt with by an appropriately designed effluent disposal system. As for the title date issue – he agreed that DOC took a long time to come through with the title for Mr Cotter involving the transfer of the land but added that he did not agree that this issue was ‘unique’.

The subdivision has now created an extra lot which was not included in the original subdivision.

The title date rule is intended to prevent title fragmentation after the specified date (September 2000) This date was applied because the level of development in the area had increased dramatically. If this subdivision was approved it compromises the effective administration of the District Plan.

In relation to the rule requiring subdivision to be off a sealed road, this can be mitigated by conditions of consent.

The issue of the title date was of concern. Where the circumstances are classed as ‘unique’ flexibility may be shown in evaluating the reasons why a title has not been issued by the title date. He considered this situation was not unique for reasons that sale and purchase and land swap negotiations can often be protracted.

Cr Gordon stated that he considered the progress of the issue of the title has caused a restriction to the development and commented that this was out of the control of the applicant.

Cr Gordon asked if the uniqueness of reasons resulting in the delay in the issuing of the title could be further considered.

Mr Eccles replied that the adjoining land owner (being DOC) is at fault but that has no bearing on this situation and does not warrant a ‘unique’ situation to be considered further.

The hearing reconvened at 9.56am

Ms Dodds stated that she considered that the title date rule referred to was unclear. She considered that this is a discretionary activity which Council should consider on its merits.

This is a not a non complying activity – it is discretionary activity, which should allow for some flexibility within the District Plan.

Mr Dunwoodie commented that the rule is not there to prevent subdivision, it is really to deal with the fact that once a person had applied for subdivision under the rule and created 5 lifestyle lots that the rule is there to control the creation of further lots or resubdivision of the lots. He also considered the title date rule is unique in this case.

The land was an exchange of land with DOC. The Crown has taken the land (10ha or so) from Mr Cotter. Mr Dunwoodie stated that he would like the Committee to consider the land on their site visit. He stated that this particular land in question it is very well suited for the creation of lifestyle blocks. He considered that the subdivision of the land would create no adverse affects on the existing landscape.

Mr Dunwoodie could not see how it would have a precedent effect on other applications for subdivision of lifestyle lots. Under the current rule, he considered that five lots should be allowed.

Mr Dunwoodie stated that DOC does take a considerable length of time to process applications regarding land issues. It was for this reason that the subdivision did not proceed at an earlier date, before 26 September 2000.

With respect to the building site, Mr Dunwoodie stated that the proposed dwelling site is suitable and there are sufficiently large areas to dispose of effluent.

Mr Dunwoodie advised that he was willing to provide any further additional information if required by the Committee.

Mr Cotter is willing to pay a contribution to the sealing of the upper part of Old Rotokohu Road as the number of road users has increased.

Cr Gordon asked Mr Dunwoodie to comment on the tabled correspondence from DOC dated 25 May 2000 regarding the ‘Possible Exchange of Lands’.

Mr Dunwoodie replied that DOC came through with a response finally in May 2000 as detailed in the tabled correspondence. He felt that the option of it being a discretionary activity should allow for further consideration of the application.

Cr Gordon asked Ms van Steenbergen for her comments on the title date issue.

Ms van Steenbergen explained the rule regarding the title date and stated that this subdivision fell within the date of 26 September 2000.

Cr Gordon asked if there are many of these types of applications coming to Council where new owners that previously subdivided before September 2000 would like to subdivide further. Ms van Steenbergen stated that the number of applications was small to date but that she could foresee increasing numbers of applications for subdivision similar to this one coming to Council as time elapses.

The hearing adjourned, for a site visit to be carried out, at 10.17am.

The hearing reconvened at the site on 10.50am.

The hearing closed at the site at 11.10am.

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

B COTTER, 66 OLD ROTOKOHU ROAD, KARANGAHAKE

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND 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 Lot 3 DP 316844 and Sec 10 and 19 Block I Aroha SD, located at 66 Old Rotokohu Road, Karangahake into three lots, for the following reasons:

• The proposed subdivision complies with the density standards for lifestyle lot subdivision on Class IV-VI soils in the Rural Zone;
• The proposed subdivision is not contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the Hauraki District Plan;
• The proposed subdivision will not create more than minor adverse effects on the environment. With regard to visual effects, while a new dwelling constructed on the building site on Lot 1 will be visible from some public and private viewpoints in the area, it will not create an adverse effect that is more than minor.
• Consent to the proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the integrity of the relevant Hauraki District Plan subdivision rule or public confidence in the consistent administration of the District Plan. The circumstances surrounding the title date of the site are unusual, and resulted from a land exchange with the Department of Conservation that created a public benefit.

6. Separate Power and Telephone connections are to be provided to the boundary of each lot in terms of the HDC District Plan section 9.3.11.3 and NZS 4404:2004.

7. That a consent notice pursuant to section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991 shall be registered against the Certificate of Title of Lot 1 stating that Lot 1 is to be served with an improved septic disposal system that meets Environment Waikato and Hauraki District Council standards, and is in accordance with NZS 4404:2004. The design is to be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced person and is to include all calculations, details of soil investigation etc and is to be submitted to HDC for approval at the time of building consent, and approval received, before any installation begins.

8. That ROW A shall be constructed by the subdivider in accordance with the appropriate standard as specified in Rule 9.3.19.3 of the District Plan. In this case the appropriate standard is that for a right of way less than 250 metres in length, serving 1-2 lots in the Rural zone.

9. That the subdivider shall form Old Rotokohu Rd to "half road" standard (being half the width of a new road with a minimum carriageway width of 3.0m) for a distance of approximately 190m from where access is required to Right-of-way ‘A’ serving Lot 1 back to the HDC water supply pump shed . All other aspects of the formation shall be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Hauraki District Plan and Part 3 of NZS 4404: 2004.

10. Full engineering plans and specifications (including back up calculations) for all engineering works shall be submitted to the District Engineer for consideration and approval PRIOR to the commencement of any work.

11. That three copies of "as built" plans be submitted to Council upon completion of construction, showing the details required by NZS 4404:2004

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

• Any work undertaken in the road reserve, including construction of vehicle entrances, will require a street opening permit and traffic management plan to be submitted for approval before work commences. Any enquiries regarding this procedure may be directed to Janet Tee at the Hauraki District Council Paeroa Office, tel 07-862 8609.

• Please note that your street address may change as a result of the subdivision of your property. You will be advised at a later date if this is to be the case. Hauraki District Council follows the Standard New Zealand regulation governing the numbering of all rural and urban properties. This is to ensure the effective and efficient delivery of services and amongst them, emergency services such as Fire, Ambulance and Police etc. Should you have any further queries regarding this matter, please contact the Hauraki District Council.

HC06/11 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

The meeting closed at 11.47am

CONFIRMED

B A Gordon

18 May 2006