RESOLVED

THAT the apology of Cr B A Gordon be received and sustained.

HC06/05 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

There were no late items.

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 16 February 2006 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC06/06 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation from the periods lst January to 1^st February 2006 were submitted separately for the Committee’s information.

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters be received.

HC06/07 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED

NOTICE UNDER SECTION (55) DOG CONTROL ACT 1996

An appeal has been lodged.

A detailed report from the Dog Control Officer and supporting documents were presented.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.15am. The hearing commenced at 9.25am.

Mr Hazeldine (Complainant) was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing. Ms Ciann Brown (Appellant) was not in attendance.

The Chairperson addressed the letter received from Ms Brown in support of her evidence appealing the barking dog notice.

Mr Hazeldine stated that the identification of the dogs stated in the report was incorrect. He considered that the markings of the two dogs in question were not consistent with the physical description of Ms Brown’s dogs.

Mr Sexton stated that the description of the dogs markings recorded has been changed. It was explained that the predominant colour of the dog must be stated for the purposes of identification in the national database. The Council relies on the owner to decide what colour, markings and what breed the dog is. It is difficult to be completely decisive of what the breed and markings are. A declaration from the owner is required providing a true and correct record of the animals’ physical description.

Mr Hazeldine stated that he contacted Mr Sexton on two occasions by phone to complain about excessive noise coming from the dog owner’s property. Mr Hazeldine also referred the Committee to a diarised account of barking incidences he had recorded between January and February 2006.

Mr Hazeldine advised that he had notified the police of the barking dog and the threatening notes he has received from the dog owners in response to his complaints. He advised that Ms Brown’s dogs have stopped barking since receiving the notice from the Dog Control Officer.

The dog owner currently owns two registered dogs, one neutered female black Bull Terrier cross plus a black entire male Labrador cross.

Council has received a number of complaints regarding these dogs, being a total of six complaints dating back to February 2004. With regard to the barking dog situation, two complaints have been lodged with Council by the one complainant.

Mr Sexton stated that while he has responded to these barking dog complaints, he was unable to confirm persistent barking but has spoken to Ms Brown concerning the complaints.

It was advised that a notice under Section 55 of the Dog Control Act, 1996 was issued to Ms Brown as a result of two complaints. Mr Sexton advised that the dogs are generally residing outside the house and the owners are away from the property intermittently throughout the day. Ms Brown has advised that she would be agreeable to having one of her dogs euthanized if necessary as it suffers poor health.

The hearing closed at 9.45am.

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 the report be received

AND THAT the Appeal to the Notice under Section (55) Dog Control Act 1996 be rescinded due to the lack of evidence provided in support of the Complainant.

HC06/08 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

NON-NOTIFIED RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATIONS

APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CONSENT TO CREATE FIVE LIFESTYLE LOTS IN THE RURAL ZONE – HOMUNGA VALLEY LIMITED, NGATITANGATA ROAD, WAIHI (82.706.297) (76KB)

The Applicant proposes to subdivide the site at Ngatitangata Road, Waihi into five lifestyle lots.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing had been scheduled for 10.15am. The hearing commenced at 10.15am.

Mr Gavin Harris (Surveyor on behalf of applicants) and Mr Willem and Mrs Carla van der Veen (Applicants) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Harris provided a detailed description of the property, stating that it is a dry stock unit which was purchased by the van der Veen’s five years ago. It is not suitable for intensive farming so they have decided to develop the property into a tourist venture. They propose to subdivide their farm into five lifestyle blocks to assist in the financing of the proposed tourist lodge which is under construction and located beyond the ridge to the rear of the proposed additional lots.

Mr Harris advised that as the land is prone to erosion, the applicants propose to plant a substantial area in native bush to help reduce this problem.

The balance of the land after subdivision would still be used for farming purposes. The Committee was referred to the attached Land Use Capability Assessment undertaken by Mr Duncan Smeaton of Smeaton Agricultural Consultancy. Their investigations confirm that the predominant soil classification is Class VI through Lots 1-5, with some smaller areas of Class III and IV soils.

Mr Harris referred to rule 10.1.5.4.C (a) Discretionary Activity Assessment Criteria in a Rural Zone, stating that the subdivision complies within the assessment criteria required. He outlined the physical description of proposed Lots (1-5) and their proposed dwelling sites. He noted that the proposed dwelling site for Lot 1 had been changed due to feedback received from prospective buyers that they would prefer the dwelling site to be located north of the stream on that lot.

Mr Harris described the topography of the land and provided further details on the soil type of the land in question. He stated that Class VI and VII soils are located on the steeper areas of the farm

whereas Class 1-III soils for Lots 1-4 are located on the lower areas of the farm where they propose to subdivide. There is a mixture of the soil classes which does not allow for a reasonable area of land suitable for any farming operation. For the practical use of this land, he considered the size of the lots proposed is appropriate for lifestyle purposes only.

Mr Harris referred to the Geotechnical Engineering report provided by Mark T Mitchell Ltd which outlined the viability of the sites for rural-residential living. The report stated that "a building site is available or can be created on each of the subject sites provided the recommendations contained in the report are followed."

Mr Harris stated that the sites are suitable for wastewater disposal and that the wastewater design would follow the contour of the land.

The applicants agree that this development will affect the rural character of the area, they therefore propose to place covenants on the sites specifically for rural-residential use and not commercial, residential etc. They have proposed that the colour and design of homes be suited to the environment and that the bush area on the ridge above the lots is retained.

Mr Harris stated that at the time of the assessment, he felt no persons were adversely affected by the proposal but that neighbouring property owners had since given their written approval to the development (tabled plan with signatures).

The Applicants have considered the practical use of the land proposed for subdivision. They had considered scattering the lots throughout the valley but found that this would cause fragmentation of the land which is not their intention. The Applicants would also like to retain the cattle yards for their own use which are located beyond Lot 4 situated near the roadside of Ngatitangata Road.

Cr Bubb asked Mr van der Veen how much traffic does the road receive? Mr van der Veen stated that there are a number of tourist vehicles that use the road to access the walking track that follows the coastline to Orokawa Bay and Waihi Beach. As there are very few residents living along Ngatitangata road itself, there is generally minimal traffic flow.

Cr Carmine stated that she had a concern that the proposed dwelling sites are located in a ‘strip’ side by side which she considered would not be in keeping with the open rural character of the area and would create more of a ‘residential’ look about it. To address the affect the dwelling sites would have on the amenity value of the area, Cr Carmine suggested that the location of the proposed dwellings be reconsidered by the applicants. The applicants advised that they would be agreeable to reconsidering the sites proposed, though there is limited opportunity on the lots proposed. Screen planting could be carried out.

Ms Cockerell spoke to her report. She stated that the RMA rural development rules are specific to maintaining the open rural character and the amenity value of the rural land. The land is Class 3 which is very productive land and is unsuitable for small lots. Ms Cockerell raised a concern regarding Lot 5 in relation to road safety. The road is particularly narrow in places, sharp bends in the road conceals oncoming traffic from view and the road surface is substandard. It was advised that if there is to be an increase of traffic using the road, it may be necessary that the road be sealed. Council’s engineering section has recommended a contribution to the sealing of the road for reasons of safety be required.

Three main reasons for declining the application:

• Class 3 land
• Affect on open rural character
• Safety issues of roadway

Ms Cockerell added that there is a continuous line of Class 3 land which she considered suitable for some farming use and should not be fragmented.

As regards to the safety of the road, Ms Cockerell stated that if cumulative effects of the increased traffic flow on the road become significant, this can determine if a subdivision should be granted consent or not.

Mr Ormsby commented that due to the restrictions of a number of ‘tight’ bends apparent along one section of the roadway creating limited passing room for two way traffic; he considered the upgrading of this section of road would be difficult and expensive.

Mr van der Veen stated Council have improved the road some time ago which has made the sharp bends in the road safer. He stated that the road is classified as a rural road and commented that it is adequate for the use that it receives.

Mr Harris stated that the soil classifications alone should not determine the use of the land. Due to the steep contour of most of the land, it is not suitable for most types of farming.

Cr Carmine concluded that where there is a mixture of good and poor quality land and a lack of continuous flat land, the practical use of the land needs to be fully considered.

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 the report be received

AND THAT pursuant to Section 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council grants consent to a non-notified discretionary activity application to subdivide Lot 2 DPS 84397, located at Ngatitangata Road, Waihi into three lifestyle lots, on the grounds that:

• The proposed subdivision will not adversely affect the productive capacity of the land, as the small pockets of Class III land within the proposed lifestyle lots is already fragmented by pockets of Class IV land and is prone to wetness
• The proposed subdivision will provide a rural lifestyle development for the community without compromising the open space character of the rural locality and preserving the amenity this openness provides, and
• The proposal will have no more than minor adverse effects on the environment.

Subject to the following conditions:

9. 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.

10. That three copies of "as built" plans be submitted to Council upon completion of construction, showing the details required by NZS 4404:2004. 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, levels are to be in terms of Tararu Datum.

11. 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.
    

12. 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.

13. 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.

1. Any works undertaken in the road reserve, including construction of vehicle entrances, will require a street opening permit and traffic management plan shall be submitted for approval before work commences. Any enquires regarding this procedure may be directed to Janet Tee at the Paeroa Offices, TEL 07-8628609
2. A potable water supply is to be provided for all lots. It is to comply with the Ministry of Health Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand, Hauraki District Council and NZS 4404:2004 requirements.
3. The vehicle entrance serving Lot 5 is to be constructed to a Class C (Standard Residential Vehicle Entrance) as is specified in 9.3.3.3 of the Hauraki District Plan. This is to be done at the time of building consent.
4. 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.

HC06/09 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

The meeting closed at 11.30am.

CONFIRMED

D C Carmine

April 2006