RESOLVED

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

HC07/01 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

There were no late items

Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation from the period 1^st January 2007 were submitted separately for the Committee’s information.

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters be received.

HC07/02 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

MEETING HELD THURSDAY 14 DECEMBER 2006 and DELEGATED MATTERS FROM THE PERIOD 1^ST DECEMBER 2006

Due to the absence of the Chairperson, Cr D M Carmine it was agreed that the minutes of the meeting of 14 December 2006 and Delegated Matters from the period 1^st December 2006 could not be confirmed until the Cr Carmine was in attendance at the next meeting.

OBJECTION TO CONDITION OF SUBDIVISION CONSENT – P GRIFFITHS, 22 WAITETE ROAD, WAIHI (82.768.431)

On 7^th November 2006, consent was granted under delegated authority to an application by the consent holder to subdivide Lot 1 DP 360185 located at 22 Waitete Road, Waihi into two residential lots. The subdivision consent was granted subject to a range of conditions. The applicant has objected to the quantum of the financial contribution required by condition 3 of the subdivision consent.

A detailed report was attached.

The hearing commenced at 9.15am.

Mr Peter Rogers (Surveyor, Waihi Beach Surveyors Ltd) was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing. The Applicant was not present.

Mr Rogers presented a tabled report on the application which stated that his clients are not objecting to the urbanisation fee, as such, but the amount of the fee ($2,629.00 plus GST). He considered this contribution towards the cost of improving Waitete Road was excessive. He disputed the distance of Waitete Road that would be used by traffic traveling from the site to the main arterial road (SH2). Mr Rogers considered the more appropriate route would be via Toomey Street (being of a lesser distance) therefore the applicants do not agree with the actual measurement and the calculation of contribution for this reason. He suggested the proposed route used by Council (Orchard Road) is not a route that most road users would generally take when traveling into the town centre.

Mr Rogers presented a number of examples of other similar subdivisions that have attracted the urbanisation fee based on the length of street right up to the arterial road because it was the only or shortest route available.

Mr Eccles briefly outlined the issue the applicants have towards the capital contribution required by Council. He advised that Waitete Road is a minor local road as defined by NZS 4404:2004 and must be provided with kerbs and channels and be adequately drained unless Council approves of an alternative. The contribution from developers is requested for this purpose.

In reference to the route taken to the arterial road, Mr Eccles stated that the route proposed by Mr Rogers via Toomey Street was not the most practical route which vehicles would use to access the arterial road into the town centre and disputed Mr Rogers’s opinion that this route was more appropriate.

The applicant has not provided sufficient information in the objection to demonstrate that the portion of Waitete Road between Orchard Road and Toomey Street will not experience an increase in traffic as a result of the subdivision, nor that the interpretation of the rule should change from the current one.

Mr Rogers requested that the portion of Waitete Road from Toomey Street to Orchard Road be removed from the calculation, as the applicants did not believe Council’s proposed route was appropriate, commenting that there are multiple routes that can be used to reach the arterial road.

The hearing closed at 9.40am.

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 objection to Condition 3 be dismissed and the condition be retained unaltered.

Reasons:

a) The conditions were imposed in accordance with Rule 10.2.7.3(b) of the Hauraki District Plan that authorises the gathering of financial contributions for the upgrading of existing roads and streets in the Urban Zones of the District. There are no unusual or unique circumstances associated with the subdivision that warrants an exemption from the standard method of calculating the financial contribution.

b) The applicant has not provided sufficient information in the objection to demonstrate that the portion of Waitete Road between Orchard Road and Toomey Street will not experience an increase in traffic as a result of the subdivision, nor that the interpretation of the rule should change from the current one. Because of this, if Council was to be consistent with its decision making, upholding the objection would introduce uncertainty into the interpretation of the rule and thus create the potential for inconsistent administration of the District Plan.

HC07/03 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION CONSENT TO CREATE TWO INFILL RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE – D & P PAGE, 39 WHIRITOA BEACH ROAD, WHIRITOA (82.774.378)

The applicant proposes to subdivide the site to create one additional infill residential lot from the site at 39 Whiritoa Beach Road, Whiritoa.

A detailed report was attached.

The hearing commenced at 10.30am.

Mr and Mrs D and P Page (Applicants) and Mr Peter Rogers, Surveyor (on behalf of) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Rogers presented a tabled report on the application.

The subject site (Lot 2) is a vacant lot located in front of Lot 1 which is where the applicants presently reside. They wish to subdivide the front portion of their 817m2 section. A description of the subject site was presented which covered points addressing concerns raised by the consultant planner to the amenity trees, proposed house site, steepness of access, outdoor living court and non complying shape factor of the section.

The Pohutukawa trees located within proposed Lot 2 along the boundary create a nuisance to the neighbouring property so could see no issue with their removal.

House Site

The houses on Lot 1 and 2 will have a vertical separation i.e. will not be located directly in line of sight with each other.

Access to the Lot 1 and 2 is by a shared right of way. The access is presently formed but would need to be widened to comply with the position of the access leg. He could see no issue with the general steepness of the access. Due to excavation of the adjacent property for the multi-storey dwelling, the driveway has been offset from the boundary to avoid retaining.

Retaining has been carried out on Lot 1 to allow for a single garage and two on site parking areas.

Agreed that shape factor is of slight concern but stated that neighbouring properties of a similar shape have been subdivided without issue. He considered the shape of the lots would create only minor effects and were appropriate for their intended residential use.

A number of photographs were presented in the report of other subdivided properties situated on sloping sections similar to the applicant’s site in and outside of the Hauraki District. The photographs showed dwellings built on similar sloping sections as the subject site, of construction they considered suitable for their proposed subdivided section.

The Committee advised Mr Rogers that comparisons with other applications for subdivision granted in other districts are not relevant to this application. Each application must be dealt with on a case by case basis.

The Consultant Planner requested that a site visit be undertaken by the Committee to provide it with a clearer view of the subject site in consideration of the issues of its suitability for subdivision.

RESOLVED

THAT the Planner’s report be received

AND THAT the hearing be adjourned and reconvened on Thursday, 8 March 2007 at the Whiritoa Emergency Centre, Whiritoa and that a site visit of the property be undertaken prior to the hearing.

HC07/04 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED

The hearing adjourned at 11.25am.

On 15 January 2007 a notice under Section 33(A) of the Dog Control Act (1996) Menacing Dog was served on Ms Melissa Workman on the basis of sworn evidence received on 14 January 2007 attesting to the aggressive behaviour of her dog "Belle", a female American Bulldog.

A detailed report is attached.

A hearing commenced at 11.50am.

The Applicant and Complainant were not in attendance.

Mr Sexton presented Mr Adams report.

Mr Sexton advised that on 14 January 2007 a complaint was received that two dogs attacked another dog being exercised on a lead by its owner on Banks Street, Waihi. The dog on the lead was injured. The dogs were identified as coming from 11 Banks Street, Waihi.

Hauraki District Council Dog Ranger, Mr G Adams, attended the complaint on the day in question. On arrival at 11 Banks Street, Mr Adams reported that two dogs came out of the property barking and approached the vehicle on the street in an aggressive manner. Mr Adams went onto the property at Banks Street where the two dogs continued to be aggressive, requiring Mr Adams to use his baton and the door of the vehicle for protection. The owner of the dogs, Ms Melissa Workman, was not at home at the time. Eventually, an 11 year old boy came out of the house and restrained the dogs.

The attacking dog was a female, tan and white American Bulldog, named Belle. The other dog was a white and brindle Bulldog which also acted aggressively. Belle is currently registered and there has been a previous complaint lodged with Council in September 2006 concerning Belle for persistent barking.

Ms Workman has three dogs living on her property which is in breach of Council bylaws.

The hearing closed at 12.05pm

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 classification be upheld.

HC07/05 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED

Council has received a total of four complaints from different complainants, concerning dogs barking persistently at the property, 9 Dobson Street Waihi.

On 13 February 2007, as a result of a complaint regarding barking from 10.00am until 2.00pm, the dog was uplifted and impounded under Section 56 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

A detailed report was attached.

The hearing commenced at 12.15pm.

Ms L Wiki (Applicant) was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Ms Wiki tabled a report which she presented in support of her objection to the classification, stating that she and her partner have two dogs on the property, the offending dog is a female, neutered, Dalmatian dog aged 18 months and a second dog.

Mr Wiki advised that she has recently started a new job, following a break from the work force due to illness. As she is no longer at home during the day, her dog has become lonely which has created the cause for her barking. She advised the dog is to stay at her mother’s property in Adams Street, Waihi once she is taken out of the pound until another house is found for herself and her partner to live.

Mr Sexton advised that a barking collar has been purchased. The dog in question was on its own during the day of the incident. It would seem that a neighbouring dog has encouraged the dog to bark more. The dog was tied up at the rear of the garage but when in sight of passers by, becomes more active.

The dog was uplifted on 13 February 2007, as a result of a complaint from a neighbouring property. The Dog Control Officer advised that while the dog was impounded it did not appear to bark.

The members considered that Ms Wiki be given the opportunity to prove that the dogs barking can be reduced.

It was suggested to Ms Wiki that she work with the dog control officers in finding ways to assist in reducing the barking issue.

Mr Sexton advised that the impounding fees to date are $100.00. He requested that the Committee consider waiving these fees on the grounds that Ms Wiki is generally a responsible dog owner and has assured the dog control officers that she will endeavour to address the barking problem to the best of her ability.

The Committee agreed that the impoundment fees be waived and the classification be revoked.

The hearing closed at 12.40pm.

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 barking dog classification be revoked

AND THAT the impoundment fees be waived.

HC07/06 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

The meeting closed at 12.40pm

CONFIRMED

B A Gordon

8 March 2007