There were no apologies.

Pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Chairperson called for late items to be accepted.

RESOLVED

THAT pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the following late items be accepted for discussion.

- Objection to Menacing Dog Classification – Ms T Mikkelsen

The item was not on the agenda because the item was unavailable at the time of the agenda deadline.

Discussion on the item could not be delayed because the item required the consideration of the Hearings Committee as soon as practicable.

HC07/60 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

MEETING HELD THURSDAY 7 JUNE 2007

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 7 June 2007 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC07/61 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED

SUBDIVISION APPLICATION TO CREATE TWO LOTS IN THE RURAL ZONE P & T MADSEN, 609 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD, WAIHI (82.660.400)

The applicants propose to subdivide their property into two lots situated at Golden Valley Road, Waihi.

A detailed report was attached.

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

Mr P T Madsen (Applicant) and Mr Andrew Chaplin (on behalf of) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Madsen presented a statement of proposal for subdivision to create two lots in the rural zone on their property in Golden Valley, Waihi, being Lot 1 DP 35823.

Mr Madsen provided the background history of the property. He advised that his family have farmed the land for a considerable time before it was subdivided in 1981 into several lots in which his family now reside on Lot 1. Over the years the family have tried growing a number of crops on the property which have been unsuccessful, for this reason, they now wish to subdivide the property into two lots creating a house site on the rear lot. He expressed the opinion this lot was of suitable area for someone to establish a glasshouse operation therefore would not reduce the productivity of the land.

The existing use of the adjoining properties at close proximity to the Madsen’s property are lifestyle lots and further out to the east and north-east are productive farming units.

Mr Chaplin presented planning evidence on behalf of the applicant.

Mr Chaplin raised issue with the planner’s report regarding the access to the proposed lots. He considered the Class C vehicle access was adequate for a new lot of this size and for the type of use required. Regarding the concern raised by the planner that the mature row of casuarinas planted along the road frontage would reduce sightline distances; this could be addressed by their removal.

Mr Chaplin supported Mr Madsen’s comment that the subdivision would not affect the productive potential of the property. He agreed that potentially productive land should be protected and considered this proposal will not cause fragmentation of the rural character due to there being a number small holdings already existing in the vicinity.

The Madsen’s cannot receive a reasonable income off the property and emphasised that the proposed subdivision is not reducing the use of the land but changing the way the land is used in that some type of horticultural operation could still be established on the rear lot.

To address the issue raised in the staff report regarding effect on the privacy of the neighbouring property to the northeast, Mr Madsen commented that there are trees planted on the boundary between the two properties designed to ensure privacy.

Mr Eccles advised of his concerns regarding the proposed subdivision. He stated that the significant issue is of the classification of land. The subject land fails to meet several standards relating to lifestyle lot subdivision on Class I-III soils. Lot Size shall be a minimum of 5000m² and a maximum of 1ha on Class I-III land. Both lots are in excess of 1ha in size. Each lot must have a road frontage of 50m, in this instance; Lot 2 has only a 12m road frontage.

The site does have entitlement for a second dwelling. Sight lines from the proposed accessway are restricted due to the existence of a mature row of casuarinas and agreed that this issue could be resolved by the removal of the trees.

It was considered that there is a definite conflict to the objectives and policies of the District Plan as the proposal will cause fragmentation of high quality rural land which will affect the open rural character of the area.

The proposed subdivision is more suited to lifestyle use of lower class land and not productive land. This property has a high classification of land which is already relatively small. By approving a subdivision such as this, which did not meet the assessment criteria under a ‘Discretionary Activity’, it would set a precedent for future applications which are also unsuited for this type of subdivision.

The applicant has not proved that the land is unproductive. The proposal to site a dwelling on Lot 2 also reduces the land area for productive use.

Mr Madsen stated that he considered he had justified the reasons why the property is suitable for subdivision as proposed and emphasised his belief that the subdivision did not reduce the level of productivity which could be gained from the land.

The hearing closed 10.00am.

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 decline consent to this non-notified discretionary activity application to subdivide Lot 1 DP 35823 located at 609 Golden Valley Road, Waihi into two lots, for the following reasons:

• The proposed subdivision is contrary to the relevant objectives and policies of the Hauraki District Plan that seek to avoid fragmentation of higher quality land with a corresponding reduction in productive potential. When viewed in isolation the effects of the proposed subdivision could be viewed as minor, however when viewed in a wider context the subdivision will contribute to a cumulative reduction in the rural character and amenity of the surrounding area. The proposed subdivision will create lots of an appropriate size for lifestyle living within a zone not intended to be developed for rural-residential purposes.

• Consent to the proposed subdivision will adversely affect the integrity of the Hauraki District Plan and public confidence in the consistent administration of the District Plan. While each application must be considered on its own merits, Council if adopting a consistent approach to administration of the District Plan would find it difficult to decline consent for subdivisions of other titles of a similar size if consent were granted to this application.

• There is the potential for more than minor adverse effects to be created on the safety and efficiency of Golden Valley Road through the construction and use of an additional vehicle access, given the inadequate sight distances at all points along the frontage of Lot 1 DPS 35823.

HC07/62 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

SUBDIVISION APPLICATION TO CREATE THREE LIFESTYLE LOTS I AND B BUCKLEY, 39 KENT CRESCENT, WAIHI (82.677.515) (88KB)

The applicants propose to subdivide the 20.5ha parent lot at 39 Kent Crescent, Waihi into three lots.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 10.30am. The hearing commenced 10.30am.

Mr I Buckley (Applicant) and Mr Andrew Chaplin (on behalf of) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Buckley presented a statement of proposal in which they wish to create three lifestyle lots from their dairy farm situated in Kent Crescent, Waihi, being Lot 1 DP349828.

Mr Buckley advised that since purchasing the property in 1993 as a dairy unit, the productivity has declined due to difficulties found farming on the steep contour of the land, not well suited to pastoral farming and a health issue for Mr Buckley which has eventuated from farming this type of land. For these reasons his wife and he wish to subdivide the land into a number of smaller blocks. Mr Buckley stated that the proposed area of land for subdivision has been rezoned from Rural to Rural-Residential by Councils Plan Change 10 in 2006 which has created an opportune time to develop this part of the property into smaller lots.

Mr Chaplain spoke of the poor topography of land which is steep and unusable for productive use. He considered the proposed area of the property for subdivision is only suitable for lifestyle purposes. The proposed subdivision will not detract from the rural character and amenity value of the area.

Mr Eccles advised of the issue regarding the creation of title for the subject site in December 2005 which was later than the "cut-off" date required for subdivision entitlement of 26 September 2000. The date of August 2005 was the latest date title could be issued. This application is a "Discretionary Activity". The fact that the issue of title exceeded the date is an infringement of the rule and is a justified reason to warrant declining the application. The reason for this rule is to prevent multiple staged subdivisions from being developed which would result in a reduction of the rural character of rural land. It is the objective of the district plan to reduce the cumulative affect of mullti-staged subdivision in a rural area.

In addition to other non-compliance issues, each lot needs to have a road frontage of 50m to comply, the proposed Lots 1-3 do not.

In conclusion, Mr Chaplain stated that this is discretionary application which there is provision for in the District Plan.

The hearing closed at 10.53am.

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 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 1 DP 349828, located at 39 Kent Crescent, Waihi into three lots, for the following reasons:

The site due to its topography, shape, aspect and soil type has extremely limited productive potential. As a result approval of the subdivision will not conflict with the relevant objectives and policies of the District Plan that seek to prevent the undue fragmentation of higher quality rural land.

The rural character of the area is not well established, given the location of the site on the outskirts of the Waihi urban area and immediately adjoining the rural-residential zone. It is thus considered that approval to the subdivision will not offend the relevant provisions of the District Plan as they relate to the maintenance and enhancement of open rural character and rural amenity.

Subject to the following conditions:

HC07/62 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

APPLICATION TO CANCEL CONDITIONS OF RESOURCE CONSENT K F BRINKMAN, 28 PRINCES STREET WAIHI (82.716.227) (45KB)

The applicant has applied for the cancellation of both condition 6 and 9 of resource consent to subdivide Section 386 Town of Waihi, located at 38 Princes Street, Waihi into two lots.

A detailed report was attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 11.15am. The hearing commenced at 11.15am.

Mr Brinkman (Applicant) was in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Mr Brinkman spoke in opposition to the requirement that he alter the eave on the southern corner of his house which is obstructing the height clearance required for vehicular use of the ROW. He presented a number of photo’s showing height and width measurements of the ROW in relation to his house.

Mr Eccles explained that consent was granted in 2005 creating a lot at the rear of the property. At that time, it was recommended that Condition 7 be imposed to allow for an adequate area for outdoor living court and that the woodshed to the rear of the site be removed to allow for this area. Mr Eccles advised that as there is sufficient area at the front of the house for a complying outdoor living court, agreed that Condition 7 be cancelled.

Condition 9 was imposed that the eave of the house on the southern corner be removed and relocation of down pipe and soak pits. It was advised that Mr Brinkman was not a party to the original application as the previous owner was.

Mr Eccles advised that the eave must be altered to prevent a potential restriction to vehicles using the ROW, stating that to allow a heavy vehicle to use the ROW it would require a clearance of 4.25 metres. Unrestricted movement of all vehicles is required and it is therefore recommended that Condition 9 to alter the eave of the house remain.

It was proposed by the committee that a condition be imposed to ensure that vehicles more than 3 metres in height cannot use the ROW. Mr Eccles recommended however that the committee not proceed with imposing such a condition as it was unenforceable, did not address an environmental effect, and would effectively impinge on the property rights of the owners of the rear lot through not allowing access for full legal size heavy vehicles to the rear lot.

Mr Brinkman reinforced the issue he had with the requirement that the eave of the southern corner be removed. He considered that there was a 40cm overhang onto the ROW which he considered minimal, and would cause little or no would affect to most vehicles using the ROW. He stated that any vehicles over 3 metres would need to park on the roadway at the front of the house.

The hearing closed at 11.40am.

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 pursuant to Section 127 of the Resource Management Act the Council:

1. Grants consent to the cancellation of condition 7 of the subdivision of Section 386 Town of Waihi located at 38 Princes Street in Waihi.
2. Declines consent to the cancellation of condition 9 of the subdivision of Section 386 Town of Waihi located at 38 Princes Street in Waihi, and that the condition shall remain unaltered.

The new conditions of the consent will read as follows:

That pursuant to Section 104A of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council grant consent to this controlled activity application to subdivide Section 386 Town of Waihi, located at 38 Princes Street, Waihi into two lots, on the grounds that:

• The proposed subdivision has no additional adverse effects on the environment that are more than minor;
• The proposal is consistent with the intensity, form and character of the surrounding residential activities in the area.

Subject to the following conditions:

1. The subdivision and development shall be carried out generally in accordance with the Peter Rogers Surveyors Ltd Scheme Plan ref. 1641 dated May 2005.
2. That a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1,842.94 plus GST be paid to Council for the creation of one additional lot (Waihi Ward).
3. The subdivider shall provide each lot with separate telephone connections, or written confirmation from the appropriate supply authority that these are existing, or are available at the standard connection fee.
4. That the subdivider shall provide each lot with separate power connections.
5. That the subdivider shall provide each lot with a separate metered water connection in accordance with NZS 4404:2004.
6. That the subdivider shall provide each lot with separate sewer connections in accordance with NZS 4404:2004 and performance standard 9.3.7 of the HDC District Plan.
7. That the subdivider shall construct a Class F (Standard Residential Vehicle Entrance) as specified in section 9.3.3.3 of the HDC District Plan at the location of the accessway to serve Lot 1 shown on the submitted plan.
8. That the eave on the southern corner of the dwelling on Lot 2 be removed as per plans from Waihi Beach Architectural Services dated August 2005 including the relocation of the downpipe and construction of soakpits in accordance with the report by Peter Rogers Surveyors Ltd, dated 18 May 2005.
9. That pursuant to section 221 of the Resource Management Act 1991 a consent notice shall be placed on the title of Lot 1 stating that the stormwater disposal for Lot 1 shall be in accordance with the report by Peter Rogers Surveyors Ltd dated 18 May 2005.
10. That engineering plans and specifications (including back up calculations) covering all engineering works shall be submitted to the Manger of Planning and Environmental Services for consideration and approval prior to the commencement of any work.
11. That three copies of ‘as-built’ plans shall be submitted to Council upon completion of the construction works 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.

• Under the Hauraki District Roads and Traffic Bylaw 1992, the existing vehicle crossing serving lot 2 is to be upgraded to a Class F as specified in Section 9.3.3.3 of the District Plan.

• A Building Consent will be required for the removal of the dwelling eave.

REASONS:

1. It has been adequately demonstrated through physical survey that there is sufficient space at the front of the house for an adequate outdoor living court to be achieved. There is thus no need for the woodshed at the rear of the dwelling to be removed.
2. It has not been adequately demonstrated that heavy vehicles of maximum legal size will be able to traverse the driveway without the offending portion of eave creating an obstruction to heavy vehicle movements.

HC07/64 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

An appeal has been lodged.

A detailed report from the Dog Control Officer and supporting documents was attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 12.00. The hearing commenced at 12.00.

Ms Tracey Mikkelsen (Applicant) and Ms Rachael Hitchman (Complainant) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

Ms Hitchman provided an account of the incident. The Complainant advised that she was walking a relative’s dog, temporarily in her care, when a Rottweiler ran out of an open gate from the property at 78 Pipiroa Road, Ngatea. Although she did not feel threatened by the dog, it barked, was very boisterous and did harass the dog in her care. Ms Hitchman considered the dog was excited by seeing another dog and ran out of the property as the gate was left open.

The Applicant stated that since the incident, she has secured the dog to the rear of the section by constructing a fence.

Ms Hitchman advised she did not lay a complaint but a man who witnessed the incident did so without her knowledge.

Mr Sexton advised that the dog in question is a male, Black and Tan Rottweiler named Forrest which is desexed. He advised this is the second complaint received of a similar nature to an earlier complaint. A verbal complaint was received to this incident but no written complaint was received.

The Committee were informed that there is no requirement for the dog owner’s property to be fenced if the dog has a menacing classification. The requirement is that the dog be micro-chipped and muzzled when out in public.

On the date the complaint was received, a verbal caution was issued by telephone advising Ms Mikkelsen that a complaint from a member of the public had been made about her dogs’ behaviour.

In conclusion, the Committee were of the opinion that as Ms Mikkelsen has taken a responsible attitude by fencing off the front of the section to prevent the dog accessing the road frontage, this would reduce the likelihood that her dog would become menacing in any way to the public.

Ms Mikkelsen stated that her dog is not an aggressive dog by nature but must have been become excited by the sight of another dog in the street. Due to the negligence of someone residing at the property by leaving the gate open, Forrest was able to run off. As Forrest is longer able to access the road frontage of the section and is fully secured to the rear of the property by fencing, he is unable to be a menace to the general public.

The hearing closed at 12.23pm.

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

After considering all the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT the menacing classification be rescinded.

HC07/65 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

The meeting closed at 12.30pm.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

19 July 2007