.gif){kind=small}
(75KB)
HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL
HEARINGS COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WILLIAM STREET, PAEROA ON THURSDAY 24 JULY 2008 COMMENCING AT 9.00AM
|
PRESENT |
Crs D M Carmine (Chairperson), B A Gordon, J M Bubb and G R Leonard (from 10.15am) |
|
IN ATTENDANCE |
Messrs P Thom (Planning & Environmental Services Manager), K Thompson (District Engineer), M van Steenbergen (District Planner), V Hoeberechts (Graduate Planner), M Gregory (Planner), M Sexton and G Adams (Dog Control Officers), J Gray (Consultant Planner - Maunsell Ltd) and Ms C Black (Council Secretary) |
APOLOGIES
RESOLVED
THAT the apology for lateness of Cr G R Leonard be received and sustained.
HC08/40 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED
LATE ITEMS
There were no late items.
DELEGATED MATTERS (407592)
Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation from the period 1st May to 1st July 2008 were submitted separately for the Committee’s information.
RESOLVED
THAT the reports of delegated matters be received.
HC08/41 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES
MEETING HELD THURSDAY 22 MAY 2008 (408656)
RESOLVED
THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 22 May 2008 be taken as read and confirmed.
HC08/42 Bubb/Carmine CARRIED
MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY 11 JUNE 2008 (412908)
RESOLVED
THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Wednesday 11 June 2008 be taken as read and confirmed.
HC08/43 Bubb/Gordon
CARRIEDCr Gordon took no part in the following hearing.
The developer of the subdivision lodged an objection to the proposed roading contribution calculated by Council for seal extension works required down stream of their sub division.
A report from the District Engineer was attached regarding the review of the roading contribution required by Council towards the maintenance and future seal extension of North Road.
A reconvened hearing was scheduled of 9.15am. The hearing commenced at 9.15am.
Mr and Mrs Strong were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.
Staff Report
The District Engineer presented a report regarding the issue concerning the roading contribution calculation.
The District Engineer apologised to the Strong’s for the time that the process had taken to arrive at this final figure, however to achieve a robust solution a number of scenarios were looked at.
The request by the Councillors, at the last Hearing, for the Council to provide a specific traffic count for the road was completed and showed that from the standard counting position, 63 VPD used the road. Mr Thompson explained the starting point of a trip, number of trips per day, trip generation, and that a nominal figure is 5 to 8 trips per day. Actual count is the best basis for the contribution divided by the total flow over formal points. Other information that was brought to Mr Thompson’s attention included the three runoffs. These three runoffs would generate between 12 and 14 trips per day. Mr Thompson concluded his report with the following points:
Original amount of $33,600 was excessive and erroneous, but assumptions were made; and
The formula must be applied accurately and hypotheses are part of the formula; and
The Council is obligated to apply the formula as written under the District Plan; and
The 250 metre seal extension is scheduled for the 2013 Roading Programme. However, this extension may not go ahead then and if delayed the Strong’s could apply to the Council for a refund.
The District Engineer showed comparisons of vehicle count in a number of scenario’s. The count varied as each property had different uses i.e. baches, cowshed access and farm run-offs etc. Therefore, daily count varied significantly. He advised that a number of vehicle movements have been removed in considering the calculation due to the differing use the properties had.
Applicant
Mrs Strong thanked the Committee for reconvening the hearing and tabled and presented the Strong’s evidence.
Cr Bubb asked Mr Thompson if the seal extension would happen in the next 5 years. The District Engineer replied that there were too many variables and Council could even curtail the Roading Programme but this could not effect the decision regarding the roading contribution from the Strong’s.
In conclusion, the Strong’s recapped the main points of their objection as follows;
Traffic generated by runoffs not counted; and
Non-existent house counted in Council’s calculation; and
Why the $40m2 cost of seal, when $25m2 cost of seal perfectly adequate; and
Five separate and extremely differing roading contributions.
Further to this, Mrs Strong reiterated that they were only a very small sub-division of three acres in total, on a ‘no exit’, unsealed road that serviced eight houses. That they believed there would be no further development and that two lots were unlikely to increase road usage. That while the AADT had been shown to be greater than 50, thus Council can require a roading contribution, that contribution must be spent on sealing the road not already included in the Sealing Programme. Due to this, and the fact that the Roading Asset Manager stated on the 9th May that the sub-division did not warrant programming of further seal extension, the Strong’s felt that there is no justification for a contribution at all, but also, that if they had lodged the application after the 1st of July 2008, the payment required would only be half of what the Council is now requiring. Finally, the whole process had caused them a great deal of anxiety and time and therefore they respectfully request, as per their original objection, that condition 23 be deleted from their resource consent.
Cr Carmine asked the Strong’s why the two lots would not create extra traffic or increase the road usage. Mrs Strong answered that yes it would but only a little.
Cr Bubb then apologised for the delay as she was overseas for a month.
The Chairperson adjourned the hearing to allow the District Engineer and the District Planner to consider Mr and Mrs Strong’s further submission to their objection to the roading contribution calculation.
The hearing adjourned at 9.40am.
The hearing reconvened at 9.55am.
Staff Reply
Mr Thompson replied to the Strong’s main points as follows:
Mr Thompson then replied to the Strong’s other comments as follows:
unsure how the size of the sub-division had any bearing on the roading contribution;
that the Strong’s assumption that there would be no more development was conjecture;
that the Strong’s were incorrect in stating that there would be no increase in the use of the road as there obviously would be;
explained that the existing sealing of 1.15m and that the seal extension programme was to 1.25m, also that the memo (9th May 2008) is a discussion paper not statement of facts.
Ms van Steenbergen stated that the District Plan recognises that where development occurs on unsealed roads, the trigger point for sealing and the general formula is based on 50 VPD. The formula uses an average per lot traffic count figure and is not intended to be applied to a detailed analysis of individual properties and their uses on a specific road, as that can change rapidly. She also informed the Committee that as the application was received prior to the 1st of July 2008 the total contribution payable is $7,976. Had the application been received after the 1st of July, the Development Contribution would have been $6,904, and therefore the Strong’s are only paying $1,072 more than they would be under the new financial contribution system, not double the amount that they suggested.
Cr Bubb asked the staff how the vehicle count was arrived at, i.e. did 1 truck and trailer count as 16 cars?
Mr Thompson replied that the Vehicle Counter does not distinguish between what type of vehicle triggers the counter.
Right of Reply
Mrs Strong stated that they still disputed the calculation and found difficulty with Council’s view of the present use the road receives, which the Strong’s believe is minimal.
The hearing closed at 10.10am.
The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.
DECISION
J R & R W strong subdivision 257 north road mangatarata (420557)
After considering all the evidence the Committee:
RESOLVED
THAT the report be received
AND THAT a seal extension contribution of $4,105 (plus GST) be required for the subdivision at 257 North Road Mangatarata, Resource Consent 15367.
Note: If the sealing (additional 100 metres) has not been carried out within 7 years, the consent holder shall be entitled to a refund.
HC08/44 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED
Cr Leonard attended the meeting at 10.15am.
NOTICE UNDER SECTION (55) DOG CONTROL ACT (1996) BARKING DOG
9;Council has received several complaints of dogs barking from 76 Thames Road, Paeroa. The owners of the dogs have submitted an objection to the Section 55 Notice.
Attached was a report from the Dog Control Officer and supporting documents.
A hearing was scheduled for 10.00am. The hearing commenced at 10.15am.
Ms Moleni and Ms Dennis (Applicants) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.
Applicants
Ms Moleni spoke in support of her objection to the barking dog notice.
Ms Moleni described and provided the history of the four dogs residing at the property of 76 Thames Road, Paeroa. In addressing the complaints received of dogs barking at night, Ms Moleni advised that the dogs are brought inside the house at night and disputed that the barking was coming from their house.
Ms Dennis stated that her dog Xena was registered in her name in Matamata-Piako in 2007. She advised that she takes her dog with her when she works in her position as a security guard at night. Her dog, Xena was not around when the complaint was laid.
Both Ms Dennis and Ms Moleni claimed their dogs do not bark during the day as they are inside the house and are quiet at night when there is one of the occupants at home.
Ms Moleni stated that she previously lived at an address in George Street , Paeroa but has since sold this property and is now living at 76 Thames Road, Paeroa.
Staff Report
The Dog Control Officer presented a report regarding the barking issues concerned.
Mr Sexton advised that multiple complaints have been received from other neighboring properties surrounding the subject property.
There are reasonable grounds of an offence. The dogs were not removed following the initial complaints and the owners were given a warning to address the barking nuisance. As further complaints have been received since that time, this issue has come to a hearing for resolution.
Mr Sexton stated that there are too many dogs at this address for an urban environment. The owners have not reduced the number of dogs residing at the property.
The complainants have stated that dogs are barking day and night on a daily basis.
Mr Sexton raised his concern regarding the dog Xena. He advised he had received an email from regulatory staff at Waipa District Council on 28/05/07 where it was advised that a number of complaints concerning Xena were raised. This correspondence was read out to the Committee for their consideration.
Cr Leonard requested clarification of the offences. Mr Sexton advised that the issue is regarding the barking of the dogs. The dogs are not howling and are not showing any signs of aggressive behaviour, only barking.
Cr Gordon asked can Ms Dennis apply for a dispensation to allow her to house her security dogs at home due to them being used in her line of work.
Mr Sexton advised that there is a process to allow for security dogs (as in this case) to be allowed to reside at their owners address.
Mr Sexton reported that there had been one incident recorded where one of the dogs was off the property.
Right of Reply
Ms Dennis stated that the information received from staff of the Waipa District Council was incorrect. Ms Dennis stated that her dog was incorrectly identified as the offending dog whilst she was living/visiting Kihikihi in the Waipa District.
The hearing closed at 10.50am.
The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.
DECISION
OBJECTION TO SECTION 55 – BARKING DOG NOTICE - OCCUPANTS OF 76 THAMES ROAD, PAEROA - MS K DENNIS AND MS S MOLENI (419877)
After considering all the evidence the Committee:
RESOLVED
THAT the staff report be received
AND THAT Notice under Section 55 of the Dog Control Act (1996) be upheld.
HC08/45 Carmine/Gordon
CARRIED
NON-NOTIFIED RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION
The applicant seeks consent to establish and operate an 18 unit retirement village for the elderly on a 6266m2 lot toward the northern end of the Paeroa Township.
Attached was a report and supporting documents from the Consultant Planner, Mr Joe Gray.
A hearing was scheduled for 10.45am. The hearing commenced at 11.00am.
Mr Greg Knell, Planning Consultant (Wasley & Knell - Planning Consultants) and Peter Lockhead – Designer of the village (on behalf of) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.
Applicant (on behalf of)
Mr Knell presented a report on the development. He endorsed the recommendation relating to the Retirement Village Act concerning the age appropriateness of the residents. Mr Knell introduced Mr Lockhead as the designer of the retirement village and made reference to the fact that Mr Lockhead has extensive experience in the design of retirement villages. He emphasised the operation of the village would be in accordance with the code of practice approved and implemented by the Retirement Villages Association.
Landscaping
A landscape plan of the development was explained to the Committee. Cr Bubb considered that the type of Magnolia chosen in the landscape design, ‘Magnolia grandiflora’ was unsuitable for the site because of it large size and suggested that this variety be replaced with the smaller variety of Magnolia - ‘Little Gem’. She felt that this variety was more compact and would require less maintenance and be less likely to cause future damage to the pavement as it matured.
Cr Gordon asked if there is a monitoring system in place to ensure the age of the residents is over 55.
Mr Knell stated that generally residents suited to this style of living environment would be over 60 years of age and could see no problem with this requirement.
Mr Lockhead stated the development is designed for people requiring a small area to live in which is generally more appealing to older people. To monitor the suitability of residents wishing to move into the village, Mr Knell stated that existing residents can meet with the Body Corporate to discuss the suitability of incoming residents.
Cr Gordon queried access for larger vehicles e.g. fire engines. He was advised that adequate access is available.
Cr Bubb asked if the developers have allowed for a pedestrian and mobility scooter access within the development.
Mr Lockhead advised that there is room for a pedestrian lane. He showed the Committee on the site plan where pedestrian and mobility scooter access could be marked out. Cr Carmine requested a condition be added to state that a pedestrian access be clearly marked out.
Staff Report
Mr Gray presented his report.
Mr Gray advised that this is a non-notified application which has been assessed on a discretionary basis. All neighbouring properties have been consulted. All adjoining parties are in agreement of the village development.
The proposal, in regards to all the environmental effects such as services and internal roading, appear to be sufficient to cover the needs of the elderly. The visual effects of the village will be mitigated by landscaping and it is not foreseen that the noise levels, from the village/elderly, will be inappropriate in the residential area. In conclusion he recommends that the consent be granted to the applicants to establish and operate this retirement village.
Cr Gordon asked if the density of dwellings at the development was acceptable and referred to the Kowhai Villas development where a reduction to the number of units was required to allow for some common open space.
Mr Gray stated that this application is different from the Kowhai Villas development which is presently under construction. There will be one unit available for an onsite Manager who will oversee the site. Kowhai Villas is a comprehensive residential development whereas this is a retirement village managed by a Body Corporate.
Cr Carmine asked Mr Gray if he could add a condition that the Kauri tree situated at the front of the site could be protected. Mr Gray advised that he could add a condition to retain the Kauri tree.
Right of Reply
Mr Knell addressed the issue raised by a member in which they asked could the site be further subdivided by any future owner of the retirement village. Mr Knell stated that this is not an issue because the resource consent controls that this site cannot be further subdivided.
The hearing closed at 11.30am.
The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.
DECISION
38 TAYLORS AVE LIMITED, 38 TAYLORS AVE, PAEROA (417786)
After considering all the evidence the Committee:
RESOLVED
THAT the staff report be received
AND THAT pursuant to Sections 94 and 104B of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Hauraki District Council grant consent to this non-notified, discretionary activity application by 38 Taylor Ave Ltd to establish and operate a retirement village in the Residential Zone at 38 Taylor Avenue, Paeroa (Lot 3 DP 384109) for the following reasons:
The site is considered an appropriate location for a comprehensive residential development given its size, undeveloped nature, proximity to the Paeroa town centre and adjoining areas of open space.
The activity’s departure from the density, outdoor living court, outdoor service court and separation and privacy standards of the District Plan, will not result in any adverse effects due to the specific nature of the activity (being a retirement village).
The proposed development on the site can be adequately serviced.
Subject to compliance with the conditions of consent the adverse effects on the environment of the activity will be no more than minor.
Subject to the following conditions:
GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE
That the activity shall be carried out in general accordance with the original application submitted by Wasley Knell Consultants, received by Council on 22 December 2006, the final amended site plan received by Council on 17 June 2008 and the various pieces of further information received by Council on the following dates:
17 May 2007
30 August 2007
18 January 2008
14 February 2008
Except as otherwise directed by the conditions below.
That the activity shall be carried out in general accordance with the attached definition of ‘retirement village’ as defined in section 6 of the Retirement Villages Act 2003. Appendix A
LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE
That a comprehensive Landscape Concept Plan shall be submitted to the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services for consideration and approval prior to the commencement of any work. The comprehensive landscape plan shall include the following:
The location of all shrubs and garden areas within the site
Screening of all living courts within 6m of habitable rooms of any other unit.
The size and species of all trees and shrubs within the site.
That a landscape maintenance program shall be submitted to the Manager of Planning and Environmental Services for consideration and approval prior to the commencement of any work. The maintenance program shall outline the regime for the suitable upkeep of the landscaping within the site.
That the activity shall be carried out in accordance with the approved landscape concept plan (Condition 2) and the approved landscape maintenance program (Condition 3).
That the proposed landscape planting and fencing shall not obstruct the minimum sight distance requirements for all internal roading within the development.
WATER SUPPLY
That the consent holder shall reticulate the development for water. The development as a whole shall be provided with a bulk metered water connection at the boundary of the site with Taylor Avenue in accordance with NZS 4404:2004 and Performance Standard 9.3.9 of the Hauraki District Plan.
That the consent holder shall install fire hydrants to serve the development in accordance with NZS 4404:2004 and the Fire Code NZS 4509 (2003).
SEWER
That the development shall be reticulated with a piped sewage disposal system connecting to existing Council reticulation in accordance with the requirements of NZS 4404:2004 and Performance Standard 9.3.7 of the Hauraki District Plan. All internal lines within this development will remain as private lines.
NOTE: Depending on timing, the connection will be either to the existing sewer main crossing the lot, or to the new, replacement main in Taylors Avenue.
That no buildings be erected over or in close proximity to the public sewer main crossing the lot. If still in pace at the time of building, the sewer main shall be relocated around the community centre. The relocation of the sewer (location materials, components) shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the District Engineer, HDC.
STORMWATER
That the development shall be reticulated with a piped stormwater drainage system connecting to the existing Council reticulation, in accordance with the requirements of NZS 4404:2004 and Performance Standard 9.3.10 of the Hauraki District Plan.
That the consent holder shall intercept and dispose of all surface runoff from up to an 0.02 AEI Flood Event (50 year storm) within the boundaries of the subject site and prevent any discharge onto adjoining private property.
That an internal secondary overland flow path be constructed within the proposed development that accommodates a 0.01 AEI Flood Event (100 year storm). This shall be incorporated into the internal roading in this development. The outlet shall discharge across Taylor Avenue at the proposed entrance to this development into the existing drain located on the opposite side of Taylor Avenue.
That existing 225mm diameter stormwater pipe crossing Taylor Avenue adjacent to the entrance to the subject property shall be upgraded to a 375mm diameter class 4 RCRRJ pipe. This pipe shall provide the storm water outlet connection for this development. The pipe outlet into the existing drain shall be fitted with a suitable end wall structure to the satisfaction of the HDC District Engineer.
ACCESS
That a flared, dual width crossing be constructed by the developer on Taylor’s Ave at the proposed entry/exit location to the development. The layout of the flare to the south shall recognise that the dominant traffic movement will be to and from the south.
That the pedestrian walkway that adjoins the northern boundary of the internal accessway shall be clearly identified with a permanent material such as coloured asphalt. Painting of the surface is not acceptable.
POWER AND TELEPHONE
That each unit in the development shall be reticulated for power and telephone in accordance with NZS 4404:2004 and as required by the Network Utility operators for each utility service.
EARTHWORKS
That all earthworks shall comply with Part 2: NZS 4404 and NZS 4431 in terms of land stability and foundation treatments.
During the preparatory earthworks required for the development, any surplus cut material shall be removed and disposed of off-site to approved disposal areas.
That any soil spilled or tracked onto any public road during the earthworks and construction shall be removed from the road immediately.
The consent holder shall take all measures, including the control of any contractors, during the earthworks and construction period, to ensure that:
a. No earthworks or construction work are to be undertaken on Sundays or outside the hours between 7am to 5:30pm – Monday to Saturday.
b. Noise levels are to comply with Section 9.4.1.3 Construction Noise of the Hauraki District Plan.
c. Dust emissions do not create adverse effects beyond the boundary of the site.
ENGINEERING AND GENERAL
That engineering plans 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 shall be submitted to Council upon completion of the construction works 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 $95.00 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.
That a Community Recreation Facilities Contribution of $1,529.26 plus GST, per dwelling, shall be paid to Council for the creation of 17 additional residential units (Paeroa Ward).
Advice Notes:
The dominant movement from the entrance to this development from Taylor St is to the south to aid this directional flow to provide additional refuge width to minimise opposing turning vehicle conflicts.
The water meter required by condition 7 of this consent is to be placed on the road frontage just inside the road reserve, within 0.5m of the property/road reserve boundary, or as agreed with the District Engineer. The connection of the bulk water meter to Council water mains will be undertaken by the Hauraki District Council at the cost of the developer.
The body corporate governing the development shall be responsible for all costs associated with supply of individual meters, reticulation, installation, maintenance and reading of these meters. Testing, flushing of internal works shall be observed/ undertaken by Hauraki DC.
It is recommended that all internal drainage works be designed to incorporate a 20% global warming factor.
Council will not be responsible for future water, sewer, stormwater and access maintenance within the development.
That the internal roading within the proposed development provides safe pedestrian access.
The consent holder is to arrange with the District Engineer for regular site meetings to take place during construction and to confirm the procedure for testing and inspections.
Any work undertaken in the road reserve 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 the Technical Services Unit Administrative Officer (currently Janet Tee) at the Council Paeroa offices (Tel 07 862 8609).
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
HC08/46 Bubb/Leonard CARRIED
The meeting closed at midday.
CONFIRMED
D M Carmine
Chairperson