GARAGE SITE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 103, 22 December 1931, Page 6

GARAGE SITE

motion rescinded COUNCIL REVISES REFUSAL ... OF BUILDING PERMIT , SPECIAL MEETING CALLED At a special meeting of the Rotorua Borough Council last evening Cr. O. H. Coleman, brought .forward a motion that the resolution of the council, passed at its meeting on Deeember 16 refusing permission to build a public garage in the residential area of Tutanekai Street, be rescinded. In reply to Cr. Johnson, the Mayor, Mr. T. Jackson, explained that the recission of the motion would not pecessarily mean that the desired permission to build would have to be granted. Cr. Coleman, in putting the motion said that at the last meeting he had not been properly aware of what the application was. He also had no idea that any definite application had been made, and that the applicant had already bought the property. He did not consider the part of Tutanekai Street in which the property was situated a residential area, and therefore wished the motion to be rescinded. Cr. Urquhart, who seconded the motion, reserved the right to speak to it later in the discussion. Cr Keane agreed with the mover that Tutanekai Street was not a residential area. He said that this was the mpin business street in the town and supported the motion. "I am against the motion," said Cr. Johnson. He said that the area in which the proposed garage was situated was . a residential a(rea and should be kept so in view of the lake front scheme. Anything beyond Arawa Street toward the lake, he said, did little business. He could not see any reason for its being made a business area for many years to come. Cr. W. Galbraith supported the motion. He did not see why the council should prevent the applicant from starting business in this area. Cr. Wackrow supported Cr. Johnson. Cr. A. Smith said that he had considered the matter more fully since last meeting and had now changed his views. He agreed with the motion. Town Planning Act. That Section 34 of the Town Planning Act was not fully enough explained at the last meeting of the council, was the opinipn of Cr. Urquhart, and he referred to section 29 of the same Act which stated that, but ''or a few exceptions, a person prohibited from building could claim compensation. He thought that there were reasonable grounds in this particular tase to claim compensation especially as the applicant had bought the sec--.ion expecting to build on it. His Worship said that he had gone leeply into the question, but he could lot support the motion and feel that he had done justice to the town. He eminded the council that the adjacent area had definitely been proclaimed a -•eserve and should be kept as such. fhe bulk of the properties in the irea, he continued, were high class -esidential sites, while the few business premises were old. He advised the council to consider :he question not from the point of vdew of to-day but in tl\ light of what :t would be twenty years hence. Mr. Jackson thought that they would re?ret turning this locality into a comnercial area and considered that a public garage there would be detrimental to the town. Anyone dissatisfied with the ruling of the council could ahvays appeal to the Town Planning Board. "To build a garage there would be "oreign and at varinnce with our hopes of the future," said Mr. Jackson.* Cr. Coleman said that he appreeiated the Mayor's viewpoint but could riot agree with him. The motion was then put and was carried on the voices. The meeting then adjourned until 7.30 this evening, when the clause in the copimittee's report will be further considered.