Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

GARAGE SITE

council decision PROPOSAL TO BUILD PROVISIONALLY APPROVED MAYOR ONLY DISSENTIENT The special meeting of the Borough Council held on Monday night and ad- : journed was continued last evening,. •when furtlier consideration was given to a proposal to build a garage and dwelling in Tutanekai Street. A resolution of the council refusing permission to build the proposed garage was rescinded on Monday night. Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N. M. Keane, E. T. Johnson, L. J. Bayfeild and H. Tai Mitchell. The Mayor, Mr. T. Jackson, said that having rescinded the motion at Monday's meeting they were just where they originally started. The tentative application was before the council as it had been previously before the General Committee and the council had to come to some decision that evening. 1 The applicant wished to ascertain if the proposal, which was not a definite application, was acceptable to the , council according to the plan supplied. By rescinding the resolution on the previous evening the council had practiqally agreed that the section might be used for commercial purposes, but that did not permit the applicant to build a dwelling behind the garage, as he desired to do. They could only move that the draft plan as submitted met with the approval of the council and the actual acceptance of the proposal would have to he deferred until a formal application was made. Deputy Mayor's Motion Councillor G. Urquhart moved that j the council agree to the proposal that a dwelling he erected behind the garage, provided the living quarters were connected to the garage. He said that it vras necessary for the applicant to be on the spot in order to be able to deal with night traffic. Cr. Urquhart added to the motion a proviso that there should be a right of way not less than three' feet in width giving entrance to the living quarters, and that the walls of the garage he constructed of concrete. Cr. O. H. Coleman seconded the ; motion, which was also suported by Cr. W. H. Wackrow. "I oppose the motion," said Mr. ! Jackson, "and I do so for several reasons." Mr. Jackson gave a brief survey the No. 1 building area, ; where there had been a great deal of f subdividing and some of the frontages were very *small. He said that in : these cases residents had no room to : put a garage anywhere but in front of their houses and that was why a special by-law had been passed. He pointed out that the present j case was altogether different from : those the by-law was framed to meet. ; People occupying houses to the South of the Section on which the garage was proposed to be built, he said, would have every right to complain about a concrete structure which blocked their view of the lake. Their properties would, as a result depreci-ate-in value. r Quesiion of Dwelling Referring to the proposal to build \ a dwelling behind the garage, Mi\ [ Jackson said he was definitely opposed to the proposal. By the time the l garage is built, he continued, there ! would he less than an eighth of an i.acre on which to build the house, I which was contrary to the principle of building in the town. 'It would be establishing a dangerous precedent if the council agreed to the erection of of the proposed dwelling even though they sanctioned the building of the 1 garage. Another objeetion Mr. Jackson put forward was that this area was not ■ connected to any sewerage area. The principle was wrong, and that was the main reason for his opposition. The councillors must admit, Mr. 'Jackson concluded, that in face of those facts they could not agree to the house being erected. Cr. Galbraith explained that if the dwelling was attached to the garage ' there was sufficient room for the installation of a septic tank, which overcame the sewerage diffieulty as long as the soil was suitable. Cr. Urquhart's motion, which was seconded by Cr. Coleman, that the council agree to the proposal as moved previously and with the provisos mentioned was carried, only Mr Jackson dissenting.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/RMPOST19311223.2.54

Bibliographic details

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 104, 23 December 1931, Page 6

Word Count
692

GARAGE SITE Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 104, 23 December 1931, Page 6

GARAGE SITE Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 104, 23 December 1931, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert