Subdivision plan draws opposition

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 11, Issue 527, 15 March 1994, Page 1

Subdivision plan draws opposition

Whether an application for aresourceconsentto subdivide land in Tainui Street is approved is yet to be announced by the Ruapehu District Council Hearings Committee. The committee heard the application and objections at a meeting in Ohakune last Tuesday. The application was to subdivide a 2024 square metre section of Residential B land off a block of 3.3 hectares, behind Ossie's Apartments, and two houses in Tainui Street, and to subdivide a three metre strip from a Residential A property (Ossie's Apartments land) to provide access to Tainui Street for the new section. Surveyor Grant Pope said the subdivided piece was large enough to retain a rural/residential character and that if it was used for a dwelling unit it would comply with the relevant district plan rule. The main lot could be fully serviced without any extension to council services and, if necessary the lot was large enough to use a septic tank system. Mr Pope said all objections related to the possible future use of the land for extensions to the motel complex, which had been mentioned in the original report to the council. Motel confusion "In retrospect this was probably a mistake as it has confused the issue ever since," he stated. "The application is for a subdivision only. If the application is approved the applicant will have the right to build a dwelling unit only," said Mr Pope. "Any other proposal would have to be the subject of another notified Resource Consent Application." He said while they had valid concerns about road and sewerage upgrading in the area, the proposed subdivision would not significantly increase traffic or sewage flow. Neighbour Alan Whale supported the application, saying it was no longer economic to farm land within the Ohakune Borough boundaries and that

the future of the town relied on tourist related development on as large a scale as possible. A number of people objected to the application. Most said they did not object to the subdivision if it was to be for residential use, with one dwelling being built on the land. Most objected to the possible use for extending the Ossie' s Apartments motel complex, which had been mentioned early in the application process. The objectors felt the present sewerage system was a problem already and would not be able to cope with any further development. Stephen Foster said the specific use that was intended for a subdivision should be made clear before a consent was granted. Shannon Street resident Penny Morrissey said she was concerned about putting more pressure on the sewerage system. She said the present system was not coping and that raw sewage had flo wed out of pipes outside her property on a number of occasions. There were already empty sections that their owners could build on as-of-right, which would put too much pressure on services such as sewerage and roads, said Nigel Buck. The council must upgrade the sewer before allowing any further development," said Mr Buck. "There should be discussion of the extension of the motel complex before looking at the subdivision," said Mr Buck. Other views expressed included: "motels should be kept in the commercial areas of town"; a garage on the motel site was being used as a ski hire; the subdivision, if used for a motel extension, would change the urban/rural lifestyle. The town planner, Jeff Page, clarified some points and outlined a number of issues that the committee had to take into account in making its decision. Turn to Page 2

Subdivision opposition

From Page 1 He suggested that if consent was granted, a note be attached to make it clear that the consent did not imply consent for future development on the site that was not a permitted activity (such as the motel extension) under the district plan. Not land use issue Mr Page said the committee was dealing with a subdivision consent and not with a land use consent. He outlined the uses to which the land could at present be put as-of-right. These uses included grazing, market gardening, cat and dogkennels, or horse stables. Rule 3.4.5 of the District Plan states that "each subdivision will be treated on its merits, having regard to the proposed use of land. .

"The applicant has indicated that the likely use of the land is for motels which are not a permitted activity in terms of the District Plan," stated Mr Page. Legal division Mr Page outlined the relevant Resource Management Act issues. He said Section 104(1) requires the committee to consider the effects of the proposal, but that this was difficult as it was technicallyjust a legal division of land. "It is the following land use that may produce the adverse effects. However in this circumstance the District Plan explicitly links subdivision and the proposed land use,":he said. He said there were permitted activities that could

be established which could increase the density of development. The effect on the amenities of the area was "difficult to ascertain." "However it should be noted that the adjoining development is on land zoned Residential A which allows for significantly higher density development than the Residential B Zone."