Laserfiche WebLink
6 <br /> the existing Hill Street entrance, creating a right of way over several pieces of land and a <br /> public road, then accessing the relatively steep area through the southern end of section <br /> 42 until it can travel north in a line to the east but parallel with boundaries of the <br /> unformed Boundary Street. We suspect alternative vehicular access to a separate title at <br /> the end of Potato Point would be impractical. For example, we do not understand [he <br /> existing paper road could be fanned for vehicular travel given its topography. <br /> [Ig] In the proposals put before this Court, it was clear that there was a need for <br /> ttnifomt control of the use of the balance land around both the potential dwelling sites. <br /> Proposals for restoration planting and mitigation planting, for example, would <br /> necessitate a comprehensive fencing and maintenance regime which could be disrupted <br /> if the ownership of the properties devolved to separate owners without identical <br /> conditions dealing with both properties. Concerns were expressed that even if there <br /> were identical conditions, one owner may not properly meet their obligations whereas <br /> the other may. If the obligations were due by both owners equally then those might be <br /> enforced against the willing owner. <br /> [19] Wider issues, however, arise relating to potential for planting different species on <br /> each property given its sensitivity within a Coastal Landscape Area of special value in <br /> terms of the Plan. Different approaches to earthworks, fencing, walls and the like, <br /> different potentials for stocking, pastures, curtilage azeas and the like would arise, <br /> making ht obvious to those who viewed the area that the land was controlled by two <br /> separate owners. <br /> Scope of application <br /> [20] The Plan makes buildings a controlled activity under 14.6.4(a) if there is a <br /> subdivision and building platforms aze identified, but if not then a restricted <br /> discretionary activity. For our part we are not satisfied that we have the complete <br /> proposal before us. We have concluded that it is inevitable that there will be attempts to <br /> subdivide the property and that difficulties will arise with ensuring that a common <br /> EAi of rye approach is taken to bout properties. <br /> <br /> m i i i 9`d a <br /> ~ /,ti <br /> <br />