The future development of a property next to the Unterhaching swimming pool could cause huge problems.
Because 22 residential units are to be built here, where there was previously a small house.
Unterhaching - In the documents for the Unterhaching construction committee, the responsible clerk is noted for each item on the agenda, usually an employee from the administration, If now, on item 5 (local development planning), Mayor Wolfgang Panzer (SPD) personally makes a topic a top priority, then it has absolute rarity.
And is a clear indication of the explosive nature of the situation.
Construction project yes, but please not at this point
It's about a construction project with 22 residential units.
In itself desirable, but not at this point for the town hall chief: namely immediately adjacent to the south-west of the open-air swimming pool.
There is currently a lonely building on the approximately 3,000-meter property, directly south of the Wasserwacht-Hausl.
Accessed via a mini bridge over the Hachinger Bach.
50 additional parking spaces
This access may have been sufficient to date, but this would change noticeably with a large-scale residential project with an expected 50 parking spaces.
The already narrow dead end to the swimming pool entrance (i.e. Schrenkstrasse) would become a new access road, and conflicts between future residents and swimming friends would be programmed.
“I see a need for action, because there is a development here that will seriously endanger our outdoor swimming pool,” said Wolfgang Panzer in the building committee.
It is about "as a municipal swimming pool operator to keep the book of the trade".
Development plan should slow down the project
A new development plan (the committee voted 10: 4 for a corresponding installation resolution) is intended to slow down the undesired densification project.
This is anyway in the floodplain of the Hachinger Bach.
Panzer indicated to declare the property with a view to an extension of the outdoor pool lawns as a common area (then compensation payments would probably be required to the owner) in order to “keep all options open”.
Because this seemed vaguely worded, the Greens and CSU criticized the town hall's “inadequate information policy”.
Perhaps this will improve by the local council meeting on October 27th, when a ban on changes will even be on the agenda.
MARTIN BECKER
