The planned residential development with three houses on Spatzenberg in Wartenberg has come a step further. The building committee of the market council dealt with the first statements and approved the plan version. Now the public is formally involved. As reported several times, there was resistance from residents against the 16th amendment to the Am Bründlhof development plan and a petition with 135 supporters against it.
Wartenberg - The approximately 1400 square meter area had previously served as a compensation area. In the building committee, architect Franz Pezold explained that the species protection test had now been carried out. The appraiser found that there are owls and bats, but that they do not live on the meadow that is to be built on, but in the adjacent property with trees. There is also sufficient foraging habitat in the area. In this way, the special species protection is not violated. Even non-protected species would not be significantly affected. With two dissenting votes, the building committee agreed that no changes to the plan were required.
The compensation area on the Middle Isar Canal agreed with the Lower Nature Conservation Authority will be laid out as a species-rich poor meadow.
Here the community wants to talk to the neighboring farmer whether he will mow twice a year.
Dominik Rutz (Greens) had concerns about a possible nutrient input through the fertilization of the neighboring field and said that was exactly one of the reasons for his rejection, since one cannot simply relocate an ecological area.
Investigations by an engineering office showed that the existing rainwater retention basin is also sufficient for the three new plots.
Nevertheless, the market will impose requirements that the property owners must provide for rainwater retention due to heavy rain events.
After authorities had no objections, Pezold explained the objections of citizens. The lawyer of a resident who sees her concerns too little taken into account was particularly detailed. The lawyer also accused the community of formal errors. Pezold rejected this as unfounded as well as the accusation of incorrect publication. This was done according to local practice - in the newsletter and on the Internet. According to Pezold, the necessity questioned by the resident has also been clarified in court. He referred here to a ruling by the Bavarian Administrative Court from 2015, according to which the municipality may also plan for a need that is only becoming apparent in the future.
The objector also feared that the community would quickly implement the planning without the need for a nature conservation report and without the involvement of other bodies. The concerns are unfounded, said Pezold. The development plan will be changed in an accelerated process. However, as decided by the Building and Environment Committee, the community commissioned a species protection study. The public interest bodies and the public would also be involved. The objector also complained that too little consideration was given to her interests. They do this by the fact that their house is not shown in the development plan.
According to Petzold, the lack of representation is due to the fact that the latest official land use map was not used as the basis for the development plan.
This should be made up for by the resolution of the articles of association.
The resident's house was only recently measured and included in the official land map.
According to Pezold, this is of no importance for the weighing up, because the objector's property on Spatzenberg is shown in the urban development draft in the justification and in the planning alternatives in the justification.
The community is responding to their fear of shading from the lower-lying buildings by allowing garages, carports and other ancillary buildings only with a green flat roof to be built on the three new plots.
In addition, the objector thinks that the three planned single-family houses do not fit the surrounding development, which can be considered "very upscale" due to the "numerous villas".
This objection surprised the architect and led to a certain amusement of the councilors, since the objector's property, to which the new development is to be attached, is not a villa, but a semi-detached house.
Objections to drainage, traffic and the like were also invalidated.
The councils also rejected the objections of other citizens as unfounded - for example that of the deterioration requirement.
According to Pezold, there is no such thing in land-use planning.
Any deterioration would be compensated for by improvement.
spa
