The Odelzhausen municipal council has not approved the petition for citizens "No industrial area with a gas station in Odelzhausen".
The community lawyer spoke of formal errors and that the citizens' initiative had not clearly formulated its goal.
The initiators, on the other hand, speak of a "flight to justice".
Odelzhausen
- Many Odelzhausen residents have been waiting eagerly for this municipal council meeting: The committee discussed the petition for citizens "No industrial area with a gas station in Odelzhausen".
As reported, a citizens' initiative had collected around 515 signatures against moving the Aral petrol station to a planned commercial site east of the autobahn.
But: "There are massive formal legal errors," said the community lawyer Gregor Schneider at the meeting.
In addition to a few formal errors, the aim of the initiative was not formulated clearly enough.
In addition, the reasons were too one-sided and incorrectly presented.
"The reason does not do justice to the facts," said the lawyer.
“I cannot choose a subjective, favorable representation for me.” But that is exactly the case, for example, with the indication that the property is located on a possible S-Bahn route.
Because there is a cultivation ban zone, which is why, according to the municipality, moving the petrol station would not prevent the construction of an S-Bahn.
The argument that the roundabouts would continue to be loaded is not correct.
Instead, according to an expert opinion, the new petrol station location could even relieve the traffic on the western roundabout, as this would no longer have to be driven through by everyone.
As far as the soil sealing is concerned, this would have the same consequences for a different type of development as if a gas station were to be built. And the referendum was not generally directed against an industrial park. Schneider therefore came to the conclusion: "The referendum does not comply with the legal requirements."
Mayor Markus Trinkl, in turn, stated that the project emerged from the retail concept from 2015. The commercial development project group took on the implementation of the planning. With the new construction of the Edeka market and the settlement of the Rossmann market, important citizens' wishes have already been realized. According to Trinkl, at that time there was also a desire for a network location. In other words: A common location for Edeka and Lidl. “There was a recommendation to relocate Lidl,” he explained. There is only room for it where the gas station is now. In addition: "Currently the gas station is right next to the residential area," he said. If she were further away, it would be a relief for the residents.
However, during the discussion there was criticism of the transparency of the project.
"Since I've been on the local council, the retail concept has not been discussed once," complained Veit Winkler, who is the only member of the SPD to be a lone fighter.
“Why isn't all of this communicated openly?” Roderich Zauscher (BGO), one of the initiators of the signature campaign, also criticized a “strange game of public and non-public discussions”.
Trinkl disagreed with this.
“You don't have to repeat everything in every session,” he explained.
“Everything that could be said publicly was known.
Contractual matters are not necessarily public. "
In November 2019, the applicants for the commercial space were presented at a closed municipal council meeting.
At that time, the decision was made to hold further discussions on concepts - in particular on relocating gas stations and moving Lidl.
In June of this year - again in a closed session - a first draft concept for the project was presented.
“No decision has yet been made,” stressed Trinkl.
One thing is certain: there was a lot of uncertainty.
Wolfgang Steininger (FW) also blamed the organizers of the citizens' initiative for this.
"If the citizens had got the facts right, there would have been significantly fewer signatures," he said.
In the referendum, a lot was described as "oversubscribed".
"But we're not in cabaret!"
Because the critics used the word Autohof several times - a facility that, according to the official definition, must have at least 100 truck parking spaces on more frequented motorways - Michael Kiemer (CSU) explained: “We have the impression that citizens were deliberately deceived. “There will definitely not be that many truck parking spaces; we once talked about 20.
Zauscher explained: “Regardless of the truck stop, it leads to more trucks that cannot find a parking space.” During the deliberations on the development plan, Elisabeth Kappes (BGO) requested that petrol stations only be allowed for their own company use. “People don't want more truck traffic. Period, ”she reiterated her point of view. Angelika Aigner (BGO) also referred to the Fuchsberg car park, which is also often full. “The trucks are then at the exit,” she reported. "With us they would drive to the industrial park."
For the vote, lawyer Gregor Schneider once again emphasized the inadmissibility of the referendum.
An assumption is "an illegal decision".
Ultimately, only Roderich Zauscher and Angelika Aigner voted for admission.
"It is disappointing that you don't deal with the content, but instead take refuge in the judiciary," criticized Zauscher.
It is a "political flight into legal norms".
The organizers have not yet decided what to do next.
Because the referendum was rejected, the development plan procedure will now be continued in any case.
