"Fort Knox" is completed

Created: 02/23/2022, 09:22

By: Thomas Zimmerly

Fits in with the surrounding area – according to the district office, which approved the construction of the retaining wall in front of the villa on Am Eichenberg street in Hebertshausen. © habschied

In autumn 2020, the local newspaper reported on a Hebertshausen villa owner who built a new terrace, a swimming pool and a 20 meter long and four meter high wall without any permission.

To do this, he felled numerous trees.

The district office initially ordered a freeze on construction, but has now approved the project.

So the work is still being completed.

The municipality of Hebertshausen is appalled by the change of heart of the district office and is suing.

Hebertshausen – So it goes on.

The conversion of a villa in the street Am Eichenberg in Hebertshausen can be completed in all probability.

As reported, builder Josef Wörmann junior, managing partner of the trailer specialist Wörmann, which operates throughout Europe, had a new terrace, a swimming pool and, above all, a 20 meter long and four meter high retaining wall built in autumn 2020 without any permission.

The villa owner had some trees felled on his property.

Local residents were outraged, speaking of a "mammoth structure" similar to Fort Knox in the United States.

The district office soon ordered a cessation of construction.

And the Hebertshausen municipal council rejected two subsequent building applications from Wörmann, whereby the first submitted plan is said not to have corresponded to the facts.

If it had been built after him, the distance to the neighboring property would not have been maintained, said Mayor Richard Reischl in a municipal council meeting.

The wall is 40 centimeters higher than drawn.

And the slope is much steeper than indicated in the plan sketch, according to the mayor.

Despite all the audacity, the entrepreneur can now pull up his "Fort Knox".

Because the final decision on the building permit is the responsibility of the district office and not the municipality.

And that agreed because "the height of the wall was adjusted to the heights of the other walls in the area," said district office spokeswoman Sina Török.

In other words, the building could be subsequently approved under Section 34 of the Building Code because it blended into the environment;

short, because there are reference cases.

Incidentally, there is no development plan for the area around the Eichenberg.

The approach of the approval authority rankles the municipality of Hebertshausen.

She has filed a lawsuit against the decision.

The construction project just doesn't fit into the environment, says Mayor Richard Reischl.

"In terms of its type and massiveness, it is not comparable to the surrounding walls." The decision refers to it as a retaining wall.

"A retaining wall has to be in the ground to provide support," says Reischl.

But the wall protrudes quite a bit from the ground.

For the mayor, the primary purpose of the building is "to protect the builder from insights".

He and his fellow councilors are therefore "surprised that the district office has a different legal view than the community".

However, what the lawsuit will not prevent is that Wörmann will complete its project - as originally planned.

There are three reasons for this.

For one thing, the lawsuit does not have a suspensive effect.

Secondly, Reischl believes that the administrative court will not make its judgment before one and a half to two years.

And thirdly, the municipality waived an urgent application.

"That is not expedient," said Reischl, because then "the decision would be taken from the table".

A site inspection, during which the real situation would be considered, would not take place.

It remains to be seen how the case will be decided by the court.

But Mayor Reischl sends greetings to the client: "He must know that he is continuing to build at his own risk." If the municipality wins, Josef Wörmann junior could definitely be sentenced to terrace,

Tear down the pool and wall again.

That doesn't seem to worry Woermann.

His lawyer Thomas Schönfeld said yesterday succinctly: "The lawsuit does not represent a substantial risk." Schönfeld says that only birch trees on the northern property border were unlawfully removed.

And that now for every felled tree a replacement planting has to take place.

He did not discover a fine in the approval notice.

The district office could "unfortunately not make any statement for data protection reasons," says Sina Török, press spokeswoman for the district office.

For comparison: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on a case in Aschaffenburg, where a property owner felled several oak trees without permission.

His actions were acknowledged with a fine totaling 23,000 euros, according to the FAZ.

That doesn't seem to worry Woermann.

His lawyer Thomas Schönfeld said yesterday succinctly: "The lawsuit does not represent a substantial risk." Schönfeld says that only birch trees on the northern property border were unlawfully removed.

And that now for every felled tree a replacement planting has to take place.

He did not discover a fine in the approval notice.

The district office could "unfortunately not make any statement for data protection reasons," says Sina Török, press spokeswoman for the district office.

For comparison: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on a case in Aschaffenburg, where a property owner felled several oak trees without permission.

His actions were acknowledged with a fine totaling 23,000 euros, according to the FAZ.

That doesn't seem to worry Woermann.

His lawyer Thomas Schönfeld said yesterday succinctly: "The lawsuit does not represent a substantial risk." Schönfeld says that only birch trees on the northern property border were unlawfully removed.

And that now for every felled tree a replacement planting has to take place.

He did not discover a fine in the approval notice.

The district office could "unfortunately not make any statement for data protection reasons," says Sina Török, press spokeswoman for the district office.

For comparison: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on a case in Aschaffenburg, where a property owner felled several oak trees without permission.

His actions were acknowledged with a fine totaling 23,000 euros, according to the FAZ.

His lawyer Thomas Schönfeld said yesterday succinctly: "The lawsuit does not represent a substantial risk." Schönfeld says that only birch trees on the northern property border were unlawfully removed.

And that now for every felled tree a replacement planting has to take place.

He did not discover a fine in the approval notice.

The district office could "unfortunately not make any statement for data protection reasons," says Sina Török, press spokeswoman for the district office.

For comparison: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on a case in Aschaffenburg, where a property owner felled several oak trees without permission.

His actions were acknowledged with a fine totaling 23,000 euros, according to the FAZ.

His lawyer Thomas Schönfeld said yesterday succinctly: "The lawsuit does not represent a substantial risk." Schönfeld says that only birch trees on the northern property border were unlawfully removed.

And that now for every felled tree a replacement planting has to take place.

He did not discover a fine in the approval notice.

The district office could "unfortunately not make any statement for data protection reasons," says Sina Török, press spokeswoman for the district office.

For comparison: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on a case in Aschaffenburg, where a property owner felled several oak trees without permission.

His actions were acknowledged with a fine totaling 23,000 euros, according to the FAZ.

Schönfeld says that only birch trees on the northern property line were illegally removed.

And that now for every felled tree a replacement planting has to take place.

He did not discover a fine in the approval notice.

The district office could "unfortunately not make any statement for data protection reasons," says Sina Török, press spokeswoman for the district office.

For comparison: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on a case in Aschaffenburg, where a property owner felled several oak trees without permission.

His actions were acknowledged with a fine totaling 23,000 euros, according to the FAZ.

Schönfeld says that only birch trees on the northern property line were illegally removed.

And that now for every felled tree a replacement planting has to take place.

He did not discover a fine in the approval notice.

The district office could "unfortunately not make any statement for data protection reasons," says Sina Török, press spokeswoman for the district office.

For comparison: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on a case in Aschaffenburg, where a property owner felled several oak trees without permission.

His actions were acknowledged with a fine totaling 23,000 euros, according to the FAZ.

He did not discover a fine in the approval notice.

The district office could "unfortunately not make any statement for data protection reasons," says Sina Török, press spokeswoman for the district office.

For comparison: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on a case in Aschaffenburg, where a property owner felled several oak trees without permission.

His actions were acknowledged with a fine totaling 23,000 euros, according to the FAZ.

He did not discover a fine in the approval notice.

The district office could "unfortunately not make any statement for data protection reasons," says Sina Török, press spokeswoman for the district office.

For comparison: The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reported on a case in Aschaffenburg, where a property owner felled several oak trees without permission.

His actions were acknowledged with a fine totaling 23,000 euros, according to the FAZ.

comment

A mockery of righteous home builders

The Mauer am Eichenberg is a mockery cast in concrete of those builders who, if they exceed the minimum limit, do not get their awnings, dormers or garden sheds approved at all or only after time-consuming correspondence.

The district office allows a builder to do so with a reason that makes Mayor Richard Reischl's pulse soar to unimagined heights.

And simply ignores the veto of the municipality – without having to.

And thus promotes a wall builder who initially submitted no plans and later possibly wrong ones.

It is completely unrealistic to believe that the client thought his project did not require a permit.

Apparently he had already priced in impending fines.

And one gets the feeling that when it came down to completing the construction,

could rely on very good connections to the district office.

The approval from the office can be compared to the wall.

It, too, is a mockery of law-abiding home builders.