What's next for the structural development in the market town?
With the Zieglerberg and the development plan for Auerbach, Wartenberg's construction, environment and transport committee had two exciting topics on the table on Monday.
One thing is clear: not every property owner there should be enthusiastic about the resolutions.
Wartenberg/Auerbach – The Zieglerberg is treated with care.
With unanimous resolutions, the committee fended off all desires from citizens and stuck to the main variant, in which planner Franz Pezold planned and implemented resolutions and tendencies for a site visit in the summer (we reported).
In the land use plan, Pezold uses an instrument that has never been used in Wartenberg: the will of the municipality is shown that further structural development is expressly not desired in a certain area.
With this idea, Pezold ran into open doors in the committee.
The bottom line is that there are now 14 residential units in the planning area, eight more than before.
Everything that has been registered as additional building requests falls through.
According to Pezold, the area to remain clear is listed as a priority area in the county's species and biotope protection program.
Two biotopes are mapped.
According to other supra-local planning works, the area is a "reserved landscape area".
Some of the many listeners may not have liked to hear that.
The plan is now going into the first public round with one dissenting vote.
According to Mayor Christian Pröbst (CSU), there will be no ecological compensation areas.
That is difficult, if only because such a valuable area can hardly be further upgraded.
But the market has a lot on the ecological account.
That will be tackled and the effort will then be settled with the contractors.
Franz Ganslmaier (FWG) addressed the surface drainage, since a problem could arise on the slope because the degree of sealing is increasing.
"You have to plan well," he demanded.
Incidentally, the said entry about the undesired further development can now also be found in the moat area, where the “cave people” (original sound Michael Paulini/SPD) once wanted to build.
Pröbst called the whole thing a "logical consequence" of the previous decisions.
The decision to do so was unanimous.
For Auerbach, too, the committee nailed down further structural development and sent the plan to the first official round.
Striking parts such as the village green remain excluded from development.
Some citizens would like more flexibility in the design of any new buildings.
The planner was able to comply with this wish, at least in part: "Of course, the questions about equal treatment immediately arise."
In addition, there are things that did not play a major role when the development plan was drawn up in 2006, such as the need to build in a space-saving manner.
That's why it's understandable if more is built upwards, says Pezold.
The current draft does exactly that.
But the architect also made it clear what was good about the old plan: he described the goal of preserving the character of the village, but also making expansions possible, as correct.
Pröbst added that everyone thought it was important that, for example, the shape of the roof remained as it was.
But it won't be possible to build for a while.
Not only that this fourth change in the development plan has yet to find its way through the authorities involved - flood protection is also difficult.
Pröbst made it clear that without the construction of a ditch there would definitely be no building permits.
Here, too, he received no objection.
Martin Hamberger's (CSU) suggestion that multi-generation houses could be created by building upwards was liked by his colleagues.
The committee unanimously rejected further requests from individual property owners.
Village green remains free
Flood: You can't do it without a ditch
