As of: February 16, 2024, 7:02 a.m
By: Andrea Gräpel
Comments
Press
Split
The ice cream stand at “La Dolce Vita” is a temporary structure that stands directly on the property line.
A second tent built behind it has already been removed.
The stock can remain for the time being.
© Andrea Jaksch
The pizzeria “La Dolce Vita” on Seestrasse in Herrsching has long since made a name for itself through its ice cream sales.
This, housed in a temporary structure, was a thorn in the side of the district office - they ordered it to be removed.
The administrative court decided yesterday that this order should be examined again.
Herrsching
– The ice cream edition at “La Dolce Vita” in Herrsching has once again come into the sights of the building inspectorate.
The operator, De Marino GmbH, filed a lawsuit against the removal order issued by the district office.
Yesterday the administrative court inspected the location at Seestrasse 52.
There has been an ice cream stand at the pizzeria “La Dolce Vita” for more than ten years, initially just a chest in a half-open tent. Over the years, the temporary sales room has been expanded and boarded up to make it weatherproof.
To create more space, a tent was set up in the back area.
It is possible that this second tent construction was the trigger for the building supervision in the Starnberg district office to become active again and issue an order for removal.
Possibly because the construction lawyer Dr.
Neither Felix Huller nor Judge Johann Oswald could think of an explanation yesterday as to why this order reappeared after twelve years.
Oswald recalled a file note, a “statement of toleration,” in the district office’s files from 2009, according to which the authority, in consultation with Mayor Christian Schiller, agreed at the time that the ice cream parlor should continue to exist as long as no one complained.
The spatial situation hasn't changed much since then and the second tent is no longer there.
However, as was the case back then, the building inspectorate cited the lack of clearance areas.
“The reason is incomprehensible,” said Judge Oswald.
Not after twelve years.
Only then did the lawsuit reach the court.
In fact, the ice cream parlor is on the property line, and the neighboring Hotel Seehof is so high that it couldn't cede any space to its neighbors even if it wanted to.
In this context, the judge noticed other buildings, namely sales barns, which belong to the Hotel Seehof and “are probably used in the summer months”.
The barns are located in the courtyard area at the rear of the property and were obviously set up on the promenade at Christmas time.
There are three in total – one older, two relatively new.
This is indicated by the unweathered wood.
“If we walk around here now,” said Oswald with a sweeping glance towards the promenade and other restaurants there, “it could well be that there are more huts standing around.”
The judge apparently did not want to open this barrel and preferred to leave it to the district office to decide at its discretion.
He suggested to the plaintiff's lawyer, Franz Weinberger, that in case of doubt he should submit an application for an isolated deviation.
Which wouldn't be necessary if the process were to rest for now.
“Then you have time to check it again in peace,” he said to the construction lawyer.
Huller finally made this request to have the proceedings suspended, which Judge Oswald immediately granted: He ordered a suspended proceedings.
The district authority now has time to review the new disposal order.
When asked, Herrsching's mayor, who can hardly remember the initial discussion in 2009, was at least as surprised as Judge Oswald.
“I heard about the inspection appointment, but the community wasn’t invited.
I cannot understand the removal order.”