At its most recent meeting, the Peißenberg building committee once again had to deal with the construction project at the “Thalacker / Thalackerstrasse” intersection. This time the committee gave its consent, but there was still criticism of the district office.
Peißenberg - Actually, it sounds like a very everyday construction project: On the property "Thalacker 101" in the area of the driveway to the "Schweiber", an old single-family house is to be demolished and replaced by a three-story new building (ridge height 10.23 meters) including a separate apartment and a double garage ( we reported).
But there is criticism of the plans: residents in particular point out that the building's cubature and excavations on the already sloping topography would make it appear quite powerful and high compared to the buildings directly surrounding it. There are also fears of landslides caused by the structural intervention. In February, the majority of the building committee refused to give its consent to the municipality because it did not agree with the district office's interpretation of the requirement to integrate the building (Section 34 of the Building Code) into the built environment and criticized it as “arbitrary”.
The district office is the relevant authority for building permits
Contrary to previous practice, the district authority has recently resorted to an expanded “neighborhood assessment”, which also takes buildings on the opposite side of the street into account, provided that the roadway does not have an urban dividing character for the respective district. In this specific case, buildings of similar height but which appear visually more tolerable due to the slope of the terrain are located on the other side of the street.
When it comes to building permits, the district office is the relevant authority. And in this capacity, the authority now signaled to the market that it wanted to replace the community agreement if it remained negative. But the building committee gave in: it approved the building application with nine votes to two. How did the change of heart come about? Building authority manager Birgit Thaller explained to the committee that other districts would also use the extended “district assessment” - “and have been doing so for a long time”. In addition, there have now been corrections to the plan: Although nothing has changed in the dimensions of the building, the building is to be buried a little deeper and moved further away from the “Thalacker 103” property.
Mayor Frank Zellner (CSU): construction project “reasonable for the surrounding area”
In terms of height, the new building will be 1.50 meters higher than the existing building. Even if the insertion requirement is an “undefined legal term”, Mayor Frank Zellner (CSU) classified the construction project as “reasonable for the surrounding area”. Ursula Einberger (SPD) made a similar statement: “We want to seal as little area as possible. But if it’s going to be sealed, then I think it’s good if it’s not just limited to a single-family home, but also includes an apartment that you can rent.”
Stefan Rießenberger (Citizens' Association) and Jürgen Forstner voted against granting the community consent. The parliamentary group spokesman for the Free Voters voted for approval in February - which, however, was more of an expression of sarcasm. “I voted for it in February because I think what’s going on is pretty cynical,” explained Forstner in the committee to the district office. It is “frightening” how the district authority has “absolutely thrown out” its long-standing practice in interpreting the insertion requirement. For years, construction projects in Peißenberg were blocked due to the alleged lack of integration into the built environment.
Forstner referred to the former municipal property at “Böhmerwaldstrasse 1” as an example: “What a hiccup it was until a semi-detached house was allowed to be built there.” Forstner interpreted his “no” to the approval for the building application for “Thalacker 101”. “Signal to the district office” to reconsider the approach in relation to Section 34 of the Building Code. And in general: “The insertion requirement is a more than vague instrument. Actually, it should be deleted because it is always a matter of interpretation somewhere,” said Forstner.