The neighborhood dispute over the Gruber Beauty Farm training building has become deadlocked. Local councilors have called on the opponents to finally come to an agreement.
Rottach-Egern
- The Gruber Foundation building on Rottacher Reiffenstuelweg is half-finished, the open front is protected from the weather with tarpaulins. Every day, lawyer Benno Ziegler, representing the foundation, says that damage amounting to several thousand euros occurs . As reported, a neighborhood dispute is blocking further construction. In order to reduce the damage, the Gruber Foundation had asked the local council to create the planning conditions so that the use of the house as a training center for ten beauticians cannot be questioned in court.
Business mediation recommended
The majority of the local council rejected it: they did not want to intervene in a legal dispute. Instead, Georg Höß suggested business mediation to the opponents, and Klaus Fresenius (both FWG) also pushed for an agreement. The foundation would be willing to mediate, says lawyer Ziegler. This would make sense, for example, under the leadership of the three Rottach mayors. The foundation has repeatedly offered Hermann Elmering - he represents his son in this matter, who owns a house on Reiffenstuelweg - an agreement.
Gruber Foundation ready for discussions
However, a settlement failed due to “abnormal demands”, such as the registration of an easement in Elmering’s favor. The foundation should have committed to not allowing animals to stay in the seminar building. Elmering also refused to consent to the completion of the building, waiving its use until the court decision. This causes high economic damage.
Plaintiff wants to secure the character of the area
Elmering sees things differently. The foundation started construction despite the ongoing legal dispute, at its own risk. The damage was caused by those responsible for the foundation's assets themselves. The aim of the neighborhood lawsuits - two of which are now underway - is to secure the character as a general residential area. To reach an agreement, he suggested the entry of easements that stipulate its use as a training facility. The foundation was not prepared to do that. “It’s too early for mediation,” says Elmering. First, the accusation that he caused the economic damage must be dismissed.
Still no decision on urgent application
The foundation is convinced that it will prevail in the legal dispute, regardless of a change in the development plan, says Ziegler. However, it will probably take years until a final verdict is made. Currently, the plaintiff's urgent application has not yet been decided. In order to ensure the status quo on the construction site, the court put the work on hold with an interim order.
The district office examines the suitability of the building as refugee accommodation
The fact that the courts need so much time is “terrible,” said local councilor Fresenius at the meeting. In order to be able to complete and use the building, the foundation wants to temporarily turn the house into refugee accommodation for five years. The majority of the local council also rejected this. However, since this use is permitted under building law, the district office could replace the agreement. The authorities are currently still checking whether the house is suitable as asylum accommodation. The foundation only acts as a landlord, but wants the group of people to be limited to young refugees or parents with children. In addition, the expansion as accommodation and then the dismantling would have to be financed first. The foundation does not want to speak of disappointment after its applications were rejected: “We have taken note of the decision and are keeping all options for using the building open.”