At its appointment in Forstinning, the Munich Administrative Court was able to experience first-hand that a large canopy definitely has its advantages: Despite the pouring rain, the parties involved in the process were dry. However, under a shaky roof in a legal sense: the municipality of Forstinning and the Ebersberg district office had demanded that the owner dismantle his carport – against which he had filed a lawsuit.
Those involved in the process agreed that the roof between the garage and the roadside did not meet the requirements of the local development plan – the point of contention was whether an exception, a so-called exemption, could be allowed. The owner of the canopy refers to similar buildings in the vicinity, which the court visits on a tour. Forstinning’s mayor Rupert Ostermair and the representatives of the district office, on the other hand, point to differences between the inspected canopies and the plaintiff’s building.
The canopy has been in place for ten years, and there has been a dispute about it for six years
This one has been where it is for quite a while. The plaintiff says he had the roof installed in front of the garage more than ten years ago. At that time he worked for the medical on-call service, so it was particularly useful in winter when the car was snow-free and ready in an emergency. However, this necessity no longer exists, he is now retired, according to the plaintiff.
Almost six years ago, the municipality had complained about the carport for the first time, and three years ago the removal order from the district building authority, which has now been negotiated, came. According to the plaintiff’s lawyer, his clients are quite willing to compromise. An originally existing side wall of the porch has already been removed – but this was not enough for the district office and community.
Albin Schenk from the district building authority pointed out that such porches were not provided for in the development plan – and apart from that of the plaintiff there were none. If the carport were now permitted as an exception, all the neighbors could refer to this precedent, so the corresponding specification of the development plan would de facto be abolished.
The court proposes a compromise
The presiding judge, Korbinian Heinzeller, wanted to know from those involved whether a compromise could be found. According to the community, such a thing would be conceivable, Ostermair quoted a basic resolution of the municipal council, according to which small canopies over parking spaces are allowed. However, the plaintiff’s canopy also extends over the area in front of the garage – and this is not a parking space. According to the mayor, the municipality would allow a carport reduced by this area.
The plaintiff agreed to have half of his canopy removed. After a brief consultation, the district office also agreed to this procedure – and did with the removal order what the plaintiff wants to do with his carport: it was halved, i.e. limited to the area in front of the garage. The plaintiff now has until the end of March to dismantle this part.