Sonja Schor is angry because a multi-party house is being built on the neighboring property, to the detriment of some neighbors. But the builder should be allowed to do everything.
Sonja Schor (50) and Anton Eichinger (82) from Sankt Pölten are desperate and angry: the pensioner has already invested a lot of money in legal fees and fees, the two are fighting despondently against a construction project on the neighboring property in St. Pölten.
Real estate professional builds
Because after the death of the neighbors, the granddaughter inherited the house and land. Her husband is a real estate professional himself and also works for the magistrate. “According to the building description, it will be a new residential building with 3 generation apartments. Due to the modular design and the partition walls, five apartments could then be built. And that’s exactly what I heard, that there should be 5 apartments, although only three would be allowed,” claims Sonja Schor.
The 50-year-old, who has lived in the house since childhood, says: “Great, then up to 5 parties live there, and up to 20 eyes watch me bathing in the pool.”
“Live then in the shadow of 30 foot wall”
The 82-year-old Anton Eichinger has been fighting against the construction of the house for over a year, gets a nine-meter-high fire protection wall and fears “then having to live in the shade”.
The 50-year-old had a very good conversation with the SP deputy mayor because of all her concerns: “He promised me to take a look at the whole thing on site, but he never got in touch again. After umpteen calls from me, he finally said to me, that there was nothing to be done. I consider the whole matter to be highly questionable and corrupt.”
The builder or the builder’s lawyer stated opposite “Today” the case and the background in detail, but asked for discretion and therefore said only briefly: “There is a first-instance decision and this was also fully confirmed by the appeals court – all objections were dismissed.”
That’s what the magistrate says
The St. Pölten magistrate says the following about the case, including the accusation from the neighbors: “The St. Pölten city magistrate employs around 1,300 people. A large proportion of these employees live and live in St. Pölten. Now if a city official came in If a building application is submitted, the head of department transfers the processing of this project to an employee who is not connected to the applicant. Each submitted building project is processed according to a standardized work program, with the preliminary examination being carried out by several departments of the city. If this preliminary examination is positive, the structural engineering reports are drawn up and then an information procedure is carried out with the involvement of the residents. The objections of the residents are examined – if any are received – and then the application is dealt with with a decision. After this, an appeal can be lodged against the decision, which has also happened in the present proceedings this The City Senate of St. Pölten decided on the appeal. After the project had complied with the Lower Austrian building regulations, the zoning plan and the development plan, it had to be approved. The laws apply to all citizens of this city. A building contractor has the constitutionally secured right that a decision is made on his application. Biased organs have to abstain from the decision. Merely knowing a person does not mean that you are biased. Especially in proceedings with city employees, the clerk is asked whether there are reasons that call into question complete impartiality. Only if this question is answered with no, the clerk is assigned the file for processing. Every building permit is checked by the head of the department or his deputy for compliance with the work process and the presence of the positive test results and only then approved and signed by him. For this reason, a favorable decision is made impossible.”
According to the magistrate, the construction act – like everyone else – was processed correctly and in accordance with the legal provisions and the permit was issued in accordance with the law.
