Possible zoning changes spark opposition in Gruben-Gstaad

A proposed zoning change to allow for the loosening up of building codes in the middle of the Gruben neighborhood of Gstaad has spawned a flurry of concern among many residents in the area. The land, located near the level crossing on the Grubenstrasse, is zoned ‘agricultural’, meaning that no new chalets can be built; dwelling extensions are allowed only up to 30% of current livable space; and underground garages and fitness rooms are allowed under dwellings only and not under barns. The Gemeinde is in favor of rezoning 21 plots or 64,300 square meters (15.8 acres) of agricultural land in Gruben to allow for the loosening up of building laws for certain chalet owners. That has stirred up concern among some residents that this zoning change could affect farmers’ rights, lead to more development and a further loss of farmland in the future.

“What happens when we hold a diamond in our hand, but see it as a stone?” asked Johannes Nydegger, a concerned resident of Gruben at a January 23 informal meeting of approximately 60 Gruben residents, which included three representatives from the local government. “Gruben is such a diamond,” he stated, followed by a long pause.

For those who don’t know, Gruben is a sunny, agricultural area located in the ‘triangle’ created by the villages of Gstaad, Saanen and Schönried. Many know it as a popular walking destination. Despite prior attempts to develop it back in the 1970s and then again in the 1990s, Gruben has remained largely untouched by the building boom that has caused other neighborhoods - such as Bissen, Wispile and Oberbort - to loose their mountain farmland appeal. This has led to a large unmet demand for real estate in Gruben. Nydegger went on to explain that the proposed zoning change would take land out of the agricultural zone and place it into the ‘preservation zone’, an area which he described as an “isolated small residential (buildable) zone”; something which he said is contrary to cantonal law. He added that, of the 21 plots in question, five are entirely farmed and have no dwellings on them, raising the question of why these plots had to be part of the rezoning plan. He calculated that of the total hectares of land to be rezoned, 40% or 26,000 square meters (6.4 acres) are actually farmed; furthermore, three of the larger plots with dwellings on them are farmed for hay. Such rezoning, he stated, would affect the direct payments that the farmers who farm those properties receive from the government.

Benz Hauswirth, former head of the building and land use department at the Gemeinde Saanen, explained that the farmers would continue to get their payments but in a different way. Both Hauswirth and Andreas Hurni, the outgoing Gemeinde president, are still involved in Gemeinde matters as they are members of the commission charged with completing the region's 2005-2008 zoning plan revision. Otto Rychener, the current head of the land use planning department, was also present. Hurni and Hauswirth assured those present that the ‘preservation zone’ allows for no new dwellings to be built. The only benefit those chalet owners would receive would be the ability to expand their dwellings by between 100 and 250 square meters (depending on how much they have already expanded) and to use underground space for garages, fitness rooms and the like. Nydegger pointed out that the building of “side buildings” would be allowed in the new zone.

Many individuals stated that they were not against dwelling expansions, but against the rezoning itself. They said that once this land were converted into the ‘preservation zone’, it would be difficult to stop a further change into the ‘W3a’ zone, a residential zone that allows dense lot coverage. Benz Hauswirth explained that such a change would not be so easy and would only be possible in 15 years when the next zoning plan revision takes place. And a zoning plan revision involves a public review and input process.

One point which garnered much discussion was: why Gruben, why now and why at all? Andreas Hurni explained that more than a decade ago, efforts were made to change the zoning in Gruben; the current plan was drawn up only to conform the area to current land use laws. One man in the back of the room asked why so much building was allowed in the agricultural zone. Hurni replied that the rules governing building in the agricultural zone used to be less stringent than they are now. Touching on this subject, Nydegger quoted a recent public input report: “the to-be-rezoned-area by the level crossing in Gruben is, for the most part, already developed with dwellings. The entire area is therefore non-zone-conforming and its use is to be modified according to land use plan laws.” Nydegger argued that there are many examples of agricultural parcels in Saanenland that have dwellings on them and that are not designated as non-zone-conforming.

Another point that got the attendees talking was the fairness factor. Many talked about how difficult it was for them to make changes to their dwellings. They said they felt it unfair that a small group of landowners in the ‘preservation zone’ would no longer be required to go through the difficult permissions process with the canton. “It’s not about the people involved; it’s about the principle,” said Nydegger. He said that the neighborhood of Gruben is an agriculturally-dominated area, characterized as a classical settlement with scattered buildings; he said it should remain so. Another point that Nydegger brought up, was the additional traffic on the already over-burdened one-lane Grubenstrasse, that more development would bring.

Some attendees criticized the manner in which the proposed zoning change was advertised. Although the Gemeinde placed a public notice in the December 16 2008 issue of the local newspaper, many found the public notice misleading. Nowhere in the advertisement was a ‘preservation zone’ mentioned. The Gemeinde’s plans drew attention thanks only to a letter from Heidi Eckes-Chantré, a Gruben landowner.

After three hours for discussion, approximately 50 individuals signed a petition against the proposed zoning change.