3m distance limit from the house to the property boundary

Dear community,

we are planning to build a house and have purchased a plot of land. From well-known house builders, we have learned that they do not have to comply with the mentioned 3m distance limits from the house to the property boundary, since there was a street there. They argued with the law §6 paragraph 6 (especially the last sentence):

(6) For two exterior walls of no more than 16 m in length each, half the depth of the clearance area required according to paragraph 5 sentences 1 and 2, at least 3 m, is sufficient as the depth of the clearance area. Sentence 1 also applies to exterior walls longer than 16 m, but only for a section of the exterior wall up to 16 m. If a building is constructed with one exterior wall adjoining another building or a property boundary, sentence 1 applies only to one exterior wall; if a building is constructed with two exterior walls adjoining other buildings or property boundaries, sentence 1 does not apply; property boundaries to public traffic areas, public green spaces, and public water areas remain unaffected.

Question 1: this seems to be an older excerpt or is it still valid?

On our property (in the drawing (see attachment) bottom/right) we have a green strip of 2m, which belongs to the city. The drawing shows our property including the construction project, the neighboring properties, and the streets (of the housing development).

Picture/drawing:



We would like to save the 3m distance limits and rather use the "space" in the back.
Question 2: Do the 3m distance limits have to be observed, considering that a) we still have a green area in front of the property and b) there is a street in front (see above: law §6 paragraph 6 (especially last sentence))

We are grateful for any answer.
Many thanks and best regards

[editmessage]-- Edited by spike1302 on 07.10.2017 18:52[/editmessage]

And now? - what is desired: to shorten the "front garden" by 1 m?

Setback areas are one thing, but this apparently isn’t really about the side distance here. Building boundaries are another. Some municipalities also have certain ideas about uniform building lines in §34 areas, practically even building lines.

means the building envelope, which is not indicated here, but should be included in your development plan. Usually 3 or 5 meters from the street. However, if you read your copied passage more closely (wherever it comes from, a source would be helpful), it says _at least 3 meters_!

And if the plan is oriented correctly, I don’t see the problem, since I would have arranged the garage and everything else slightly differently anyway to gain adequate garden space.

means the building envelope, which is not indicated here, but should be included in your development plan.

If one assumes a development plan area (which I did not do), then the "building envelope" is applicable. However, I meant that - regardless of §34 or development plan area - there are usually certain expectations regarding the line that the building fronts should not exceed.

Although this is not apparent from the text excerpt, I am of the opinion that this refers (only) to the side building setback.

If you assume a development plan area (which I did not do), then the "building window" is accurate. However, I meant that - regardless of §34 or development plan area - there are generally certain expectations regarding the line that the building fronts should not exceed.

Although it is not apparent from the excerpt, I am of the opinion that this refers (only) to the lateral building distance.

But hardly anyone can understand that: not your first post, nor the last, nor the one in the middle. Even I, though I am now familiar with your jumble of letters, had doubts about what you meant.

Normal terminology is often not your choice; here and often in other threads, I have compared your abstract posts with my knowledge. But if the TEs cannot filter it, they often cannot make any sense of your statements at all. By the way, it’s the same for me—and honestly: I wasn’t exactly born stupid and have grown with the forum and all its consequences for 4 years. In that respect, I have to say: it may be an art to be misunderstood here by others, but should it be so in a forum? I would say in 50% of your cases: off-topic! Well executed, but in a predominantly forum context not understandable.

... if you speculate on a found text that explicitly states "sentence 1 is not to be applied," then sentence 1 should also be quoted, and of course, as Yvonne already wrote, the name of the law with preferably the version as of also ;). And preferably the site plan excerpt from the official page as well as the north arrow ;).