Are building heights mandatory in the development plan?

Good afternoon,

a multi-family house is planned on a neighboring property. However, there is disagreement between the municipality and the investor. According to the municipality, the wall and building heights are mandatory. Therefore, the first lower design was rejected. However, the investor currently has problems from an economic perspective in combination with the required parking spaces to build any higher. Many originally assumed that the heights were not mandatory. Because according to the planning sign ordinance, there should actually be a circle around the building and wall heights in the graphic part. There are also parcels here that have specified exactly such a “mandatory” building height. The only thing that can suggest that the heights are mandatory is that the legend distinguishes between WH/GH Max. and WH/GH (without Max.) and the note that it is mandatory. However, as mentioned, unlike usage templates 5 and 6, the circle around WH/GH is missing.



Here is the legend



The house in dispute concerns usage template 3. See here:



Can someone give their opinion on this? Perhaps even ?

Best regards

What I wanted to add: The textual provisions do not state that the heights are mandatory. Therefore, here is my specific question:

Is it sufficient, despite the incorrect/missing plan symbol (the circle around WH/GH), if the legend states "Wall height/Building height mandatory in meters, above reference point"?

Well, IMHO a clear formal error. But is it substantial? For area 3, the development plan is consistent in itself. The drawing shows WH and GH, the usage template does as well, and the legend explains that these specifications are mandatory. Rather, someone from 5 or 6 could say that their specifications are not explained. But then there is also the planning symbol regulation. According to that, the circles are missing in the legend and usage template 3. And neither in the textual provisions nor in the justification is the word "mandatory" mentioned in connection with wall heights. My assessment: The investor would have good chances of success with a lawsuit. But in court and on the high seas...

The situation reminds me of a development area in Walldorf, see there:
where the row of apartment buildings is supposed to serve as noise protection for the single-family house plots E/D located behind it from the perspective of a bypass road. This is of course only possible if the row of apartment buildings becomes a closed "dike" at the intended height.

Otherwise, I only see the values for WH and GH circled in sections (5) and (6), and the affected distance (3) as a maximum, which of course may also be undercut (however, the definiteness is violated by the fact that the "Max" is missing here, and there are two possibilities (once Max and once mandatory) confronting three representations - namely once with the addition "Max" (in sections 1, 2 and 4), once with circled WH/GH (in 5 and 6) and once without circling, but also without "Max" (precisely in 3). So whether one even needs an "exception," I do not see at all; rather, in my opinion, the municipality should be complained to about the definiteness of the depicted regulation.

Thank you both for your assessment. I believe the municipality would not insist on the heights of the house if they did not assume that it is 100% regulated under building planning law. Why?

The planning has been ongoing since early 2019. The municipality is selling to an investor in connection with a finished plan. The first draft did not intend to comply with the heights. Nevertheless, there was agreement between the municipality and the investor that this should be the draft. Someone then noticed and pointed out that the heights must be strictly adhered to. That is why they are currently dragging it out forever and cannot reach an agreement. Ergo, the municipality cannot sell and may have to re-tender with an exemption from the heights (according to the current status of the municipality).

Could the municipality and the investor now exploit the formal error vis-à-vis the building authority to get the first draft approved after all?

I believe the municipality would not insist on the heights of the house if they did not assume that it is 100% regulated under building planning law.

I can't follow that: who else but themselves has regulated it? - Zoning plans are after all the competence of the municipality.