Ultimately, it is about the fact that the volume of the building, = project with underground parking and 6 or even only 4 residential units, which would require an exemption from the provisions of the development plan, would remain the same if only 2 residential units were built in it. Given this circumstance, that the building would not change externally, an exemption from the provisions should certainly be appropriate. But the project will probably fail due to the discretion of the authority. [/] Thanks for your answers. I think the topic can be closed. All the best!
Always keep friendly.
The topic is dead because the questioner does not keep the friendliness to clarify what it is actually about.
Whether someone wants to build four residential units a) where only four are permissible or b) where he received an exemption for six residential units and now only wants to realize four of them, that is not a matter of discretion but a difference like early morning and late evening. It is a pity that some questioners prefer to beat around the bush rather than enable those willing to help to provide well-founded answers. That already borders on disregard of their (here also mine) friendliness.
It is formulated somewhat sharply – there is a development plan that clearly stipulates something different as binding.
There must be good reasons why you want a deviation from it, and then it will be examined whether it will be approved at the discretion of the authority.
Discretion exists in both cases, exemptions only from development plans. But the OP is already confusing in the question whether such a plan exists (or whether §34 should apply).
The development plan simply contains statements about the residential units. If it were only about the volume, only this would have to be mentioned.
Yes, that would not be a qualified development plan and would not require a plan drawing or more detailed textual stipulations. "In the entire municipal district of Neu-Hintertupfing, the BMZ of xyz cbm per 100 sqm of land area is regarded as the upper limit of the extent of structural use" is probably nowhere considered as a sufficient regulatory framework.
However, one could very likely give an exhaustively satisfactory answer if the questioner cooperated. Even here in the pro bono consultation hour. It is a pity that someone who does not really want this at all nevertheless opens a thread. With a "can be closed," that is not curable but remains trolling.
