Building height of 8.5 m with basement and 2 full floors

  • Erstellt am 2018-01-04 08:10:03

11ant

2018-01-10 16:11:28
  • #1

That would be a masterpiece of foolishness and a perfect setup to overturn the development plan.

But I rather believe an apprentice was on the phone. Development plans are meant to unify the appearance of an area, and not create a restless skyline by capping the height of houses with basements.


What do the textual provisions say about height references to unaltered terrain and about limits of such terrain modifications?
 

Escroda

2018-01-11 09:38:16
  • #2

That is indeed unbelievable! Unfortunately, once again a case for lawyers. Here is my assessment:
This interpretation will not withstand judicial review. The term "floor slab" alone violates the requirement of definiteness, since further explanations such as "floor slab of the lowest storey" are missing. Even with that, there would still be a lack of definiteness, because the reference point must be determined or determinable in the plan itself, as it is for the reference point of the eaves height. Here, however, the reference point would depend on the architect’s planning.
Also completely unclear is the urban planning purpose of this stipulation. I would be curious about the wording in the justification. The possibility of a height determination aims at design influence on the townscape, which is definitely not achieved with this stipulation, and not at limiting the built-up volume. Other means such as plot ratio/floor area ratio/BMZ are available for that.

For you, the question now is whether you want to pursue legal action if the building application for your dream house is rejected. Are there still no houses in the building area? Do you know other builders there? Have you ever talked to an architect?

There is only one point. You determine the midpoint of your street-side boundary (which admittedly is not quite clear with your plot shape). From there you take the shortest way to the street center (I then arrive at point 258.81). The eaves of your house may be a maximum of 6 m above this point (so a maximum of 264.81 above NHN), completely independent of the terrain heights on your property. Although this stipulation is also likely to be challengeable (see judgment OVG NRW, 28.08.2014, Az.: 7 D 8/13.NE).
 

Marcello

2018-01-11 14:02:36
  • #3


In my opinion, the office has 3-4 employees. On the phone, I spoke to a colleague of the lady who created the development plan (she was on sick leave). He was familiar with the situation, as builders before me who have built in the area had this problem.

His summarized statement in roughly quoted wording: "We are aware of the problem. Unfortunately, we can only offer you the option to go through an exemption application. However, it would have a good chance of being approved. Just make sure you don’t exceed 8.5 m too much." When I asked what "too much" means, he said up to 9 would still be okay. Our dream house plans a value between 10 and 11.



I found nothing on that. As before Escroda, I will send you the plan once via PM.



The building area is about 75% built up to this day. I don’t know any builders and unfortunately live 300 km away. But I know from the city planning office itself that especially builders "in the hollow," meaning all building plots downslope (northeast), had to deal with this problem. Our neighbor has now built a huge house without a basement (hardly any garden left). Across the street, there is a small house with a basement (in my opinion, too small). Both have families. I would NEVER have built like that!! Whether that is related—quite possible?!

We are currently researching architects. I have been in contact with one since today.



So just to make sure I understood correctly: the eaves may NEVER be above 264.81 above NHN? Since the terrain slopes down about 1 meter from the planned house footprint, this would mean that my basement may protrude up to 1 meter out of the ground on the downhill side. But the uphill side of the building must be underground. And since the basement cannot count as a full story, about 3/4 of the basement would be underground, and from the last quarter there would be a slope exposing the basement up to 1 meter (where the office and guest room are located, with normal windows facing the garden).
 

Escroda

2018-01-11 15:32:01
  • #4

It is astonishing that all architects complied with this nonsense. I would first take a close look at all existing buildings on site to find out whether everyone really adhered to the regulations or how far they deviated.

You understood that correctly. I just want to repeat that this regulation is also not legally compliant. But which builder has the time and money to take action against such amateurism.
 

Marcello

2018-01-11 16:11:02
  • #5


That will be easy. As soon as one of the almost 20 buildings already constructed has a basement + 2 full stories and no flat roof, the builder has probably clearly exceeded the 8.5 m here. Since I live 300 km away, I'll have someone from the family drive through the construction area over the weekend and assess the situation.



Thanks. What exactly is not legally compliant about the specification of 6 m eaves height as well as the reference point to the middle of the street? Or to put it differently: What changes in the development plan would need to happen to legally specify the eaves height? Just so I can also argue accordingly..
 

Escroda

2018-01-11 16:35:24
  • #6
I was referring to your shortened quote, from which it is not clear which street must be referred to. In the original, the traffic areas are labeled "A" and "B", so only the somewhat subtle criticism of the not clearly definable center of the property remains. Since the height difference of the reference point will be less than 10cm depending on the method of determining the midpoint for your property, the argument in court would be somewhat weak. However, this does not refer to the nonsensical determination of the building height of 8.5 with the reference point floor slab. In my opinion, this represents a blatant violation of the principle of definiteness, which could lead to the nullity of the [B-Plan].
 

Similar topics
08.12.2015Construction costs for KFW70 house with basement turnkey15
26.10.2012External perimeter insulation floor slab, basement mold risk11
27.05.2013Cost estimation: prefabricated house, basement, carport, single garage10
01.07.2013Additional insulation in the Ytong basement (36 cm)14
19.03.2014Cost for a new single-family house, 2 full floors, without basement18
13.08.2014Water intrusion in basement due to storm - insurance?17
03.02.2017Single-family house 2 floors without basement - floor plan - costs - feasibility?24
05.08.2014First offer, 157m2 with basement, KFW 70, garage14
30.09.2014New construction planning - single-family house 160 sqm without basement - floor plan, costs, etc..29
31.12.2014Get training equipment in the basement (new building)?14
04.03.2015Budget plot and building with basement21
20.07.2015Moisture/Mold in the basement10
10.08.2015In which season of the year is it best to bring screed into the basement10
30.09.2015Floor plan of a single-family house with basement19
06.10.2015Correct formulation for a waterproof basement11
20.10.2015Underfloor heating on the ground floor and upper floor, radiators in the basement?15
17.02.2016KFW 55 in semi-heated basement - cold basement31
23.02.2016Self-designed floor plan of a bungalow with a basement10
27.04.2016Floor plan design basement, ground floor + attic floor12
27.01.2020Development Plan - Interpretation of Eaves Height12

Oben