Change of use from residential area to commercial area for dog care

Well, if you were my neighbor and there was a yapping dog, I would be grateful. The fact is, you will not get approval for a dog boarding facility in a purely residential area.

Our neighbors sometimes have barking dogs. Since we do not want any stress ourselves and we can choose which dogs we want to take care of, it is in our hands to manage that.

Who or what designates it as a general residential area?

The employee at the building authority looked at our street on the map.

Who says that? An employee of the regulatory office? Did you inquire at the building permit authority? How many dogs do you have yourselves?

That was also told to us by the employee. We would have to submit a corresponding building application, which would most likely be rejected.
We have one dog ourselves (who barks very, very rarely).

Which circumstances do you relate to your case?

I related the circumstance to building class 3 and the height of 7m.

Unless appearances are deceiving.

That was also the statement of the employee, that there is no development plan. Therefore, after looking at the map, she said that our side of the (village) street is general residential area and the other side is mixed-use area.

I am not familiar with business registration, but I wonder on what legal basis the obligation for a change of use should be based. Even if you owned two dogs yourselves, I would see no reason for a change of use of any room. Of course, if there are more than five dogs, it becomes critical.
But even if there is actually a regulation that requires the structural change of use, I still see chances. With a precise environmental analysis of which businesses are located in the surroundings, the character of the area could be reassessed, e.g. special residential area. I would only take the path to a lawyer if discussions with senior authority employees and political citizen representatives reinforce the rejection without convincing arguments being presented.

For me, advice from a lawyer is more about a plan which authorities we should visit in which order with which facts/information so that we don't box ourselves in if, for example, an application is rejected. The whole topic is completely new territory for us.

Would such a change of use have disadvantages for us? For example, would we no longer be allowed to use the living room as such? Would another insurance be necessary or similar?

It is still not clear to me how your visit to the authorities went. You went to the public order office to register the business? There they sent you to the building authority because a change of use is required? I know that the amendment of the Prostitutes Protection Act in NRW about two years ago indirectly impacted the building regulations, as requirements were now imposed on the premises, which under certain circumstances made a change of use necessary and thus the building supervision had to deal with the issue. Is there anything like that in relation to dog boarding facilities with you? One of the two offices should have told you that. At the moment, I cannot imagine what would have to be converted in a residential house for four dogs.

Would such a change of use have disadvantages for us?

If there is something like an operating location ordinance for dog boarding facilities that requires a dog-keeping room even for only three foreign dogs, and you declare your living room as such, IMHO you are no longer allowed to use the living room for living, analogous to the treatment room of a naturopath.

Consultation by a lawyer

If no verifiable answer comes here or in the dog boarding forum (does that exist?), that will probably be the right way. I just don’t know how to find someone with enough experience to give useful answers, since several legal fields are touched upon here.

I’ll stick with the legal area I know best:
According to your information, it is planning law-wise §34 of the Building Code. The character of the area must therefore be derived from the immediate surroundings. Whether the boundary between WA (general residential area) and MI (mixed-use area) can actually be made in the middle of the street depends on many criteria specifically related to the concrete local situation. However, it is generally very difficult to convince the permitting authority of a contrary classification. Even in court, it only succeeds if gross errors can be proven. If a change of use – into whatever – is actually unavoidable and the authority remains with the classification “general residential area,” the official way is probably barred. It would be a shame if the laws led the citizen to ignore them. Please keep us posted.

P.S.:

I referred the circumstance to building class 3 and the height of 7m.

Your building is probably class 1 or 2, as the height relates to the floor of the highest dwelling room. But that doesn’t help since even with exemption from approval, all regulations must be complied with, only they are not checked by authorities. If your neighbor can prove a violation of your dog care against the BImSch (Federal Immission Control Act), the operation is illegal and must be closed.

Google "Opening a private dog boarding facility"
There is an interesting experience report from a lady who intended to do the same.
It probably isn’t that easy...

According to your information, it is planning-law-wise §34 of the Building Code. The character of the area is therefore to be derived from the immediate surroundings. Whether the boundary between WA (general residential area) and MI (mixed-use area) can actually be made at the middle of the street depends on many criteria specifically related to the concrete situation on site.

Isn’t an area designation in the land use plan at the stage of §34 (i.e. before or without a development plan) rather just a declaration of intent, rather than being already suitable to derive a refusal of approval from it? That is definitely an interesting situation. I can well imagine the Operational Facilities Ordinance mischievously differentiating between a stranger’s dog and an own dog, but I don’t trust the Immission Control Act to have that much "humor"; I rather suspect the total number of dogs present on a property to be decisive.

Isn't such a zoning designation in the land use plan at the stage of a §34 (i.e. before or without a development plan) rather more a declaration of intent than something already suitable to derive a refusal of approval from?

If this classification were only based on the land use plan, then yes. However, if the administration derives the street as a dividing line for the type of structural use from the existing conditions, a conclusive counter-argument is required by meticulously documenting the existing uses in the immediate vicinity by type and extent with photos and site plans. This documentation could be discussed with neutral experts knowledgeable in urban planning and familiar with the area before the next official meeting – in any case, before initiating legal steps.