Development plan reference height, understanding problem

Hello everyone,

we have a plot of land in sight that we like very much. However, this plot has a - let's say - somewhat complicated terrain profile. A corresponding site plan including elevation points is attached.

The development plan specifies the maximum eaves height, ridge height, and upper edge of the finished ground floor level.
How is the reference point to be understood? Is this really the middle elevation point within the building envelope, i.e. approx. 290.09 m? Can this be interpreted differently?

The text literally says:
4.1 Height of structural installations
The height of structural installations is limited as follows:
Two-story construction is permitted for hip and shed roofs. The ridge height for hips is limited to a maximum of 9.0 m, and the eaves height to a maximum of 5.5 m. For shed roofs, the ridge height is limited to a maximum of 8.5 m and the eaves height to a maximum of 5 m above the reference point.
Gable roofs are limited to one story. Here, a ridge height of maximum 8.5 m and an eaves height of maximum 5 m are permitted.
In house groups, the ridge height is limited to a maximum of 8.5 m and the eaves height to a maximum of 5 m.
Higher eaves heights may be permitted in the building areas if they occur in a building plan with projections and recesses in the area of recesses. Their length is limited to a maximum of one third of the affected building side.
The maximum floor height of the ground floor (upper edge of finished ground floor level) is only permitted in the range of 0.20 m up to a maximum of 0.50 m above the reference point.
The reference point for determining the fixed heights is set as the center point of the buildable plot area per plot relative to the natural terrain.

Since both the height difference to the left plot and the height difference to the street are, in my opinion, too high, we are considering a fill. From left to right, I imagine something like a terracing, see the attached terrain section (it concerns G2, left before, right after). This does not take into account the slope from the street.

Would such a fill be possible?
If according to the development plan not, could one be exempted from this for the specific plot? What would be the procedure for this? (Ideally I would have a corresponding confirmation before purchase). Is such a decision made exclusively by the building authority or do neighbors have a say? Opposite lives a lawyer for whom his view is very important and who would definitely prefer a flat building...

Many thanks in advance and best regards

Bo

As a reference point for determining the established heights, the center point of the buildable plot area per plot is set in relation to the natural terrain.

How is the reference point to be understood? Is this really the middle height point within the building envelope, i.e. approx. 290.09m? Can this be interpreted differently?

Exactly. Even though this is unusual, here it refers to the center point. It would be more common to take the average value, i.e. the arithmetic mean height of the one and a half dozen measurement points within the building envelope. Often, the street height in front of the middle of the street frontage of the building is taken, but here it clearly refers to this center point.

Thank you, I feared so...

How does this then behave with our plans for the embankment? I would guess it is not possible without further ado, right? Can or will exceptions be granted in practice? Are the neighbors consulted in such cases, do they have a right of veto, or does the building authority have free rein within a certain scope?

Terrain modeling is sometimes also limited in development plans, for example (also) by linking the floor level to a terrain reference point. I think the idea of putting the property in the water is nonsense. It seems more reasonable to me to give the property a uniformly shaped slope, that is, simply to smooth out the stubble field. Rice terraces are nonsense, a slope is a slope.

In this case, unfortunately, the development plan says nothing regarding this. If by Stoppelacker you mean the steep slope on the left, I would like to position the garage there and then place the house as close as possible to it.

Nevertheless, the height difference of about 2m bothers me, as it swallows a lot of evening sun. Therefore, regardless of how the terrain is finally shaped, I would like to minimize or at least adjust this difference. And if this adjustment is made, I run into problems with the development plan and the max height of the top edge of the finished ground floor floor, right? Therefore, my question remains: how strictly is something like this handled in practice and what is the general procedure if one deviates from the development plan, how much say do the neighbors have, and how much freedom does the building authority have?

Btw: This is about a possible worst case. Of course, I would try to include all neighbors. In a positive case, I can hardly imagine the building authority thwarting me. Only if the property is purchased and then a neighbor objects, I would like to know the procedure.

Regards

Bo

If you mean the steep slope on the left with Stoppelacker,

No, I mean the rather rough variation of mounds and craters in the height profile of the property, even apart from this ridge. You can smooth that out, and in my opinion, not much more.

I would like to minimize or at least adjust this difference regardless of how the terrain is finally modeled.

You can flank your property with retaining walls, but it won't make it more beautiful. It remains a hillside property.

And if this adjustment is made, I run into problems with the development plan and the maximum height of the finished floor level of the ground floor, right?

That's correct, and it should be that way. In the past, development plans only aimed to prevent architectural eyesores, nowadays unfortunately also landscape ones. If you don't like hillside properties, then keep looking. Stomping around angrily on the hill is pointless.