Deviation from the development plan in the new construction area is possible

Complaining etc. won't get you anywhere in this case.

Not yet, certainly, this has to be arranged at the political level. So the district administrator has to go with the president of the administrative court to the Ochsenwirt: "next week an objection to the development plan will be filed by Jana33's lawyer," then he can order that the plan be suspended until the decision is made. But without that being sorted out beforehand, it will get stuck at the working level. Where there is supposed to be a path, there must have been a Wöller first. It could be ready right after the summer holidays. April (2018) never - unless you are such a big taxpayer that the gentlemen, because of your building wish, move on from the Ochsenwirt to one of the rustic country inns with a red lantern.

Then they should actually get down to business and urge the administrative court to suspend the validity of the development plan.

But this does not help the OP, since the development plan is being complied with, but the required boundary distance is not.

I would say, exemption

Because it is not the development plan that stands in the way, but the BayBO: deviation according to Art. 63 BayBO from Art. 6 BayBO

What I wonder as a layperson: in other development areas, acquaintances also had deviations approved (e.g. being allowed to build an extension with a flat roof, even though this roof type was not permitted).

This concerns a deviation from a design statute issued by the municipality. The district office (LRA) is not responsible.

Can the district office then also give me such an exemption

Yes, provided that:
Art. 6 (2) 3
Boundary areas as well as distances within the meaning of sentence 1 may extend wholly or partly onto other properties if it is legally or actually ensured that these properties will not be built on, or if the neighbor agrees in writing (but not in electronic form) to the building authority;

Suppose the municipality changes the development plan, can it then also grant me an exemption from the old plan that is still valid now

No. Only the amendment of the development plan overrides or mitigates Art. 6 BayBO, which currently opposes your project, so that your wishes can be fulfilled. As long as the amendment of the development plan is not legally binding, you need the approval of a deviation from the district office.

Exemption from the approval procedure itself and exemption from individual regulations logically contradict each other, so they never happen simultaneously.

Not necessarily. The exemption procedure according to Art. 58 BayBO only requires in this respect
...
2. that it does not contradict the provisions of the development plan and the regulations of local building regulations within the meaning of Art. 81 (1), ...
A deviation from regulations of the State Building Code does not automatically make exemption from approval impossible.

No. Only the amendment of the development plan nullifies or mitigates Art. 6 BayBO, which stands against your project, so that your wishes can be fulfilled. As long as the amendment of the development plan is not legally binding, you need approval for a deviation from the LRA.

Hello everyone,

I will summarize again what I have understood so far:

I would now have to submit a building application with the form for applying for an exemption. This must go through the LRA, since it would be a deviation from the BayBo.

§34 is ruled out, since there is a development plan.

Art. 6 (2) 3 (registering clearance distances at the neighbor) is also out. I assume that this means a notarized contract or the registration of a building encumbrance at the neighbor in writing, and that is also ruled out. I would never have that done myself.

However, Article 81 BayBo sounds interesting, can someone “translate” it for me?

Art. 81
Local building regulations
(1) Municipalities may enact local building regulations by statute within their own scope of authority
...

6. regarding dimensions of clearance distances deviating from Art. 6, insofar as this is necessary for the design of the local appearance or for the implementation of the provisions of an urban development statute or serves to improve the quality of living and sufficient lighting as well as fire protection are ensured,

I am quite confused by now.

The municipality did write into the development plan that for us, the BayBo shall apply regarding clearance distances.

Then the municipality can also amend the development plan and, for example, write in that properties 1-x have different deviating regulations, and then the municipality can also grant me an exception that is then confirmed by the LRA?

Because the LRA told us that if we were to submit a building application, they would reject it and it would be up to the municipality to change that.

But Escroda writes:

“As long as the amendment of the development plan is not legally binding, you need approval for a deviation from the LRA.”

So am I then back at the district office after all?

I thought the municipality is already in the process of changing the development plan?

As far as I know, the building application (in Bavaria) is always submitted to the LRA via the municipality. The municipality takes a position on this – including on any requested exemptions – and the LRA then decides on the application.

Clarify whether the change to the development plan is already mature enough and whether progress can be made based on that.

But I still wouldn’t expect to get a building application approved by April. Changes to the development plan take time (e.g. due to necessary public display periods) and an application itself, which first goes to the municipal council, then is forwarded to the LRA and also requires processing time there.

Honestly, I can’t understand your architect here, he should know when he needs a permit, how to read a development plan, and how long it can take until a permit is issued. Why doesn’t he take care of the whole matter and explain the legal details to you?

So I would now have to submit a building application

No

Application for an exemption

Exemptions are granted from the stipulations of a development plan. Since you comply with the stipulations, you do not need an exemption.

Deviation from the BayBo

Yes, because you violate Art. 6 BayBO. However, the chances of success are zero, since your property does not have any special characteristics that could justify approval of the deviation. Moreover, the district office has already pointed out that it would not issue a permit.

Notarized contract

That depends on what the district office requires. According to BayBO, a written declaration without land register entry is also sufficient.

Baulast

Doesn't exist in Bavaria

Registering Art. 6 (2) 3 setback areas on the neighbor’s property is also off the table.

Too bad. That would be the only solution I see that would allow you to build without approval promptly.

Then the municipality could also change the development plan and, for example, include that properties 1-x have different deviating regulations

As you write, the municipality is currently working on this, but that doesn’t help you because it takes too long.

Then the municipality could also grant me an exception

No. The development plan does not yet contain any stipulation that allows deviation from the state building code. Therefore, the municipality is not responsible. By the way, it is a very sensitive matter to loosen the setback regulations of the state building code. The municipality would be skating on thin ice, and ice and heat ... will that end well? If just one neighbor feels crowded, the entire development plan could be overturned.

What Jana33 refuses to see is that it was not

dein Amt ordentlich vergeigt

but herself or her planner.
If I want a south-facing garden, then I must not buy a plot of land that is accessed from the south and slopes down to the north. And the planner should know that setback distances in Bavaria refer to the existing terrain. To what extent

falsche Auskünfte bei der Gemeinde

have contributed to this situation is questionable, since the planner should have known better or could have confirmed with the LRA.