Deviation or exemption from the BPL according to §31 of the Building Code, how to proceed...

Hello,
as already described in my first thread, our BPL (from 1979-1982) only allows for a single-story construction due to the rear development. Furthermore, an unpleasant knee wall height of max. 0.50m is specified, which in turn significantly hinders the efficient use of the sealed building area.
https://www.hausbau-forum.de/threads/schmales-Grundstück-Max-moeglichkeiten-efh-mit-niedrigen-Drempel.32134/

After consulting with the building authority, the municipality is indeed willing to consider a deviation regarding a two-story construction.
Now I am naturally hoping for some support from the forum’s experts here.

The following things have changed since the creation of the BPL:
- The small private paved path has become a public turning circle of the city (Topic: Is rear development even still given?)
- The original plots have been divided and no longer offer the same area possibilities as before. To achieve the required living space, one would develop an unnecessarily large sealed area on the ground floor.
- All surrounding houses, which are on the same or an adjacent public street, are approved for two-story construction according to the BPL.
- A two-story townhouse would be lower than a 1.5-story gable roof house
- Due to the designated ridge direction in the BPL, a solar/photovoltaic system would be significantly less efficient. A planned hip roof on the two-story house would also bring energetic and ecological advantages.
- As requested in advance by the building authority, the neighbors on the right and left would give their "OK."

These were the first points swirling around in my head.

Maybe someone else has an idea / tip or comment?

Now of course I hope for some support here from the professionals of the "forum".

Well, formulating reasons for deviations is definitely part of the skillset of a draft author. Snapping up something suitable on the marketplace will probably be difficult, as simply too much specialized knowledge is required. Even if your building authority seems to be well-disposed towards you, I'll slip into the role of the grumpy naysayer. Maybe that will already help.

the small private cobblestone path became a public turning circle of the city

Is that supposed to be an argument? If yes, for what?

Topic: Is rear development still given at all?

Who raised that topic? With what intention?

The original plots were divided and no longer offer the area options as before.

Why should private profit maximization have an impact on applicable planning law? The owner was not forced to subdivide the plots so small.

To achieve the required living space, an unnecessarily large sealed area on the ground floor would be developed.

And the next neighbor refers to the approved two-story design and, given the lack of plot ratio/floor space ratio, uses a huge footprint so that a massive building body arises. The exemption from the number of floors would set a precedent that is not desired here.

All surrounding houses, which stand on the same or an adjacent public street, are approved for the two-story construction according to the land use plan.

That is wrong. The inner block area, which is accessed by the dead-end street, is fully set for single-story buildings. There are already three houses in this area (or even more by now?). How many stories do they have?

Due to the specified ridge direction in the land use plan, a solar/photovoltaic system would be significantly less efficient

The plot is rotated at a 45° angle to the north direction. The losses with southeast instead of southwest sun, if there even should be any, are disproportionate to the urban planning loss of a deviation.

As demanded in advance by the building authority, the neighbors on the right and left would give their "OK"

I cannot understand this demand at all, since neighbors are regularly left out in planning law.

Oh man, you wouldn’t want to have you as a department head in the building authority either

The idea of the rear development came from the building authority itself, upon inquiry as to why the inner part was only allowed to be single-story. According to the authority, it was intended as rear development and therefore planned smaller. However, since fundamental changes have occurred since 1969 and 1982, it could be reassessed.

The current plot situation and extreme land prices force young families to downsize in order to close building gaps at all, which would also be in the interest of the cities. In this case, the outdated development plan hits the new builders with unnecessary "hardship."

All landowners in the inner block or builders agree for the above reasons and want the same deviation to the two-story construction collectively.

The poorer insulation properties as well as the high pitch of a gable roof would mean energy losses.

According to the building authority, they want to exclude a possible later lawsuit through the consent of the surrounding neighbors.

Oh man, you wouldn't want to have you as a department head in the building authority

That would be fun!

However, since there have been fundamental changes since 1969 or 1982, it could be reassessed.

Strange. The sticker was only decided in 2006.

All property owners in the inner block or builders agree for the reasons mentioned above and want the same deviation from the two-story construction.

Well, then everything will probably be fine. Correct would be if a municipality acted by reasonably changing the thing – after closer examination, the term development plan would be too flattering. The collage published there should be discarded.

According to the building authority, one would like to

... get off lightly.

Hi Subwoofer,
we have just gone through the deviation from the BPl from a saddle roof to a city villa.
It takes a long time, everyone advises against it, but it was worth it in the end. We can build a city villa!

Regarding the procedure:
The arguments are initially secondary, anyone can make them up.
Important to know - the decision for or against the approval is not made by the building authority, but by the political body of the municipality/city. Usually, it is the building committee that formulates a recommendation for the main or finance committee. The municipal representatives therefore decide on your application.

The BPl are usually so old that no one really knows why they were established one way or another. Mostly, the limitation of the number of floors was supposed to restrict the building height. Therefore, your argument - which was also ours - that the city villa is rather lower than a saddle roof house, is purposeful. Everything else is just embellishment.

Step 1 - try to win the building authority over for the project, because the building authority submits the application to the decision-making body and is also asked for a statement.

Step 2 - invest a lot of work in the formulation of the application. Make sketches, height comparisons, look for examples, etc.
Avoid involving architects/lawyers.
We personally presented our concerns to the building committee with a 15-page ppt and received unanimous approval.

You have nothing to lose, persistence and commitment pay off.

First of all, thank you very much. Today we have an appointment with all the neighbors who want to build, and then we'll see.