Difference between dormer, cross gable, cross house - unclear development plan

Hello everyone,
I have been searching here for a long time but haven’t found anything suitable for my question. Maybe the elephant memory can help, ?

We are currently in the input planning phase and there are uncertainties and partly very different statements regarding the above-mentioned topic about our house design.

According to my understanding, we are planning to build a cross-gable (flush with the house wall) with a width of 3.5 meters (see attachment).
In the development plan of the municipality, there is no definition of the term "cross-gable." Only a dormer is defined with a maximum width of 2.5 meters.
Our general contractor believes that this will be accepted as is. He sees it as an extension. An architect has also confirmed my understanding of the differences (dormer / cross-gable). That’s nice, but it doesn’t help me if the municipality sees it differently. :-(

I have already been in contact with some neighbors who are building within the exemption procedure, i.e., without deviation from the development plan. All of them had planned exactly the same as we did but had to convert their planned wide cross-gable into a "cross-house" or rather a central bay window (ground floor / upper floor) in order to realize a width of more than 2.5 meters on the upper floor. Apparently, the municipality sees the definition differently?!

Is there a legal framework somewhere that one can refer to if the municipality also rejects it for us? For me, this is not a dormer (since it is not enclosed by the gable roof).

I want to avoid planning a house now and having a nasty surprise in 2 months because the municipality rejects it and we have to redesign. Or rather, I want to gather facts and arguments to realize this cross-gable, if necessary with an exemption from the development plan through the district office.

Has anyone had a similar problem before?

Thanks for your feedback.

It can be confirmed here that this is not a dormer but a dwarf gable. A dormer is a roof structure that sits on the rafters.

In this respect, I would not expect anything negative.

I don’t even need my elephant memory for that (You were probably hoping for some linked thread of a comparable case?), because I clearly see here either the development plan explicitly specifies the undesirable as "dormer," then it is not, or it calls it "roof structures," then you will be turned down with it.

Everyone had it exactly as we planned and had to convert their planned wide cross gable into a "cross house" or better said a central bay window (ground floor / upper floor) in order to be able to realize a width of more than 2.5 meters on the upper floor.

Into what did they "convert" it?

In the development plan, under the tab Roof structures, the following is stated: Dormer windows are permitted on the gable roof or as shed dormers. The maximum dormer width is 2.5 meters.
There is no indication that cross gables are not allowed, but also no indication that they are allowed. That is precisely the crux of the matter.

: As described, the neighbors have pulled out the entire middle part of the house from the façade. A cross house or central bay window that is not flush with the façade.

partly very different statements

You are only describing one statement. Who else has made statements of what content?

Apparently the community sees the definition differently?!

Then ask how it is viewed there. Or ask the neighbors how the community argued.

Is there any legal framework you can refer to

No. There are only (non-binding) comments and judgments, e.g. Hessian VGH, decision of 10.07.2007 - 3 UZ 433/07: Also for the senate, the setback of a roof structure behind the imaginary extension of the outer wall of the facade is not a mandatory requirement for the presence of a dormer.

not enclosed by the gable roof

That is correct, but the community could take the balcony as an occasion to perceive the cross gable no longer as rising from the facade. Admittedly, somewhat far-fetched, but enough for a legally contestable rejection.

The fact is: the roof structure is a) wider than 2.5 m and b) then not wanted by the municipality. As a result, you can't buy yourself anything if you perhaps misuse the terms dormer, bay window etc. a little less than the municipality itself. I see two ways here: the more elaborate but shorter way will be to apply for an exemption and create at least a projection on the ground floor at this point; this may be nonsense, but it seems to have already worked. The longer way will be to feel legally justified that the rejection of the planned cross gable would be an arbitrary act according to the wording of the development plan, but for that you would have to seek legal recourse. Essentially and primarily for this reason, I did not bother here to consult my memory for similar forum cases – simply because here it is not of counting relevance.

Auch für den Senat ist das Zurücktreten eines Dachaufbaus hinter die gedachte Verlängerung der Außenwand der Fassade nicht zwingende Voraussetzung für das Vorliegen einer Dachgaube.

The senate probably follows the cultural shift and practically gives the fact the blessing of a kind of spelling reform, that in the usage of builders and development planners the terminology blurs. The "correct" recessed dormer is in a way a relic from the time of the knee wall, while the spirit of the times turns the wind towards the knee wall height. Apparently there are no 11th judges as lay judges at administrative courts – issued and promulgated, cheers!