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

Is there any time pressure? Do you want to save the costs of the regular building application? If not, then what speaks against simply planning like this for now and submitting an application? Especially when you are in the grey area, a building permit provides more legal certainty. Everything else can be challenged at some point. What if you build without a permit and after 10 years the municipality realizes that your construction method was not allowed?

I have already had contact with several neighbors who are building under the exemption procedure, that is, without deviation from the development plan. They all had it planned exactly like we did and 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 achieve a width of more than 2.5 meters on the upper floor. Apparently, the municipality defines it differently?!

I wanted to pick out this paragraph again because I don’t understand it.

So you have spoken to several neighbors, i.e. not an isolated case, who have already dealt with exactly the same (really?!) issue? Are you sure that they hadn’t previously planned dormers (according to the definition from you, me, your general contractor and your architect)? Have you seen the (rejected) plans?

If the neighbors built under the exemption procedure, the municipality’s opinion is not even known, since no such review takes place in the exemption procedure. How did the rejection come about then?

What if you simply build without a permit and after 10 years the municipality realizes that your construction method was not allowed?

In the exemption procedure, it is neither examined nor logically rejected, but this is not equivalent to being free of notification; the municipality will therefore definitely find out about the construction. If the development plan does not explicitly oppose it strongly enough, there is, in my opinion, also no basis for a demolition order – however, the Senate quoted by apparently equates the popular belief with the technical term dormer, which means it wouldn’t be entirely without risk. Either way, I am sure that – however vaguely the municipality may have worded it – the planned construction here would be unwanted, i.e., the municipality probably only wants dormers as classical structures for single (or at best twin) standing roof windows. Privately one can find this backward, but if the king in Munich considers it legally correct, then that’s just how it is. The poor Prussians only have full floors, and so everyone has their burden to bear.

First of all, many thanks for the feedback. A representative of another construction company referred to the dormer as a gable dormer. That’s what I meant by different statements.

Originally, the goal was to stay within the exemption process. Less because of the costs, more because of the timeline. This way, the starting signal for construction can be given earlier. Based on your statements, I think we will rather try our luck with the classic building permit procedure.

Basically, I have spoken with my two direct neighbors by phone and have not encountered any rejections. However, we both presented the situation as I described it (according to verbal statement, as we originally planned). One of my neighbors has a good connection to the municipal council and informed me that a wider dormer was also rejected there. So by now, there are 3 cases. I assume that the planners of the construction companies have made preliminary inquiries with the municipality (also simply because of the uncertainties of the development plan) to check this issue.
But I will follow up on the matter again.

I will make an appointment with the municipality to discuss my plan. However, based on my previous contacts, they have little to no expertise and mostly say... your planner should know that. Otherwise, there is still the district office.

At first, it was important for me to find out whether my understanding of the roof structure is correct. But has apparently expressed it well. The development plan is extremely conservative (welcome to Bavaria) and the municipality will probably interpret it the same way.

Therefore, probably only the building permit procedure remains, with an application for exemption from the development plan and gathering arguments. I definitely do not want to take the risk of a dismantling.

with the application for an exemption from the development plan

no!

The development plan, as far as you have made it known to us here, limits dormers. You are not planning a dormer. Your two planners tell you this, and no offense, the other sources you mentioned are useless. One applied for a dormer that was too wide (!), which of course was rejected. The other is a salesperson from a construction company who certainly could not quote the wording of the development plan.

Now don’t immediately apply for an exception to the rule that doesn’t even exist!!

Please nowhere in your planning documents does the word "dormer" appear! You are building a cross gable, or if you like also a subsidiary gable, but _no_ dormer. As soon as the word dormer appears, every work-averse individual tends to apply the rules for dormers!
Don’t tempt anyone to interpret your cross gable as a dormer! Especially not when a (completely hopeless!) exemption from the development plan is being applied for.

First of all, it was important for me to find out whether my understanding of the roof structure was correct. But @11ant has probably captured it perfectly.

... namely, that the correctness or incorrectness of your conceptual understanding is not relevant. Factually, what counts here is who is in charge, and that is the municipality:

I will speak to the municipality with my plan. However, based on my previous contacts, they have little to no expertise and usually say... your planner should know that. Otherwise, there is still the district office.

But they have a much more decisive expertise, namely in the interpretation of what they actually meant. And the district office usually takes the easy way out and follows the municipality’s recommendation. The district office might possibly review an objection themselves – but I consider it more likely that they would let it come down to a contentious procedure before the administrative court. In my assessment, during a consultation here, they would see an undesirable dormer, in the formal application certainly so, as the district office is not an appellate body here, so I see your alternatives only as a) getting along with a redesign – without a dormer, pulling it out on the ground floor does not seem to save your request! – or b) the appeals route (where you might be successful, but see the low likelihood here in the quote). At the latest when you win, the development plan will be refined and you must start soon. For an alternative c) the answer to

If the neighbors built in the exemption procedure, the opinion of the municipality is not even known, since no such examination takes place in the exemption procedure. How then did the rejection come about?

would be needed.

Now don’t immediately apply for an exception to a rule that doesn’t even exist!!

It seems to me you misunderstand the particular reality under the white and blue sky.