Height reference point zoning plan, what is correct?

If the development plan states ridge height 9 m from reference point, I can make more sense of that than ridge height 211.63 m height reference system x

In the end, it's not about 10 cm but rather about the decision which roof shape corresponds to how many floors

If the development plan states ridge height 9 m from reference point, I can make more use of that than ridge height 211.63 m height reference system x

If the development plan states (slightly shortened original quote) "The reference point for determining the height of structural installations is the averaged height of the fully developed traffic surface at the street boundary line between the points of intersection with the neighboring boundaries of the respective building plot" and the street is not yet fully developed, you must first interpolate the gradient height before your property in the longitudinal profiles and determine the height position of your boundary points based on the cross-profile in order to determine the height of the reference point. Is that more user-friendly? And I have come across even more bizarre formulations.

In the end, it’s not about 10 cm but rather about the decision of which roof shape permits how many floors

But 10 cm can decide whether the exemption from approval or the building application is approved or whether a procedural change, waiver or redesign must take place.

But if it is a paved road... well, let's leave it at that, depending on local conditions both specifications are justified... in our development plan, the height system was not explained in much detail.