Housing not allowed due to building depth

Hello everyone,

My inquiry is driven by genuine incomprehension and the hope for tips and tricks.

My life partner and I live on the parental property. 1000 sqm with a rental house on the street side. We would now like to build further back on the property or expand and repurpose an old utility building. The property is right in the center of a small village. The utility building has been there since 1960 and was a bowling alley including toilets and seating areas. The building authority has already denied this in advance. The department management has examined it intensively and a change of use/expansion/new construction is not possible because the building depth on the property is a problem. None of the surrounding neighbors have living space at the same height. On the opposite side this is standard, but this does not automatically apply to our area.
Now this would be very sad because this building will, without renovation, sooner or later decay and become a building ruin.

The building authority also stated that if we could prove that someone happens to live at the height of the bowling alley (even if illegal), then our project might be approved after all. It is only about the fact that someone lives at the same height.

Question:
Do they want to be deceived? If I offer the neighbor to build an apartment for him in his utility building at the same height and he illegally houses someone there, then am I suddenly allowed to build on my property? If I am then allowed to build myself, can my neighbor subsequently have the space legally converted into living space?

I find it hard to imagine that this is the logic behind the authority.
Does anyone here have experience or perhaps tips or tricks?

An expansion of the utility building would even be approved. Suppose I simply expanded it in such a way that it could also accidentally serve as a residential building...?
What happens if I then move in there? I did have a building permit, only the change of use to residential space was not reported.

Unfortunately, there are no other alternatives for new construction on this property.

I want to emphasize that I have no criminal intentions. But maybe certain things have to be stretched a bit, because I am not harming anyone with the renovation there. Neither shadow casting nor visual obstruction or other restrictions for the neighborhood are to be expected.

$ 34 Building Code:

Building Code (Building Code)
§ 34 Permissibility of Projects within Continuously Built-Up Areas
(1) Within continuously built-up areas, a project is permissible if it fits into the character of the immediate surroundings in terms of the type and extent of land use, the manner of construction, and the plot area to be built upon, and if access is secured. The requirements for healthy living and working conditions must be maintained; the townscape must not be impaired.
(2) If the character of the immediate surroundings corresponds to one of the building zones designated in the ordinance issued based on § 9a, the permissibility of the project is determined solely by whether it would generally be permitted in the building zone according to the ordinance; for projects that are exceptionally permissible under the ordinance, § 31 paragraph 1 applies, otherwise § 31 paragraph 2 applies accordingly.
(3) No harmful effects on central supply areas in the municipality or in other municipalities may be expected from projects according to paragraphs 1 or 2.
(3a) The requirement to fit into the character of the immediate surroundings pursuant to paragraph 1 sentence 1 may be deviated from in individual cases if the deviation
1.
serves one of the following projects:
a)
the expansion, alteration, change of use, or renewal of a lawfully established commercial or craft business,
b)
the expansion, alteration, or renewal of a lawfully established building used for residential purposes, or
c)
the change of use of a lawfully established structure to residential purposes, including any necessary alteration or renewal,
2.
is justifiable in terms of urban development, and
3.
is compatible with public interests, also taking into account neighborly interests.
Sentence 1 does not apply to retail businesses that may impair consumer-proximate supply of the population or have harmful effects on central supply areas in the municipality or in other municipalities.
(4) The municipality may, by statute,
1.
define the boundaries of continuously built-up areas,
2.
designate developed areas in the outer area as continuously built-up areas if the areas are depicted as building land in the land use plan,
3.
include individual outer area plots in the continuously built-up areas if the included plots are correspondingly shaped by the built-up use of the adjacent area.
The statutes may be linked.
(5) Prerequisites for the adoption of statutes according to paragraph 4 sentence 1 numbers 2 and 3 are that
1.
they are compatible with an orderly urban development,
2.
the permissibility of projects subject to mandatory environmental impact assessment according to Annex 1 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act or according to state law is not established, and
3.
there are no indications of impairment of the protected goods named in § 1 paragraph 6 number 7 letter b or that in the planning duties to avoid or limit the effects of major accidents pursuant to § 50 sentence 1 of the Federal Immission Control Act need to be observed.
In the statutes according to paragraph 4 sentence 1 numbers 2 and 3, individual provisions pursuant to § 9 paragraphs 1 and 3 sentence 1 as well as paragraph 4 may be made. § 9 paragraph 6 and § 31 apply accordingly. For the statute according to paragraph 4 sentence 1 number 3, § 1a paragraphs 2 and 3 and § 9 paragraph 1a apply additionally; it must be accompanied by a reasoning including the information according to § 2a sentence 2 number 1.
(6) When adopting statutes according to paragraph 4 sentence 1 numbers 2 and 3, the provisions on public and authority participation according to § 13 paragraph 2 sentence 1 numbers 2 and 3 as well as sentence 2 apply accordingly. § 10 paragraph 3 applies accordingly to statutes according to paragraph 4 sentence 1 numbers 1 to 3.

Ok, I know both legal texts. And yes, the justification for the rejection is also stated there. The building depth prevents integration into the surroundings.

How can one deal with this? In 15 years, a new head of department and caseworker will be responsible for me and, due to politically driven housing densification, will allow the neighbor to build further back. Unfortunately, I will then have no house, but a building ruin instead?

How can one deal with this? In 15 years, a new head of office and clerk will be responsible for me and, due to politically driven housing densification, allow the neighbor to build further back. Unfortunately, then I won’t have a house, but rather a construction ruin?

Basically, the laws that might be made in 15 years do not apply, but the current ones do. It is also up to you to preserve and renovate your supposed ruin, so it will still be fit for all options in 15 years. Otherwise, I see no reason why the most intensive review by the office should suddenly no longer apply. With an accessible and interested municipality, you could ask if creating a supplementary statute, which declares your and equivalent properties as buildable, would have a chance of success. Neighbors might also be interested, and you could act together. In our village, this was also done. It took about 1.5 years (that was fast) and I believe cost over 10K.

Ok, that is at least a good hint with the supplementary statute. At least you can get it started. And of course you are right that the current law applies. But it is incomprehensible to me to base anything on such a legality when it makes zero sense. And I still find the statement from the building authority curious, that as soon as someone lives there everything is okay. Even if illegal. Do they want to point us to something there or what purpose do they pursue with that?

Laws also apply when the meaning is hidden. Maybe it would only make sense for you, but who wants to open a can of worms and suddenly see living space sprouting up in the second row, against which exactly this law was made?

The office would therefore have to have a unique reason for exception – hence the hint with the fence post “does someone else still live there?”