Housing not allowed due to building depth

The office would therefore have to have a unique exceptional reason - hence the hint with the fence post "does someone else still live there?"

But that is nonsense. The principle of discretion binding only allows Meier to be permitted what Müller has already been allowed - but not to allow Meier what Müller nevertheless does illegally.

Ok, that is at least a good hint with the supplementary statute. At least you can get the ball rolling.

This path seems much more promising to me - at least if there is an active small faction in the municipal council. Where a large party rules alone - or worse: both big ones practically form a coalition - exceptions exist practically only for the shooting king

I am not a lawyer, but I interpret it this way:

"(3a) The requirement to integrate into the character of the immediate surroundings according 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)"

that it is a discretionary decision on a case-by-case basis. If the supplementary statute route does not succeed, one should or could try to sue for it? I would consult a lawyer about that.