Inland development (second row)

Since you are only buying the rear property, i.e. no flag lot, nothing should be deducted from your side either. The floor area ratio refers to your plot, not to the building encumbrance of another plot.

Caution – that does not necessarily have to be true. In a subdivision, we have already had cases where the buildability regarding floor area ratio is treated as if it were still one plot. So, for example, if 10% of the floor area ratio II is allocated to the driveway overall, both parties only have 10% left. Ultimately, the decision often also depends on the development in the surrounding area.

- Accessibility of the rear property is only possible via the front property (no flag lot)

What do you call it?

- Path areas are deducted from floor area ratio II for both the front and the rear property

I know it like this: Areas for paths may exceed floor area ratio I by 50%. The paths and the area of the house are deducted from floor area ratio II. So with a 545 sqm plot, you have an area for the house of 109 sqm. These are nearly used up with a 10x10m house. You share floor area ratio II. 0.3 x (Plot1 + Plot2). So, assuming it was split half / half, floor area ratio II is 327 sqm. From this, we deduct the driveway – let’s estimate it to be 30m long and 3m wide, which is 90 sqm. That leaves 327-90 = 237 / 2 = 118.5 sqm of floor area ratio II. From that, we deduct your house. Let’s say 10x10m, leaving 18.5 sqm for paths. That is basically little to nothing. I believe a terrace still belongs to floor area ratio I and should actually be deducted as well. You also don’t have a parking space there yet. So it gets tight. A floor area ratio of 0.2 is also a typical figure to prevent overly dense development. But! That does not have to be the case! It can be. How accommodating does the municipality view your rear development? Have the neighbors already built rear developments all around? Is the development plan already 100 years old and densification nowadays explicitly desired? Then you stand a good chance to negotiate moderate plans with exceptions and agreements.

According to the building phase plan, an area at the front by the street must be kept free of development and must therefore also be deducted from the plot size for the floor area ratio calculation.

Says who? Is that stated like that in the building plan? In your case, I would strongly recommend a building inquiry before the purchase. It is best to get a local architect, structural engineer, or general contractor to ask the questions for you. In any case, well-invested money.

In the case of a subdivision, we have also had the case that the buildability in terms of floor area ratio is treated as if it were still a .

Then was it an ideal subdivision? Or a subdivision where the path is joint property?… !

What do you call it?

It is simply not a flagpole strip because the path is not purchased. Nothing. It is simply just hinterland with a building encumbrance over the ownership of the foreland for access in any form.

So let's assume it was split half / half

No, she doesn't buy any of it, so nothing has to be split 50/50.

No, she doesn’t buy any of it, so nothing has to be split 50/50.

No matter how the ownership structure ends up, it doesn’t change the floor area ratio for the entire property. Whether you divide the floor area ratio 50/50, 70/30 or 90/10 among each other is probably irrelevant to the city. But it will not exceed 0.3 of the whole pie. If the seller sacrifices the path as part of his land and his floor area ratio II, his land would be almost unbuildable. But something is already built on it. So a strict official would probably become skeptical right away (and any normal person would call the seller crazy). You understand it fastest if you keep the city’s goal in mind: the building density is specified as 0.2. Accordingly, floor area ratio II is 0.3. That applies (for now) - no matter how something is divided, until the city announces otherwise.

It can also be expressed differently: if you only divide the property afterwards, the person in front is no longer allowed to build the access road, because by doing so he probably already exceeds his floor area ratio. (we do not know the exact measurements here).

I correct myself: the city does care about the division after all. With a real division, the floor area ratio has to be correct afterwards as well.

Floor area ratio-1 includes the house and terrace. That is already quite tight at about 110sqm. If we subtract a terrace of 4x5m, a house of 9x10m remains. With the intended 154sqm from the financing thread, it must go upwards. If we subtract 40cm walls, there are still about 75sqm per floor without interior walls. Paths and garage are added to floor area ratio-2. Almost half of that is used for parking spaces (e.g. double carport 6x5m) and every meter of space in front of the parking spaces significantly reduces it. The access road is only one problem; the TE's own development must also be planned very precisely. I also see the risk with the access road that the plot of the front neighbor can only be developed with a tiny house and that he is probably not even aware of the problem. Here I would invest the money in an appropriate specialist lawyer and have the building authority issue a binding assurance of what applies.