Justify building application - 40m extension zone at the highway

  • Erstellt am 2019-05-18 16:22:56

querys_

2019-05-18 16:22:56
  • #1
Dear forum members,

this is about the property from the attachment. It is located on the Federal Motorway 3 near Cologne. The property has belonged to the family for about 60 years. It has now become a building gap.

About a month ago, we submitted a preliminary building request. Today, the announcement of rejection came from Straßen.NRW unless we respond.
Our planned house violates the 40m protection zone by about 8m and the garage is only 11m away from the motorway.

If the 40m protection zone must be observed, the property cannot be sensibly developed (see second picture). This is an estimate by me; only a "triangular" building area of about 80 sqm remains. A terrace would also have to be included in this.

Nevertheless, taxes for building land have been paid on the property for 20 years, and of course it is fully developed. The houses south of our property belong to the city and are refugee accommodations.

Does anyone have tips for justifying the "special hardship"? Does anyone know of conditions that can be offered?
The following ideas came to my mind:
- Proximity to parents/in-laws (500m up the street)
- Property has been in the family for decades
- High soundproofing of windows and walls
- Ventilation system
- If it cannot be built as we proposed, the property is basically not sensibly developable
- Garage with demolition requirement if demanded by the motorway / Straßen.NRW. The motorway is already expanded to 3 lanes at this point; renovation is planned from 2025, an expansion to more lanes is very unlikely based on current knowledge (but of course, who knows what will happen in 40 years).

Please do not discuss the property/the location itself here.

Thank you very much for your help!

 

Maria16

2019-05-18 17:06:02
  • #2
Let's be honest, the garage is stupid anyway, isn’t it? With an endlessly long driveway to the street?

I would ask if it looks better with the garage next to the house, just like the neighbors have. The only reasonable argument for this, in my opinion, would be if the neighboring buildings also extend into the no-extension zone and you don't extend further into this zone than the "furthest back" neighbor.

Noise protection should be important to you anyway; it will possibly be imposed in the building permit. Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the question of to what extent exclusion of claims due to noise protection is possible in the land register in case of resale.
 

nordanney

2019-05-18 17:25:44
  • #3
I agree with the previous post. The only chance is your southern neighbors. Otherwise, unfortunately, it went badly. Authorities can be so stubborn. I have experienced something similar with a forest boundary in a construction area with a large number of affected people. There, too, exactly: nothing worked.
 

querys_

2019-05-18 17:35:44
  • #4
The southern neighbor is the city that built refugee shelters there about 2-3 years ago (these are FULLY in the restricted zone). The northern buildings are older (70s/80s) but also outside the zone. I also want to use the garage for a small stage (lift height 50cm) to repair my cars. Therefore, it will be tight if the garage does not have the 9x9m (basement replacement room, 2 motorcycles, 2 cars).
 

guckuck2

2019-05-18 18:27:25
  • #5
I think you will have to be willing to make tough compromises in order to have any chance here at all. The garage in the zone is unrealistic imho.
 

querys_

2019-05-18 18:59:21
  • #6
That is of course not what I wanted to hear.
We found a house with about 10x10m from a prefab house builder, which we are currently having planned (we didn't know at the time that it wouldn't be possible).
Apart from that, it will probably not be possible to place a double garage on the property while complying with the setback distances (3m to the sides, about 6m to the street, 40m to the highway), no matter what the house ultimately looks like.
 
Oben