[...]
When the OP talks about having to comply with this or that, the question arises as to whom was spoken to. All statements seem to be based on hearsay from a salesperson.
That is correct. It is the sales manager of a home construction company that cooperates with the land agent. He has already brokered the rear part of the property with a "triggerable" developer binding. The front part is still for sale basically without developer binding, but since they are already building at the back, synergies would arise if I also build with them, which is why I accepted the invitation to the meeting.
The next question would be what influence is still possible on the planning and land formation at all.
At the beginning, I was still told that one could definitely talk again about exactly how it is divided. But when I sent him the questions arising here immediately by email, the already postulated vague but quite convincing statements came back.
The following assumptions do not describe the worst case, but they form a basis for discussion that is, in my interpretation of the situation described by the OP, probable:
[...]
We can forget everything we know about floor area ratio I and floor area ratio II here. Hence also the rough permission to exceed the determined floor area ratio of 0.2 by 15%. With a few clever sentences, a planner should be able to get even more out of it. This also makes the floor area ratio make sense, even if the area is completely sealed.
That doesn't sound bad at all. I also think, just based on the pictures, it was built much denser.
Since a shared driveway is usually a constant source of neighborly unrest, I advise against it, but I do not think the seller will back down from it.
I almost think they don't care as long as the two buyers agree. Since the one in the back has already committed, it will be difficult to convince him to change. The only leverage I would have is not to bear the demolition costs.
You would have to ask very precisely where the 0.2 comes from, who determined it how and on what basis. But I think a house of your size requirement is approvable. Whether such detailed questions have to be asked at this time depends on the sales promise.
Ok, I will inquire at the building authority.
I consider your plan from #24 to be the most reasonable solution, although with the ancillary building on the other side of the house. I would prefer a separate driveway, thus fully allocating the path to the back property, but I see difficulties with the floor area ratio and the seller.
Thank you very much for your detailed presentation and assessment. It helped me a lot.
Since there is no development plan, the ancillary buildings and sealed areas do not play a role for the floor area ratio. Under §34, the floor area ratio is roughly determined based on neighboring buildings, usually from aerial images or the cadastre map, provided a local comparison has taken place (see new construction on neighboring property). In view of the declared political will for densification, a floor area ratio of 0.2 is nonsense anyway. According to the pictures, it is probably at least 0.3 on average here.
The entire factual situation should be verified with the approval authority.
I will do that. The 0.2 possibly comes from the development plan directly next to this area. It virtually ends at the street on which the property lies. However, according to the justification of the development plan, it is about preserving the character of a green, natural area. A small river with a hiking trail and so on runs further westwards.
Or both buy and unite – but that hits the budget.
You mean buying one and not separating. I would be in at just under 500K EUR. But then I have nothing left for the house. Of course, I could live in the demolition building.... No, unfortunately, that won't work...