Neighborhood concerns regarding exemption from the floor area ratio

-> I also mean that when granting the deviation, it should have been a maximum of 0.4, right?

No.

-> The laws and building regulations do not only refer to development plan areas, do they!?

That is correct. The building code is a law that protects you directly, e.g. through the regulations on setback areas. The Federal Building Code is a law that, among other things, regulates the establishment of development plans but does not include direct neighbor protection. The same applies to the land use ordinance. Protection can only be derived from the provisions if certain conditions are met. This is then a matter of interpretation in individual cases.

Are there any alternative possibilities?

According to your previous information, IMHO none. Possibly some become apparent with knowledge of all details, which is not feasible in the forum. You should go to your former planner or an architect you know and ask for an assessment of the situation. Otherwise, you have to spend a lot of money and hire a specialized lawyer, but this should explicitly not be understood as advice.

Escroda, an initial legal consultation on an hourly rate is certainly available for, let's say, 200-300. It would be worth it to me. K.

I would deem it worthwhile.

Good that there are different opinions. I see a OP who had an unobstructed view of a field for five years and is now upset about the planned neighboring development. Whether this is a law-abiding citizen confronted with the reckless plans of the local construction mafia cannot be judged due to the lack of concrete plans, aerial photos, and pictures. The argument regarding shadow casting and prison yard is certainly very weak, whereas the start of construction without legal basis supports the second theory. Double and single houses instead of a duplex initially do not sound like unreasonable inconsideration to me, compared to the case discussed in the cited court ruling, where an investor wanted to build a six-story residential complex next to a three-story club house at the Wannsee.

:

That is not the case
Since it was so-called land with building expectations, we were well aware that construction would begin soon.

But, (and I don’t want to elaborate further here) that for a cautiously put dubious individual who doesn’t care about anything, the basic planning principles are deviated from and thereby a duplex of that size is only made possible, where, as already mentioned, a normal single-family house would certainly be possible – which nobody had anything against!!! – that is the problem.

We also followed everything at the time Including the neighbor participation!

that ... deviates from the basic principles of the planning

You still owe us proof of this statement. Without knowing the development plan including its justification and the neighbor's planning, it is not possible to form your own opinion about the unreasonableness of the building project. Likewise, one would need to know the exact wording of the deviation or exemption application and its approval in order to assess whether the authority has bent the law.

Also the neighbor participation!

If you had adhered to everything, this would not have been necessary at all. What exactly did you do?

Good morning,

I have to ask again about yesterday (this is not my daily bread):

(Regarding the question from earlier, I can only answer later because the insight into the actual plans of the building notice is still pending. So far, I have only seen the areas from the deviation application of the floor area ratio, not the justification. -> And even there he is already exceeding the deviation.)

No.

-> Is there a justification for this -> § ? (In §19, §17 is not excluded. So it should also apply here again!)

That is correct. The building code is a law that protects you directly, e.g., through setback regulations. The building code law is a law that, among other things, regulates the establishment of development plans but does not include direct neighbor protection. The same applies to the land use ordinance. Protection can only be derived from the provisions if certain conditions are met. This is a matter of interpretation in each individual case.

-> If at least 3 laws/regulations mention the consideration of the publicly-law protected neighboring interests, then these should be taken into account! There is no reason not to say so!?

-> Moreover, one does not have to allow deviations according to §19, right!? Especially when, as demonstrated, development with a floor area ratio of 0.3 is quite possible! (which, as mentioned, no one objects to) and thereby, with an overly generous application of deviations, the functionality of the development plan is at risk.