Non-buildable plot according to Paragraph 34?

Hello Dirk,

thank you for your offer. I currently only have an excerpt with standard land values (see attachment). The plot is the one with the red pin. The development is planned directly opposite No. 44, so right behind No. 41 towards the street. No. 46b would also be, in my opinion, second row, although the access goes via the driveway to the riding arena. No. 21a in the adjacent residential area (Horster Feld) would, in my opinion, also be second row. Or am I seeing something wrong there? Maybe something can already be deduced from this.

I talked to an acquaintance today. He works for the city and will also try to get more information tomorrow. He also said that there was once a residential building on the plot in the same place, which was demolished years ago. Could that also be a good reason to be allowed to build a building there again?

Is it possibly too obvious if several people now try to get information about the adjacent development area? Could one be "stirring up sleeping dogs"? Or do the authorities maybe not notice something like that?

Thanks & regards
Heiko

Basically, it's a good thing when several people take care of it. This could lead to the responsible authority taking a closer look out of self-interest to see whether there is actually a reason for refusal. They might be more inclined to relent. However, this can also lead to the exact opposite, and the legal opinion could reach the conclusion through the renewed (intensive) review that building is definitely not allowed here.

You notice, basically no positive or negative aspect can be derived here.

Yes, basically you are probably right. I just hope that our acquaintance simply gets the right contact person and maybe can achieve a general statement without much fuss. Without BVA, this will probably not be achievable in writing either. A good argument certainly helps with that.

We will see how this develops. I will stay on it for now.

Within the purple line or in the WA you will get a building permit, behind 44 in the area outside the WA with reference to 64b to 99.9% not, unless you can justify a privileged business or a privileged building project. In the case of the riding hall, this was probably justified/approved accordingly. West of #44 everything is also free - if you like the location there so much, why don’t you build within the WA!? Or are we somehow misunderstanding each other ... can you roughly mark the location of the planned residential building? Best regards Dirk Grafe

The property is located within the WA. I tried to describe the location as best as possible in my post. The red pin is already in the correct parcel. The crux of the matter is probably that the house "Auf der !Horst Nr. 41" will move to the second row due to the planned development. This is described as inadmissible. That is why I had the idea to refer to other residential buildings in the immediate vicinity that are in the second row.

I have now marked the planned construction site in red. This is the best way to visualize it.

Best regards
Heiko