Primary direction parallel to the road or 90-degree angle?

it doesn't even make it onto the desk of the petty old man and the matter should be settled, right?

I would think that it can't be seen that simply if the district administrator has a say in the decision. Be that as it may: What is the development plan now? Why are there building markings there if it hasn't even been developed yet?

What do you mean by [Gebäudeeinzeichnungen]? There is simply a building proposal on the respective plots.

What do you mean by building outlines?

Just as you wrote:

He sees the "proposed building outlines on the development plan" as binding ridge direction.

The site plan includes the textual specification. Until just now, this was unknown to us here.

There is nothing about a ridge direction in the detailed development plan.

That is not entirely correct. Even if they are only suggestions.

And you can also see this with the houses already built. The ridge does not always point in the same direction.

If that is true, then refer to it.

Don’t worry so much. The way you want to plan it won’t work in my opinion. With all due respect, I do like it when someone starts with pen and paper. But you can’t imagine it without any walls at all.

Have you already looked for floor plans online that you like?

Is there a slope? Or why did you plan it so long and narrow?

So, spoke again with the district administrator. He sees the "proposed building drawings on the development plan" as a binding ridge direction. When repeatedly pointed out that this is only a proposal, he replied, "life is not fair."

I would not rule out that the development plan grants legal force to the house symbols by virtue of the legend. Or indeed within the framework of the textual provisions, to which explicit reference is made here in the legend.

But he gave me a little loophole. If one submits it as an exemption case to the municipality for approval, which then approves it (because they themselves say there is no ridge direction, but only the district authority interprets it that way), then it never comes to the desk of the uptight old man and the matter should be settled, right?

I think you can’t see it that simply if the district administrator has to have a say.

Free yourself from the idea that the clerk is an idiot around whom you could find a backdoor. The district administrator is merely the head of a superior authority in the procedure, but not simultaneously the supervisor of the municipal clerk. He cannot issue instructions to him, nor bend the prescribed procedural path, bypass the designated instance or anything similar. He could not reclassify an exemption case. I cannot and do not want to give a seminar here on the wide-ranging legal interrelations involved here, not only of public service, so only briefly: "that does not work!" You have two options: A. to go the way of the exemption case. But for that, you must be absolutely sure that you really do not violate any regulation, otherwise you will bring down the Damocles swords of construction stop, fine, and demolition order upon yourself. Or B. to go the way of the classic building application. Only when the clerk actually forwards it with a negative recommendation can the district administrator override this recommendation and recognize and approve the application as properly justified.

Only when den er the caseworker then actually forwards it with a negative recommendation, can the district administrator disregard this recommendation and recognize and approve the application as properly justified.

... of course it must be "der" caseworker. Strange little typo.