Questions on the interpretation of § 34 Building Code

Factual building boundaries arise in the imagination of the viewer. Here is my interpretation (dark blue):

I would have shared this interpretation of the building boundary – if the office now speaks of a building line ...

that the office speaks of a factual building line, which they base on three houses.

... then I also see this clearly imaginable: namely as the identical distance to the street as with houses 22, 20, and 18.

That the office does not guide the architect by the hand, I consider appropriate. A professional really should not be completely at a loss there, even with little experience.

The result is already causing us a lot of concern.

YES, it seems that the worst fears have been confirmed.

submitted a written inquiry

What does that mean? A formal preliminary building inquiry? With photo documentation? Is there a plan he submitted?

upon the architect's repeated inquiry

What does that mean? In writing, by phone, in person?

I find it harsh that the office speaks of a de facto building line, which they base on three houses.

I do think that this view would not stand up to judicial review, but who has the time and money to sue against it?

YES, it seems that the worst fears have come true.

You say it, and it is a slap in the face for us.

What does that mean? A formal preliminary building inquiry? With photo documentation? Is there a plan that he submitted?

He made an inquiry by e-mail. It was not a formal preliminary building inquiry. Photo documentation was included. Yes, there was a plan. He sent a volume study – site plan overview and various perspectives.

What does that mean? In writing, by phone, in person?

By e-mail.

I think this opinion will not stand up to judicial review, but who has the time and money to sue over it?

That’s right. We are seriously considering selling the property again. And that after many years of searching. Even if it was not a formal preliminary building inquiry, the office will not change its opinion by 180 degrees.

An inquiry was made by email.

That's a pity. We always talked in the thread about a meeting appointment, a personal visit, or a preliminary discussion. I consider such a semi-official, semi-written communication by email to be suboptimal, as you cannot exchange your views completely non-bindingly.

We are seriously considering selling the property again.

If the 10m distance is so important to you ... I do not see this as an imperative necessity.

Yes, there was a plan.

Show it.

That is a shame. In the thread, we always talked about appointment for a conversation, personal visit, or exploratory discussion. I consider such a semi-official, semi-written communication via email to be suboptimal, as you cannot exchange your views completely without obligation.

We wanted to leave that to the professional (architect). He thought it was better that way. Besides, he wanted to make a phone call, but the lady from the office does not consider it necessary to answer the phone.

If the 10m distance is so important to you ... I don't see this compelling necessity.

It’s not just about that. The authority requires the recording of the actual front building line and compliance with the building depth of the main uses. In plain English: we could build a lousy little birdhouse (on a 1200 sqm plot). We might as well continue renting, where the floor plan fits just as badly.

But: thanks again for your help.

we could build a crappy little birdhouse (on a 1200 sqm plot).

How do you come to that?! The resulting construction site may not be very deep, but it does have a certain width. Furthermore, only the concrete design will show what is really approvable and what is not.