Questions on the interpretation of § 34 Building Code

In this thread it was communicated that the area on the right side (with development plan) is not to be considered. Why not actually? One could consider the townhouse as a non-valuable outlier and include the houses to the right of it in the course of the blue line. Then we would have a building area that we would really like.

Apart from the fact that Escroda will evaluate it correctly with his profession and vocation, I would say as a layman that you can already see it in the area structure. The development area with the development plan has a different orientation, is connected to a completely different street, and is arranged around a dead end. In that respect, it does not even exist for you — but as already said: layman interpretation.

What is the opinion on this? It creates a nice picture, like a hobby-would-be-home-builder.... The building envelope would be okay for us.

The building envelope would be okay for us.

I don't understand you. You wanted further back. If you orient yourself on 18, you are further back or have a large building envelope. Now you are arguing against yourself.

I'm out. The cat is now biting its own tail on page 7.

I don't understand you. You wanted to go further back. If you orient yourself to 18, you are further back or have a large building window. Now you are arguing against yourself.

No, I'm not. Please follow the development exactly. I had stated that the rear parts are garages and sheds. had replied that it is debatable whether these can be counted towards determining the building window. So I am looking for an alternative that looks like the picture above.

I'm out. The cat is now biting its own tail on page 7.

If you think that is the right way for you and you are right, then so be it. But you don't have to announce it. Everything here is voluntary .

Me again In the front row (14,16,18) you will be allowed to build anyway, you don’t need the [Neubaugebiet] for that. And you don’t need a big argument for that either, since it is a building plot. You need an argument for the not apparent, and according to your wish that would be the back line.

Why actually not?

Because it is a clearly defined, planned-over area. At the edge of a development plan, you also cannot refer to the stipulations of the neighboring development plan.

One could consider the terraced house as a non-valuable outlier

Even though I don’t know the development plan, I would say "No," since I assume that construction was carried out according to the stipulations. So there can be no question of an “outlier,” as it was intended urban-planning-wise.

Could I also use that as an argument for us?

No. First, it won’t help you factually, and second, the exploratory meeting should not already be about argumentation. You can bring out those arguments later in the building application.

So I’m looking for an alternative that looks like the picture above.

I would have considered your picture the worst case for you now. If that is okay for you, I wonder what wouldn’t be okay. This way, you can go into the meeting completely relaxed, as I can no longer see a problem.