Questions on the interpretation of § 34 Building Code

Yes, that looks great. At first, I thought you actually wanted to go to the front building boundary.

If you now turn off the background map in the top right corner of the Sachsenatlas and check the box for the ALKIS-Gesamt layer under Karteninhalt 01/14 Verwaltung at the bottom, omit the actual building boundaries, and put a little more effort into your house and the garage, you will have the perfect site plan for your preliminary discussion. Add a few words about your parking space planning and the traffic situation on the access road – who could say "no" then?

As always, thank you for your efforts.

and you put a little more effort into your house and the garage,

Hello?! You put a little more effort.... what is that supposed to mean now. With miserable § 34 I probably do not put in any effort

omits the actual building boundaries

Overall or only those on the right side? I thought the actual boundaries, as you had drawn in earlier, are an important argument? How else can I justify the jump from 4 m to 10 m distance to the sidewalk?

you have the perfect site plan for your preliminary discussion.

Why exactly now?

I’m probably not going to bother with the miserable § 34

Well then: unfortunately lost

Overall or only to the right side?

No, all of them.

I thought the actual boundaries, as you had marked them earlier, were an important argument?

Yes, they are, but for the approval authority. First of all, § 903 of the Building Code applies:
The owner of a thing may deal with the thing ... at will and exclude others from any influence.
You may do whatever you want with or on your property.
Unfortunately, there’s still something after the ellipsis:
, insofar as the law or rights of third parties do not oppose it,
So the approval authority must look for laws or rights of third parties opposing your plan. In your case, that could be § 34 paragraph 1 of the Building Code:
... and the plot of land to be built on ...
So you don't have to find building boundaries that your project fits into, but the authority must find ones that it doesn’t fit into. Why bring up actual building boundaries if maybe none are visible there?
You only have to justify something if you want to deviate from regulations or if you disagree with the authority’s reasons for rejection.

Why exactly now?

Because if you made an effort, you’d see immediately what you’re planning. If there were objections, they could be explained directly on the plan, and you would know what to pay attention to in the building application. The better the site plan, the less likely misunderstandings become.

So, there is an update. We as the builders ourselves have not contacted the building authority regarding § 34 Building Code. After consulting with the architect, he took over and submitted a written inquiry. The result is currently causing us quite some concern. I quote the most important points:

"the project plot is located in the inner area within the meaning of § 34 Building Code. This means that projects are permissible under planning law if they fit into the character of the immediate surroundings according to the type and extent of structural use, the building method, and the plot area to be built on, and if access is secured.
The immediate surroundings here are represented by the buildings on the plots xxxx (the three buildings on the street on the left are meant). The buildings on the right (the row house) and further east cannot be taken into account because they are within the scope of a development plan.
The location of the building on the plot you have proposed does not fit into the immediate surroundings. Neither the actual front building line has been adopted, nor has the building depth of the main uses been observed.
Regarding the permissibility of the number of floors, I cannot provide you with any information, as an on-site inspection is required."

upon repeated inquiry by the architect

"the building supervisory authority is a reviewing authority.
It reviews concrete projects upon application, which are considered permissible under planning law by architects and engineers authorized to submit building documents.
If individual points of the planning law permissibility of concrete projects are viewed critically, the option of applying for a building pre-approval is available.
Under no circumstances does the building supervisory authority dictate to the architects and engineers commissioned with the planning of concrete projects what fits on the building plot. This would contradict the four-eyes principle desired by the legislator regarding the review of planning law permissibility.
Please submit the building application with proof of compliance with the integration criteria according to § 34 Building Code."

Does not make sense to me. In the first email, the authority states that the location of the building does not fit into the immediate surroundings. In the second email, it says that the authority does not dictate what fits on the plot?

What I find harsh is that the authority speaks of an actual building line, which they base on three houses. The architect is now considering how to proceed.

In the second email it then says that the office does not dictate what fits on the property?

If you want to read your quotes meticulously, the first statement refers to the integration into the immediate surroundings and the second statement to the design on the property itself. As if the architect had asked "how else am I supposed to build this?!".

the building regulatory authority is an examination authority.
It examines concrete projects upon request,

An examination authority = not free life advice
examines concrete projects upon request = brainstorming is something you do alone, but not with us

At least it fits the picture.