Special case - Border construction already exhausted?

Hello everyone,

I have come across a question regarding our chain construction method that I can no longer research/answer myself and wanted to ask for your opinion (intentionally not legal advice).

Scenario: In BW. We have the regulation in the building window (blue border) to connect our house to the northern (upper) house by carport/garage (building window green border). Said and done, this was also executed with the dimensions: height approx. 2.5m and depth 8.5m, so in total under 25m² and within the building window.
Now I want to place a garden shed on the same northern boundary, which should be under 25m³ (planned w 2.5 x d 2.5 x h approx. 2).

The question now is whether the boundary construction in the building window completely forbids me from placing the garden shed at the same boundary or if I can, see excerpt from the development plan, confidently just set it up?

My understanding, and I am not alone: Due to the prescribed and approved boundary construction in the building window, I can place a garden shed on the same boundary without additional applications, since the regulations for clearance distances (Landesbauordnung §6) only apply to the garden shed here.

What do you think?
Unfortunately, I have not yet received a meaningful answer from the municipality.

Regards

Since the exception "d" only applies to the construction site of construction type "A2", but you are building in the construction site for construction type "A1", I see your garden shed as having to be fully within the blue building window anyway. 8.5 m carport length plus 2.5 m garden shed length are, according to my calculation skills, 11 m total length of the boundary development that your state building code would have to allow for.

Since the deviating construction method must be described in the development plan, but we do not know the exact description, we can only guess. I guess that the wording was chosen so that §5 para. 1 sentence 2 and 3 of the State Building Code apply. Then you would have understood correctly.

Unfortunately, I have not yet received a meaningful answer from the municipality.

What is the problem?

Since exception "d" only applies to the building plot of construction method "A2"

That is correct, but exception c) second bullet point is not limited to certain sections, so that the 25m³ garden shed is also permitted outside the buildable area.

the deviating construction method must be described in the development plan, but since we do not know the exact description, we can only guess. I guess that the wording was chosen so that §5 para. 1 sentences 2 and 3 of the state building code apply. Then you understood correctly.

Sorry, attached is the definition.
Why is the Building Code and the Land Use Ordinance always cited here and not the State Building Code?

Since exception "d" only applies to the building plot of construction method "A2", but you are building in the plot for construction method "A1", I see your garden shed as having to lie completely within the blue building window.

That is correct, but exception c) second bullet point is not limited to certain sections, so the 25m³ garden shed is also permitted outside the buildable area.

That is exactly my understanding as well. With exception c), it is formulated that openly.

What is the problem?

It was simply a no so far. To almost every request with the addition, I can request it in writing if I want a written statement. I think with the row building method no one dares to give a meaningful answer and then a "no" is the easiest.

The wording is IMHO clear. You have to build on the boundary so that §5 (1) 1. State Building Code is fulfilled. Your "intermediate building" therefore does not trigger any setback areas, which is why it does not have to be privileged and thus is not counted towards the length of privileged facilities.

Why is the Building Code and Land Use Ordinance always quoted here and not the State Building Code?

Because it concerns planning law. And federal law takes precedence over state law in this case, as expressed in sentence 2 of §5 of the State Building Code:
... if according to planning law regulations ...

It was simply no until now.

I find a "no" quite telling. Without any reasoning, a bit unsatisfactory. But if it is only a tool shed, it is exempt from approval and if no resistance is expected from the neighbor, the authority will probably not intervene, especially in unclear legal situations. In the worst case, you move the thing 2.5m away from the boundary.

That is correct, but exception c) second bullet point is not limited to specific sections, so the 25m³ garden shed is also permitted outside the buildable area.

Exactly, that is also my understanding. With exception c) it is formulated so openly.

Got caught. I must have been slightly sleepy at two in the morning after all.