Unclear: BayBo Art. 6 Clearance areas, distances

Hello everyone,

I am planning the construction of a "semi-detached house" and recently submitted my building application to the municipality, which has now been rejected with the reasoning that the distance to the property boundary is not large enough. This concerns BayBo Art. 6 distance areas, distances.

Interestingly, my architect and apparently some other architects in this new development area have made mistakes regarding the distances, and the city has rejected the applications (all concerning semi-detached houses). It is about the gable side of the house.

I have now read up on the distances and the 16-meter rule and have understood it to some extent, and the application is also clear to me in the case of a detached single house. In this case, I may use half of the total height as the distance on two sides of the house, provided that no side is longer than 16 meters. If the house is now located on the property boundary, then this applies only to one side of the house. However, I do not understand the application of the article when it comes to a semi-detached house. It is also noted in the last sentence as 3): "3Attached buildings are to be treated as one building."

Here is the original excerpt:

For two exterior walls of no more than 16 m length, half the depth required according to paragraph 5 is sufficient as the depth of the distance areas, but at least 3 m; this does not apply in areas according to paragraph 5 sentence 2. 2If a building is constructed with an exterior wall on a property boundary, sentence 1 applies only to one exterior wall; if a building is constructed with two exterior walls on property boundaries, sentence 1 does not apply; property boundaries to public traffic areas, public green areas and public water areas are not considered in this regard. 3Attached buildings are to be treated as one building.

What does this mean now for the semi-detached houses? The buildings themselves are suddenly to be treated as one building? In this case, I would no longer have exterior walls (it is "only one house" after all). That would mean that the front and rear sides of the semi-detached houses are clearly longer than 16 meters and the 16-meter rule would not apply to these sides. However, the gable sides are only about 10 meters long, which means that the rule is applicable to me in this way.

I am now wondering what distance I must comply with? I hope my concern is reasonably clear. If necessary, I can also upload a few sketches...
Does anyone know about this and can help me interpret it? Is the city right and I cannot apply the 16-meter rule here?

Best regards

Wait for . He will surely be able to help you with that.

No, semi-detached houses are of course independent buildings. The sentence from 3) refers to attached buildings on ONE property. But tell me specifically, what boundary distance was planned and what distance the municipality requires. Is there no justification in the rejection?

I have attached two appendices from the old plan that I submitted. Unfortunately, there was no written explanation; the phone call only took place between my architect and the city. Apparently, several architects in the building area have the same problem and interpreted it incorrectly. So far, the distance was about 7.25 m. The city now says that the distance must be 8.9 m (the house is 12 m high).

So here is something quite incomprehensible.
Is it about the gable wall? So 6.35m height. Measurement is only taken up to the intersection of roof and wall.
Distance for less than 16m is 0.5*6.35 = 3.175m.
Even if the full height of 11.95m were measured, the maximum would be 6m.
How the city gets 8.9m from that is a mystery to me.

Exactly, it's about the gable wall and the distance to the western boundary (where the garage adjoins the neighbor). The city apparently believes that the 16-meter rule does not apply here. Therefore, the distance would be 6.35 m + (1/3)*gable height = 6.35 m + 1.87 m = 8.2 m (ok, this deviates somewhat from the 8.9 m, but for now it is also about the principle).