Unclear clause in the development plan but authority does not answer questions

P.S.: I would not include a request for exemption in the preliminary building inquiry at all. This will be noted in the response anyway if the subtle half-hipped roof would essentially make the gable roof "non-compliant" from the authority’s perspective.

A half-hipped roof is simply neither a hipped roof nor a gable roof. A deviation must definitely be applied for here according to law and regulation. If the authority were to grant a permit without a deviation here, that would of course be great – but without legal basis. This is not a prescribed roof color "dark," where there would be a lot of room for interpretation regarding which colors are allowed. Since this is a local regulation, I would primarily just feel things out with the municipality here. Not with the permitting authority (usually the district, if not a larger city). Because the municipality decides on deviations from local regulations.

[Apolyxo, post: 637812, member: 50731] A crippled hip roof is by no means a hip roof or a gable roof. A deviation must definitely be applied for here according to law. If the authority were to grant approval without a deviation, that would of course be great - but without a legal basis. I still consider it not sensible to apply for a waiver with a preliminary building inquiry. The authority can recognize for itself that it is practically a crippled hip roof, and I quite see it as within their discretion how far they allow such a roof to pass as a gable roof. I would only not erect a detached structure here without a preliminary building inquiry. In this respect, I would wait to see if and what the authority comments in response to the preliminary inquiry. If it says, "Without the crippled hip roof it would be approvable," then you know that for the main building application a waiver application (and due to that one) is needed. I do not consider it likely that a neighbor would successfully challenge a building permit granted without a waiver application because of the crippled hip roof. In the N3 and RBB federal states, this building style is not atypical for the landscape. I would be more cautious in other regions.

Would a half-hipped roof be excluded by this or does it fall under hip roof?

A half-hipped roof belongs to the category of hip roofs. It is a subform, so something more specific, but ultimately belongs to hip roofs.

Would a shed roof be excluded by this?

In my opinion, a shed roof is a subordinate building element which extends a gable roof, serving as the roofing of an annex or shelter. But it is an extension of part of a gable roof.

With this clause, I am not quite sure how to interpret "to set back behind ...".

It is about the visual order of the public street. Although your driveway is a private path, the form should nevertheless be preserved on the street side.

Which of these scenarios would correspond to the clause and which would not?

None. Rather, for example B rotated 90 degrees clockwise C mirrored horizontally I don’t know 100% for sure, of course. Just as no one here can know how your municipality ticks.

I do not consider it likely that a neighbor would successfully challenge a building permit granted here without an exemption application because of the clipped hip roof.

A neighbor anyway not? If a permit is actually granted, then the thing should be settled. A clipped hip roof would never infringe on the neighbor’s rights. I see the risk in the period between the permit and a positive preliminary inquiry. I don’t know whether a preliminary inquiry for such a detail creates a binding effect if the point of the roof shape is overlooked. If the permit is then not granted, everything is delayed. But that the authority (municipality) would ultimately really reject it: rather unlikely.

A half-hipped roof belongs to the category of hipped roofs. It is a subtype, so somewhat more specific, but ultimately belongs to hipped roofs.

"Genetically," a half-hipped roof is at least for a single-family house rather a (docked) gable roof; only above the central purlins that support the gable in today’s building form does the hipped parent roof, if at all, come into play.

Not a neighbor anyway, right? If an approval is actually granted, then the thing should be settled. A half-hipped roof would never infringe on the rights of the neighbor.

Earlier you sounded as if you already saw the preliminary decision standing on shaky ground, unless a waiver were already requested therein (which I still think: "what the hell is that for?"), and now you doubt the standing to sue of the practically only possible begrudger (?)

I see the risk in the period between approval and positive preliminary inquiry.

Well, chronologically it’s probably the other way around.

I don’t know whether a preliminary inquiry creates a binding effect for such a detail if the point about the roof shape is overlooked. If the approval is then not granted, everything is delayed.

The positively decided preliminary inquiry prevents the authority from backing down. If the roof shape was recognizable in the preliminary inquiry, the decision applies even if it was granted thanks to an insufficiently careful examination. The approval is hardly to be refused or linked with new conditions if the subject of the building application is not significantly changed in the meantime and the development plan is also not changed (or established for the first time in a §34 area).

"Genetically" a truncated hip roof is, at least for a single-family house, rather a (cropped) gable roof,

You are wrong. A hip roof has four roof sides, a truncated hip roof when the gable-side roofs are shortened. Ultimately, the four roof sides decide.