ᐅ A carport that is not allowed to be a carport

Created on: 14 Jan 2017 20:55
K
KrustyDerClown
Hello everyone,

Unfortunately, our building permit application was rejected because the carport violates the zoning plan. So, we removed it from our application for now in order to start building the house.

Our house has a side entrance — right in front of the front door is the parking space for the car. Do you have any ideas on how to create a "carport" without it actually being a carport? 🙂 For example, could the canopy over the front door be made large enough so that a car can “accidentally” fit underneath?

If anyone has any suggestions, please share. Maybe someone has faced a similar issue before.

Best regards,
Oliver
Gesine19 Apr 2017 03:32
And is it not possible to file an objection?
Of course, it is advisable to consult a lawyer beforehand.
Z
zuluindia
19 Apr 2017 11:16
We planned the garage without a door.
Although we now need a petrol containment tray and the area is also counted as built-up space for sewer charges, the local authority (our contact in Lower Austria) accepted it that way.
D
DG
19 Apr 2017 12:04
Gesine schrieb:
And is it not possible to file an objection?
Of course, it’s advisable to consult a lawyer beforehand.

Filing an objection is not possible; one would have to file a lawsuit against the legally adopted zoning plan – the chances of success are likely very slim.

Much more important, however, is the question of why someone buys a plot of land whose development rights are clearly defined in the zoning plan but do not match their building plans. And why the builders insist that an architect places a carport exactly where it is clearly not eligible for approval.

Consulting a lawyer will not help in this case.

Best regards,
Dirk Grafe
B
Bieber0815
19 Apr 2017 13:25
I can’t understand the issue without a sketch. If the house is 3 m (10 feet) away from the property boundary and has a side entrance, and if the carport is also planned to be located there (on the side), then it would also be 3 m (10 feet) from the property boundary and therefore at least 3 m (10 feet) from the traffic area. Or am I missing something?

A picture (in this case a sketch) is worth a thousand words, but I’m probably the only one confused here ;-).
Dirk Grafe schrieb:
Much more important is the question of why someone buys a plot of land whose building regulations are clearly defined in the development plan, but then the desired construction doesn’t align with those rules.
Well, life is full of compromises... I can think of many reasons for that.
Dirk Grafe schrieb:
And why builders force an architect to design a carport in a location that is obviously not permit-approvable.
+1
Y
ypg
19 Apr 2017 13:47
I understand and see no problem. The setback from the street is 3 meters (10 feet) and remains 3 meters (10 feet). This is quite common (applicable to almost all plots, unless they are located in a city center) and hardly restricts construction in any significant way.
These 3 or often 5 meters (10 or 16 feet) make sense to maintain a certain distance.
Why can’t this be accepted? Why is the zoning plan not understood here?

Best regards in brief
K
KrustyDerClown
22 Apr 2017 00:16
Would it make sense from your perspective to argue that the development plan only mentions garages? Carports are not mentioned. In that case, wouldn’t the state building code (Rhineland-Palatinate) apply?