ᐅ Building height of 8.5 meters with a basement and two full floors?

Marcello schrieb:
It is like this:

• 8.5 m (28 ft) "building height" measured from top of basement floor slab.
• Buildings with a basement plus 2 full stories are thus forced into flat roofs.

That would be a brilliant example of nonsensical bureaucracy and a perfect reason to overturn the development plan.

However, I rather believe an apprentice was on the phone. Development plans are supposed to standardize the appearance of an area, not create an uneven skyline by limiting the height of houses with basements.

Marcello schrieb:
We leveled the plot privately.

What do the written regulations say about height references on unaltered terrain and the boundaries of such site grading?

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

Marcello schrieb:
It is as follows:

• 8.5 m "building height" measured from the top edge of the basement slab.

That is indeed unbelievable! Unfortunately, once again a case for lawyers. Here is my assessment:
This interpretation will not withstand judicial scrutiny. The mere term "basement slab" violates the requirement for clarity, since further explanations such as "slab of the lowest floor" are missing. Even if provided, there would still be a lack of precision because the reference point must be clearly defined or determinable within the plan itself, just as it is for the reference point of the eaves height. Here, however, the reference would depend on the architect’s design.
The urban planning purpose of this regulation is also completely unclear. I would be curious to see the wording in the justification. The possibility of a height restriction aims to influence the visual character of the neighborhood, which this regulation definitely does not achieve, and not to limit the building volume. Other instruments such as floor area ratio (FAR)/plot ratio/building volume index are in place for that purpose.

Your question now is whether you want to pursue legal action if the building permit/planning permission for your dream house is rejected. Are there still no houses built in the development area? Do you know other builders there? Have you already spoken with an architect?

Marcello schrieb:
We measured these two points.

There is only one reference point. You determine the midpoint of your street-side boundary (which admittedly is not entirely clear given your plot’s shape). From there, you take the shortest route to the center of the street (I then arrive at point 258.81). The eaves of your house may be no higher than 6 m above this point (so a maximum of 264.81 above NHN), completely independent of the ground levels on your property. Although, this regulation may also be questionable (see ruling OVG NRW, 28.08.2014, case number: 7 D 8/13.NE).

11ant schrieb:
That would be a supreme case of foolish bureaucracy and a perfect reason to overturn the development plan.

However, I believe it was probably a trainee on the phone. Development plans are intended to standardize the appearance of an area, not to create an uneven skyline by limiting the height of houses with basements.

In my opinion, the office has about 3-4 employees. On the phone, I spoke with a colleague of the lady who created the development plan (she was on sick leave). He was familiar with the situation, as previous builders in the area had encountered this issue.

His summarized statement in rough paraphrase: "We are aware of the problem. Unfortunately, the only option we can offer is to apply for a variance. However, such a request has a good chance of being approved. Please just make sure you don’t exceed 8.5 m (28 feet) by too much." When I asked what “too much” meant, he said up to 9 m (30 feet) would still be acceptable. Our dream house is designed at about 10 to 11 m (33 to 36 feet).

11ant schrieb:
What do the written regulations say about height references to the unchanged terrain and the limits of such land modifications?

I couldn’t find anything on that. As with Escroda earlier, I will send you the plan by private message.

Escroda schrieb:
Now your question is whether you want to pursue legal action if the building permit for your dream house is rejected. Are there houses yet built in the development? Do you know other builders there? Have you spoken to an architect?

The development is about 75% built so far. I don’t know any other builders and unfortunately live 300 km (190 miles) away. However, the city planning office themselves told me that especially the builders “in the hollow”—meaning all plots downhill (northeast)—have struggled with this issue. Our neighbor built a large house without a basement (hardly any garden left). The house across the street has a small house with a basement (in my opinion, too small). Both have families. That’s NOT how I would have built! Whether that’s related, quite possibly?!

We are currently searching for architects. I have been in contact with one as of today.

Escroda schrieb:
(I am referring to point 258.81). From there, you go the shortest way to the middle of the road (I am referring to point 258.81). The eave of your house may be no higher than 6 m (20 feet) above this point (so a maximum of 264.81 above sea level), completely regardless of the terrain heights on your property.

So, just to make sure I understand correctly: the eave must NEVER exceed 264.81 m (869.7 feet) above sea level? Since the ground slopes about 1 m (3 feet) below the planned house footprint, this would mean my basement facing downhill may be exposed up to 1 m (3 feet) above ground, while the uphill side of the building must be underground. And because the basement cannot count as a full story, about 3/4 of the basement would be below ground level, with a slope exposing the last quarter of the basement up to 1 m (3 feet) on the downhill side (there will be an office and guest room there, with normal windows facing the garden).

Marcello schrieb:
However, I know from the planning department itself that especially builders “in the hollow,” meaning all building plots downhill (northeast), had to deal with this issue.

It’s surprising that all architects agreed to this nonsense. I would recommend closely inspecting all existing buildings on site to find out whether everyone actually followed the regulations or to what extent they deviated.

Marcello schrieb:
just to make sure I understood correctly

You understood correctly. I just want to repeat that this regulation is also not legally compliant. But which builder has the time and money to challenge such amateurism?

Escroda schrieb:
It’s surprising that all the architects have gone along with this nonsense. I would take a close look at all the existing buildings on site to find out if everyone has actually followed the regulations or how much they have deviated.

That will be easy. As soon as one of the nearly 20 buildings already constructed has a basement plus two full floors and no flat roof, the builder has probably significantly exceeded the 8.5 m (28 feet) limit here. Since I live 300 km (190 miles) away, I’ll have someone from my family drive through the development over the weekend to assess the situation.

Escroda schrieb:
You understood that correctly. I just want to repeat that this regulation is not legally compliant either. But which builder really has the time and money to take legal action against such amateurishness.

Thanks. What exactly is not legally compliant about the requirement for a 6 m (20 feet) eaves height and the reference point being the centerline of the street? Or put differently: What changes would need to be made in the zoning plan (building permit / planning permission) for it to lawfully specify the eaves height? I just want to be able to argue this accordingly.

I was referring to your shortened quote, which does not specify which street is being referenced. In the original, the traffic areas are labeled as "A" and "B," leaving only the somewhat pedantic criticism regarding the unclear definition of the property center. Since the elevation difference of the reference point, depending on the method used to determine the center point for your property, will be less than 10cm (4 inches), this argument would be rather weak in court.

However, this does not apply to the nonsensical specification of the building height at 8.5 meters (28 feet) with reference to the base slab. In my opinion, this constitutes a significant violation of the principle of legal certainty, which could potentially render the zoning plan invalid.