ᐅ Questions Regarding the Interpretation of Section 34 of the Building Code
Created on: 2 Sep 2019 19:45
S
Schlenk-Bär
We have purchased a plot of land to build a single-family house. There used to be some old buildings on the property, which have now been demolished. We are currently focusing intensively on planning the house. There is no local land-use plan (building plan / planning permission) for the plot, so according to the responsible building authority, Section 34 of the German Building Code applies. I have read the legal text several times but did not gain much clarity, so I searched for interpretation aids... to say the least, it’s quite complex. I hope someone here in the forum can help us with our questions.
In the attached image below, our plot is outlined in red. There are land-use plans (building plans / planning permissions) for the two red areas. Section 34 states that a project is permissible if it aligns with the character of the immediate surroundings in terms of the type and extent of land use, building method, and the area of the plot to be built on, and if access infrastructure is secured.
What does this actually mean for our project? Should we orient ourselves according to the land-use plan on the right side? That would be a row of terraced houses standing perpendicular to the street, with houses arranged behind them. Or should we follow the three houses on the left side? Can three houses really be considered a coherent building context? Or the houses on the opposite side of the street?
How far from the street would we need to build our house? We definitely want to build farther from the street than the neighbors on the left side. What would be the best way to argue this? Could it help that an old building, which we have now demolished, was roughly in the center of the plot?
Thank you very much for your help.
In the attached image below, our plot is outlined in red. There are land-use plans (building plans / planning permissions) for the two red areas. Section 34 states that a project is permissible if it aligns with the character of the immediate surroundings in terms of the type and extent of land use, building method, and the area of the plot to be built on, and if access infrastructure is secured.
What does this actually mean for our project? Should we orient ourselves according to the land-use plan on the right side? That would be a row of terraced houses standing perpendicular to the street, with houses arranged behind them. Or should we follow the three houses on the left side? Can three houses really be considered a coherent building context? Or the houses on the opposite side of the street?
How far from the street would we need to build our house? We definitely want to build farther from the street than the neighbors on the left side. What would be the best way to argue this? Could it help that an old building, which we have now demolished, was roughly in the center of the plot?
Thank you very much for your help.
Please choose an architect well connected within the local community.
§34 is not suitable for laypersons without knowledge of building law and local development regulations.
You also need to be willing to compromise. Some things will be allowed, others will not. If you cause trouble, you won’t be able to build for a long time.
In general, §34 offers many possibilities. However, you need to present these well to the building authority.
§34 is not suitable for laypersons without knowledge of building law and local development regulations.
You also need to be willing to compromise. Some things will be allowed, others will not. If you cause trouble, you won’t be able to build for a long time.
In general, §34 offers many possibilities. However, you need to present these well to the building authority.
S
Schlenk-Bär3 Sep 2019 21:26Escroda schrieb:
Actual building boundaries exist only in the imagination of the observer. Here is my interpretation (dark blue):
[ATTACH alt="Baugrenzen_Schlenk.png"]37974[/ATTACH]
If your authorized building planner is familiar with the local permitting authorities, they might be able to enforce the light blue area. If you consider the average building depth of the surrounding properties, the building zone shrinks even more. However, it can in no case be described as an extremely small building zone.Great, thank you very much. The image really helped me understand this better. Can the rear dark blue line still apply if the back part of the buildings are garages and sheds (houses numbered 18, 20, and 22)? If so... is there a way to justify this?S
Schlenk-Bär3 Sep 2019 21:29rick2018 schrieb:
Please find an architect who is well connected within the local community. Yes, that sounds reasonable. However, it is difficult to arrange in practice. Almost everyone says they are fully booked for the coming months / sometimes even years...
rick2018 schrieb:
In general, section 34 offers many possibilities. But you need to present these well to the building authority / planning office. Exactly my opinion. That’s why I’m trying to gather as much information as possible to be able to argue effectively if necessary.
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
Is it possible for the dark blue line at the back to remain if the rear part of the buildings are garages and sheds (houses numbered 18, 20, and 22)? That’s a matter open to debate. I find it hard to believe that these buildings would still be classified as subordinate outbuildings according to §14 of the Land Use Ordinance. However, if your permitting authority sees it differently, there isn’t much room for argument.
Make a thorough photo documentation of all neighboring buildings and present your construction project during your appointment. Provide a clear rationale for the placement of the building structure and highlight the “sandwich” situation relative to the zoning plan area. Then, listen carefully to the views of the officials, take notes on what they emphasize and how they justify their position. Perhaps there will be no objections at all.
S
Schlenk-Bär7 Sep 2019 09:50Escroda schrieb:
Make a comprehensive photo documentation of all neighboring buildings and present your construction project at the appointment. Provide a clear rationale for the location of the building structure and point out the “sandwich” situation in relation to the zoning plan area. As always, thanks! for your very helpful contributions. I am sitting here trying to provide a coherent justification for the location of the building structure. What can I say, I just can’t manage it. I know it’s a big request. Could you perhaps provide a few key points? I’m not a professional and find it really difficult. I can justify the location from our own interests but not according to §34 of the Building Code. My assumption is that this paragraph focuses purely on the visual appearance, the resulting overall image. But from which perspective? From the street view? Then I wonder why the rear building line should even be relevant, since the rear part is not visible. From a bird’s-eye view? That can’t be either, since no one should be disturbed from there. How am I supposed to give a coherent justification for the location of the building if I don’t even know what exactly is important? Maybe I’m making it harder than it is, but I just don’t have a proper overview yet.
To what extent does photo documentation help me? What exactly should I photograph and for what purpose?
Our arguments for positioning the building about 10 m (33 feet) from the street are: reducing noise caused by the street; parking space for guests, since there is otherwise no option; space for a carport/garage, as the one planned next to the house won’t be sufficient; room to turn the car on the property because of the heavily trafficked street during peak hours; our aesthetic preference for how the house should be positioned (including additional space for flower beds).
Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
I'm not a professional, and I find this really difficult. Schlenk-Bär schrieb:
To what extent does a photo documentation help me? What should I photograph and for what purpose? Get an architect from your area. Otherwise, it won’t work. You’re risking your options. In my opinion, the demolition of the shed was also too hasty.