ᐅ If a second full story is not built in the attic, the building depth equals the building width.

Melinaaa schrieb:

Oh, right, thanks, that is Gosepark in Alfhausen.
However, I had attached the mentioned sentence as an image in my second-to-last message.

Unfortunately, even the explanation is written unclearly :-(

---

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

Your floor plan will change anyway, right? You’ll only start serious planning once you actually have a plot of land 🙂

Melinaaa schrieb:

I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking, and I don’t think there’s any need to be rude about it

I’m not being rude. I was just wondering how anyone could interpret “mandatory” differently.

Of course, you can always check with the building authority whether deviations from the development plan are allowed. But “mandatory” is so clear that it really doesn’t require further inquiry. Equal length means equal length. Not 9x10 or 8.37x9.17, but 10x10 or 8.5x8.5.

Benutzer200 schrieb:

But a "mandatory" is so clear that it actually does not require further inquiry.

However, the quoted wording – which, as mentioned, does not become clearer in the rationale of the plan – is incomprehensible at a level of “it couldn’t get any worse”:
2. it refers to a building length for which it is stipulated that the building depth must be equal to the building width. Huh????
Two of these three terms must already be the same in dimension since there are only two dimensions overall. The lawyer doesn’t even dismiss this himself; he passes it on to his trainee. Whether it is vague or incomprehensible, he can choose.
and 1. this is supposed to apply if the second full story is not constructed as an attic floor – again without any clarity, even in the rationale of the plan. Normally, such a wording in a sloped site – which we do not have here – would indicate that a second full story can already be considered a basement. Or it might mean the upper floor of a villa without pitched roofs, which is not called an “attic floor.” Nevertheless, the municipality fails to explain why a square footprint would then be required (and I cannot imagine a legally robust justification for that either). The rationale of a development plan misses its purpose if it does not dispel the impression of arbitrariness in the provisions. A junior lawyer (or divorce lawyer) would easily overturn this development plan. Such administrative acts do not help anyone, especially not those seeking legal certainty in their building projects. Probably, this sentence was meant to placate a disruptive independent councilor to end the discussion before midnight :-(

---

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

11ant schrieb:

The quoted wording – which, as mentioned, does not become any clearer in the plan’s explanation – is at the level of “it can’t get any worse” in terms of being unintelligible:
2. it talks about a building length for which it is specified that the building depth must be equal to the building width. Huh?????
Of these three terms, two must represent the same dimension since there are only two overall dimensions. The lawyer doesn’t even dismiss this himself; he delegates it to his trainee. Whether it is vague or incomprehensible is up to him.
and 1. this is supposed to apply if the second full story is not built as part of an attic floor – again without any clarity, even in the plan’s explanation. Normally, such a phrase in a sloped site – which we don’t have here – suggests that a second full story can already be an underground floor. Or it might mean the upper story of a villa without a pitched roof that therefore is not called an attic. Nonetheless, the municipality fails to explain here why a square footprint would then be required (and I cannot imagine a legally defensible reasoning for that either). The explanation of a development plan misses its purpose if it cannot dispel the impression that the requirements are arbitrary. This development plan will be dismissed without much effort by a junior lawyer (or a family law specialist). Such administrative acts do not serve anyone, especially not those seeking legal certainty in building. Probably that sentence was included just to placate a lone troublemaker without party affiliation, so the meeting could end before midnight :-(

Thank you for your detailed response. I felt equally confused when I read these pointless guidelines, which is why I asked my question in the first place....

Okay, then it really makes sense to consult a lawyer, because unfortunately our floor plan wouldn’t work under these conditions....

Thank you very much!!

I don’t find the regulation that arbitrary. The square shape of the two-story house is reminiscent of the “coffee grinder” houses. These are a distinctive regional architectural style that one might want to preserve or (which would, of course, be a bit of a cheap imitation) replicate.