Who has experience with getting eaves height approved at 5.2 m (17 feet) for a hip roof?
We bought a plot of land earlier this year, but unfortunately, we didn’t pay attention to the fine print in the development plan.
Our permitted eaves height is 4.5 m (15 feet), or 5.2 m (17 feet) if it’s a single-pitch roof.
However, a single-pitch roof is not an option for us. We actually want to build a two-full-story house with a hip roof.
Our building plot is located in a small village in the Westerwald region, and most of the plots in the new development area are still unsold. So far, only two houses have been built there.
My question: Does anyone have experience with exemptions to get approval for an eaves height of 5.2 m (17 feet) for a hip roof?
We bought a plot of land earlier this year, but unfortunately, we didn’t pay attention to the fine print in the development plan.
Our permitted eaves height is 4.5 m (15 feet), or 5.2 m (17 feet) if it’s a single-pitch roof.
However, a single-pitch roof is not an option for us. We actually want to build a two-full-story house with a hip roof.
Our building plot is located in a small village in the Westerwald region, and most of the plots in the new development area are still unsold. So far, only two houses have been built there.
My question: Does anyone have experience with exemptions to get approval for an eaves height of 5.2 m (17 feet) for a hip roof?
TinaPankraz schrieb:
The maximum eave height set is based on typical story heights in residential construction. It prevents extreme exceedances of average heights without unnecessarily limiting the necessary design flexibility. Long live state-sanctioned social envy.
Putting that aside, accusations against the OP won't help at all now.
Is that the entire description in the development plan? By the way, the ridge height of 9.5m (31 feet) was also mentioned.
A few points to consider or discuss:
- Quite frankly: Does it say anything that would prohibit a mansard roof, such as a maximum roof pitch or an explicit ban on mansard roofs?
- How about a clipped gable roof (also called a jerkinhead roof), instead of a full hip roof?
- Is there anything specified about dormers or cross gables?
- Regarding lowering: Is it prohibited by the state building code or not (in the calculation of the eave height)? And is the terrain level or not? The driveway slope does not prevent this. No one said the garage has to be at the same level as the ground floor.
- All these measures come at a cost. So the question is whether the plot allows for simply building with a larger footprint and possibly shifting some of the upper floor area to the ground floor.
Just to clarify the term for the OP: Two full stories are reached when the clear width at 2m (6.5 feet) height covers 2/3 of the floor area of the story below (or something like that), which corresponds to a medium attic. And if I’m not mistaken, that can just be achieved with a pyramidal roof at the heights mentioned. It does not mean two stories without sloping ceilings.
Uwe82 schrieb:
In our case, there were no exemptions at all, not a single centimeter. The plans were not made just to fill paper, even if some decisions are hard to understand.However, some of the regulations seemed to be made just for the sake of it or due to incompetence (or more politely, ignorance). We built in a huge new development where the intention was to have almost no restrictions. For example, the "knee wall max 40cm (16 inches)" rule caught every customer off guard. They didn't want this, but since it was already signed off and politicians don’t admit mistakes, it couldn’t be changed anymore. (Other rules included: two stories allowed—you could build a house with two full floors plus a normal floor with a 40cm (16 inches) knee wall—maximum roof height 10.5 meters (34.4 feet), no requirements for color or shape, generously sized plot ratio, no sidewalks due to snow clearance concerns, and so on.)
In the end, they just fudged it by allowing the knee wall to be sized as optimistically as possible. Still, it wasn’t any good. That’s why we ended up with a townhouse...
Uwe82 schrieb:
Downhill-facing dormers were prohibited in our caseThe planners probably thought this would have less visual impact on the landscape. And politicians don't really care whether people look out the window of their hundred-thousand-dollar house onto a slope or enjoy a view and natural light.maximax schrieb:
looking at the slope Or rather at the dining table of the person above. What I actually wanted to say is that you have to orient yourself to the development plan from the very beginning and accept it. Unfortunately, in this case the problem has already occurred, and now you have to deal with it without prior knowledge. Development plans are generally meant to apply to everyone.
An architect can create very creative solutions based on them. Despite our very strict development plan (which we knew from the start, for example a eaves height of 4m (13 feet) and a pitched roof with a 30-40° slope or a staggered shed roof), there have still been some fairly creative designs in the area so far.
Sometimes things just don’t go as planned. For example, we reserved one of eight plots in an area without a formal development plan. The plan was to build similar to the neighboring houses, meaning a single-story house with a gable roof at about a 45-degree pitch. All approximate, just a general guideline. The architect said he could have designed a Tuscan-style house like we wanted. A slight exceedance of the floor area ratio would likely have been accepted as well. However, one of the eight owners insisted on a townhouse with a hipped roof, which the local authority rejected. He then contacted the district administrator, whom he apparently knew. The administrator confronted the local authority, which was not pleased. In response, a development plan was quickly drafted. Now, all previously possible flexibilities are gone, and there are strict regulations on eave and ridge heights, roof pitch, floor area ratio, plot ratio, and more. The owner with the good contacts at the district office certainly made a few friends! How exciting.
Of course, a reservation is not a purchase. The risk lies with the 1,500 euros (about $1,600) that we will lose if we decide to withdraw from the purchase. Let’s see what the architect suggests next.
Of course, a reservation is not a purchase. The risk lies with the 1,500 euros (about $1,600) that we will lose if we decide to withdraw from the purchase. Let’s see what the architect suggests next.
Similar topics