ᐅ Extension to an Existing Multi-Family House – Setback Requirements from the Property Boundary?
Created on: 4 May 2020 15:12
O
Octrineddy
Hello,
I have the opportunity to extend the existing house of my grandfather. His house is approximately 13.5 meters (44 feet) long, 9.75 meters (32 feet) wide, and 11 meters (36 feet) high. The side intended for the extension is designed as a fire wall, as the original plan was to basically add another part to the house. However, this was never realized.
What should definitely be possible is to complete this extension now, but it is too large for my needs. Additionally, I would like to have a garage.
Therefore, my plan is to build the garage as a boundary wall structure and then attach my residential building to it, which would be roughly square in shape. Moving it further away would be difficult, as the property boundary would end at some point. In my opinion, an advantage would be that the upper floor could have windows again, which may not offer a particularly nice view but would at least provide some natural light.
The development plan allows for 3 full floors. I would prefer to build a 1.5 to 2-story structure, with a height of about 7 to 8 meters (23 to 26 feet).
Are there any opinions on this, especially regarding legal building regulations? The applicable law is in Lower Saxony. I can upload pictures or plans later, I’m just on the go right now.
Thanks in advance for the input
I have the opportunity to extend the existing house of my grandfather. His house is approximately 13.5 meters (44 feet) long, 9.75 meters (32 feet) wide, and 11 meters (36 feet) high. The side intended for the extension is designed as a fire wall, as the original plan was to basically add another part to the house. However, this was never realized.
What should definitely be possible is to complete this extension now, but it is too large for my needs. Additionally, I would like to have a garage.
Therefore, my plan is to build the garage as a boundary wall structure and then attach my residential building to it, which would be roughly square in shape. Moving it further away would be difficult, as the property boundary would end at some point. In my opinion, an advantage would be that the upper floor could have windows again, which may not offer a particularly nice view but would at least provide some natural light.
The development plan allows for 3 full floors. I would prefer to build a 1.5 to 2-story structure, with a height of about 7 to 8 meters (23 to 26 feet).
Are there any opinions on this, especially regarding legal building regulations? The applicable law is in Lower Saxony. I can upload pictures or plans later, I’m just on the go right now.
Thanks in advance for the input
Octrineddy schrieb:
I’m afraid the setback distances on the left side near the street have not been respected. Are you referring to the 10m (33 feet) from the development plan? Do you want it to be considered or not?
Octrineddy schrieb:
What’s the somewhat uncertain idea you have in mind? Section 31 of the Building Code. Actually not applicable here, as designating the special use area (SO) is a fundamental aspect of the planning, in my opinion. This is further emphasized by the higher number of floors allowed there.
I took a closer look at the surroundings. The playground is also not located where it should be. And the modular construction company is within the residential zone (WA). Completely lifting the development plan actually makes sense, since due to the almost full development, urban planning conflicts according to Section 34 of the Building Code are ruled out.
Octrineddy schrieb:
That’s why I would actually like to talk to the building authority. If they are citizen-friendly, then okay. Such detailed consultation is usually not the responsibility of the authority. So it would be more advisable to consult an architect.
A developer would close the window in the extension, dismantle the roof terrace, apply external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) to create a straight line with the main building, build a straight property line, add a boundary at 7.5m (25 feet) parallel to it, and put up two terraced houses. An investor would build a multi-unit residential building with six dwelling units.
O
Octrineddy5 May 2020 10:01Escroda schrieb:
You mean the 10m (33 feet) from the development plan? Do you want it to be taken into account or not? "I'm making the world the way I like it," or something like that. I also find the 10m (33 feet) line there nonsensical, but it’s there nonetheless. Which brings us to...
Escroda schrieb:
Completely repealing the development plan is actually obvious, since, due to the almost complete development, urban planning disasters are excluded under Section 34 of the Federal Building Code. ... come to that. Would that be the responsibility of the (collective) municipality? There is a playground as well, just a bit different from what was originally planned. I’ll talk to them about that.
Escroda schrieb:
If "they" are citizen-friendly, fine. Such detailed advice is actually not the authority’s task. Therefore, consulting an architect would be more advisable. I’m hoping we could start a conversation among colleagues.
Escroda schrieb:
A developer would close the window in the extension, dismantle the roof terrace, apply external thermal insulation composite system (ETICS) to get a straight line with the main house, have a straight property boundary, add another boundary parallel at 7.5m (25 feet), and put up two townhouses. An investor would build a multi-family residential building with six units. The mentioned extension with roof terrace is the bakery, which is no longer needed. In the long term, it should also be removed, but as long as Grandpa is still alive, we don’t want to erase "his life’s work." The shop was then just the sale of baked goods, but at 90 years old, he can’t manage the store anymore. Since the pressure on the local real estate market is very high here (hello VW), selling the property would naturally be possible. But we prefer to use it ourselves, and since there are no financial constraints, we have no reason to sell it.
Octrineddy schrieb:
but it just exists, right?Yes. That’s how it is. According to the current planning regulations, your project is not eligible for approval. So I assumed the development plan could be disregarded. If you don’t accept that, you don’t even need to consider proceeding without a store.Octrineddy schrieb:
Would that be the responsibility of the (joint) municipality?Yes. It’s a political decision involving considerable administrative effort. No one does that for a single-family house— but you seem to be part of the “inner circle.”Octrineddy schrieb:
just a bit different thoughYes. But that does not comply with the specifications of the development plan. If the authorities change their plans, the development plan must be amended as well. It seems this is not taken seriously where you are, hence my suggestion of an unlawful exemption. Why the building limit—which, in my opinion, only makes sense in connection with the three-story limit and the special use (SO)—should cause a problem, I don’t understand.
Octrineddy schrieb:
I’m afraid the setbacks to the street on the left side have not been respected,Criticism of the professionals. Whatever Escroda plots there is also allowed there.https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
11ant schrieb:
Professional criticism.My paranoia-clouded mind rather suspected a blasphemous intention in:Octrineddy schrieb:
"I make the world the way I like it"However, the absence of nonverbal communication channels kept me from reacting in an apocalyptic manner.O
Octrineddy5 May 2020 14:47I can tell that one should be careful with their statements here.
I have now been in contact with the local authority; the zoning plan has never been repealed or anything similar, so it still effectively applies for the building control department. I have not yet been able to establish contact there. It remains interesting. Thanks already to @Escroda and @11ant for the input so far. This will not be my last comment in this thread, and certainly not in this forum.
I have now been in contact with the local authority; the zoning plan has never been repealed or anything similar, so it still effectively applies for the building control department. I have not yet been able to establish contact there. It remains interesting. Thanks already to @Escroda and @11ant for the input so far. This will not be my last comment in this thread, and certainly not in this forum.
Similar topics