Hello everyone,
I would like to ask for your suggestions on how to divide the attached plot of land into two equal parts.
The plot measures just over 900 sqm (about 9,688 sq ft). It should be physically divided into two equal sections and developed by two families who are friends.
On the left side (southwest), there is a ditch next to the plot and a road beyond that. At the bottom (southeast), there is also a road.
The dashed line indicates the building area, which is determined by a 3 m (10 ft) setback from the property boundary and a 6 m (20 ft) non-buildable strip facing the road.
Access is from the road at the bottom (southeast).
Unfortunately, the plot is somewhat irregular in shape. We have tried many options already, but I would appreciate unbiased suggestions.
I look forward to your proposals.
I would like to ask for your suggestions on how to divide the attached plot of land into two equal parts.
The plot measures just over 900 sqm (about 9,688 sq ft). It should be physically divided into two equal sections and developed by two families who are friends.
On the left side (southwest), there is a ditch next to the plot and a road beyond that. At the bottom (southeast), there is also a road.
The dashed line indicates the building area, which is determined by a 3 m (10 ft) setback from the property boundary and a 6 m (20 ft) non-buildable strip facing the road.
Access is from the road at the bottom (southeast).
Unfortunately, the plot is somewhat irregular in shape. We have tried many options already, but I would appreciate unbiased suggestions.
I look forward to your proposals.
Well, your answer somewhat misses the point of the question. What good is the measure of land use intensity when it comes to reliably assessing the approval feasibility of a subdivision? Of course, the municipality can provide a general evaluation of whether a subdivision with the resulting plot sizes is possible and desirable.
I would never proceed without consulting the municipality first. No responsible architect would make such promises to their client without having discussed this with the building authority.
What’s the problem with spending a morning visiting the building authority? Your detailed explanation of building law and procedures hasn’t helped the original poster at all.
By the way, North Rhine-Westphalia is not the center of the universe!
I would never proceed without consulting the municipality first. No responsible architect would make such promises to their client without having discussed this with the building authority.
What’s the problem with spending a morning visiting the building authority? Your detailed explanation of building law and procedures hasn’t helped the original poster at all.
By the way, North Rhine-Westphalia is not the center of the universe!
DNL schrieb:
The floor area ratio and plot ratio are set at 0.25 and 0.35, respectively, which is known and has already been considered. An architect has also reviewed and approved this. It’s close, but that’s how it is. Having an architect already engaged with the plot is, I believe, the right approach. They have a much better overview of what is fundamentally possible and what is not, and are familiar with the applicable building regulations. With information and plans from them, the process with the building authority (building permit / planning permission) will also be worthwhile and can be kept within reasonable time.
B
Bauexperte30 May 2014 09:59Good morning,
Dirk responded solely based on his area of work – which happens to be NRW. The repeated mention of this federal state is intended only to inform the original poster that things might be different in Bremen.
It shouldn’t be that difficult to think beyond one’s own perspective?
Best regards, Bauexperte
Belray schrieb:Friday is off to a great start...
By the way, NRW is not the center of the world!
Dirk responded solely based on his area of work – which happens to be NRW. The repeated mention of this federal state is intended only to inform the original poster that things might be different in Bremen.
It shouldn’t be that difficult to think beyond one’s own perspective?
Best regards, Bauexperte
Wow, things are really heating up here... so far, nothing has confused me. I always welcome any suggestions and feedback. It helps me know who to direct my questions to.
So far, no one has raised any concerns about the subdivision: the land registry office, the architect (who has also been to the building authority and the dyke authority), and the local surveyor. The development plan does not indicate anything to the contrary. Therefore, I assume it will work out. Only the question of “exactly where to divide” still raises some issues.
So far, no one has raised any concerns about the subdivision: the land registry office, the architect (who has also been to the building authority and the dyke authority), and the local surveyor. The development plan does not indicate anything to the contrary. Therefore, I assume it will work out. Only the question of “exactly where to divide” still raises some issues.
It shouldn’t come across as too harsh! More like with a wink.
Basically, Dirk is right when he recommends involving the planner early on. However, it often happens that municipalities set minimum lot sizes for plots within a building area, without these being specified in the zoning plan. A subdivision is then regularly denied. The reasons for this can be varied: interests of neighboring property owners, the appearance of the neighborhood, or an unwanted double connection to the sewage system, etc. In some cases, the property owner might have a chance to achieve the subdivision through legal action. However, this involves the risk of a lengthy and costly court battle. – Already experienced all of this!
But as I read above, the architect has already been to the building authority – so everything should be settled by now.
Basically, Dirk is right when he recommends involving the planner early on. However, it often happens that municipalities set minimum lot sizes for plots within a building area, without these being specified in the zoning plan. A subdivision is then regularly denied. The reasons for this can be varied: interests of neighboring property owners, the appearance of the neighborhood, or an unwanted double connection to the sewage system, etc. In some cases, the property owner might have a chance to achieve the subdivision through legal action. However, this involves the risk of a lengthy and costly court battle. – Already experienced all of this!
But as I read above, the architect has already been to the building authority – so everything should be settled by now.
I would consider building a semi-detached house, as this would give you the advantage of larger, contiguous garden areas that are more usable. One unit would have a terrace facing southeast, the other southwest. The division would logically be along the shared side wall running north-south. Additionally, building a semi-detached house could help you save some costs.
Best regards,
Klaus
Best regards,
Klaus
Similar topics