ᐅ Restrictive zoning plan – is buying the plot worth it?

BananaJoe schrieb:

Are you sure about that? I understand it roughly like this:

2.1 Residential buildings have a floor area ratio of 0.1, but a maximum footprint of 110 sqm (square meters) (1,184 sq ft) (meaning that for plots larger than 1,100 sqm (1,184 sq yd), the footprint is limited to 110 sqm (1,184 sq ft), even if the floor area ratio would allow more, for example, on a 1,500 sqm (1,793 sq yd) plot, a floor area ratio of 0.1 would equal 150 sqm (1,615 sq ft)). The footprint of the house is the ground floor area I.

I understand it as the house may generally occupy 10% of the plot area, but only up to 1,100 sqm (1,184 sq yd). Beyond that, the absolute limit of 110 sqm (1,184 sq ft) footprint applies.
However, if the plot is larger than 1,100 sqm (1,184 sq yd), the floor area ratio 2 (for ancillary structures) can exceed the footprint area by that factor.
That means on a 1,500 sqm (1,793 sq yd) plot, it should be possible to build an additional 40 sqm (431 sq ft) with ancillary structures according to my understanding.
If you cover everything in gravel, it apparently doesn’t count, but that probably isn’t the intended solution.
I assume this regulation is meant only for small weekend cottages and not for 200 sqm (2,153 sq ft) permanent residential houses.

BananaJoe schrieb:

But which regulation exactly do you think violates the land use ordinance?

Okay, I changed my perspective and carefully read through the regulations from the viewpoint of the drafter about 100 times. I found interpretations for the statements so that no major errors are present. Two points of criticism remain:

- In section 2.2, terraces should not be included in the list for Floor Plan II. However, I found an excuse for this: it refers only to detached terraces, meaning those that have a significant distance from the residential building.
- "The feasible building footprint depending on the allowable floor area ratio" should not be equated with Floor Plan I, as the parentheses might suggest.

Since your plot is an inconvenient example at exactly 1100m² (11840 sq ft), I choose a plot of 900m² (9700 sq ft) as an example.

Regarding 2.1: A residential building may have a maximum footprint of 110m² (1184 sq ft) regardless of plot size.
A residential building on the example plot may have a maximum floor area of 900m² (9700 sq ft) * 0.1 = 90m² (969 sq ft). Since single-story construction is required and only full stories count, the "feasible building footprint depending on the allowable floor area ratio" is 90m² (969 sq ft).

Regarding 2.2: The footprint for driveways, ... (Floor Plan II) may be up to 180m² (1937 sq ft), or even more in some cases.

So on "my" example plot, there fits a house of 9m * 10m = 90m² (969 sq ft) with an attached terrace of 4m * 5m = 20m² (215 sq ft), a 3m * 30m = 90m² (969 sq ft) long driveway, a double garage of 6m * 9m = 54m² (581 sq ft), a pool of 4m * 8m = 32m² (344 sq ft), and a storage shed of 2m * 2m = 4m² (43 sq ft).
Floor Plan I: house + terrace = 90m² + 20m² = 110m² (1184 sq ft) => allowed
Floor Plan II: 90m² + 54m² + 32m² + 4m² = 180m² (1937 sq ft) => allowed

2.1 implies a single-story building (floor area ratio 0.1).

If these were weekend plots back then, the zoning plan makes sense.
At least I think so. And I also find it acceptable.

While reading, I always had the question in mind why you are so fixated on 200 square meters (2,150 square feet). Maybe you need that space (in which case it’s not really your plot), but perhaps you don’t have a realistic sense of room sizes.
But okay: even with 160 square meters (1,720 square feet), you should pass on the plot. Nature lovers and hermits will truly enjoy these plots.

ypg schrieb:

2.1 implies a single-story building (floor area ratio 0.1)

In section 4, it even states this explicitly:

ypg schrieb:

And I think that’s fine too.

I disagree. The wording is quite specific. I wouldn’t be surprised if the justification for the zoning plan disproves my interpretations. While searching for that, I came across a newspaper article stating that a legal review procedure is ongoing. So, there are at least indications of possible illegality. Apparently, this has been disputed for about 10 years already, so the zoning plan should really be unambiguous.
A zoning plan should clearly show citizens their building options and not cause confusion with Kafkaesque wording.

Escroda, but you, Meyer, Müller, and I can just go to the local town hall and ask, what do you want? I only half understand this, so please explain... Honestly, only those who speak up can get help. It would, of course, be better to have very clear standard phrases.
But 10% floor area ratio, one story, 110 max. is already quite precise.

Nordlys schrieb:

Only those who speak can be helped

Yes, but regulations are written down after all. And if it’s just about purchasing the land at first, expecting a local consultation appointment is already quite demanding.

Nordlys schrieb:

But 10% floor area ratio, one story, max. 110 is quite precise after all.

Relative floor area, absolute site area, the allowed percentage exceedance of a site area derived from a relatively limited floor area, undefined terraces, the parenthetical additions (site area I / II) — all of this is anything but precise. As if the calculation of floor space index/site coverage ratio weren’t complicated enough, here they deviate from the requirements of the land use ordinance in a hardly comprehensible way. That’s also why I initially suspected — and haven’t completely ruled out yet — that these formulations may not be fully compliant with the land use ordinance. It’s a pity that the explanation isn’t available online; I would find that really interesting.