I own a small house with a living area of 80 m² (860 sq ft). Due to poor structural condition, the house is to be demolished and rebuilt on the same site with the same footprint. The nearly 500 m² (5400 sq ft) plot only contains the house, a single garage, a double garage, and a paved driveway/turnaround area in front of the garages. This means about 80% of the plot is covered with impermeable surfaces.
According to a phone inquiry with the building authority, either 40% or 60% impermeable surface coverage would be permitted. There is no grandfathering of the existing situation. This means I either have to demolish the garages, which are very solidly built and I do not want to remove, or I have to remove the paved driveway, resulting in driving over bare soil to reach the garages.
Since I already have a 40 m (130 ft) long driveway and there are rarely free parking spots on the street where the driveway connects, I cannot do without the garage.
Does anyone know if there might be further exceptions, or do I really have to plan on driving through mud to reach my garage?
According to a phone inquiry with the building authority, either 40% or 60% impermeable surface coverage would be permitted. There is no grandfathering of the existing situation. This means I either have to demolish the garages, which are very solidly built and I do not want to remove, or I have to remove the paved driveway, resulting in driving over bare soil to reach the garages.
Since I already have a 40 m (130 ft) long driveway and there are rarely free parking spots on the street where the driveway connects, I cannot do without the garage.
Does anyone know if there might be further exceptions, or do I really have to plan on driving through mud to reach my garage?
sergutsh schrieb:
Section 19 of the Land Use Ordinance (Baunutzungsverordnung) allows the permissible floor area ratio to be exceeded for ancillary structures by up to 50%. Even a floor area ratio of 0.8 is permitted and can be approved. However, this information is not helpful here if consultation with the building authority has already taken place. For example, the floor area ratio was not mentioned at all.
ypg schrieb:
This information is useless here if you have already consulted with the building authority. For example, the floor space index was not mentioned at all.It probably refers to nothing else (40% corresponds to a floor space index of 0.4 + 50% of 0.4 = 0.6 or 60%). There is no other basis for the restriction. Sometimes you have to push the case officer a bit ;-) It may be possible to negotiate a deviation, exception, or exemption. The law allows for that.
M
MachsSelbst5 Jun 2024 08:16No. Exceeding the floor area ratio according to land use regulations can be excluded with justification. For example, in cases where infiltration is an issue and excessive sealing needs to be avoided.
Period.
We are allowed, for example, 40%, no more square meters.
And that's a good thing. After all, who wants to live in a parking lot.
Period.
We are allowed, for example, 40%, no more square meters.
And that's a good thing. After all, who wants to live in a parking lot.
MachsSelbst schrieb:
No. The exceeding of the floor area ratio according to the land use ordinance can... Incorrect. The law text does not say that. However, it does state:
"...The permissible floor area (attention!) may be exceeded by the floor areas of the facilities mentioned in sentence 1 by up to 50 percent, but no more than a floor area ratio of 0.8..." and it goes on to mention a further excess that CAN be approved.
MachsSelbst schrieb:
...Who wants to live in a parking lot anyway. The thread starter, for example.
M
MachsSelbst5 Jun 2024 09:06Once again, someone who thinks they know better than the building authority...
A new construction simply will not be approved here as long as the site coverage ratio is exceeded. Period.
The building authority has already stated clearly what will be approved and what will not.
And yet you still claim that it would be possible... speechless.
A new construction simply will not be approved here as long as the site coverage ratio is exceeded. Period.
The building authority has already stated clearly what will be approved and what will not.
And yet you still claim that it would be possible... speechless.
Similar topics