Hello everyone,
We are currently facing a problem, and I cannot find anyone who can answer my question from a building regulation perspective. Therefore, I am posting the question here in the forumâhopefully, someone has experience with this!?
The issue: We hired an architect for the initial planning submission. He designed our house set right on the boundary with the northern neighbor. The plot is on a slope. The planner wanted to position the house as close to this neighbor as possible for various understandable reasons and also to build it as high as possible. He used the minimum allowed setback to this neighbor of 3.00 m (10 feet). The house itself stands with its eaves side facing this neighborâs boundary, and the determined height H from the top edge of the ground floor to the intersection with the roof covering is 5.7 m (19 feet). According to BayBO Article 6, H multiplied by 0.5 must not exceed 3 m (10 feet). This is not disputed. This would be satisfied since 5.7 m Ă 0.5 = 2.85 m (9.4 feet) < 3 m (10 feet).
The current dispute concerns which reference point should be used. The building regulations refer to the natural ground level. My planner firmly believes that he can use the ground point at the neighborâs boundary (not at the actual building corner of the planned house). Since the terrain slopes along the 3 m (10 feet) setback, the northwest corner of the house is actually about 30 cm (12 inches) lower. He argues that no one would require leaving the slope as is, but rather one would level it horizontally toward the neighbor, creating a flat surface from the neighborâs boundary to the house up to the top edge of the ground floor. Even on this point, the neighbor is objecting and threatening to sue.
My architect goes even further. The neighborâs boundary also slopes from west to east. The northeast corner of the house is therefore about 65 cm (26 inches) lower than the northwest corner in natural ground level. My planner claims this does not matterâfor one, because no fill is needed there since the entrance has a kind of platform; and two, because the reference point must be the one at the neighborâs boundary, not at the house. Admittedly, at this point, natural ground level unfortunately dips somewhat.
In the meantime, I have a new planner who took over the submission and seems less certain. He is now intimidated by the neighborâs threat of a lawsuit and wants to lower the house accordingly. This would affect the view on the south side, and on the mentioned north side, the house would be set so low that the bottom edge of the ground floor windows would partially almost be at the grass level toward the neighbor.
An alternative would be to design the house lower or to lower the knee wall. The latter has fundamental implications and is almost impossible to solve; the former detracts from the coherent appearance of the house and also from the intended use of the planned attic floor. The easiest solution would be to obtain building approval based on this initial submission.
Who has experience with setback area issues in this context or has practical knowledge?
Thank you!
We are currently facing a problem, and I cannot find anyone who can answer my question from a building regulation perspective. Therefore, I am posting the question here in the forumâhopefully, someone has experience with this!?
The issue: We hired an architect for the initial planning submission. He designed our house set right on the boundary with the northern neighbor. The plot is on a slope. The planner wanted to position the house as close to this neighbor as possible for various understandable reasons and also to build it as high as possible. He used the minimum allowed setback to this neighbor of 3.00 m (10 feet). The house itself stands with its eaves side facing this neighborâs boundary, and the determined height H from the top edge of the ground floor to the intersection with the roof covering is 5.7 m (19 feet). According to BayBO Article 6, H multiplied by 0.5 must not exceed 3 m (10 feet). This is not disputed. This would be satisfied since 5.7 m Ă 0.5 = 2.85 m (9.4 feet) < 3 m (10 feet).
The current dispute concerns which reference point should be used. The building regulations refer to the natural ground level. My planner firmly believes that he can use the ground point at the neighborâs boundary (not at the actual building corner of the planned house). Since the terrain slopes along the 3 m (10 feet) setback, the northwest corner of the house is actually about 30 cm (12 inches) lower. He argues that no one would require leaving the slope as is, but rather one would level it horizontally toward the neighbor, creating a flat surface from the neighborâs boundary to the house up to the top edge of the ground floor. Even on this point, the neighbor is objecting and threatening to sue.
My architect goes even further. The neighborâs boundary also slopes from west to east. The northeast corner of the house is therefore about 65 cm (26 inches) lower than the northwest corner in natural ground level. My planner claims this does not matterâfor one, because no fill is needed there since the entrance has a kind of platform; and two, because the reference point must be the one at the neighborâs boundary, not at the house. Admittedly, at this point, natural ground level unfortunately dips somewhat.
In the meantime, I have a new planner who took over the submission and seems less certain. He is now intimidated by the neighborâs threat of a lawsuit and wants to lower the house accordingly. This would affect the view on the south side, and on the mentioned north side, the house would be set so low that the bottom edge of the ground floor windows would partially almost be at the grass level toward the neighbor.
An alternative would be to design the house lower or to lower the knee wall. The latter has fundamental implications and is almost impossible to solve; the former detracts from the coherent appearance of the house and also from the intended use of the planned attic floor. The easiest solution would be to obtain building approval based on this initial submission.
Who has experience with setback area issues in this context or has practical knowledge?
Thank you!
Hello Unknown,
perhaps a) a site plan and b) a side elevation drawing would be helpful?
I donât know the answer to your question either, but for example, I wonder why you changed architects now. Is it because of the neighborâs complaint?
Is it the case that your extreme planning is significantly blocking the view and natural light of the northern neighbor? You yourself mention that if you built lower, the view to the south would be affected.
Personally, I always think itâs worth considering the neighbors and not always pushing through something that wouldnât cause me much disadvantage otherwise. So if your space layout can be done differently, you might lose some view but could possibly gain a better relationship with the neighbors.
perhaps a) a site plan and b) a side elevation drawing would be helpful?
I donât know the answer to your question either, but for example, I wonder why you changed architects now. Is it because of the neighborâs complaint?
Is it the case that your extreme planning is significantly blocking the view and natural light of the northern neighbor? You yourself mention that if you built lower, the view to the south would be affected.
Personally, I always think itâs worth considering the neighbors and not always pushing through something that wouldnât cause me much disadvantage otherwise. So if your space layout can be done differently, you might lose some view but could possibly gain a better relationship with the neighbors.
Hello bellamuc,
this is not a matter of experience but clearly regulated. The basic rule is to measure the distance between the original ground level and the intersection of the wall/roof covering ... at the wall ... in other words, exactly where the house is built. If two architects donât know this, the building authority should at least be aware of it. A common mistake by planners is to refer to the planned ground level, which is incorrect unless a reference height has been defined in the zoning plan (which is rare/unusual).
Otherwise, you can find various comments online regarding the respective state building codes (when searching, make sure to use the current version and the correct state), but this is hardly advisable for laypersons. Also, the question remains who takes responsibility for the height measurement if there is a legal dispute.
Without plans, it is difficult to assess whether the neighborâs complaint is justified or not. If this is not a permit exemption procedure, the building authority must review and approve the measurements itself. In permit exemption procedures, however, the property owner must be careful, especially as the architects seem uncertain here, although this is a standard question.
Best regards,
Dirk Grafe
this is not a matter of experience but clearly regulated. The basic rule is to measure the distance between the original ground level and the intersection of the wall/roof covering ... at the wall ... in other words, exactly where the house is built. If two architects donât know this, the building authority should at least be aware of it. A common mistake by planners is to refer to the planned ground level, which is incorrect unless a reference height has been defined in the zoning plan (which is rare/unusual).
Otherwise, you can find various comments online regarding the respective state building codes (when searching, make sure to use the current version and the correct state), but this is hardly advisable for laypersons. Also, the question remains who takes responsibility for the height measurement if there is a legal dispute.
Without plans, it is difficult to assess whether the neighborâs complaint is justified or not. If this is not a permit exemption procedure, the building authority must review and approve the measurements itself. In permit exemption procedures, however, the property owner must be careful, especially as the architects seem uncertain here, although this is a standard question.
Best regards,
Dirk Grafe
Similar topics