Question bulletin board

Today, I attended the seminar. Thank you very much. Among them, he spoke about the land of the crank (L-shaped land), "Because it is not a corner lot, there is no easing of the building coverage ratio." However, as a result of a survey on the Internet, it is described as follows.
2. Site for real estate appraisers (http://www.naitokantei.jp/pdf/quizXNUMX.pdf of Naito Office)
Then, the L-shaped land is a "quasi-corner" according to the Building Standards Act. There is also a statement that the occupancy rate is not eased on two routes, but on a semi-square ground.
10. My home (Tokyo) is actually L-shaped, but the important matter statement states that the building coverage ratio has been eased, and the XNUMX% limit has actually increased.
XNUMX. There is information on relaxation of building coverage by corner lots etc. (Article XNUMX, Paragraph XNUMX, Item XNUMX of the Building Standards Act) on the pages of government offices in Tokyo, Kanagawa, etc. These specify the range of corner lots, etc., but the L-shaped cranks are quasi-corner areas, and all stipulate the mitigation of the building cover ratio.
From the above, correctly, the Building Standards Law stipulates the mitigation of the occupancy rate only for corner lots, but the handling of corner lots etc. is stipulated in the detailed regulations, and quasi corner lots are also subject to relaxation, Isn't that that? If there are local governments that do not include the crank in the handling of corners etc. in the detailed regulations, please let us know.