Definition of fences/enclosures

... But well, everyone is supposed to keep a piece of grassland behind their fence. The municipality probably only thought of this later to save on maintenance costs in the municipal treasury ...

I see it the same way....

That no fences are allowed in B presumably has the background that B is to be preserved as a large green area. They should not be used as private gardens. It's solely about the municipality not incurring any costs on the area.

And the "green area" you described (It would have been nice that way too --> See picture on the right side I-net page "Wohnen am Mühlenbergsee") has now become a hilly landscape with height differences of up to 1.5 m. But if retaining walls, etc. are not fences. The creator of the development plan snoozed and we are out of luck.

A dilemma. But it will not be resolved. Especially since height specifications belong to the building application and thus the authorities had to be clear about what was happening there. Now it’s only about finding the scapegoat who has to take the blame for the embarrassment.

I advise again: When the development plan was drawn up, it was assumed that B would be a large public green space. Then a penny-pincher from the city came along and suddenly the area was sold to private developers. Money was made from the land, maintenance costs were avoided. Unfortunately, it was too late to draw the necessary consequences for the development plan from this change. It might still have been possible to regulate this privately in the purchase contract...

I thought so. Unfortunately, I am also not allowed to build a high wall to avoid having to look at the "dilemma" .

Thank you for your contributions.

Maybe other opinions will come. There are a few experts here after all.

Since the lake lies lower than the properties and the properties therefore slope down towards the lake, some builders thought, "Oh, I'll level my property" (complete idiot... sorry). This has destroyed the beautiful overall appearance and everyone does whatever they want. The end result is that the last property at the water, which has maintained the natural slope, has a height difference of up to 1.5 m to the neighbor who thinks he has to level it.

However, the neighborhood law states that you are not allowed to burden your neighbor with falling earth (I don't remember the exact wording right now). To achieve this, he would have to install a wall and/or lawn edging stones. However, these would be in Zone A, where no enclosures are allowed.

Therefore the question: Are lawn edging stones considered enclosures?

No, lawn edging stones and also the L-shaped stones (support brackets) probably meant here are not enclosures.

In my opinion, someone has absolutely earned the term complete idiot if they carry out such "leveling" right up to the boundary instead of cutting back before.

Even if the development plan lacks any height specifications—especially those limiting terrain modeling—I see the purpose of Zone A violated if it is not also exempted from terrain modeling.

If I were you, I would proceed as follows:
1) Talk to the neighbor to have him cut back. Then you won't have earth falling onto your property. His problem that he is not allowed to drain onto your property remains, however.
2) If 1) is unsuccessful, install L-shaped stones (where the "lower leg" of the L actually belongs on his side).
3) If someone complains, seek interim legal protection if necessary, i.e., suspend enforcement of your L-stone removal until a decision is made regarding 4).
4) Be quite bold and challenge the development plan before the administrative court: it obviously violates your need for protection against your neighbor inventing the Lower Saxony Alps next to you. The development plan must be amended here and is to be suspended in its validity until then.

Ceterum censeo: it is hardly imaginable to find bigger complete idiots than people who give their lake property a sheer cliff themselves.

In my opinion, someone has more than earned the label complete idiot if they carry out such a "leveling" all the way to the limit instead of sloping off before that.

Thanks for the confirmation. So at least I am not alone here with my opinion.

Even if the development plan lacks any height specifications—especially those limiting terrain modeling—I see the purpose of zone A violated if it is not also excluded from terrain modeling.

If I were you, I would proceed as follows:
1) Talk to the neighbor about sloping off. Then you won’t have soil falling onto your property. His problem that he is not allowed to drain onto your property remains, however.

I did that. The response was "...I don’t care... there will be a fence back there anyway... let someone say something..." I just laughed at my neighbor after that.

2) If 1. doesn’t work, put in L-walls (where the “lower leg” of the L actually belongs on his side).

He will install the stones after I have dealt with him myself and at his expense.

3) If someone complains, if necessary seek interim legal protection, i.e., no enforcement of your L-wall removal until the decision on 4.
4) Be very cheeky and challenge the development plan before the administrative court: it obviously violates your need for protection against your neighbor inventing the Lower Saxony Alps next to you. The development plan must be improved here and is to be suspended in its validity until then.

Let’s wait and see what happens. We are not the only ones with such neighbors. Especially since I have to build my fence, which is only allowed to be 80 cm high, on my own property. If the neighbor’s property is 30 cm higher, only 50 cm remain. If the neighbor’s boy now reaches over the fence and the dog bites him on the arm because the dog considers its property threatened, a legal dispute is looming.

Ceterum censeo: one can hardly imagine bigger idiots than people who give their lakefront property a cliff face themselves.

I have nothing more to add either!!!