Disadvantage of a building encumbrance in our specific case?

I understand it to mean that the garage of the original poster, which is to be higher than 3 m, then triggers correspondingly larger clearance distances, in which the existing garage of the neighbor can remain according to §6 Bauordnung NRW (8). The 3 m then only apply to the existing garage of the neighbor, which according to the original poster is only 2.8 m high.

and how do you solve the max. 3 meters?

How else should I explain it?
I know of three ways in NRW to legally exceed the middle wall height of 3m with a boundary garage:
1. Distance area building encumbrance - IMHO the worst option, as it one-sidedly burdens the neighbor
2. Neighbor's consent - IMHO the easiest option if the approval authority cooperates
3. Extension obligation building encumbrance - IMHO the best option as it is legally clean and permanently documented and advantageous for both neighbors

There are also constellations conceivable where no option is possible. However, this should not be the case here, as I assume that the well-informed surveyor on site would not have given the tip about the building encumbrance otherwise.

Or asked another way: Where do you get the 3m limit from?

Or asked the other way around: Where do you get the 3m barrier from?

Hello Escorda That’s how it is known to me from the building regulations of NRW. Border construction garage middle height 3 meters. That is a fixed value. I don’t think an authority would deviate from it on its own. The TS wrote that the neighbor has a garage on the boundary. That is obviously OK. He wants to add on. Also OK. But he wants to exceed the average wall height. That is then no longer OK. The neighbor can agree as much as he wants. Without a clearance area, it won’t be possible. And where should the clearance area come from? Not from the neighbor. It only works on one’s own property. Explain in the building application that the deviation from the building code is requested only because of the optics. The guys will laugh themselves silly. Steven

To everyone: First of all, many many thanks for your comments. I am positively surprised at how much help you get here!

: Regarding the three possibilities mentioned above:
- I will check the neighbor's consent. Would it have disadvantages for us if the neighbor and the authority agree to it?
- The building obligation servitude would be plan B. But that also means: If the neighbor sells at some point and the new buyer has the neighbor’s existing garage torn down, could they then even build a house directly on the boundary, right? That wouldn’t be great for us, of course, even though it’s very unlikely that this case will occur.

And one more thing:
Is there an independent agency where you can get good and affordable building surveyors involved? Like a kind of consumer advice center? Or a kind of TÜV? Someone we would gladly pay a few marks to, just so a professional looks at the plans and gives a recommendation?

Thanks to you all and have a nice Monday,
Meike

I don't think an authority deviates from that on its own.

Not on its own, but upon request.

Would it have disadvantages for us if the neighbor and the authority agree on it?

The neighbor signs the building documents and thereby gives consent for exactly this plan. A changed execution would no longer be covered by the approval. Whether you should already call that a disadvantage ... ? A disadvantage would be the documentation. One should pay close attention to where the approval is kept and to pass it on to the legal successor in the event of a sale, since it will not become part of the register of encumbrances.

If the neighbor eventually sells and the new buyer has the neighbor’s existing garage torn down, could he then even build a house directly on the boundary, right?

Only if the declaration of obligation is kept too general. The building permit authority or the surveyor should be able to provide detailed advice so that only what both neighbors agree upon can be built. However, it should not be set too narrowly either, so that building tolerances do not become a problem.

Oh, I hadn't seen that you were still editing.

It won't be possible without a setback area.

Actually, it probably will be. A setback area is not required if, according to planning law regulations, construction on the boundary is permitted, provided it is ensured that there is construction without setback on the neighboring property. On the neighboring property, construction has already been carried out without setback. Therefore, it is conceivable that the authority will be satisfied with the neighbor's consent. If not – since the neighbor could demolish before the construction project is completed – the security can also be provided by a building servitude (construction obligation).

And where should the setback area come from?

As a (poor) alternative, the transfer of the setback area to the neighboring property would indeed be possible, since the neighbor’s garage itself does not generate a setback area and is also permissible in other setback areas. It might be – which we do not know – that the neighbor’s residential building stands so close to the boundary that its setback areas overlap with those of the planned overheight garage. In that case, this possibility would indeed be ruled out.

It only works on your own property.

No, see §6 (2)

Explain in the building application that the deviation from the building code is requested only because of the appearance.

There is nothing to explain, since no deviation exists.