Dividing property - options and impacts on fire department access

Maybe the notary wasn’t so bad after all. At first, in the “family” constellation, I would have considered the ideal division as expensive nonsense. With the framework conditions “safe home even in the worst case,” “access path across the property,” “bank has to cooperate,” the option is one to consider. But for all 3 options, I would also consult with the bank.

I prepared the most important facts and also the variants I see so far for the notary in two clear pictures. Especially the framework conditions you mention were explicitly included. Additionally, “The property shall neither be partly nor completely sold later on.” We also (still) don’t have “the one bank,” but a free financial advisor. I asked him yesterday about his experience on how the different constellations affect the approval and conditions of the loans in question.

Yes, exactly, two rectangular plots. The front one then grants an easement (and right of way for utilities) to the rear one. This must be formulated in favor of the front property for the “worst case.”

That would also be in our interest. However, I must admit that with your explanations, I am close to losing track of the content and am not sure which variant I would prefer myself. I consider us capable of making a decision and also of collecting and weighing many aspects against each other. But I am also aware that we won’t have everything on our radar and that we need intensive advice. I am looking for that now…

Please post a more extensive cadastral excerpt here, where the next street "at the back" can be clearly seen as well. It doesn't always have to be a right of way "from the front."

That doesn't work "right in the middle." Official subdivision does not work with a "central" access path.

Nowhere is it written that right of way corridors must be located at the edges.

I currently see the following scenario here:
1. Demolition of the chicken coop, establishment of a utility corridor along the lower boundary of the property, one seventy "wide" or however, just so that it is free of buildings. 2. Demolition of the shed, establishment of a temporary pedestrian and vehicle access corridor right across grandma’s yard. 3. Relocation of the pedestrian and vehicle access corridor into the utility corridor widened to three or three and a half meters after the demolition of further outbuildings. Are those still actually needed as a tractor garage or something similar?

I also consider a secure right of residence for grandma feasible even without a real subdivision; according to the Condominium Act, "Property B" and its buildings would be independent in the land register, so that there would be no auction risk for "Property A" in order to use "Property B" as collateral. I recommend (but not to cause fears!) reading the piano thread and would like to once again point out my offer to forward the original poster, if he googles the contact to me, to the unfortunately alienated surveyor here ;-)

I have already gone through the "Pianistenthread" once and it is very well suited to sensitize everyone to this topic ;-) I myself have no fear, rather the desire to understand the whole subject clearly and transparently. Then I can also convey it to my family. I will contact you regarding the scared-off surveyor, thanks for the offer.

I currently see the following scenario here: 1. Demolition of the chicken coop, establishment of a utility easement corridor down slope along the property boundary, one seventy "wide" or whatever, just as it is then free from buildings. 2. Demolition of the shed, establishment of the temporary pedestrian and vehicle easement corridor right over grandma's yard. 3. Relocation of the pedestrian and vehicle easement corridor into the utility easement corridor widened to three or three and a half meters after demolition of further outbuildings. Are they actually still needed as tractor garages or something like that?

The shed from 2. will definitely be demolished. I also see the advantages from 1., laying the lines along the southern property boundary.

Regarding 3.: We want to avoid demolishing the adjacent outbuilding (more likely the barn). It is structurally sound, has a relatively new roof, and houses spaces we would like to continue using (garage, cellar, workshop, summer kitchen, even an old stone oven that still works). The building serves several functions, through which we can certainly size the new building 20-25sqm smaller. What speaks against permanently routing the pedestrian and vehicle easement corridor over the yard?

...further development of the yard is at least not planned, so that the corridor could remain permanently free. This is how the village plots are sized and used here - a tractor with two trailers must be able to turn at full speed in the yard at all times.

If the shed is demolished and you want to use the outbuilding long-term for yourselves, you could lay out the access path in this "channel" (green) in a straight line, with the pipes underneath. If it then actually needs to be separated in the worst case, you can clearly define the boundary line above the green line. The background plot would then get the southern part with the outbuilding. It would also be possible in this southern part (marked in red) to create a communal area - or buildings, and only separate at the barn.