How to implement land division sensibly?

It's the same, but now the plan is to divide it a bit larger than before.

What do you think about finally showing pictures of the property? Based on your original descriptions of a "pipehead property" (and with 16 meters from the development to the house edge closest to the street), I naturally imagined a property accessed via a driveway-narrow strip of land at the end of the world, where rolling out the trash bin is like a pilgrimage. In the meantime, a one-meter-high dune was added. And now you draw a property that lies practically directly on the street, offset by a laughably small parking bay width, and rather has a bottleneck narrowing the access than what one could call a pipehead property. If you don't simply want to fool us, but really can only "paint pictures with words" badly, then you should really start "painting pictures with photos"!

What do you think about finally showing pictures of the property? Based on your original descriptions of a "cul-de-sac property" (and with 16 meters from the development to the house edge closest to the street) I naturally imagined a property accessed via a driveway-narrow strip of land at the end of the world, where taking out the trash is like a pilgrimage. In the meantime, a one-meter-high dune was added. And now you draw a property that is offset by a ridiculous parking bay width, practically right on the street, and rather has a bottleneck narrowing of the access than something you could call a cul-de-sac property. If you don't just want to mess with us but really only have a hard time "painting pictures with words," then you really should "paint pictures with photos"!

Sorry, but nothing has changed about the property itself. Behind the hatched area are several garages. These were not up for consideration before; now they are included in the sale. They could be demolished, but they don't have to be. Then add another 3 meters of distance to the new house, making at least 16 meters from the house edge to the street, past the garages. The sketch doesn't show all the details; in this thread, I was only interested in figuring out how the subdivision could be done most sensibly.

In this thread, my only concern was to find out how the division can be made most sensibly.

But details are important for that as well

The sketch does not show all the details,

Aha???

Behind the hatched area there are several garages.

Well, then it probably makes no sense to have the property divided by garages invisible to us! Offtopic: is this now the second or third thread here in the last 2 days where the OP simply ignores important elements of a property and actually expects something meaningful from a forum community? Do you all have too much free time or a poor education? Did you go to school in the same class as ?

Sorry, but nothing has changed on the property itself. Behind the hatched area there are several garages. They were not up for consideration before, now they are being sold along with it. They could be demolished, but they don't have to be. Then another 3 meters distance to the new house makes at least 16 meters from the edge of the house to the street, past the garages. The sketch does not show all details, in this thread my only concern was to find out how the division can make the most sense.

Okay, I'll check in again around the middle of next week - is that enough time for you to decide whether you want help saying "yes" or "no"? - "maybe, a little" unfortunately doesn't work, I can't read minds ...

The sketch does not show all the details; in this thread, I was only interested in finding out how the division can be done most sensibly.

It is simply not reasonable to judge without a few measurements or additions to the sketch regarding what is already stated. Not everyone has an elephant memory like and knows what you may have written elsewhere and interprets that as well.

Okay, I’ll check back again around the middle of next week – is that enough time for you to decide whether you want help with a "yes" or "no"? – unfortunately, "maybe, a little" doesn't work, I can't read minds ...

If you have such a problem answering my question in this thread, then just don’t write at all? I will only upload pictures if it concerns my property. Would you want everyone posting photos of your property on the internet? Surely not.

It’s simply not reasonable to assess without a few measurements or additions to the sketch regarding what’s already stated. Not everyone has an elephant memory like and knows what you might have written elsewhere and interprets that into this.

I thought the sketch shows all data relevant to my question. Here’s another, more detailed one with buildings, but the question hasn’t changed and the buildings are not what I’m concerned with here. Is it reasonable to take over the car parking spaces between the garage and the street, which only the current owner wants to use, and then give him a right of use, or would it be better if they remain with him? I found the answer by @ appropriate. If it belongs to us, of course we would pay property tax for it, but the right of use could be allowed to expire if the current owners eventually move away?



The dashed line is the building boundary (the house of neighbor 1, the current owner of the property for sale, was already there before the building boundary was established), the blue area is the currently possible building window of 9x18m, which would become significantly larger if the garages are demolished, which depending on how we come to an agreement, could happen, since we can’t even use them if the right of use for the parking spaces in front of the garages remains entirely with the previous owner. Then it would be about 9x27 meters that could be built on. However, we have also offered to leave the garages standing if the owners waive one parking space, so that we can use one garage ourselves, and in return we would then provide a garage space. That would of course save us from having to build a carport ourselves.