Is a 12m border construction "underground garage" possible?

Garages are ancillary buildings, and workshops would require at least an MI, I do not see them even in exceptional cases in the WA or WR. It has already been stated that a basement is not "underground".

Hello,

the BayBO is actually not very conclusive regarding the definition of "underground." Article 6 prescribes distance areas for above-ground walls. Article 2 defines above-ground floors. However, the floors have nothing to do with Article 6. For garages, separate rules are applied again.

I would definitely clarify such a special case in advance with the municipality. To my understanding, a garage on the boundary with more than 9 meters in length is not possible as long as part of it still protrudes above the existing ground level.

Best regards!

Thank you very much for the two explanations. Especially the point residential area <-> mixed-use area. Now I can follow this and thus file away a 12m garage.

A quick follow-up question: Is a carport-in-front-of-garage also limited to a total of 9m? Or is 6m carport + 6m garage on the boundary possible here? I think I once read a wording that equates carports with garages. But off the top of my head, I didn’t find it in the BayBo.

Hello,

the total length per boundary is limited to 9 meters. Any canopies or additions to garages must be included in the 9 meters. Therefore, a garage and carport is not an option. Not only physical walls trigger setback areas, but also "conceived" walls, e.g. between several pillars, can have a building-like effect and thus trigger setback areas.

In the end, it also depends on the specific situation on site. I know of several cases where roofs eventually "coincidentally" appeared behind the garage (which can be driven through by two gates). However, in a new development area with small plots and attentive neighbors, this will probably not be possible.

Best regards!

Thank you very much for the quick response. That’s more or less what I had in mind. Only I couldn’t find it anymore in the BayBo. I’m familiar with those solutions where eventually a roof is added, a post is set, and a wall is clad. In this case, it’s not a new development area where the plots are very similar and tightly arranged. Nevertheless, I would prefer not to cause trouble with the neighbors in advance. It simply wouldn’t be worth it in the long term. The relevant boundary is the neighbor’s south side. -> There is a lot of garden and terrace there. So no construction is to be expected. If one exhausts the full possibilities regarding height and roofs here, the neighbor would only have shade. I would be displeased with that too. (But that’s just by the way)

If you come to an agreement with the neighbor, you can also exceed the 9 m. Since there is only a garden there, the neighbor might then give you the 3 m as an encumbrance, maybe? ;) But since we do not know the situation, it could also be completely different.