Missing right of way: Do road construction and development costs pose a threat?

You urgently need to talk to the municipality. How old is the development plan? Is it available online?

The municipality does not have the development plans online. The development plan is from around 1968 with updates around the turn of the millennium.

Does the municipality even want to develop the area anymore? If yes, when? How high are the estimated costs? Which neighbors have to contribute? When must payment be made?

I had a conversation with the building authority last year when we were just planning to move onto the meadow. Accordingly, I know that the municipality definitely wants to develop as soon as there is a demand.
The municipality is happy about every building gap that is finally developed.
He estimated the road construction costs at €80,000, of which 90% will be apportioned to (if I understood correctly) the empty plots and the farm plot.
I do not know when payment is due. That is probably very individual from municipality to municipality, right?

Why do you want to release the uncle from the obligation, or was the proposal to dissolve the community of heirs from him?
How could the current situation even arise? Why were the rights of way and utility rights neither secured in the land register nor under public law? Who carried out the parceling of the plots and how many years ago? Are there written agreements regarding the community of heirs? Was there a will back then?

There was no will from grandma.
Both (mother-in-law and uncle-in-law) are fed up with the community of heirs and would like to dissolve it preferably "yesterday".
Our building wishes last year finally gave the reason to "get off their asses." If it weren’t for the tax advisor calculating such high taxes.
Next year, the somewhat lower taxes are supposed to be accepted because finally both want to get out of the community of heirs.
No agreements are known to us or to the mother.
Why the rights of way are not secured in writing? Your assessment "cunning uncle-in-law" probably hits the mark exactly. The mother simply does not have the necessary foresight for the consequences when it comes to such matters; for her, a "handshake right-of-way" was apparently fine.

This does not fit with the parcel numbering. When, how, by whom, and why were parcels 943-953 created?

I only know that this happened in the land register in 2002. The grandmother-in-law had not run the farm as a widow for a while and had leased out the areas outside. Therefore, the municipality expanded the settlement around the farm areas in consultation with the family.

The municipality does not have the development plans online.

They have such a nice geographic information system, the development plans could easily be integrated there as well. What a pity.

The development plan is from around 1968 with updates around the turn of the millennium.

What does that mean? Was there a legally binding change then?

That is probably very individual from municipality to municipality, right?

Yes. You can take a look at the development contribution statute. It's available online. But it’s not my area of interest, so I spare myself the reading.

Both (mother-in-law and uncle-in-law) are fed up with the community of heirs and would prefer to dissolve it as if it were “yesterday.”

Yes. As an uncle-in-law, I would also have a great interest in that. From the aerial view, it looks like he has already built something new. So why still bother with development costs for plots that you also have to market? And at the land value “UHU.”

The mother simply does not have the necessary foresight for the consequences in such matters; for her, the world was probably fine with a “handshake easement.”

Yes, and with the handshake, she was also taken advantage of right away. Nevertheless, the division must have been carried out legally. And for built-up plots, a division approval would have been necessary. And in that case, the building permit authority would have had to insist on a public-law securing of the development, unless a land readjustment according to the Building Code had been carried out. But then there would also have to be extensive regulations on development. It would certainly be worthwhile to investigate exactly how today’s division came about and whether there is at least a land charge. That might then also make retrospective private-law securing enforceable in the land register. A specialized lawyer should take a look.

That’s why the municipality, in coordination with the family, extended the settlement around the farmyards.

I don’t know how long you’ve belonged to this family and to what extent your wife is informed about the historical property developments. To me, it looks like all the parcels from 943-953 once belonged to the farm and the ancestors seriously cashed in. But they didn’t want to get involved with the expensive internal development so far and opposed the municipality’s plans. And now there’s no money left and the younger generation has to pay the price. Your bad luck. I would find the development plan interesting. Especially what planning is intended for 944.

What does that mean? Was there a legally binding change?

Yes, there was, with altered eaves heights, roof pitches, and the determination that carports etc. may also stand outside the building envelopes. In 2001, there was a change specifically for the properties where the mother-in-law and the brother live, as building envelopes were inserted.

Yes. You can take a look at the development contribution statute. It’s available online. But it’s not my area of interest, so I’m skipping the reading.

I will. Quickly, I read something about possible advance payments after the start of development and about the obligation to pay within one month after the contribution notice.

And for developed properties, a division permit would have been required. And the building permit authority would have had to insist on a public-law securing of the development, unless a land readjustment according to the Building Code was carried out.

Interesting info that I will follow up on.

I don’t know how long you’ve belonged to this family

Married in 2.5 years ago. My wife was still young at the time of the “shenanigans.”

I’d find the development plan interesting. Especially, what planning is intended on 944.

What I have is only the building plot change from 2001, the council resolution on the general changes, and the graphic printout/excerpt of the few properties with handwritten floor area ratio etc. As far as I recall, no building plot is marked on property 944, so it’s an expensive 320m² meadow.

He estimated the road construction costs at €80,000, of which 90% will be charged to (if I understood correctly) the empty plots and the courtyard property.
I don’t know when payment is due. That is probably very individual from municipality to municipality, right?

The quote should be about right, as this is apparently a local access road, meaning through traffic is not among the stakeholders in the existence of this road. Nowadays, municipalities (except when they are swimming in money, but I don’t know any case like that) get hit hard by the municipal supervisory authority if they dawdle with the collection. But they like to control when it happens. The time starts running after completion, and this point is controllable by delaying the very last paving stone or lamp cover. When the billing notice arrives and has become legally binding, payment is due, and the clock for late payment fees is ticking. Whether planned deferrals are allowed from the outset, I don’t know for sure—but probably not, given how often the trick with the last paving stone is used.

To me, it looks like all parcels from 943–953 once belonged to the courtyard

I increase it to also include 807 and 1019

The community of heirs has not yet been dissolved. Create a right of way and access on the 949 as part of the contract for the dissolution. (Important: right of way for all parcels (944, 947, 948, 953). Right of way for the respective owners, not person-related) Maybe the father-in-law likes the "other" areas and agrees to this.

For the development of 947 and 944, 4m of the new Eichendorfstraße would be sufficient for you (and then you would establish the right of way to 953 via 947 and 948). This might be a suggestion to the municipality, and if the municipality insists on continuous development, one could certainly argue for municipal interests and thus a different cost-sharing.