No construction, as there is no building obligation

The route via the city or the application seems to me to be the best, although all others are also feasible, whereas the compulsory registration of the easement is also time-consuming.

Good luck!

From my point of view, only option 1 promises a sufficient prospect of success. Property is protected, but it also entails obligations. The disadvantage-free easement would possibly have to be accepted by the schizophrenic ( ). Option 2 is, in my opinion, hopeless. You have not been deceived just now (and certainly not with intent to deceive). I have already expressed my (contradictory) opinion on option 3.

This is such a crappy situation!! :-/

Can't the municipality exempt that one property from the building encumbrance? Then the few meters of hill just wouldn't be maintained and all the others would be maintained.
Or would an official joint legal declaration by the owners about "self-maintenance" be enough?

Have you ever spoken directly with the caseworker or the mayor? They should actually be interested in finding a good solution for everyone...

The explanations from about the deadlines for the building application are correct in my opinion. I had also researched these connections in the same way. The office cannot and must not bury its head in the sand!

I also like the pragmatic suggestion to document a start of construction. Movement needs to come into this deadlocked matter.

The office is currently a "moving target" and does not want to commit. Bureaucratic mikado, so to speak. Put it under obligation and force it to make clear statements. This nonsense of refusing to accept to reject a building application is really a cheap trick. I would not put up with something like that.

Hello,

I'll get myself some coffee and popcorn; RA and surveyor with opposing solution approaches... this should be educational

Rhenish greetings

There are only differences in implementation.

The variant favored by noki, a mandatory registration of the encumbrance, is only possible if a concrete construction project is also applied for. No construction project - no encumbrance. Which is only logical - if no one builds, no protective wall is needed and therefore no access for maintenance. One could also file the building application for the protective wall, which would have the same effect; at the latest then encumbrances would have to be registered. Only... how is the city supposed to accept the building application for a protective wall if allegedly no building applications can be accepted? That is illogical. Building applications for which encumbrances are required but not registered are rejected in Germany with a fee, in writing, and with a deadline. For that, however, they must logically be accepted. The written rejection can then be appealed.

This constellation, where the cat bites its tail, also occurs with encumbrances in another form but can be solved. The city has to cooperate, and for whatever reason, they seem unwilling here, although they have the corresponding possibilities.

How to get the city finally moving does not really matter. In my opinion, there are plenty of possibilities here.

Unfavorable for the builder is only the fact that a construction project requiring encumbrances is basically _not_ approvable in the simplified approval procedure. Encumbrances inevitably trigger a "regular" building application, but this must also be checked in the simplified approval procedure and then requested by the municipality. According to the builder’s statement, this has not happened; therefore, I would be really interested in what an administrative judge would say about the fact that about 9 months ago a building application in the simplified approval procedure was submitted to the municipality and has been lying untreated in the stack ever since. In my opinion, the municipality cannot just talk its way out of this with a quick phone call.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

currently nothing really new. Lawyer is still looking into it, the city and the aforementioned owner are building walls and the rest is backing off



we really tried everything. We have already created a "contract" that everyone signed. But that is not enough for the city. I had hoped that it could be done under easement, but apparently there is no such thing in our city. We probably won't be freed either. The action with the caseworker and mayor is my last chance. If nothing changes, I will write a letter or show up in person

well, let's wait and see... maybe the next lightning strike will soon hit the right spot

have a nice evening & see you next time