No construction, as there is no building obligation

We have already created a "contract" that everyone has signed. But that is not enough for the city.

Tell your lawyer to look at the passage in the law and corresponding rulings regarding an infrastructure development agreement reasonable for the city. If such an agreement exists and is rejected by the city, the city is obliged (! ) to ensure the development. (Building Code §124)

I had hoped that it could be handled as an easement, but apparently such a thing does not exist in our city.

That also exists in your city, and indeed thousands of times. Lines for telephone, water, sewage, and electricity are mostly regulated by easements, the option of a building encumbrance is only chosen if it is building regulation required. It is your lawyer’s task to demonstrate that this is _not_ required in your case, see above – he must convince the city that the development as prepared by all parties is sufficient and thus reasonable for the city.

If the city rejects this, then please request a written refusal and then the city must take action itself (see above) and enforce a favored alternative, i.e. partial expropriation or compulsory registration of a building encumbrance. Municipalities rarely dare to do this because they lack experience, and the procedures are lengthy and expensive – however, I believe that in your case the proportionality of such a measure can be justified if nothing else works.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

The behavior of the city is strange anyway. The wall is on private property, isn't it? That means the owner is responsible anyway. That would be like the city insisting on cutting the hedge of the property owner at their expense for every property with a building encumbrance.. Really something how much the city is overstepping here..

The behavior of the city is strange anyway. The wall is on private property, right? That means the owner is responsible anyway. That would be like the city insisting on a building obligation for every property, to have the property owner's hedge cut at their expense.. Really impressive what the city is taking liberties with here..

It's probably not quite like that in this case. Such walls serve, for example, as immission protection, i.e. noise protection, and/or as compensatory areas, etc. - if the wall is included in the development plan, it must be built and subsequently maintained and kept accessible. That must be ensured; otherwise, no one will want to know anything about it in 10 years.

Best regards Dirk Grafe

Above all, it is "only" about the maintenance of the embankment, not even about the actual construction of the embankment...

Evening everyone,

sorry but the last few days were pretty messed up. However, the whole thing did have some good points.

After another conversation with the mentioned owner, he agreed to sign the building encumbrance. We gathered all the owners again to talk with him. After everyone explained the existing problem to him once more, he became understanding. However, not without throwing one more remark out there:

Quote: "I think it’s great that we’re all sitting together now. Basically, I wasn’t against the building encumbrance, but I felt excluded"!
We didn’t go any further into it, otherwise the situation would have turned again. Since we obviously didn’t get an appointment at the city office right away, we stayed cautious until the end. He had already "agreed" once before and then left us hanging at the last moment. But since last Monday, it’s finally done. The action took exactly 5 minutes and everything was settled. ........ completely UNBELIEVABLE...........!

Now we’re just waiting for our building application. Unfortunately, there was still something to clarify on the city’s side (building application for the ramp, etc.). Therefore, the caseworker couldn’t tell me anything specific yet. Let’s hope I reach him tomorrow and get an answer.

I also inquired again about the rejection letter for the building application with the mentioned caseworker. The stamp would - his words - mean nothing! Only when he registers the whole thing would the time start running. He could have registered it, but the rejection would have cost us 50 €. The same applies now also for a written confirmation (which we need for our construction company). That will also cost us another 50 € (for a letter + postage!!!!).

So, all in all, hopefully everything is through now. Basically quite simple, isn’t it?!?!?!
However, I can’t really present a solution for others now. I would have liked to have known what else could have been done!

My tip: Arrange a meeting and hope for a good day of the idiot!

Thanks again for every comment and every help. I will definitely have quite a few questions during the construction. Then I’ll be back here

Greetings from the EU!

Phew, done! Congratulations, also on the special specimen of (new) neighbors...

I consider the stamp-vs-registered number to be, to put it mildly, an attempt to talk their way out - the city has to decide within x days after receiving the application, the internal processing time between the paper-based receipt and the first handling by the clerk is hardly your problem!