Properly dividing land for single-family house + duplex

And there are no building boundaries? Well then... why not two semi-detached houses: [ATTACH alt="Lageplan.png" type="full"]35182[/ATTACH] Access road not subdivided, but secured by land register (more favorable for setback areas and floor area ratio/floor space index).

Wow, that brings completely new ideas

There is about a 5 meter building boundary towards the street, but an open carport is allowed there with a few conditions. The rest is fully buildable. In this respect, your proposal would probably already be compliant.

An important assessment would be whether a single-family house + semi-detached house is realistic at all here, or whether it would be better to go for 2 single-family houses.

Or also a row of three terraced houses (possibly different, not just different widths), for example. In prime locations, middle houses also sell well. If you haven't read much here yet: I already strongly advise coordinated development even with semi-detached houses.

Whether I myself take the single-family house or one of the semi-detached houses is not yet decided.

You should clarify that first and foremost. Also from the perspective of the principal question: for you preferably the "corner" (in the hope of maximizing profits on the parts given away), or perhaps better for you the pastor's plot (which I would by far prefer).

You should clarify that first and foremost. Also from the perspective of the principle question: for you preferably the "edge" (in the hope of maximizing profit on the parts sold), or perhaps better for you the pastor's piece (which I would by far prefer).

I would probably only tackle the semi-detached house if I knew the buyer of the other half or could at least assess them very well – otherwise it will be difficult to agree on a general contractor and a reasonably uniform design. Nothing is uglier than two completely differently designed semi-detached halves (my taste). Otherwise, I wouldn't find a semi-detached house bad at all, with a similarly sized living area and a "felt" similarly sized lawn area around the terrace, it would simply be significantly cheaper. I have no illusions that a semi-detached house is substantially cheaper to build than a single-family house, but you save on the expensive square meters for the setback areas – the 3m wide lawn and hedge areas around the single-family house. Nevertheless, I am torn... paying off 7 years longer and having a single-family house instead of a semi-detached house? Fortunately, both are affordable. What would be the prime piece from your point of view? Located at the back (in the north), hidden from the (very very quiet) street? For that, you might have to accept shading from the other houses on the southern part of the property. Or better toward the south by the street, where you are somewhat more visible but have less shade? There is hardly any difference in quietness; in the north it is even tendentially a bit louder. Since I probably won't buy everything first, tear down the existing buildings, and then sell part for a profit, but rather split it under equal conditions and only then tear down, the good piece makes the most sense. One more question: How is it best to regulate joint demolition costs? Does each owner of a sublot simply pay a fixed share of the total contract to a demolition contractor? Or should something like that be contractually fixed in the notary contract? I imagine jointly performed own work would be somewhat difficult...

Since I probably don’t want to buy everything first, demolish the existing structures, and then sell part of it at a profit, but rather split it under the same conditions and then demolish afterwards, this good piece makes the most sense.

You already said that you are a layperson. Why should the potential buyer of an undeveloped plot want to participate in clearing the still developed parts of the property? – or conversely: why equal conditions? – they make no sense either in the variant with a shared or with separate rear access.

What would be the prime piece from your point of view?

I don’t have a specific part of the property in mind, but rather the principle decision: to choose to act first rather than last. From my point of view, you should most cleverly develop an idea of your house and where you would best place it, and then make the owner a good proposal on how he should divide the rest. That probably begins with the “calculation” of how much area you can and want to afford: about 40% (single-family house), about 30% (semi-detached house, or middle row house according to my suggestion of the three-row block), or about 25% (semi-detached house in the double semi-detached houses proposal from )? The optimum would be, from my point of view – although a layperson would probably choke on it – to develop the entire property in a company together with the landowner. Who actually tells you that the latter wants to sell you any piece that suits you at all? – if he still has to find two other buyers, he might find three right away (or a developer who wants the entire property en bloc)?