Terrace on garage in case of mandatory boundary construction

Normally, you are not allowed to have a terrace on a garage with a boundary construction privilege. But here, the district office should decide whether the garage must be on the boundary or not. Since the terrace maintains a 3 m distance from the boundary, I consider that acceptable. And last but not least, this could probably also be resolved by a building encumbrance agreement with the neighbor. I suspect that if comments on it, more will be known.

The solution is quite simple and the problem is that there is only one garage.

Divide the garage into two garages and build the roof terrace only on the garage that is not adjacent to the boundary.

Divide the garage into two garages and build the roof terrace only on the garage that is not adjacent to the boundary.

That was also my spontaneous first thought earlier, but I "swallowed" it again because nowadays everyone loves double-wide gates (and because I would at least want to avoid that with the consistency of a joint in between). But maybe it is still better to express the obvious thought. I would still want the district office to come to an agreement with itself on whether the garage must be on the boundary or is not allowed to be there – both at the same time is impossible.

You just can't want everything. There is only either... or.

The case law agrees that a roof terrace on a privileged border garage is inadmissible if the terrace extends up to the boundary. When the terrace complies with the required setback area, there are differing legal opinions. Some believe that the building adjoining the boundary loses its privileged status entirely because it is used differently in part, analogous to establishing a workshop in a garage. Others hold the view that the terrace merely uses the garage roof as a floor slab and thus does not alter the privileged building. For a terrace or balcony with a structurally separate floor slab or the subdivision into two buildings proposed by , it would undoubtedly be permissible but would in effect have the same result. There are various judgments, e.g., VGH Baden-Württemberg, July 24, 1998, case no. 8 S 1306/98, which confirms the admissibility, or a judgment of the Bavarian Administrative Court (15 ZB 13.2671), which prohibits the use of a roof terrace adjoining the boundary but under 15 there are indications that a roof terrace with a boundary setback could indeed be approvable. In NRW, a roof terrace that complies with the setback requirements would be approved unless there are other planning or building regulation obstacles, e.g., designation in the development plan as an area for garages and parking spaces. If your roof terrace is a heartfelt wish and the district office remains closed to arguments, you should seek legal advice.