Terrace on the garage is only partially approved

Reason:
"That the use of the roof of an outbuilding (garage) is supposed to constitute a so-called main use and must therefore be counted towards the (main use) length of the building, whereas otherwise no regulations (setback areas, building limits) are affected."
:)

I can't handle this sentence: grammatically incorrect, something is missing, right? Wrong sentence structure...
What is actually meant now?
I assume it was copied, but incorrectly? Are there any more details?

Because, ultimately, it is about the setback area, since the garage is now counted towards the main use length?

Why are you now so attached to a roof terrace that apparently was only suggested to you by the architect?

If you have a garden "in addition" (and the terrace is not located on the same ground level as the living/dining area due to a slope), I would seriously reconsider such a terrace. The likelihood that you would use it regularly with a normal garden is probably rather low.

Hm, the idea of laying "maintenance-friendly terrace slabs" somehow sounds like you think the clerk is stupid. :confused: Presumably, with the smaller terrace, it also means that the fencing may only be done directly at the terrace. :rolleyes:

Would a enclosure at the garage roof edges with flower pots as well as terrace slabs for the maintenance of the green roof be permitted in such a case?

Clerk: "Sure, in the dimensions (3.45 x 1.50)m" :D

Is there anyone here of such nonsense....

... without further information on location, size, boundary, sketch or details of the development plan, the validity of your statements cannot be assessed....

This is how it was with us:

Our plan was: Garage roof as a terrace (6x7m)

In our development plan, it is specified how the garage should be. Either like the house roof or a green flat roof. We were already in contact with the municipality during the planning phase.
In the end, it was approved with 2/3 terrace and 1/3 greening.

Well, why he does something like that we don't know, he said there are cases where something like that goes through and that's why he wanted to try it. Because he said: "There are countless inconsistencies in the building code." o_O

And what does it mean in this case to register a building encumbrance or buy 3m from the neighbor?

The garage with the fully planned roof terrace is legally classified as living space according to building regulations, so it must comply with the same setback distances as your residential building. If the garage currently stands directly on the boundary, you must acquire from the neighbor a 3m wide and unencumbered strip along the garage including partition, notary, and land transfer costs, or secure the corresponding 3m or 5m setback and free space on the neighbor's property via a building encumbrance. The neighbor must have room there without their potential building situation changing, or you must additionally compensate them for the loss of buildable area. It may also be that it doesn't work at all because it conflicts with their existing building, then they would have to demolish; thus only building substance that is completely run down and unused would be allowed to stand there.

Most considerations in this direction are - also because of the sometimes considerable costs - shelved after a 3-minute phone call. It's only worth it if you have no other option to gain some green free space.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe