ᐅ Balcony on garage located on the property boundary

W. Pickartz schrieb:
Or you can obtain a neighborhood consent agreement, which, if maximum legal certainty is needed, should then also be secured as a building encumbrance.

In North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), this is only possible through a building encumbrance. Some other federal states handle this differently, but in NRW, the "neighborhood consent agreement" is completely ineffective for this purpose or is covered by the building encumbrance. In these cases, the building encumbrance is not a "should," but a definite "must."

FrankH schrieb:
To my knowledge, you are not even allowed to build a rooftop terrace with a 3m (10 feet) setback from the boundary.

In my opinion, that is already possible.

Best regards,
Dirk Grafe

Dirk Grafe schrieb:

In my opinion, that is possible.

Try searching on Google for "Hinweise zu §§6 und 73 Bauordnung NRW." There, in the note for section 11.1.1, it says that the privileged status of the entire building is lost if even a part is used differently.
Then a clear statement follows on the topic:

This also applies if the roof area of the building is used as an open seating area.

ypg schrieb:
Do I understand correctly that you are already planning a roof terrace on a garage, even though you don’t have a plot of land yet?

Of course.

A garage is part of the building structure, and having a terrace on the garage means an additional 3 meters (10 feet) of frontage on the plot.

FrankH schrieb:
A balcony that hovers above the garage and does not rest directly on it would be approvable if the required setback is observed.

I agree with that.

To the OP in #1:
The required setback for the cantilevered balcony is not simply 3 meters (at most at least 3 meters).
In North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), the setback generally depends on the height H of the (residential) building and is then multiplied by a factor depending on the situation, such as 0.8, 0.5, or 0.25 times H, according to § 6, paragraph 5 of the NRW Building Code—or the specific development plan may specify something different.

FrankH schrieb:
Try searching on Google for "Hinweise zu §§6 und und 73 Bauordnung NRW." There it says in the note on paragraph 11.1.1 that the privilege for the entire building is lost if even a part is used differently. Then follows a clear sentence on the subject: >>This also applies if the roof area of the building is used as an outdoor seating area.<<

Yes, I deal with this professionally every day.

You have to interpret this differently in this context, because it refers to a (partial) use of the roof area that is located outside (!) the building. Additionally, you can find, for example, in the NRW explanations:

For buildings that are partially outside the boundary clearance area (e.g., a double garage in the side setback area of the main building), this also applies to the part outside the clearance area.

In plain terms, this means that a boundary garage 3m (10 feet) wide, which is used only 1m (3 feet) of it as an outdoor seating area, loses its entire privilege. This means it not only creates a 1m (3 feet) deep encumbrance on the neighbor’s property but a 3m (10 feet) deep encumbrance.

As long as you stay within the limits—that is, the outdoor seating area has a 3m (10 feet) setback from the boundary—this rule does not apply. Instead of an outdoor seating area with a 3m (10 feet) boundary setback, you could also build an enclosed living space without needing an encumbrance agreement or affecting the privilege of the boundary garage.

If it were otherwise, I would be very much mistaken.

The trick with a balcony without contact above the boundary garage instead of an outdoor seating area on the garage also solves exactly this problem: if you build a patio door as access onto the garage with, for example, 1m (3 feet) of paving, the privilege of the entire garage goes away. If you instead build the balcony attached to the house without contact with the garage below, the balcony can extend 1.5m (5 feet) from the house wall. That is somewhat paradoxical but correct.

Otus11 schrieb:
The setback in NRW generally needs to be based on the building’s height H (residential building), then multiplied by a factor depending on the location—for example, 0.8, 0.5, or 0.25 H.

0.25 applies, as far as I know, only in commercial zones, but this value can be increased to 0.5 in areas with side-narrowing privilege, which in NRW may now be applied on all sides. However, this quickly leads to almost excessive building heights, since with a 1m (3 feet) sill height, the top of the floor where the balcony is attached could be up to 11m (36 feet) high (3.0m / 0.25 = 12m). With a floor height of 2.90m (9.5 feet), this is at least the third floor; with 2.75m (9 feet), already the fourth floor, which almost inevitably results in a four- or rather five-story building—or alternatively a cantilevered roof terrace on a three- to four-story building with at least 14m (46 feet) total height. In other words, this is ruled out for normal residential areas and can at best occur on steep slopes with small plots and/or in inner-city locations.

Using 3m (10 feet) works quite well in practice; only when the building exceeds 16m (52 feet) in length does the side-narrowing privilege no longer apply to the part of the building beyond 16m, and then the building must be set back more than 3m (10 feet) in that area. But those are serious large-scale structures—whoever builds those privately for sole use can probably afford an extra meter of land.

Even in 0.8 / 0.4 factor zones, there is still enough flexibility; 3m (10 feet) setbacks are definitely sufficient for one- or two-family houses.

Best regards
Dirk Grafe

Dirk Grafe schrieb:

In simple terms, this means that a boundary garage measuring 3m (10 feet) wide, which for example is only used as an open seating area for 1m (3 feet), loses its entire special status. As a result, this not only creates an encumbrance on the neighboring property that is 1m (3 feet) deep, but one that is 3m (10 feet) deep.

As long as the open seating area maintains the 3m (10 feet) boundary setback, this regulation does not apply. After all, instead of an open seating area with a 3m (10 feet) boundary setback, you could build an enclosed living space without requiring a secured easement or affecting the privileged status of the boundary garage.

If it were otherwise, I would have to be seriously mistaken.

So we do agree after all, as I described it the same way. In my entire first post here in this thread, I always referred to a privileged building structure on the boundary. The 3m (10 feet) I mentioned related only to the open seating area built on it. Your additional paragraph regarding the garage with the correct boundary setback is clear and undisputed.