ᐅ Garage approved, but carport built instead

Stefan G. schrieb:

You don’t see it. I think "Julia - the liar" already feels addressed.

On the one hand, it’s interesting and good to see how solidarity works online; on the other hand, the housebuilding forum is currently no wish concert either.

Stefan G. schrieb:

What is so unrealistic about only noticing this after 15 years?

We repeatedly observe – as Dirk confirmed in his post – that existing buildings change over the years; not always with approval. With a new build, 20 cm (8 inches) might not necessarily be noticeable; I would even go as far as to say that 50 cm (20 inches) might not be immediately obvious. 1.00 m (39 inches), however, definitely is.

The original poster writes: "We had a building permit approved 15 years ago for our single-family home including a garage plus utility rooms. As already mentioned above, only the utility rooms were built, and instead of the garage, a carport was constructed." This means that there was an approved permit plan and very likely a preliminary site plan; at minimum, a scaled cadastral map. Since the encroachment had not been noticed by the building authority up to now, the application was probably submitted under a simplified approval procedure at that time.

Furthermore, the original poster writes: "In relation to the metal garage issue, I went out with a tape measure and saw that the carport is 1 meter (39 inches) wider than the garage would have been." Now there are two possibilities – either the original poster and her husband built the carport themselves or it was purchased completely finished and placed on the pad foundations; in either case, the original poster and her husband paid. Either way, there must have been a plan showing how much space was available for the carport.

Stefan G. schrieb:

I think it’s possible to respond in a “normal” tone even if topics repeat over and over.
I don’t see a problem there.

I don’t know where I used an inappropriate tone or personally attacked the original poster.

I probably would have responded differently (perhaps not at all; this kind of question is always well answered from users’ experience), by suggesting to the original poster that a mistake – whether conscious or unconscious, it doesn’t matter – was made 15 years ago. What bothers me is the wording "That’s how it is NOW," with the unspoken implication – which provoked your and other users’ solidarity – that the original poster only noticed it now.

With that, the topic is closed for me. You gave the original poster a good piece of advice in your last post; there is nothing more to add.

Regards, Bauexperte

Wow....
I work daily with educated people who occasionally have to estimate lengths, heights, and areas but often get them wrong. To me, 12sqm (130sq ft) is smaller than 16, while others see it as 20!
And I don’t think my husband knows the exact dimensions of the carport I ordered, nor can he estimate the current length (it is only 5 meters (16 ft) and not the standard size of 6 meters (20 ft)). We won’t be discussing it either, so in 10 years he will probably still think it’s 6 meters.

Well, @Jula4, please drop the nickname you gave yourself — I don’t see any trick in your question, and it’s not necessary to see one.

Have a great weekend

We are in an online forum where everyone can remain anonymous using a pseudonym. Whether something is true or made up cannot be verified anyway. Therefore, one can either accept the (valid) question or not. Whether it is theoretical in nature does not matter at all and does not change anything.

If the authorities haven’t noticed anything after 15 years, it’s probably wise to just keep the matter under wraps. If it ever comes up, you can always claim to have known nothing about it. Usually, nothing will come of it after such a long time. If anything does, it’s just unfortunate coincidence.

As mentioned before, it would be interesting to know whether the carport as it stands would be eligible for approval. The width of the carport doesn’t really matter, as long as you don’t encroach on more than 9 meters (30 feet) of the property boundary, or maintain at least 3 meters (10 feet) distance from it, and comply with the maximum permitted average height. Otherwise, you should check the local building regulations.

Payday schrieb:
If the authorities haven’t noticed anything after 15 years, it’s probably wise to just keep the matter under wraps.

This creates a certain problem – the original poster is at least considering the possibility of selling their property. That’s a bit like covering up a small dent on a used car with a little filler... simply just “keeping it under wraps” carries a certain risk.

If it ever comes out, of course you can say you didn’t know anything. Usually, after such a long time, nothing will come of it anyway. If anything, it’s just bad luck.

We deal with these issues every day. Ignorance does not protect you from penalties in this case either, although usually the consequences are manageable. However, there are also severe cases that easily disprove your statement that “usually nothing will come of it.”

Best regards,
Dirk Grafe

Of course, our lawyers always insist on the completely correct method. That our politicians are the biggest liars and stretch every law as they see fit—well, that doesn’t seem to matter.

When it comes to selling, the situation is a bit more critical, although here again the buyer has to prove that the seller was aware of the issue for it to be considered gross negligence. There are also limitation periods and so on… it’s not that simple.

It’s definitely not a very honorable way to sell your house without disclosing everything. However, as long as all regulations of the federal state are followed, nothing serious should happen.