Hello everyone!
We have purchased a portion of a large plot.
The large plot is divided into three parts, and the two rear properties have easements for pedestrian, vehicle, and utility access.
According to neighborhood law in Brandenburg, the neighbor on the right is responsible for fencing along the property boundary facing the street.
But how does this apply to flag lots?
Thank you very much.
Best regards
We have purchased a portion of a large plot.
The large plot is divided into three parts, and the two rear properties have easements for pedestrian, vehicle, and utility access.
According to neighborhood law in Brandenburg, the neighbor on the right is responsible for fencing along the property boundary facing the street.
But how does this apply to flag lots?
Thank you very much.
Best regards
If only it were that simple...
Is it a physical or a legal subdivision?
Where exactly is the rear and where is the front?
What do you mean by “street”?
In your opinion, what does a hammer-shaped plot look like?
Actually, it’s the other way around. The owner of Plot 1, assuming the orange line is a property boundary, must build the enclosure along the boundary with Plot 2 (orange/red line).
To make sure we are discussing the same areas and boundary sections, here are two modified sketches:
1.
2.
For case 1: Owner 106 must enclose section d; owners 105, 104, and 107 do not share a common street boundary, so they do not need a joint enclosure.
For case 2: Owner 106 must enclose section c; owner 105 section f; owner 104 section j; owner 109 section m.
Based on my understanding of a “hammer-shaped plot,” none of the plots in my sketches qualify. I would consider the combination of 104 and 109 a hammer-shaped plot.
trksglm schrieb:
The large plot is divided into three parts
Is it a physical or a legal subdivision?
trksglm schrieb:
the two rear plots
Where exactly is the rear and where is the front?
trksglm schrieb:
from the street
What do you mean by “street”?
trksglm schrieb:
But what about hammer-shaped plots?
In your opinion, what does a hammer-shaped plot look like?
ypg schrieb:
Plot 2 next to Plot 1
Actually, it’s the other way around. The owner of Plot 1, assuming the orange line is a property boundary, must build the enclosure along the boundary with Plot 2 (orange/red line).
To make sure we are discussing the same areas and boundary sections, here are two modified sketches:
1.
2.
For case 1: Owner 106 must enclose section d; owners 105, 104, and 107 do not share a common street boundary, so they do not need a joint enclosure.
For case 2: Owner 106 must enclose section c; owner 105 section f; owner 104 section j; owner 109 section m.
Based on my understanding of a “hammer-shaped plot,” none of the plots in my sketches qualify. I would consider the combination of 104 and 109 a hammer-shaped plot.
Escroda schrieb:
Exactly the opposite. Sorry! I actually meant it the other way around *embarrassed*
So: Party G1 is obligated towards G2, and G2 towards G3.
In the Niedersächsische Bauordnung (Lower Saxony Building Code), the same applies to easements; I once dealt with nested properties in this context.
Escroda schrieb:
Real or nominal? Real
Escroda schrieb:
Where is the back, where is the front? The street side is the front
Escroda schrieb:
What is a street? Main street, access to the properties.
Escroda schrieb:
What does a hammer-shaped plot look like in your opinion? Plots that have no direct access to a street and obtain a right of way for pedestrian, vehicle, and utility access via another property registered in the land registry.
*It’s like in school: question answer
Escroda schrieb:
Exactly the opposite. The owner of plot 1, if the orange line is supposed to be a property boundary, must build the enclosure on the boundary with plot 2 (orange/red line).
To ensure we are talking about the same areas and boundary sections, here are two modified sketches:
1.
[ATTACH alt="Rechtseinfriedung.png"]41470[/ATTACH]
2.
[ATTACH alt="Rechtseinfriedung2.png"]41471[/ATTACH]
For case 1: owner 106 must enclose section d, 105, 104, and 107 do not share a common street boundary, so no joint enclosure is necessary We are referring to case 1.
In the original sketch, plot 1 is directly adjacent to the street and does not use the area of the right of way (pedestrian, vehicle, and utility access) on its own property.
Plots 2 and 3 depend on the right of way to access their plots. Plot 2 also grants plot 3 a right of way so it can access its property.
Therefore, plot 1 is the “front” and plots 2 and 3 are the “back.”
Regarding the enclosure, the explanation from “ypg” makes sense.
I find your additions about the shared enclosure helpful, thank you.
Similar topics