ᐅ Who is responsible for restoring the height of the garage/parking space?
Created on: 27 Sep 2023 15:54
D
darksun
Hello,
we have built and now there is some uncertainty about who is responsible for the costs of the necessary retaining walls (L-shaped concrete blocks) in the area of the garages and parking space.
For your information, there are two houses. The driveway area and house area for both houses have been excavated and are now at (let’s say) 0 meters (0 feet) elevation.
This is correct.
The area for the two garages and the parking space between the garages is also at 0 meters (0 feet).
Garage A is retaining earth at the back and will be backfilled with soil.
The adjacent parking space area A will have retaining walls at the rear, so that the garden area can be restored to the elevation shown in the building plan (let's say: 270 cm (106 inches)).
Neighbor A will pay for these retaining walls.
What is unclear is the area marked in red.
Retaining walls are also needed there, because the sidewall of Garage B is not earth-retaining and must be protected from soil pressure.
Neighbor A argues:
B must pay because the original elevation, as shown in the development plan (in the garden area), must be restored, and soil must therefore be replaced along the 2-meter (6.5 feet) area of the Garage B sidewall.
Neighbor B argues:
Neighbor A must pay for the retaining walls on the sidewall of their garage (2 meters / 6.5 feet) so that soil does not press against and damage their garage wall.
The replaced soil would damage Neighbor B’s garage.
What is the correct interpretation of the elevations in the development plan?
Does A have to bear the costs so that this elevation can be restored,
or does B have to pay because the red-marked area must be brought back to the elevation in the development plan at their expense?
we have built and now there is some uncertainty about who is responsible for the costs of the necessary retaining walls (L-shaped concrete blocks) in the area of the garages and parking space.
For your information, there are two houses. The driveway area and house area for both houses have been excavated and are now at (let’s say) 0 meters (0 feet) elevation.
This is correct.
The area for the two garages and the parking space between the garages is also at 0 meters (0 feet).
Garage A is retaining earth at the back and will be backfilled with soil.
The adjacent parking space area A will have retaining walls at the rear, so that the garden area can be restored to the elevation shown in the building plan (let's say: 270 cm (106 inches)).
Neighbor A will pay for these retaining walls.
What is unclear is the area marked in red.
Retaining walls are also needed there, because the sidewall of Garage B is not earth-retaining and must be protected from soil pressure.
Neighbor A argues:
B must pay because the original elevation, as shown in the development plan (in the garden area), must be restored, and soil must therefore be replaced along the 2-meter (6.5 feet) area of the Garage B sidewall.
Neighbor B argues:
Neighbor A must pay for the retaining walls on the sidewall of their garage (2 meters / 6.5 feet) so that soil does not press against and damage their garage wall.
The replaced soil would damage Neighbor B’s garage.
What is the correct interpretation of the elevations in the development plan?
Does A have to bear the costs so that this elevation can be restored,
or does B have to pay because the red-marked area must be brought back to the elevation in the development plan at their expense?
darksun schrieb:
His garage was only built together with our garage and the parking space! Before that (until four months ago), it was all just "soil". kati1337 schrieb:
Isn't the problem already at the point where the neighbor builds a garage without earth pressure resistance directly on the boundary line, where soil pressure is expected due to the original ground level? I agree with that as well.
ypg schrieb:
B has to cover his own costs. If the original poster is willing, they could rent the equipment with operators for relocating both garages.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
ypg schrieb:
Is the original height 2.70m (8 ft 10 in)?
And you both excavated toward the street because it looks "tidier" for the car, garage, and so on?Yes, exactly.@11ant:
What kind of equipment do you mean for moving? It's just about setting the 2m (6 ft 7 in) L-shaped concrete blocks...
ypg schrieb:
B has to pay his bill himself. To clarify again:
Everyone has to manage their own modifications independently. Nothing was changed at the rear at the height of 2.70m (8 feet 10 inches), only at the front. Therefore, he is responsible for his own garage.
How did he handle the lawn area and the garage at the rear?
darksun schrieb:
@11ant:
What kind of equipment do you mean for installing? It’s really just about the 2m (6 ft 7 in) L-shaped retaining wall blocks that still need to be set…Um... You already installed the blocks but left out two of them for him, without asking if he wanted to join your construction project and have the blocks ordered for him as well??? And you set the blocks by hand???? — Are you Chuck Norris or Hulk Hogan’s coach?
I honestly don’t know how many extra sandwiches I’d have to eat to casually place 2.7m (8 ft 10 in) high retaining wall blocks just like that... Respect!
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
The area behind the garage will be filled with soil up to 270cm (9 feet), which is as high as the garage roof. Therefore, the rear side is also designed to withstand earth pressure... I don’t understand his reasoning (I am not allowed to put earth pressure on the side of his garage, but he can simply fill "his" soil in the back…)
Similar topics