Hello everyone,
Is there a list somewhere of all types of boundary structures? In other words, everything that falls under the term "boundary enclosure."
I would like to know if a lawn edging stone or a stone used to support soil counts as a boundary enclosure.
Best regards,
Christopher
Is there a list somewhere of all types of boundary structures? In other words, everything that falls under the term "boundary enclosure."
I would like to know if a lawn edging stone or a stone used to support soil counts as a boundary enclosure.
Best regards,
Christopher
Chriscross5 Sep 2017 07:28Anyone interested in taking a look at the building plan (it's worth it) is welcome to do so. Just enter "Wohnen am Mühlenbergesee" into Google. I have heard from many that this is one of the most common development plans regarding construction and fencing.
Chriscross5 Sep 2017 07:32Alex85 schrieb:
Arguing about the fencing won’t help if your real goal is to reverse the fill. Aside from the fact that everyone will hate you for that, the first step is to contact the authorities. I also assume they added the fill to create a level plot rather than one that slopes sideways – which is really difficult to use.Those who added the fill are the ones being blamed. The authorities have been contacted from all sides, but no one feels truly responsible and everyone is passing the buck. Authority --> Engineers --> City --> Building regulation office --> Local council --> Seller --> ... The situation is somewhat stuck here. For some people, the neighboring plot on the opposite side is as steep as the neighbor’s roofline. I don’t think that’s the purpose of these things.
After seeing the plan, I understand the problem even less. Who is bordering whom and where has the fill been added? There’s no issue extending "backwards" towards A and B because B does not belong to a private builder, so is it about the neighbor right next door? This confuses me because this V-shaped arrangement then doesn’t seem to matter at all, yet you put effort into describing it in words.
Height restrictions exist in the form of regulations on the number of floors combined with ridge heights and the reference point of the average height of the adjacent roadway. That’s all quite clear. Nowhere do I see anything that would prevent the neighbor’s fill within this framework. For rules on fill, refer to the neighborhood or zoning laws of your state or region.
If anyone—for example, for aesthetic reasons—intended to prohibit fill, they failed to do so. Tough luck for those who find it unattractive and assumed it was addressed. Then again, it’s their own fault; the plan dates from 2006, so there has been plenty of time to notice the absence of such a rule.
In my opinion, the plan isn’t that complicated. It may be complex due to the different areas and their individual regulations. Anyone building on their own plot can ignore a lot of this because it simply does not apply to their area.
Height restrictions exist in the form of regulations on the number of floors combined with ridge heights and the reference point of the average height of the adjacent roadway. That’s all quite clear. Nowhere do I see anything that would prevent the neighbor’s fill within this framework. For rules on fill, refer to the neighborhood or zoning laws of your state or region.
If anyone—for example, for aesthetic reasons—intended to prohibit fill, they failed to do so. Tough luck for those who find it unattractive and assumed it was addressed. Then again, it’s their own fault; the plan dates from 2006, so there has been plenty of time to notice the absence of such a rule.
In my opinion, the plan isn’t that complicated. It may be complex due to the different areas and their individual regulations. Anyone building on their own plot can ignore a lot of this because it simply does not apply to their area.
Chriscross5 Sep 2017 09:24Alex85 schrieb:
After seeing the plan, I understand the problem even less. Who borders whom there, and who has added fill? Going "backwards" towards A and B shouldn’t be an issue since B doesn’t belong to any private builder, so is this about the neighbor directly next door?Actually, the area B belongs to us as the builders. We are just not allowed to fence it in. That’s why I said the development plan is quite tricky to read.
Alex85 schrieb:
Anyone building a house there can ignore a lot because it doesn’t apply to their own plot.And precisely because area B, contrary to your assumption, belongs to the respective builders, it can’t be ignored.
To return to the complexity of the development plan: since I had to explain it again, you can see that it is indeed somewhat more complex than initially assumed.
You had to explain it because area B is not clearly assigned to the residential plots. This should become clear from the marketing plan or the subdivision layout.
But okay, everyone is supposed to keep a piece of grassland behind their fence. The municipality probably only came up with this later to save maintenance costs in the municipal budget.
However, the statements regarding the fencing remain unchanged. There are no regulations for embankments (except in the area of the power line). In my opinion, a retaining wall is not considered a fence either.
The reason why fencing is probably not allowed in area B is that it is intended to be preserved as a large green space. It is not meant to be used as private garden area. The main point here is that the municipality wants to avoid any costs related to the area.
Embankments in area B, which are then retained by walls, obviously do not serve this purpose. The meadow ends up looking like a certain monument in Berlin. But the municipality simply failed to establish any rules.
But okay, everyone is supposed to keep a piece of grassland behind their fence. The municipality probably only came up with this later to save maintenance costs in the municipal budget.
However, the statements regarding the fencing remain unchanged. There are no regulations for embankments (except in the area of the power line). In my opinion, a retaining wall is not considered a fence either.
The reason why fencing is probably not allowed in area B is that it is intended to be preserved as a large green space. It is not meant to be used as private garden area. The main point here is that the municipality wants to avoid any costs related to the area.
Embankments in area B, which are then retained by walls, obviously do not serve this purpose. The meadow ends up looking like a certain monument in Berlin. But the municipality simply failed to establish any rules.