ᐅ Definition of Fencing and Enclosures

Alex85 schrieb:

... But well, everyone has a piece of green space behind their enclosure. The municipality probably thought of this later to save on maintenance costs in the municipal budget ...

I agree completely....

Alex85 schrieb:

The reason no enclosures are allowed in area B is probably that B is meant to remain a large green space. They should not be used as private gardens. The only purpose here is that the municipality does not have any costs associated with the area.

And the "green space" you described (it would have been nice that way too — see the picture on the right side on the website "Living at Mühlenbergsee") has now turned into a hilly landscape with elevation differences of up to 1.5 m (5 feet). But if retaining walls, etc. are not considered enclosures, then the planner of the zoning plan must have overlooked this, and we are out of luck.

A dilemma. However, it won’t be resolved. Especially since height specifications are part of the building permit / planning permission and therefore the authorities must have been clear about what was happening there. Now it’s only about finding the scapegoat to take responsibility for the embarrassment.

My advice once again: When the development plan was established, it was assumed that B would be a large public green space. Then a city official looking to save money came along and suddenly the area was sold to private developers. The city profited from the land and avoided maintenance costs. Unfortunately, it was too late to draw the necessary consequences for the development plan from this change. Perhaps it could still have been regulated privately in the sales contract...

I suspected as much. Unfortunately, I’m not allowed to build a high wall to avoid having to see the "dilemma."

Thank you for your contributions.

Maybe other opinions will come in as well. There are a few experts here, after all.

Chriscross schrieb:
Since the lake is situated lower than the properties and the land slopes downwards towards the lake, some homeowners thought, "I’ll just level my property" (complete idiot... sorry). This has ruined the overall appearance, and now everyone is doing whatever they want. The end result is that the last property by the water, which maintained the natural slope, has a height difference of up to 1.5 m (5 feet) compared to the neighbor who thought they needed to level their lot.

However, the neighborhood law states that you are not allowed to burden your neighbor with soil that falls onto their property (I don’t remember the exact wording right now). To comply with this, the neighbor would have to install a retaining wall and/or lawn edging stones. But these would be located in Zone A, where no fencing or enclosures are permitted.

Therefore, the question is: Are lawn edging stones considered enclosures?

No, lawn edging stones and also L-shaped retaining blocks (likely what is actually meant here) are not considered enclosures.

In my opinion, someone deserves to be called a complete idiot if they carry out such a "leveling" all the way to the property boundary instead of stepping it back before reaching it.

Even if the development plan lacks specific height requirements—especially those restricting earthworks—I consider the purpose of Zone A to be violated if earthworks are not excluded from it as well.

If I were in your position, I would proceed as follows:
1) Approach the neighbor and ask them to step back the slope. That way, you won’t have soil falling onto your property. However, the neighbor’s problem of not being allowed to drain water onto your lot will remain.
2) If step 1 fails, install L-shaped retaining blocks (note that the “lower flange” of the L should actually be on the neighbor’s side).
3) If anyone objects, seek provisional legal protection if necessary, meaning you do not have to remove your retaining blocks until a decision is made regarding step 4.
4) Be bold and challenge the development plan at the administrative court: it clearly violates your right to protection from a neighbor who is effectively creating the “mountains of Lower Saxony” next to your property. The development plan must be revised and suspended until then.

Ceterum censeo: It’s hard to imagine anyone more foolish than those who create a sheer cliff on their lakeside property themselves.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

11ant schrieb:

In my opinion, someone has thoroughly earned the label complete idiot if they push such a "grading adjustment" all the way to the boundary instead of tapering off before reaching it.

Thanks for confirming. At least I’m not alone with my opinion here.

11ant schrieb:

Even if the development plan lacks any height specifications – especially those limiting terrain modeling – I consider the purpose of zone A violated if it’s not also exempt from terrain modifications.

If I were you, I would proceed as follows:
1) Talk to the neighbor to get them to taper off the grade. That way, you won’t have soil sliding onto your property. However, their problem — that they aren’t allowed to drain onto your land — remains.

I did that. Their response was, “…I don’t care… there will be a fence back there too… let someone say something…” So I just laughed at my neighbor.

11ant schrieb:

2) If step 1 fails, install L-shaped retaining walls (although the "bottom leg" of the L really belongs on their side).

He will install the walls, after I deal with him personally and at his own expense.

11ant schrieb:

3) If anyone complains, seek interim legal protection if necessary, meaning your removal of the L-wall is paused until a decision is made regarding step 4.
4) Be very bold and challenge the development plan at the administrative court: it clearly violates your protection needs against your neighbor creating the “Lower Saxon Alps” next to you. The development plan needs to be revised and suspended until then.

We’ll wait and see what happens. We’re not the only ones dealing with neighbors like this. Especially since I have to build my fence, which may only be 80cm (32 inches) high, on my own property. If the neighbor’s land is 30cm (12 inches) higher, that leaves only 50cm (20 inches) above ground. If the neighbor’s kid reaches over the fence and the dog bites him because it feels its territory is threatened, there will be a legal dispute.

11ant schrieb:

Ceterum censeo: it’s hard to imagine idiots worse than those who give their lakefront property a sheer cliff.

I couldn’t add anything more!!!