H
Henrik081712327 Jun 2016 09:44Hello,
we are currently looking at plot number 55 from the attached site plan. At the moment, it is an old sports field, and the plots are still being developed and prepared. We visited the site to take a look. The concern is about the slope and the symbols indicating usage boundaries, etc.
I spoke with the seller, and he said that you could easily gain or level out about 4.5 meters (15 feet), though not all of it, because there is a neighboring plot below for infiltration purposes and a green belt has to be maintained as well. However, I am not sure what is actually realistic and especially what additional costs we need to plan for, since this is already at the upper limit of our plot budget.
You can see that it slopes quite steeply down – the seller mentioned something about using 1-meter (3 feet) L-shaped retaining walls being allowed, but I’m not sure if that is a requirement or just his advice. What do you think? What options are there? Maybe one or two more terraced levels? It doesn’t all have to be at the highest level on top.
What do these circles mean? According to the legend, they mark usage boundaries. Does that mean nothing can be done there, or that it probably has to be planted?
Even if you have a plan, you still have to buy everything, and it can be rejected again during the building permit / planning permission process, right? How can you be sure before buying that you can do what you’re planning?
Thanks in advance!!!
we are currently looking at plot number 55 from the attached site plan. At the moment, it is an old sports field, and the plots are still being developed and prepared. We visited the site to take a look. The concern is about the slope and the symbols indicating usage boundaries, etc.
I spoke with the seller, and he said that you could easily gain or level out about 4.5 meters (15 feet), though not all of it, because there is a neighboring plot below for infiltration purposes and a green belt has to be maintained as well. However, I am not sure what is actually realistic and especially what additional costs we need to plan for, since this is already at the upper limit of our plot budget.
You can see that it slopes quite steeply down – the seller mentioned something about using 1-meter (3 feet) L-shaped retaining walls being allowed, but I’m not sure if that is a requirement or just his advice. What do you think? What options are there? Maybe one or two more terraced levels? It doesn’t all have to be at the highest level on top.
What do these circles mean? According to the legend, they mark usage boundaries. Does that mean nothing can be done there, or that it probably has to be planted?
Even if you have a plan, you still have to buy everything, and it can be rejected again during the building permit / planning permission process, right? How can you be sure before buying that you can do what you’re planning?
Thanks in advance!!!
With L-shaped brackets, you can of course compensate for some height differences between plots. However, 1 meter (3 feet) is already quite a lot, and if your side even rises further (up to 6 meters (20 feet)), there will be a huge load on the brackets. This will most likely not work, since these brackets are usually designed for a relatively level surface on the higher side. Even if it does work, you will only gain a little, but you will have a height offset with your neighbors on the right and left, and these brackets cost a fortune, including the complex installation. If the lower part of the plot is already developed, you won’t be able to reach it with an excavator anymore, and the matter is settled.
If you want to draw this expensive boundary, you will still be liable for anything that happens because of it—for example, rainwater running off your slope onto their plot. And of course, for any damage if the brackets should fail.
To put it briefly: all the neighbors will probably do something similar 🙂
P.S. The plots are really extremely narrow. Even a decent carport at the edge will be tight...
If you want to draw this expensive boundary, you will still be liable for anything that happens because of it—for example, rainwater running off your slope onto their plot. And of course, for any damage if the brackets should fail.
To put it briefly: all the neighbors will probably do something similar 🙂
P.S. The plots are really extremely narrow. Even a decent carport at the edge will be tight...
H
Henrik081712327 Jun 2016 10:23Thanks for the response. But the plot slopes downward, not upward—or I may have misunderstood you. A 16-meter (52-foot) width at the front is pretty standard in new housing developments, usually something like 3 + 9 + 3 meters (10 + 30 + 10 feet)...
Thanks also for all the detailed comments. I agree that it’s probably not worth it, since the plot itself is already over budget, and then there’s this whole issue. Without structural changes, it’s effectively only half the plot, and obviously the price would be much higher in that case...
Thanks also for all the detailed comments. I agree that it’s probably not worth it, since the plot itself is already over budget, and then there’s this whole issue. Without structural changes, it’s effectively only half the plot, and obviously the price would be much higher in that case...
It’s clear that the slope goes downward at the back. The heights are marked on the plan. I’d rather have it higher at the front than at the back (especially now with the rain, it’s relatively easy to accept 🙂 ). Either you do almost nothing on a sloped site, which means giving up part of the garden/plot, or it gets expensive. In any case, you have to prevent rainwater from running from the slope onto the neighbor’s property. A ditch in front could be a simple solution, but that probably means some work needs to be done beforehand.
In the end, you have a plot where a large part is unusable. Either the price per square meter has to be really good, or the plots are worthless.
Never heard of that. Our plot is 20 meters (66 feet) wide.
In the end, you have a plot where a large part is unusable. Either the price per square meter has to be really good, or the plots are worthless.
16 meters (52 feet) width at the front is standard in new development areas, 3+9+3 basically…
Never heard of that. Our plot is 20 meters (66 feet) wide.
Hello Henrik,
The first step should be to check the development plan and written regulations: what is allowed in terms of raising or lowering the land without a building permit / planning permission. This is often standardized at about +/- 1 meter (3 feet), but only if the entire plot is raised or lowered.
In your case, strictly speaking, this is a localized change that would result in a height difference significantly greater than 1 meter (3 feet). From a building code perspective, this is considered a separate structural element and therefore triggers setback requirements. This means that the elevation would have to start at least 3 meters (10 feet) away from the eastern and western property boundaries to avoid encumbrances on neighboring properties.
This situation can be resolved if the neighbors also raise their land—but so far, you don’t know that.
For me, this would significantly reduce the value of the plot because you have to assume that you cannot legally carry out such a large-scale elevation.
You can easily verify the truthfulness of the seller’s statement. Have the purchase contract drawn up and include a clause that allows you to raise the terrain (clearly marked on the plan and precisely measured!) in the relevant area to the northern neighboring plot level. If the building permit / planning permission is denied, the seller is liable for damages—the seller will never sign this, or his asking price will be so high that a five-figure damage claim wouldn’t scare him.
Another option: you pay or calculate the full price for the front area of the plot, but only one-third of the full land value for the area beyond the terrain edge. You compete with this mixed price and wait to see what happens. Or you buy, for example, the plot to the west, which is much less affected by the embankment.
In short: parcels 897 and 898 have significant limitations. Anyone who pays the full purchase price for these pays too much. Especially since the neighboring parcels 896 and 899 are clearly better. Buyers of these plots simply have more usable land from the start.
Best regards
Dirk Grafe
The first step should be to check the development plan and written regulations: what is allowed in terms of raising or lowering the land without a building permit / planning permission. This is often standardized at about +/- 1 meter (3 feet), but only if the entire plot is raised or lowered.
In your case, strictly speaking, this is a localized change that would result in a height difference significantly greater than 1 meter (3 feet). From a building code perspective, this is considered a separate structural element and therefore triggers setback requirements. This means that the elevation would have to start at least 3 meters (10 feet) away from the eastern and western property boundaries to avoid encumbrances on neighboring properties.
This situation can be resolved if the neighbors also raise their land—but so far, you don’t know that.
For me, this would significantly reduce the value of the plot because you have to assume that you cannot legally carry out such a large-scale elevation.
You can easily verify the truthfulness of the seller’s statement. Have the purchase contract drawn up and include a clause that allows you to raise the terrain (clearly marked on the plan and precisely measured!) in the relevant area to the northern neighboring plot level. If the building permit / planning permission is denied, the seller is liable for damages—the seller will never sign this, or his asking price will be so high that a five-figure damage claim wouldn’t scare him.
Another option: you pay or calculate the full price for the front area of the plot, but only one-third of the full land value for the area beyond the terrain edge. You compete with this mixed price and wait to see what happens. Or you buy, for example, the plot to the west, which is much less affected by the embankment.
In short: parcels 897 and 898 have significant limitations. Anyone who pays the full purchase price for these pays too much. Especially since the neighboring parcels 896 and 899 are clearly better. Buyers of these plots simply have more usable land from the start.
Best regards
Dirk Grafe
H
Henrik081712327 Jun 2016 10:48Thank you... that all doesn’t sound very promising. It’s the last large available plot; all the others are taken.
Alternatively, a bit further north there is this one. Small—but completely flat—and more expensive per square meter (square foot), since the houses are built very close together...
The building envelope is the black line with the dots, right? How can I tell how long the house is allowed to be in total? And is it allowed to extend beyond 8.50 meters (28 feet) in width on the side with a bay window, or is 8.50 meters (28 feet) the maximum width everywhere?
Thank you!
Alternatively, a bit further north there is this one. Small—but completely flat—and more expensive per square meter (square foot), since the houses are built very close together...
The building envelope is the black line with the dots, right? How can I tell how long the house is allowed to be in total? And is it allowed to extend beyond 8.50 meters (28 feet) in width on the side with a bay window, or is 8.50 meters (28 feet) the maximum width everywhere?
Thank you!
Similar topics