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?
S
sascha-t4-le29 Nov 2023 10:53Hello,
have you made any progress with your issue?
have you made any progress with your issue?
Yes,
I think we agreed on something that everyone can live with, although I do believe we have made a few too many concessions.
Each of us will pay for one of the two additional L-shaped blocks (so 2 meters (6.5 feet)) on the side wall of his garage.
He showed us an initial architect's draft indicating that both garages would end at the same "depth" at the back (despite different house lengths, garage positions, and garage lengths).
However, during the approximately 9-month planning phase, this version became obsolete after about 3 months due to changes on both sides...
and well before ordering the garages and excavation work, it was clear and known that his garage ends nearly 2 meters (6.5 feet) further back in the ground than ours.
Ultimately, this is a communication problem, and I am especially disappointed with the architect, as he never informed us or showed in later plans that the two houses would not be aligned in a "line"... and therefore the garages are offset at the back, leading to the current dispute...
I think we agreed on something that everyone can live with, although I do believe we have made a few too many concessions.
Each of us will pay for one of the two additional L-shaped blocks (so 2 meters (6.5 feet)) on the side wall of his garage.
He showed us an initial architect's draft indicating that both garages would end at the same "depth" at the back (despite different house lengths, garage positions, and garage lengths).
However, during the approximately 9-month planning phase, this version became obsolete after about 3 months due to changes on both sides...
and well before ordering the garages and excavation work, it was clear and known that his garage ends nearly 2 meters (6.5 feet) further back in the ground than ours.
Ultimately, this is a communication problem, and I am especially disappointed with the architect, as he never informed us or showed in later plans that the two houses would not be aligned in a "line"... and therefore the garages are offset at the back, leading to the current dispute...
H
hanghaus20233 Dec 2023 11:01Reaching an agreement is always a good approach.