Property Owner v. Municipality (Infrastructure Requirement for Building Permit)
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertA property owner sought judicial review of a municipal decision and subsequent cantonal administrative rulings that upheld the municipality's requirement for the owner to provide infrastructure, specifically a public access road connection, as a prerequisite for a building permit, asserting that the requirement constituted an unconstitutional expropriation without compensation. The court reasoned that the public right-of-way requirement, imposed to ensure necessary infrastructure access for development in accordance with spatial planning laws, was a permissible regulatory measure rather than a specific expropriation, as the burden imposed did not exceed what could reasonably be expected from the property owner under the existing legal framework for development.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertArt. 66 Abs. 1 LTF; Property Owner v. Municipality (Infrastructure Requirement for Building Permit): The court reasoned that the public right-of-way requirement, imposed to ensure necessary infrastructure access for development in accordance with spatial planning laws, was a permissible regulatory measure rather than a specific expropriation, as the burden imposed did not exceed what could reasonably be expected from the property owner under the existing legal framework for development.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertZitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertZentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator
KI-generiertThe provision was applied to order the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Volltext
\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n III 2018 136 |\n |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 12. Februar 2019 |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n lic.iur. Achilles Humbel, Präsident |\n \n|\n |\n Ruth Mikšovic-Waldis, Richterin Monica Huber-Landolt, Richterin |\n \n|\n |\n lic.iur. Josef Mathis, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________ AG, \n Beschwerdeführerin, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr.iur. B.________, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n
\n|\n |\n \n \n1. Gemeinderat Freienbach, Unterdorfstrasse 9, Postfach 140, 8808 Pfäffikon, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt lic.iur. C.________, \n2. Amt für Raumentwicklung ARE, Bahnhofstrasse 14, \n Postfach 1186, 6431 Schwyz, \n3. Regierungsrat des Kantons Schwyz, Bahnhofstrasse 9, \n Postfach 1260, 6431 Schwyz, \n Vorinstanzen, \n4. D.________, \n Beschwerdegegner, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt lic.iur. E.________, \n |\n
\n\n
\n