Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
III 2020 110 • VG SZ III 2020 110 KI-generiert

Appeal Regarding Denial of Building Permit Due to Non-Compliance with Spatial Planning Regulations

Geschäftsnummer III 2020 110
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Schweiz · Kanton Schwyz (CH-SZ)
Entscheiddatum
Originalquelle öffnen Entscheidsuche-Spiegel Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The case involved an appeal against a decision concerning a building permit application where the applicants sought authorization to construct an addition to an existing building. The court reasoned that the lower administrative decision to deny the permit was justified because the proposed construction failed to comply with established spatial planning regulations regarding building lines and setbacks, which were deemed necessary to maintain the established character of the area and ensure adequate public access and light.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Appeal Regarding Denial of Building Permit Due to Non-Compliance with Spatial Planning Regulations: The court reasoned that the lower administrative decision to deny the permit was justified because the proposed construction failed to comply with established spatial planning regulations regarding building lines and setbacks, which were deemed necessary to maintain the established character of the area and ensure adequate public access and light.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Bewilligungskonformität Plangenehmigung Baulinie Nichteinzonung öffentliches Gebäude Planungsgrundsatz Planungs- und Baurecht (Baubewilligung) | Planungs- und Baurecht
KI-generiert
III 2019 87
Local Authority Zoning Compliance Appeal
III 2019 8
Building Permit Denial Compliance with Zoning Regulations
III 2019 100
Permit Denial Upheld on Spatial Planning Grounds
III 2023 96
Building Permit Refusal Upheld on Zoning Grounds
III 2018 211
Appeal Regarding Building Permit Rejection Based on Land Use Regulations

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n III 2020 110 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 23. September 2020 |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Besetzung |\n Dr.iur. Vital Zehnder, Vizepräsident |\n \n|\n |\n lic.iur. Karl Gasser, Richter Irene Thalmann, Richterin |\n \n|\n |\n lic.iur. Josef Mathis, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n Parteien |\n A.________ und B.________, \n Beschwerdeführer, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt C.________, |\n \n|\n |\n gegen |\n

\n|\n |\n 1. Bezirksrat Küssnacht, Seeplatz 2/3, Postfach 176, 6403 Küssnacht, 2. Amt für Raumentwicklung ARE, Bahnhofstrasse 14, \n Postfach 1186, 6431 Schwyz, |\n

\n\n

\n