Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
4 BN 43/13, 4 BN 43/13 (4 CN 4/14) AI generated

Minimum mandatory zoning provisions for enforceability of project-specific offer development plans affecting third-party properties

Case Number 4 BN 43/13, 4 BN 43/13 (4 CN 4/14)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) granted leave to appeal, allowing the case to proceed to the appellate stage under § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. The dispute concerns the mandatory minimum zoning provisions required for a "project-specific offer development plan" (projektbezogenes Angebotsbebauungsplan) to ensure its full enforceability under § 1 Abs. 3 Satz 1 BauGB, specifically in scenarios where the plan affects properties not owned by the project promoter. The Court determined that the revision serves to clarify this significant legal question regarding the substantive scope of such specialized urban planning instruments. No final merits decision was rendered in this procedural order, leaving the underlying claim pending for the upcoming appellate review.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 1 Abs. 3 Satz 1 BauGB, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG; Minimum mandatory zoning provisions for enforceability of project-specific offer development plans affecting third-party properties: 2 Nr. 1 VwGO. The dispute concerns the mandatory minimum zoning provisions required for a "project-specific offer development plan" (projektbezogenes Angebotsbebauungsplan) to ensure its full enforceability under § 1 Abs. 3 Satz 1 BauGB, specifically in scenarios where the plan affects properties not owned by the project promoter. The Court determined that the revision serves to clarify this significant legal question regarding the substantive scope of such specialized urban planning instruments. No final merits decision was rendered in this procedural order, leaving the underlying claim pending for the upcoming appellate review.

Keywords

AI generated
zoning plan property development building restriction easement procedural orders third-party claim scope of review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for allowing the revision due to the need to clarify a significant legal question regarding minimum provisions for project-specific development plans.
§ 1 Abs. 3 Satz 1 BauGB
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.
§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Provisions applied to determine the provisional legal costs value for the revision proceedings.
AI generated
4 BN 45/19
Minimum planning specificity required for a valid building development restriction under § 14 BauGB
4 BN 35.24
Standards for evidence and balancing in project-related land-use plans with general zoning under § 12 Abs. 3a BauGB
4 BN 29/22
Investment interests in the outer zone: weighing requirements and revision admissibility under § 1, 2 Abs. 3 BauGB
4 BN 46/13
Zoning for Specific Projects: Exclusion of Targeted Individual Facility Planning Under Differentiating Regulations of the Building Code
4 BN 27/12
Standing to challenge project-related development plan: precedence of zoning provisions over civil neighbor rights and sufficiency of factual findings for immediate encroachment

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for allowing the revision due to the need to clarify a significant legal question regarding minimum provisions for project-specific development plans.

§ 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Provisions applied to determine the provisional legal costs value for the revision proceedings.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Revisionszulassung; Mindest-Festsetzungen eines "projektbezogenen Angebotsbebauungsplans"

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde ist begründet. Die Revision ist nach § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zuzulassen, weil das Revisionsverfahren zur Klärung der Frage beitragen kann, welche Mindest-Festsetzungen ein "projektbezogener Angebotsbebauungsplan" im Hinblick auf die nach § 1 Abs. 3 Satz 1 BauGB erforderliche Vollzugsfähigkeit enthalten muss, wenn der Bebauungsplan nicht nur Grundstücke des Projektträgers erfasst.

Die vorläufige Streitwertfestsetzung für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 1, § 52 Abs. 1 und § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.