801.100
KRGLPTC
CH-GR
CH-GR
Art. 73 Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire du canton des Grisons (KRG) - Implantation et Paysage
Règlements cantonaux de construction - Conception
Art. 73 KRG · Implantation et Paysage
1. Les colonies, constructions et installations doivent être conçues et intégrées selon les règles de l'art de la construction de manière à ce qu'une bonne harmonie générale avec l'environnement et le paysage soit obtenue.
2. Lorsque cette loi ou la planification locale prévoit une obligation de conseil en matière de conception, le maître d'ouvrage doit consulter des experts en questions de conception architecturale lors de l'élaboration des plans de projet, et l'autorité de construction doit également se faire conseiller par des spécialistes lors de l'évaluation du projet de construction.
3. Si un bâtiment ou une installation défigure l'aspect du site ou du paysage en raison d'un entretien défectueux, l'autorité responsable de l'approbation oblige le propriétaire à prendre les mesures nécessaires. Si ces derniers ne se conforment pas aux ordres dans le délai imparti, l'autorité, après avoir lancé une mise en garde, fait exécuter les mesures aux frais des retardataires par des tiers.
Décisions judiciaires appliquant cette disposition (74)
VR3 2024 36 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Property Owners v. Municipality Regarding Development Plan for Land Access
Cited as the rule that generally obligates the losing party to bear the costs in the appeal proceedings.
VR3 2018 81 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Cellular Antenna Permit Denial Over Aesthetic Concerns Overturned on Balancing Test
The decision to uphold the appeal and remit the case was based on the finding that the rejection of the building permit due to violation of this article was erroneous.
VR3 2024 46 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 3 KRG)
Municipality's Executive Action to Complete Unfinished Facade Upheld
Mentioned in the reasoning regarding aesthetics and potential grounds for remediation, although not explicitly used in the final orders as the ground for the decision itself (Art. 94 KRG was the ground for maintaining the decision).
VR1 2024 94 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Construction Firm Standing Challenge to German Language Requirement in Public Tender
Cited in the reasoning that precedes the costs imposition, relevant for determining who bears the costs.
VR3 2023 117 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Landowners v. Municipality: Annulment of Partial Neighborhood Plan Revision Initiation
Applied for determining that the losing party (the municipality) must bear the costs.
VR3 2024 45 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Municipality Overreach on Existing Mobile Antenna Modifications
This provision was cited as the general rule for ordering the losing parties to bear the costs of the appeal procedure.
R 2021 74 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Appeal Against Barn Rebuilding Permit Upheld Due to Expired Heritage Rights and Aesthetic Non-Compliance
Cited as the aesthetic general clause requiring buildings to create a 'good overall effect' with the surroundings.
R 2021 74 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Appeal Against Barn Rebuilding Permit Upheld Due to Expired Heritage Rights and Aesthetic Non-Compliance
The court found that the aesthetic integration failed to meet the 'good overall effect' required by this provision, which was part of the basis for the decision.
R 2022 34 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Appeal Regarding Heat Pump Installation in Protected Old Town Area
This provision, regarding the requirement for good overall effect of buildings and installations on the surroundings, was discussed in relation to the aesthetic assessment but not used as the final ground for overturning the decision.
R 2022 1 · gr (Art. 73 KRG)
Solar Installation Permit Denial Upheld Despite Procedural Defect
Cited as the cantonal standard for good overall effect in relation to surroundings and landscape, which was applied in assessing the aesthetic impact of the solar installation.
R 2022 2 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Building Permit Condition Upheld on Aesthetic Grounds Despite Procedural Flaw
This provision defined the substantive planning requirement (good overall effect with the surroundings and landscape) that the court examined to uphold the condition imposed by the municipality.
R 2020 105 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Appeal Against Telecommunications Mast Permit: Setback Regulations and Environmental Review
The court's decision is implicitly based on the application of this aesthetic general clause regarding landscape protection, as the ultimate dismissal of the appeal (except for the cost aspect and the forestry distance issue) relies on the finding that the requirements of Art. 73 KRG are met (Erw. 6.2.4).
R 2021 78 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Appeal Dismissed: Building Permits Upheld Against Neighbor Objections on Zoning and Heritage Grounds
Cited in reasoning (E.6) regarding the general aesthetic clause.
R 2021 78 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Appeal Dismissed: Building Permits Upheld Against Neighbor Objections on Zoning and Heritage Grounds
Cited in the reasoning (E.6) as being content-wise identical to Art. 77 BG regarding the requirement for a 'good overall effect'.
R 2019 92 · gr (Art. 73 Abs. 1 KRG)
Challenge to Neighborhood Development Plan Approval Upheld on Zoning Transition and Aesthetic Grounds
Provision cited in the reasoning regarding aesthetic/design concerns, which were ultimately dismissed based on the proper application of this standard.