Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
III 2016 191 • VG SZ III 2016 191 Generato dall'IA

Property Owner Appeal of Building Permit Denial Upheld

Numero d'incarto III 2016 191
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Svitto (CH-SZ)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Spese processuali a carico del ricorrente / reclamante

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

A property owner challenged a municipal decision concerning the granting of a building permit, which was subsequently upheld by two higher cantonal administrative bodies. The court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the administrative bodies had correctly applied the zoning regulations and planning principles; specifically, the challenge against the assessment of the project's integration into the surrounding area and its impact on neighboring properties lacked merit because the lower instances conducted a comprehensive and reasonable weighing of public and private interests, thus not violating the property owner's rights.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Art. 66 Abs. 1 BGG; Property Owner Appeal of Building Permit Denial Upheld: The court dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the administrative bodies had correctly applied the zoning regulations and planning principles; specifically, the challenge against the assessment of the project's integration into the surrounding area and its impact on neighboring properties lacked merit because the lower instances conducted a comprehensive and reasonable weighing of public and private interests, thus not violating the property owner's rights.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
licenza edilizia comunale proprietà immobiliare legittimazione a contestare licenza prescrizioni di zona proprietà pubblica impugnazione di decisioni amministrative Planungs- und Baurecht (Ausnützungsziffer/Auflage) | Planungs- und Baurecht

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
Art. 66 Abs. 1 BGG

The court ruled on the costs payable by the appellant in the dispositive section.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

\n \n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n III 2016 191 |\n |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n

\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 29. März 2017 |\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 MLaw Joëlle Sigrist, Gerichtsschreiberin |\n \n\n

\n \n \n \n

\n\n| | |

|\n Parteien |\n A.________, \n Beschwerdeführer, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt lic.iur. Oswald Rohner, \n Mittlere Bahnhofstrasse 5, Postfach 304, 8853 Lachen, |\n

\n|\n gegen |\n

\n|\n \n \n1. Gemeinderat Freienbach, Unterdorfstrasse 9, \n Postfach 140, 8808 Pfäffikon SZ, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt lic.iur. Hans Rudolf Ziegler, \n Felsenstrasse 4, Postfach 3, 8808 Pfäffikon, \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, |\n

\n\n

\n