Municipal Resolution Zoning Setback Appeal
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe case concerns an appeal against a decision upholding a municipal resolution that denied an application for the construction of an accessory building, where the appellant challenged the decision based on a lack of proper procedural consideration of their submissions and an incorrect application of zoning setback regulations regarding neighboring properties. The court reasoned that the initial decision-making body had indeed considered the relevant planning documents and public feedback, thus satisfying procedural requirements, and further determined that the construction in question did not infringe upon the required setbacks of adjacent properties as stipulated by the applicable regulations, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IAArt. 103 Abs. 1 BGG, Art. 66 Abs. 1 BGG; Municipal Resolution Zoning Setback Appeal: The court reasoned that the initial decision-making body had indeed considered the relevant planning documents and public feedback, thus satisfying procedural requirements, and further determined that the construction in question did not infringe upon the required setbacks of adjacent properties as stipulated by the applicable regulations, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IADecisioni correlate
Generato dall'IAQuestioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator
Generato dall'IAUsed to declare the appeal inadmissible because it was filed too late.
The appellants are ordered to pay the costs of the federal proceedings.
Testo completo
\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n III 2019 119 |\n |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | | |\n |\n Entscheid vom 18. Dezember 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 Dr.oec. Andreas Risi, Richter |\n \n|\n |\n lic.iur. Josef Mathis, Gerichtsschreiber |\n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n
\n\n| | |
|\n Parteien |\n \n \n1. A.________, \n2. B.________ AG, \n Beschwerdeführer, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt Dr. C.________, \n |\n
\n|\n |\n gegen |\n
\n|\n |\n \n \n1. Gemeindepräsident bzw. Gemeinderat Lachen, \n Alter Schulhausplatz 1, Postfach 263, 8853 Lachen, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt lic.iur. D.________, \n2. Regierungsrat des Kantons Schwyz, Bahnhofstrasse 9, \n Postfach 1260, 6431 Schwyz, \n Vorinstanzen, \n3. E.________, \n Beschwerdegegnerin, \n vertreten durch Rechtsanwalt M.A. F.________, \n |\n
\n\n
\n