801.100
KRGLPTC
CH-GR
CH-GR
Art. 54 Raumplanungsgesetz für den Kanton Graubünden (KRG) - Planungs- und Erschliessungskosten
Ortsplanung - Kommunale Nutzungsplanung - Quartierplanung
Art. 54 KRG · Planungs- und Erschliessungskosten
1. Die Kosten der Quartierplanung und Quartiererschliessung gehen zulasten der Quartierplanbeteiligten. Die Gemeinde beteiligt sich an den Kosten, soweit an der Planung oder den Anlagen ein weitergehendes öffentliches Interesse besteht.
2. Die Beteiligten können zu Akontozahlungen bis zur Höhe der voraussichtlichen Anteile an den Planungs- und Erschliessungskosten verpflichtet werden.
3. Für die Abgabepflicht und die Aufteilung der Planungs- und Erschliessungskosten unter den Quartierplanbeteiligten gelten sinngemäss die Bestimmungen für die Erhebung von Beiträgen.
4. Einzelheiten über das Verfahren zur Festlegung und für den Einzug der Kostenanteile regelt die Regierung durch Verordnung.
Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (12)
R 2014 37 · gr (Art. 54 Abs. 3 KRG)
Property Owners v. Municipality: Cost Distribution Appeal for Development Plan and Compensation Valuation
Cited as the basis for distributing planning and infrastructure costs among the participants in the development plan, including the determined demolition costs.
R 2013 131 · gr (Art. 54 KRG)
Cost Allocation Dispute in Neighborhood Development Plan
Cited in the reasoning section as the legal basis for costs being borne by the participants, subject to public interest exceptions.
R 2012 78 · gr (Art. 54 Abs. 2 KRG)
Owner Lacks Standing to Appeal Zoning Cost Assessment After Payment Deferral
Cited by the municipality in the reasoning regarding the provisional cost distribution, but it is not explicitly used in the final orders (dispositive).
R 2011 130 · gr (Art. 54 Abs. 1 KRG)
Property Owner Challenge to Land-Use Plan Approval Regarding Land Reallocation and Parking Turnout
Cited in the context of distributing planning and development costs, although the court ultimately ruled on costs based on the VRG.
R 2011 131 · gr (Art. 54 Abs. 1 KRG)
Property Owner Challenges Neighborhood Plan Regarding Parking and Cost Allocation
Cited in the reasoning section to support the principle that quarter plan costs are borne by the parties involved, justifying the cost distribution, although the substantive cost arguments were ultimately rejected or circumvented by other considerations.
R 2006 65 · gr (Art. 54 KRG)
Property Owners Appeal of Neighborhood Development Plan Dismissed
Cited in the reasoning section when discussing the general rule for who bears the costs of the zoning plan and development, relevant to the rejection of the appeal regarding cost sharing.
R 2006 71 · gr (Art. 54 KRG)
Appeal Against Municipal Zoning Plan Access Alteration and Cost Allocation
This provision, regarding who primarily bears the costs of the development plan and development, is cited in the reasoning which supports the denial of the appeal regarding the public interest share.
R 2006 65 · gr (Art. 51 - 54 KRG)
Appeal Regarding Municipal Zoning Plan Amendment and Road Alignment
Cited as the substantive regulations applicable to the material assessment of the area development plan.
R 2006 65 · gr (Art. 54 KRG)
Appeal Regarding Municipal Zoning Plan Amendment and Road Alignment
Cited as the legal basis for allocating costs of the area development plan and area development, stating that they generally fall to the participants.
R 2006 32 · gr (Art. 54 Abs. 3 i.V.m. Art. 63 Abs. 3 KRG)
Appeal Against Neighborhood Development Plan on Cost Apportionment and Land Deduction
Cited in reasoning to show that the principle of distributing costs according to economic special advantage remains valid under the new KRG.
R 2006 32 · gr (Art. 54 Abs. 3 i.V.m. Art. 63 Abs. 3 KRG)
Appeal on Neighborhood Development Plan Costs, Land Deduction, and Parking Location
The court mentioned this provision in its reasoning when discussing how the potential land use should apply to the allocation of private shares under the new KRG.
PVG 2003 27 · gr (Art. 54 Abs. 6 KRG)
Material Expropriation Statute of Limitations and Commencement of Time Period
This article was used to determine that the claim for compensation due to material expropriation was time-barred because the 5-year limitation period had expired.