801.100 KRGLPTC

CH-GR

Art. 63 Raumplanungsgesetz für den Kanton Graubünden (KRG) - 2. Beiträge

Ortsplanung - Erschliessung

Originalquelle öffnen Gesamter Erlass (137 Artikel) Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Art. 63 KRG · 2. Beiträge

1. Beiträge werden erhoben zur Deckung der Kosten für die Erstellung, Änderung und Erneuerung von Erschliessungsanlagen. Zu den beitragspflichtigen Kosten gehören alle für das öffentliche Werk notwendigen Aufwendungen.

2. Der Gemeindevorstand legt den Kostenanteil fest, der von der Gemeinde (Anteil der öffentlichen Interessenz) und von der Gesamtheit der Grundeigentümerinnen und Grundeigentümer (Anteil der privaten Interessenz) zu tragen ist. Dabei gelten in der Regel folgende Richtwerte

1. Groberschliessung

a) Gemeindeanteil: 70 - 40 %

b) Privatanteil: 30 - 60 %

2. Feinerschliessung

a) Gemeindeanteil: 30 - 0 %

b) Privatanteil: 70 - 100 %

3. Für die Aufteilung des Privatanteils auf mehrere Beteiligte dient in der Regel die mögliche Grundstücksnutzung unter Berücksichtigung allfälliger weiterer Vor- und Nachteile.

4. Die Beteiligten können zu Akontozahlungen bis zur Höhe der voraussichtlichen Kostenanteile verpflichtet werden.

5. Schuldner der Beiträge sind die im Zeitpunkt der Fälligkeit im Grundbuch eingetragenen Grundeigentümerinnen und Grundeigentümer. Bei Gesamteigentum sind die Gesamteigentümer, bei Miteigentum die Miteigentümer Schuldner der Beiträge. Bei Baurechtsverhältnissen ist der Bauberechtigte Beitragsschuldner.

6. Die Regierung regelt durch Verordnung das Verfahren für die Erhebung von Beiträgen (Beitragsverfahren).

← Art. 62 KRG Raumplanungsgesetz für den Kanton Graubünden (KRG) - Gegenstand Art. 64 KRG →

Gerichtsentscheide zu dieser Bestimmung (51)

A 2024 14 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 2 Ziff. 1 lit. a KRG)

Appeal Dismissed Regarding Road Renovation Contribution Assessment Inclusion

Cited to contextualize the percentage division of the public interest share, although this division was not disputed.

A 2024 14 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 2 Ziff. 1 lit. b KRG)

Appeal Dismissed Regarding Road Renovation Contribution Assessment Inclusion

Cited to contextualize the percentage division of the private interest share, although this division was not disputed.

PVG 2021 12 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 2 KRG)

Municipality Road Fee Cost-Sharing Challenge

Provides guidelines for the distribution of costs between public and private interests in infrastructure projects, which were used to evaluate the proportionality of the cost allocation.

A 2020 40 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 2 KRG)

Road Renovation Special Assessment Challenge

The court confirmed the cost distribution between public (30%) and private (70%) interest as being within the statutory limits set by this article for minor improvements (Feinerschliessung).

A 2020 27 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 2 KRG)

Property Owners v. Municipality (Road Renovation Cost Allocation)

The court found that the municipality's initial 50% allocation for the public interest exceeded the lower bound of the guideline range (40% - 70%) for a major development, leading to the modification of the cost split.

A 2018 48 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 2 KRG)

Property Owners v. Municipality Regarding Road Sanitation Cost Allocation

The court determined that the cost sharing of 50% public interest and 50% private interest for the road section was correct and fell within the statutory limits for major infrastructure (Groberschliessung).

R 2014 37 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 3 KRG)

Property Owners v. Municipality: Cost Distribution Appeal for Development Plan and Compensation Valuation

Cited as the basis for how the private share of costs and planning costs are distributed, considering property use and advantages/disadvantages.

R 2014 19 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 5 KRG)

Cost Allocation for Road Adjustment Based on Current Ownership

Cited as the decisive rule for determining the debtor of contributions, based on land register entry at the time of maturity, which formed the basis for overturning the cost allocation.

R 2014 19 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 5 KRG)

Municipality v. Property Owner Regarding Road Widening Cost Allocation Based on Timing of Liability Accrual

The court determined that the decisive factor for assigning cost liability is the entry in the land register at the time the contributions become due, superseding the specific rule in the QPV.

A 2014 3 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 2 KRG)

Property Owners v. Municipality Regarding Street Renovation Contribution Percentage

The court used this provision to confirm that the 30% public interest share (ÖI) for fine development (Feinerschliessung) was correct.

R 2013 131 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 1 KRG)

Cost Allocation Dispute in Neighborhood Development Plan

Cited in the reasoning section in connection with Art. 54 KRG, but the application detail is not the core ground for the final order.

R 2012 129 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 2 KRG)

Property Owners v. Municipality: Infrastructure Cost Allocation Challenge Dismissed

This provision was used to classify the sewage pipeline as Feinerschliessung and uphold the 0% public interest rate.

R 2012 129 · gr (Art. 63 Abs. 2 KRG)

Property Owners v. Municipality: Infrastructure Cost Allocation Challenge Dismissed

This provision, regarding the split between public and private interest for infrastructure facilities (specifically Feinerschliessung), was used to justify upholding the 50% public interest rate for the water pipeline.

V 2010 3 · gr (Art. 63 KRG)

Municipal Credit Approval Challenge Based on Alleged Voter Misinformation Regarding Special Assessments

The court referenced this article to support the finding that the information allegedly given to voters regarding potential future cost contributions was not factually incorrect.

PVG 2010 22 · gr (Art. 62 Abs. 2 in Verbindung mit Art. 63 Abs. 1 KRG)

Challenge to Cost Distribution in Infrastructure Project Upheld

Cited as the legal basis for levying contributions to cover the costs of creating, changing, and renewing development facilities.