701.100
LSTROGLAT
CH-TI
CH-TI
Art. 104 LST Legge sullo sviluppo territoriale (LST)
LST
Art. 104 LST
[53] 1 Le attività d’incidenza territoriale vanno armonizzate con gli obiettivi di tutela e valorizzazione del paesaggio.
2 Le costruzioni devono inserirsi nel paesaggio in maniera ordinata e armoniosa.
[53] Numero dell’articolo modificato dalla L 18.12.2014; in vigore dal 10.2.2015 - BU 2015, 40.
Decisioni giudiziarie che applicano questa disposizione (14)
52.2022.92 · ti (Art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Administrative Appeal on Hotel-to-Apartment Conversion Parking and Landscape Impact Upheld
Cited as the basis for the general requirement for buildings to fit harmoniously into the landscape, which was assessed and found to be satisfied.
52.2019.573 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Crane Permit Denial Upheld Due to Landscape Integration Conflict
The court upheld the municipal authority's negative aesthetic evaluation, which was based on this provision, leading to the rejection of the appeal.
52.2020.560 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Appeal Sustained Against Large Apartment Building Permit Due to Excessive Massing and Poor Landscape Integration
The main ground for accepting the appeal was the violation of the aesthetic clause requiring construction to integrate harmoniously into the landscape.
52.2019.237 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Appeal Against Building Permit Annulled for Height Non-Compliance and Landscape Integration Error
Cited in the reasoning regarding the aesthetic requirement, but not in the dispositive orders.
90.2019.10 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Zoning Amendment Challenge Regarding Mobile Antenna Placement Classification
Cited concerning the positive aesthetic clause applicable throughout the cantonal territory.
52.2016.547 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Appeal Against Building Permit Due to Excessive Excavation and Landscape Incompatibility
This provision, regarding the aesthetic requirement for projects to integrate harmoniously into the landscape, was the substantive ground for annulling the building permit.
52.2016.645 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Building Permit Cancellation Upheld Due to Substantive Project Changes and Land-Use Conflict
This provision concerning the principle of harmonious integration into the landscape was cited in the reasoning but not explicitly applied in the final operative orders (dispositive).
52.2016.547 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Building Permit Annulment for Excavation Impact on Landscape Aesthetics
The appeal was allowed based on the finding that the external ground adjustments (excavation and retaining wall) severely violated the principle of orderly and harmonious integration into the landscape.
52.2017.586 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Cantonal Court Annuls Building Permit Over Height Violation and Insufficient Aesthetic Review
Although the aesthetic integration criteria were extensively discussed, the final operative part (dispositive) does not explicitly cite this substantive basis for the decision to grant the appeal, as the decision relies on height violations.
52.2019.237 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Appeal Against Building Permit Upheld Due to Height Violation in Historical Center
The decision is grounded on the violation of the aesthetic requirement (ordered in point 1) derived from this provision, as the building exceeds the prescribed height.
52.2019.277 · ti (Art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Turconi 2 Building Permit Challenge Regarding Federal Subsidy and Heritage Protection Requirements
The aesthetic principle in question was left open pending the outcome of the LPN assessment.
52.2019.573 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Construction Company v. Municipality (Crane Permit Denial)
This provision concerning the general aesthetic clause was the basis for upholding the negative aesthetic assessment leading to the rejection of the appeal.
52.2020.560 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Lugano Building Permit Annulment Due to Lack of Harmonious Landscape Integration
The decision annulled the building permit based on the incorrect application of the aesthetic clause regarding the harmonious integration into the landscape.
52.2023.169 · ti (art. 104 cpv. 2 LST)
Developer v. Cantonal Council (Residential Complex Approval and Anniversary Assessment)
Mentioned extensively in the reasoning (3.1, 3.4) concerning the aesthetic planning obligation, but not explicitly cited in the operative part (orders 1-4).