700.11
LATC
CH-VD
CH-VD
Art. 57 LOI sur l'aménagement du territoire et les constructions (LATC) - Equipement individuel
Titre V
Art. 57 LATC · Equipement individuel
1. Chaque bâtiment ou groupe de bâtiments est relié au réseau d'équipement par son propriétaire, qui réalise le raccordement et l'entretient à ses frais.
2. La municipalité peut fixer les conditions techniques du raccordement à l'équipement.
Décisions judiciaires appliquant cette disposition (20)
AC.2018.0067 · vd (art. 57 à 61 LATC)
Recurrents v. Municipality (Land Use Plan Modification for Waste Site and Business Expansion)
Cited to establish that the DTE's approval can only cover the project approved by the competent communal authority, which was not the case here regarding the regulatory modifications.
AC.2016.0129 · vd (art. 57 LATC)
Municipality v. Environmental Department Zoning Appeal
This procedural article on public inquiry was mentioned in the reasoning, but not explicitly cited in the final orders.
AC.2008.0237 · vd (Art. 57 LATC)
Property Owners v. Municipal Planning Board (Sports Hall Permit)
Cited in reasoning regarding the public inquiry procedure for the PPA project.
AC.2008.0098 · vd (art. 57 LATC)
Residents v. Municipality Regarding Building Permit for Access Road
Cited in the reasoning regarding the thirty-day public inquiry period for municipal road plans.
AC.2008.0098 · vd (art. 57 à 62 LATC)
Residents v. Municipality Regarding Building Permit for Access Road
Cited in the reasoning as provisions applicable by analogy to the municipal road plan procedure.
AF.2006.0001 · vd (Art. 57 LATC)
Syndicate Land Improvement Classification Appeal on Real Compensation and Equipment Obligations
Mentioned as the article under which the land development plans were simultaneously subject to public inquiry.
AC.2006.0202 · vd (art. 57 à 59 LATC)
Property Owners v. Municipality (Neighborhood Plan Validity)
Cited in the reasoning (Point 4.bb) as part of the procedural context relevant to the eventual correct establishment of a neighborhood plan.
AC.2000.0134 · vd (Art. 57 al. 1 et 2 LATC)
Zoning Appeal Admissibility Over Zoning Modification Opposition Requirement
Cited to analyze the requirements for notification during the public inquiry, which influenced the decision to annul the prior administrative ruling.
AF.1999.0010 · vd (art. 57 ss et 73 s. LATC)
Land Consolidation Appeal Rejection: Real Equalization and Pedestrian Servitude Upheld
Cited in jurisprudence regarding the procedure for adopting road construction projects that affect public domain areas which can be deducted from buildable surface.
AC.1999.0081 · vd (Art. 57 à 62 LATC)
Property Owners' Appeal on Pedestrian Easements Transmitted to Executive Authority
Cited by analogy as the procedure governing road plan adoption for communal plans under Art. 13 LR, forming the basis for the jurisdictional issue.
AC.1999.0081 · vd (Art. 57 à 62 LATC)
Property Owners' Appeal on Pedestrian Easements Transmitted to Executive Authority
These articles are applied by analogy to communal road plans under Art. 13 LR.
AC.1999.0138 · vd (art. 57 al. 1 LATC)
Property Owner v. Canton Regarding Untimely Opposition to Land-Use Plan
Cited to confirm the required means of communication (display and publication) which the court found were validly observed.
AC.1999.0138 · vd (art. 57 al. 2 LATC)
Property Owner v. Canton Regarding Untimely Opposition to Land-Use Plan
The appellant's argument centered on the inapplicability of this provision, which justifies why the court rejected the claim for reinstatement of the deadline.
AC.1999.0138 · vd (art. 57 al. 3 LATC)
Property Owner v. Canton Regarding Untimely Opposition to Land-Use Plan
The rejection of the appeal is based on the finding that the opposition was late, following the rule that a proprietor who did not oppose during the public inquiry forfeits this right.
RE.1999.0014 · vd (art. 57 LATC)
Appeal Against Development Plan Approval and Suspension Request Regarding Traffic Diversion
Cited in the reasoning section to determine that the specific rule on public notice duration was not violated by removing the notice in the afternoon of the last day.