Facts
N. and L. are the owners or co-owners of residential properties in the "Chastli" district of Schänis. To the southeast and partly directly adjacent, a sawmill has been operated since ancient times, which I. extensively renovated and expanded from 1977 to 1980. Due to noise emissions, N. and I. were in dispute for years.
The municipality of Schänis intends to rezone the sawmill operation, which is otherwise located in the municipal area and partly in the agricultural zone, to the construction zone. For this purpose, it has issued a partial zoning plan and a development plan "Mülenen". The partial zoning plan provides for a green zone area adjacent to N.'s property and a larger commercial/industrial zone with a development plan requirement adjoining it.
N. and L. initially filed objections with the municipality and later appeals with the Cantonal Government against the partial zoning and development plans, each requesting that the plans be revoked. They accuse the municipality and the Cantonal Government of disregarding essential principles of spatial planning law and violating provisions of the Federal Environmental Protection Act.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examines the admissibility of the legal remedies ex officio. Zoning plans are generally subject to a constitutional appeal, but the administrative court appeal may exceptionally be admissible if complaints are made in the area of federally regulated environmental or nature conservation law.
The contested plans create the planning law basis for the expansion of the sawmill and contain detailed provisions on noise protection. The appellants accuse the Cantonal…