Facts

Parties:

  • [A. AG] (Appellant), represented by attorney Patrick Hutter
  • City of Uster (Respondent), represented by attorney Dr. Xaver Baumberger
  • Building Department of the Canton of Zurich (Respondent)

Subject: Appeal against the judgment of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, 3rd Division, 3rd Chamber, of December 3, 2020 (VB.2019.00584, VB.2019.00593) regarding the design plan "Park am Aabach"

Facts:

  • On September 4, 2017, the Municipal Council of Uster decided to adopt the design plan "Park am Aabach" and to partially revise the local zoning and land-use plan.
  • The Building Department of the Canton of Zurich partially approved the design plan with a decision of October 10, 2018.
  • [A. AG] and the Zurich Heritage Conservation Society filed an appeal with the Building Appeal Court, which dismissed the appeals.
  • The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the appeals with a judgment of December 3, 2020.
  • [A. AG] filed an appeal in public law matters to the Federal Supreme Court.
  • The Federal Office of Culture (BAK) recommended in its consultation to obtain an expert opinion from the Federal Commission for Nature and Cultural Heritage (FCNCH).
  • The appellant submitted an architectural-historical expert opinion by Prof. Dr. [B.] .

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examined the admissibility of the appeal and found that the appellant, as the owner of the adjacent properties, is entitled to appeal. The appellant's request to set aside the judgment of the Administrative Court was deemed sufficient, as the appellant sought the complete annulment of the cantonal final decision.

The Federal Supreme Court focused on construction areas A and B on parcel no. B2925, as the appellant contested the compatibility of these construction areas with the protection objectives of the Federal Inventory of Sites worthy of Heritage Protection of National Significance (ISOS). The Administrative Court had previously incorrectly assumed that the surrounding zone I (U-Zo I) only refers to another parcel and not to parcel no. B2925. This misjudgment was potentially decisive.

The Federal Supreme Court…