Facts
The appellant is the owner of a plot in the agricultural zone in Rüti (ZH), on which he built a parking facility without a permit. Following a report by the respondent, the Rüti Building Office ordered him to restore the lawful condition. On 27 February 2017 he applied for subsequent building permission.
By overall decision of 17 November 2017, the Building Directorate of the Canton of Zurich refused the subsequent permission. By resolution of 22 January 2018, the Rüti Spatial Planning and Building Commission recorded the refusal of the building permit and announced that it would examine the restoration of the lawful condition once the decision became final.
The appellant filed an appeal (Rekurs) with the Building Appeals Court on 26 February 2018. The respondent was joined as a party by presidential order of 8 March 2018; it was disputed whether his participation had been timely. On 15 August 2018 the Building Appeals Court upheld the appeal, set aside the overall decision in the sense of the reasons or adjusted it, and set aside the commission's resolution. It invited the Building Directorate to continue the building permit proceedings.
The respondent challenged this decision before the Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich on 14 September 2018, requesting, among other things, the restoration of the lawful condition and an investigation report. By resolution of 22 August 2019, the Administrative Court limited the proceedings to the question of admissibility, affirmed the respondent's standing, but entered into the appeal only insofar as the annulment of the Building Appeals Court's decision was requested; otherwise it did not enter into the appeal.
By appeal in public law matters of 3 October 2019 to the Federal Supreme Court, the appellant requested that the resolution be set aside insofar as the respondent's appeal had been admitted; in the alternative, that the costs ruling be remitted or decided directly. The respondent and the Administrative Court requested dismissal, and the Spatial Planning and Building Commission of Rüti requested that the appeal be upheld. The Building Directorate made no application.
Considerations
The contested resolution of the Administrative Court is a cantonal final-instance decision in building matters, against which an appeal in public law matters is in principle available under Art. 82 ff. FSCA. The appellant took part in the proceedings before the lower court and is affected in his procedural rights, so he has standing under Art. 89 para. 1 FSCA.
Under Art. 90 FSCA, an appeal is admissible only against final decisions. An interlocutory decision may be appealed only if it may cause an irreparable disadvantage (Art. 93 para. 1 lit. a FSCA) or if upholding the appeal would immediately lead to a final decision and save considerable time or costs (Art. 93 para. 1 lit. b FSCA). It is undisputed that this is an interlocutory decision, since the Administrative Court has not yet decided the merits.
No irreparable disadvantage exists. The appellant can fully raise his procedural…