Distinction between simple subdivision and complex urbanizationDistinción entre fraccionamiento simple y urbanización compleja

**IV.- MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION REGARDING THE URBAN PLANNING** **OF THE CANTON.** **NORMATIVE REGULATION FROM WHICH IT DERIVES.-** Given that the claim concerns the denial of water availability to the lot with cadastral map number H-571839-99, this Court deems it appropriate to make some brief reflections on the jurisdiction of local governments in urban matters, in a dual sphere: first, concerning the **definition of normative regulations** -the promulgation of the respective regulations -regulatory plans and related regulations- and **control** -the exercise of police power- in the territorial jurisdiction. In effect, **urban regulation has been traditionally entrusted, without any discussion, to the municipalities**, as it has been considered that

" (...) *the urban jurisdiction has been a genuine municipal jurisdiction, perhaps the first among all*" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Eduardo and PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, *Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico*. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, Spain, no publisher indicated, 1981. p. 116.);

thus, it has been configured as a tradition of Urban Law, especially in those moments when its content has been expressed through the "construction and urban police ordinances", under the jurisdiction of local governments, with the understanding that public urban jurisdiction belongs to the city and, consequently, to the municipalities. Thus, urban planning begins as an exclusively municipal jurisdiction. Later, as it ceases to be a function specific to the urban sphere and seeks to encompass the planning of the entire territory, other higher Administrations assume responsibility for it, thereby modifying the jurisdictional level of urban planning matters by including other instances, in our context, such as the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo -a decentralized entity-, and the Ministries of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, with the Technical Environmental Secretariat (a deconcentrated body) and the Ministry of National Planning. But regarding local urban planning itself, it is worth recalling that it is in the Ley de Construcciones, approved by Decreto-Ley number 833, of November 4, nineteen hundred forty-nine -a pre-constitutional norm, having been promulgated by the De Facto Government of the Junta Fundadora de la Segunda República, led by José Figueres Ferrer-, where it is established that **Municipalities are responsible for ensuring that cities and other towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, salubrity, comfort, and beauty in their public roads and in the buildings and constructions erected on their land**, without prejudice to the powers that the laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies (Article 1), and that no construction may be built in the country that contravenes its provisions (Article 74). And despite the fact that our current Constitución Política –of November 7, nineteen hundred forty-nine- is somewhat sparse in defining the proper and essential functions of municipalities, constitutional jurisprudence -specifically in judgments number 5097-93, 5303-93, 6706-93, 4205-96, and 2003-3656-, has interpreted that based on the provisions of its Articles 169 and the first paragraph of Article 170, ***primary competency in local urban planning matters corresponds to municipalities, to the exclusion of any other public entity***. In this regard, in the Código Municipal, number 4574, of May 4, nineteen hundred seventy, -in force until nineteen hundred ninety-eight-, urban planning was expressly recognized as a municipal jurisdiction, in its Article 4. In accordance with the foregoing provision, and ***as a derivate of constitutional norms, Articles 15 and 19 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, number 4240, of November 15, nineteen hundred sixty-eight, are concordant***, as they textually state:

"***Article 15.-*** *In accordance with the precept of Article 169 of the Constitución Política, the **jurisdiction and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their jurisdictional territory**, is recognized. Consequently, **each one of them shall provide what is appropriate to implement a regulatory plan, and the related urban development regulations**, in the areas where it must govern, without prejudice to extending all or some of its effects to other sectors, where qualified reasons exist to establish a determined control regime.*" (The highlighting is not in the original.)

"***Article 19.-*** **Each Municipality shall issue and promulgate the necessary procedural rules for the due observance of the regulatory plan and for the protection of the interests of health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community**.*" (The highlighting is not in the original.)

**V.- MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN PLANNING NORMS.-** Regarding the second sphere mentioned, it pertains to the control exercised by municipal Authorities regarding compliance with local urban planning regulations. In this sense, as this Court has indicated in various pronouncements (among them, numbers 175-2009, at fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, at fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of January 30, two thousand nine), *“local governments must act in a timely manner in the exercise of police power, using the powers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their objectives”* (the underline is not in the original); which in urban planning matters is embodied in the control of urbanization and subdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is specifically embodied in Article 1 of the Ley de Construcciones, as it literally states:

" The Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that the cities and other towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, salubrity, comfort, and beauty in their public roads, in the buildings and constructions that are erected on their land, without prejudice to the powers that the laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies." For its part, the "police power" is the jurisdiction recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a law, it may regulate an activity, in order to ensure public order, salubrity, tranquility, safety of persons, as well as the moral, political, and economic organization of society; an attribution by virtue of which the imposition of restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights is reasonable, as its justification lies precisely in the consideration that fundamental rights are limited by the rights of other persons, since they must coexist with all and each of the other fundamental rights. Therefore, the measures adopted by the State with the purpose of protecting safety, salubrity, and tranquility, are of public social interest, which are manifested through the police power, understood as the regulatory power over the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional duties. (In this sense, one can consult judgments number 401-91, at fourteen hours of February 20, and 619-91, at fourteen hours forty-five minutes of March 22, both decisions of nineteen hundred ninety-one, and 2003-2864, at fifteen hours twenty minutes of April 9, two thousand three, from the Sala Constitucional.)

**VI- THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBDIVISION (FRACCIONAMIENTO) AND URBANIZATION PROCESSES.-** Due to the significance derived from the legal implications that subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization processes entail, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of both concepts. Thus, "Subdivision (Fraccionamiento), is the division of a property with the purpose of introducing it into commerce, which presupposes, as each local government must verify when granting the corresponding approval, that it complies, in terms of size and characteristics, with the urban development provisions in force, especially, with the local Regulatory Plan –if one exists- as well as with the development regulations and other special laws of public order. The subdivision (fraccionamiento) that the law terms as 'simple', does not include a process of urban habitation enabling for the use and enjoyment of the parcels resulting from that subdivision (fraccionamiento), and this is so because the legislator assumes that in these, the properties have accesses and green areas resulting from a previous urban development. It is for this reason that Article 40 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana states:

'...( ) Likewise, simple subdivisions (fraccionamientos) of parcels in previously urbanized areas are exempted from the obligation to cede areas for parks and community facilities...' (the emphasis is not from the original).

When a certain area is previously urbanized, the acquirers of the subdivided parcels have access to the properties, parks, and community facilities, and it must not be overlooked that this forms part of their right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Constitution). For this reason –it is reiterated- the legislator has not deemed it necessary to require, in the case of 'simple' subdivision (fraccionamiento) with urban development, larger land endowments for reasons of social interest. Approval for simple subdivisions (fraccionamientos), due to their lesser significance, is usually granted to an official (e.g., Municipal Engineer) different from the one entrusted with 'complex' approvals (e.g. Consejo Municipal, urban planning commissions, etc.), with the former lacking jurisdiction to authorize a different kind of approval; this in the event that urban planning norms make such a distinction. Now then, the subdivision (fraccionamiento) that forms part of the urbanization process and entails an enabling of the properties, for the first time, for urban purposes, must be provided with streets, green areas, and parks, as well as the necessary services for their use and enjoyment. In this second case, we are faced with a complex subdivision and urbanization process (fraccionamiento y urbanización) that introduces limitations on private property for urban planning reasons (Article 22 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana), which the Constitutional Court has indicated are fully in conformity with Constitutional Law (vote No. 5097-93 at 10:24 hrs. of October 15, 1993). The residential or subdivision project (fraccionamiento) that we will call 'complex', is provided for in Article 40 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana which, in what is relevant, states:

'Every land subdivider (fraccionador) ...( ) and every urbanizer shall cede gratuitously for public use both the areas destined for roads and those corresponding to parks and community facilities; what is set for the last two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, through the setting of percentages, of the total area to subdivide or urbanize, which may range between five percent and twenty percent, according to the average size of the lots, the use intended for the land, and the norms in this regard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the lands that must be ceded for public roads, parks, and community facilities shall not exceed forty- five percent of the total surface area of the land to subdivide or urbanize. ...( ) The obligation of the urbanizer to provide the subdivided parcels with accesses, green zones, parks, public roads, obliges them to comply with urban development provisions that establish minimum standards regarding space, quality, quantity, and other requirements demanded by law and development regulations regarding those areas. The local government must exercise its police power in a timely manner, guaranteeing the residents of the canton that the works will be carried out as urban planning norms indicate and with the conditions they provide. It is enough that a parcelization requires works to enable access and provide various services to some of those properties, to assert that a 'simple subdivision (fraccionamiento)' does not exist, but rather a residential project that must, consequently, comply with all the stated requirements. Urban residential projects can only enable access to the properties through public roads that must have the dimensions and requirements of the Ley General de Caminos Públicos and, the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamintos y Urbanizaciones, in the absence, -in this last case- of specific provisions in local norms. No municipal body has the jurisdiction to authorize a project in which the access enabling to the properties is done through 'paved agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas adoquinadas)', 'agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas)' or 'simple easements (servidumbres)', since these are figures proper to Private Law and not to the residential urban development regime, which is governed by the norms and principles of Public Law." (Resolutions number 175-2009 and 176-2009, supra cited.)

In accordance with the above, the control that the local government must carry out is of special interest, in this case by the deliberative body (Concejo), when it comes to the approval of construction permits for urbanizations, since it must verify that it fully complies with the legal requirements, namely the provision of public roads, green and communal areas, and especially -of relevance for the resolution of this matter- the enabling and implementation, by the urbanizer, of public services, such as electricity, telephony, drinking water, and aqueducts and sewers, the latter, in the event that the infrastructure for it exists. Therefore, the failure of urban development projects to meet the requirements established in urban planning law obliges -per se-, the rejection of the applications filed, in application of the principle of legality, which binds the entire state apparatus, of which the municipalities form a part.” In this regard, as this Tribunal has indicated in various pronouncements (among them, numbers 175-2009, at fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, at fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of January 30, two thousand nine), "local governments must act in a timely manner in the exercise of police power (poder de policía), using the powers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their purposes" (emphasis not in the original); which, in the matter of urban planning, is realized in the control of urbanization and subdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is explicitly set forth in Article 1 of the Construction Law, insofar as it literally provides:

"The Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that cities and other population centers possess the necessary conditions of safety, health (salubridad), comfort, and beauty in their public thoroughfares, and in the buildings and constructions erected on their lands, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies." For its part, the "police power (poder de policía)" is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a law, it may regulate and set rules for an activity, in order to ensure public order, health (salubridad), tranquility, the safety of persons, as well as the moral, political, and economic organization of society; an attribution by virtue of which the imposition of restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights is reasonable, since its justification is found precisely in the consideration that fundamental rights are limited by those of other persons, as they must coexist with each and every one of the other fundamental rights. Thus, the measures that the State adopts for the purpose of protecting safety, health (salubridad), and tranquility are of public social interest, manifested through the police power (poder de policía), understood as the regulatory power over the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional duties. (In this regard, see judgments number 401-91, at fourteen hours of February 20, and 619-91, at fourteen hours forty-five minutes of March 22, both resolutions of nineteen ninety-one, and 2003-2864, at fifteen hours twenty minutes of April 9, two thousand three, of the Constitutional Chamber.)

VI- THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBDIVISION (FRACCIONAMIENTO) AND URBANIZATION PROCESSES.- Given the significance derived from the legal implications entailed by subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization processes, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of both concepts. Thus, "A subdivision (fraccionamiento) is the division of a property for the purpose of introducing it into commerce, which supposes, as each local government must verify when granting the corresponding approval (visado), that it conforms, in terms of size and characteristics, to the current urban planning provisions, especially the local Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador)—if one exists—as well as the development regulations and other special public-order laws. The subdivision (fraccionamiento) that the law calls "simple," does not include an urban habilitation process for the use and enjoyment of the parcels resulting from that subdivision (fraccionamiento), and this is so because the legislator starts from the premise that, in these cases, the properties have access and green areas as a result of prior urban development. It is for this reason that Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law provides:

"(…) Likewise, simple subdivisions of parcels in previously urbanized areas are exempt from the obligation to cede areas for parks and community facilities…" (highlighting is not from the original).

When a specific area has been previously urbanized, the acquirers of the subdivided parcels have access to the properties, parks, and community facilities, and it must not be overlooked that this is part of their right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Constitution). For this reason—it is reiterated—the legislator has not deemed it necessary to require, in the case of a "simple" subdivision (fraccionamiento) with prior urban development, additional land endowments for reasons of social interest. The approval (visado) for simple subdivisions, due to its limited scope, is usually granted by an official (e.g., Municipal Engineer) different from the one entrusted with "complex" approvals (e.g., Municipal Council, urban planning commissions, etc.), the former lacking the competence to authorize a different type of approval; this, in the event that urban planning regulations make such a distinction. Now then, the subdivision (fraccionamiento) that is part of the urbanization process and that entails the habilitation of properties, for the first time, for urban purposes, must be provided with streets, green areas, and parks, as well as the necessary services for their use and enjoyment. In this second scenario, we are faced with a complex process of subdivision and urbanization (fraccionamiento y urbanización) that introduces limitations on private property by reason of urban planning (Article 22 of the Urban Planning Law), which the Constitutional Court has indicated are fully in accordance with the Law of the Constitution (Voto N° 5097-93 at 10:24 hrs on October 15, 1993). The residential or subdivision (fraccionamiento) project that we will call "complex" is provided for in numeral 40 of the Urban Planning Law, which, as relevant, provides:

"Every subdivider (fraccionador) of land (…) and every urbanizer (urbanizador) shall cede free of charge for public use both the areas destined for roadways and those corresponding to parks and community facilities; the amount to be set for the last two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, by means of establishing percentages of the total area to be subdivided or urbanized, which may fluctuate between five percent and twenty percent, according to the average size of the lots, the use intended for the land, and the regulations in this regard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the lands to be ceded for public roadways, parks, and community facilities shall not exceed forty-five percent of the total surface area of the land to be subdivided or urbanized. (…)

The urbanizer's (urbanizador) obligation to equip the subdivided parcels with access, green areas, parks, public roadways, obligates them to comply with the urban provisions that establish minimum standards regarding space, quality, quantity, and other requirements demanded by law and development regulations for those areas. The local government must promptly exercise its police power (poder de policía), guaranteeing to the residents of the canton that the works will be carried out in the manner indicated by urban planning regulations and under the conditions they stipulate. It suffices that a parceling requires works to enable access and provide various services to some of those properties, to maintain that a "simple subdivision (fraccionamiento)" does not exist, but rather a residential project that must, consequently, comply with all the stated requirements. Urban residential projects can only enable access to the properties through public roadways that must have the dimensions and requirements of the General Law of Public Roads and the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations, in the absence—in this latter case—of specific provisions in local regulations. None of the municipal bodies has the competence to authorize a project in which access to the properties is provided by means of "paved agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas adoquinadas)", "agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas)", or "simple easements (servidumbres)", since these are figures characteristic of Private Law and not of the residential urban planning regime, which is governed by the rules and principles of Public Law." (Resolutions number 175-2009 and 176-2009, cited above.)

In accordance with which, the control that the local government is responsible for verifying is of special interest, in this case, by the deliberative body (Council), in the context of approving construction permits for urbanizations, since it must corroborate full compliance with legal requirements, namely the provision of public roadways, green and community areas, and especially—of relevance for the resolution of this matter—the habilitation and implementation, at the urbanizer's (urbanizador) expense, of public services, such as electricity, telephone, potable water, aqueducts, and sewer systems, this last one, in case the infrastructure for it exists. Thus, the failure of urban development projects to conform to the requirements established in the urban regulation obligates—per se—the rejection of the applications filed, in application of the principle of legality, which binds the entire state apparatus, of which the municipalities form a part.

And notwithstanding that our current Political Constitution –of November seventh, nineteen forty-nine– is somewhat sparse in defining the proper and essential functions of the municipalities, the constitutional jurisprudence –specifically in rulings number 5097-93, 5303-93, 6706-93, 4205-96, and 2003-3656– has interpreted that, based on the provisions of its articles 169 and the first paragraph of article 170,<b><i> <u>primary authority regarding local urban planning belongs to the municipalities, to the exclusion of any other public entity</u></i></b>. In this regard, the Municipal Code, number 4574, of May fourth, nineteen seventy, –in force until nineteen ninety-eight– expressly recognized urban planning as a municipal competence, in its article 4. In accordance with the foregoing provision, and <b><i>as a derivative of the constitutional norms, articles 15 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law, number 4240, of November fifteenth, nineteen sixty-eight, are concordant</i></b>, as they textually provide:

"<b><i>Article 15.- </i></b><i>Pursuant to the precept of article 169 of the Political Constitution, <b>the competence and authority of the municipal governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their jurisdictional territory, is recognized</b>. Consequently, <b>each one of them shall provide what is appropriate to implement a regulatory plan (plan regulador), and the related urban development regulations,</b> in the areas where it must govern, without prejudice to extending all or some of its effects to other sectors, where qualified reasons prevail for establishing a specific control regime.</i>" (The highlighting is not from the original.)

"<b><i>Article 19.-</i></b><i> <b>Each Municipality shall issue and promulgate the necessary procedural rules for the due observance of the regulatory plan (plan regulador) and for the protection of the interests of the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community</b>.</i>" (The highlighting is not from the original.)

<b>V.- ON MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN PLANNING NORMS.- </b> Regarding the second area mentioned, it concerns the control exercised by the municipal Authorities over compliance with local urban planning regulations. In this sense, as this Tribunal has indicated in various pronouncements (among them, numbers 175-2009, at fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, at fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of January thirtieth, two thousand nine), "the local governments must act in a timely manner in the <b>exercise of police power (poder de policía)</b>, using the powers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their purposes" (the underlining is not from the original); which, in the matter of urban planning, is embodied in the control of urbanization and subdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is concretely specified in article 1 of the Construction Law, as it literally provides:

"The Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that cities and other towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty in their public thoroughfares, in the buildings and constructions erected on their lands, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies." For its part, the "<b><i>police power (poder de policía)</i></b>" is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a law, it may regulate and provide regulations for an activity, in order to ensure <b><i>public order, public health, tranquility, and the safety of persons, as well as the moral, political, and economic organization of society</i></b>; an attribution by virtue of which the imposition of restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights is reasonable, as its justification is found precisely in the consideration that fundamental rights are limited by those of other persons, since they must coexist with each and every one of the other fundamental rights. Thereby, the measures that the State adopts for the purpose of protecting safety, health, and tranquility are of public social interest, which are manifested through the police power, understood as the regulatory authority over the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional duties. (In this regard, see rulings number 401-91, at fourteen hours on February twentieth and 619-91, at fourteen hours forty-five minutes on March twenty-second, both resolutions of nineteen ninety-one, and 2003-2864, at fifteen hours twenty minutes on April ninth, two thousand three, of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional).)

<b>VI- ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBDIVISION (FRACCIONAMIENTO) AND URBANIZATION PROCESSES.- </b> Due to the significance derived from the legal implications entailed by subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization processes, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of both concepts. Thus, "<b><i>Subdivision (Fraccionamiento)</i></b><i>, is the division of a plot of land with the purpose of introducing it into commerce, which presupposes, as each local government must verify when granting the corresponding approval (visado), that it conforms, in terms of size and characteristics, to the urban planning provisions in force, especially to the local regulatory plan for land use (Plan Regulador) –if one exists– as well as to the development regulations and other special public order laws. The subdivision (fraccionamiento) that the law calls <b>“simple” (simple), </b>does not include a process of urban enablement for the use and enjoyment of the parcels resulting from that subdivision (fraccionamiento), and this is so because the legislator assumes that, in these cases, the properties already have access ways and green areas resulting from a prior urban development. It is for this reason that article 40 of the Urban Planning Law provides:</i> "<i>(…)Likewise, <b><u>simple subdivisions (fraccionamientos) of parcels in previously urbanized areas</u></b> are excepted from the obligation to cede areas for parks and community facilities…" (the highlighting is not from the original). </i> <i>When a specific area is previously urbanized, the acquirers of the subdivided parcels have access to the properties, parks, and community facilities, and it must not be overlooked that this is part of their right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (article 50 of the Constitution). For this reason –it is reiterated– the legislator has not deemed it necessary to demand, in the case of a “simple” subdivision (fraccionamiento) with urban development, greater endowments of land for reasons of social interest. The approval (visado) for simple subdivisions (fraccionamientos), due to its little significance, is usually granted by an official (e.g., Municipal Engineer) different from the one entrusted with “complex” approvals (visados) (e.g., Municipal Council, urban planning commissions, etc.), the former lacking the competence to authorize a different approval (visado); that is in the event that the urban planning norms make such a distinction. Now then, <b><u>the subdivision (fraccionamiento) that is part of the urbanization process</u> </b>and that entails an enablement of the properties <b><u>for the first time, for urban purposes</u>,</b> must be provided with <b><u>streets, green areas, and parks</u></b>, as well as the <b><u>public services (servicios)</u></b> necessary for their use and enjoyment. In this second case, we are dealing with <u>a complex process of subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization that introduces</u> limitations on private property for urban planning reasons (article 22 of the Urban Planning Law), which the Constitutional Tribunal has indicated are entirely in conformity with the Law of the Constitution (Voto N° 5097-93 at 10:24 hrs on October 15, 1993). The residential project or subdivision (fraccionamiento) which we will call “complex,” is provided for in numeral 40 of the Urban Planning Law which, as pertinent, provides:</i> "<i><b>Every subdivider (fraccionador)</b> <b>of land</b> (…) and every <b>urbanizer (urbanizador)</b> shall cede free of charge for public use both the areas destined for roads and those corresponding to parks and community facilities; what is established for the latter two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, by fixing percentages of the total area to be subdivided or urbanized, which may fluctuate between five percent and twenty percent, according to the average size of the lots, the intended use of the land, and the relevant norms. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the lands to be ceded for public roads, parks, and community facilities shall not exceed forty-five percent of the total surface area of the land to be subdivided or urbanized. (…)</i> <i>The urbanizer’s (urbanizador) obligation to provide the subdivided parcels with access ways, green zones, parks, public roads, obliges them to comply with the urban provisions that establish minimum standards regarding space, quality, quantity, and other requirements demanded by law and the development regulations regarding those areas. The local government must exercise its police power in a timely manner, guaranteeing to the residents of the canton that the works will be carried out in the manner indicated by the urban planning norms and under the conditions those norms provide. <u>It suffices that a parceling requires works to enable access and provide diverse services to some of those properties, to maintain that <b>there is no</b> “simple subdivision (fraccionamiento),” but rather a residential project that must, consequently, fulfill all the indicated requirements.</u> Urban residential projects can only enable access to the properties through <b><u>public roads</u></b> that must have the dimensions and requirements of the General Public Roads Law and, the National Control Regulation for Subdivisions (Fraccionamientos) and Urbanizations (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones), in the absence –in this last case– of concrete provisions in the local norms. None of the municipal bodies has the competence to authorize a project in which the enablements to the properties are made through <b>“cobblestone agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas adoquinadas)”</b>, <b>"agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas)" or “simple easements (simples servidumbres),” </b>since these are figures typical of Private Law and not of the residential urban planning regime which is governed by the norms and principles of Public Law.</i>" (Resolutions number 175-2009 and 176-2009, cited above.)

Accordingly, the control that the local government is responsible for verifying is of special interest, in this case <b><i>entrusted to the deliberative body (Council)</i></b>, when dealing with the approval of construction permits for urbanizations, since it must corroborate that it fully complies with the legal requirements, namely the endowment of public roads, green and community areas, and especially –of relevance for the resolution of this matter– the enablement and implementation, by the urbanizer (urbanizador), of public services (servicios públicos), such as electricity, telephone, potable water, aqueducts, and sewers, the latter, in the event that the infrastructure for it exists. Consequently, the failure to adapt urban development projects to the requirements established in the urban legal system obliges –<i>per se</i>– the rejection of the filed procedures, in application of the principle of legality, which subjects the entire state apparatus, of which the municipalities form a part."

“IV.- DE LA COMPETENCIA MUNICIPAL EN LO ATINENTE A LA ORDENACIÓN URBANÍSTICA DEL CANTÓN. REGULACIÓN NORMATIVA DE LA QUE DIMANA.- En atención a que el reclamo versa sobre la negativa de disponibilidad de agua al lote con el plano catastrado número H-571839-99, estima conveniente este Tribunal hacer unas breves reflexiones en torno a la competencia de los gobiernos locales en la materia urbanística, en un doble ámbito, primero que nada, en lo concerniente a la definición de las regulaciones normativas -promulgación de las respectivas regulaciones -planes reguladores y regulaciones conexas- y el control -ejercicio del poder de policía- en la circunscripción territorial. En efecto, la regulación urbanística ha sido encomendada tradicionalmente, y sin discusión alguna, a las municipalidades, en tanto se ha estimado que

"(...) la competencia urbanística ha sido una competencia municipal genuina, quizá la primera entre todas" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Eduardo y PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, España, S.N.E., 1981. p. 116.);

de manera que se ha configurado, como una tradición del Derecho Urbanístico, especialmente en aquellos momentos en que su contenido ha sido expresado por medio de las "ordenanzas de construcción y policía urbana", de competencia de los gobiernos locales, bajo el entendido de que la competencia pública urbanística es propia de la ciudad, y en consecuencia, de las municipalidades. Así, el urbanismo comienza siendo una competencia exclusivamente municipal. Posteriormente, a medida que va dejando de ser una función propia del ámbito urbano y pretende abarcar la ordenación de todo el territorio, se responsabilizan de él otras Administraciones superiores, modificándose de esa manera el nivel competencial de la materia urbanística, al incluir a otras instancias, en nuestro medio, tales como el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo -ente descentralizado-, y los Ministerios de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, con la Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (órgano desconcentrado) y el Ministerio de Planificación Nacional. Pero en lo que respecta propiamente con la planificación urbana local, conviene recordar que es en la Ley de Construcciones, aprobada por Decreto-Ley número 833, del cuatro de noviembre de mil novecientos cuarenta y nueve -norma pre-constitucional, al ser promulgada por el Gobierno de Facto de la Junta Fundadora de la Segunda República, dirigida por José Figueres Ferrer-, donde se establece que las Municipalidades son las encargadas de que las ciudades y demás poblaciones reúnan las condiciones necesarias de seguridad, salubridad, comodidad y belleza en sus vías públicas y en los edificios y construcciones que en terrenos de las mismas se levanten, sin perjuicio de las facultades que las leyes conceden en estas materias a otros órganos administrativos (artículo 1º), así como que ninguna edificación podrá hacerse en el país que contraríe sus disposiciones (artículo 74). Y no obstante que nuestra Constitución Política vigente –del siete de noviembre de mil novecientos cuarenta y nueve- es un poco parca en la definición de las funciones propias y esenciales de las municipalidades, la jurisprudencia constitucional -concretamente en las sentencias número 5097-93, 5303-93, 6706-93, 4205-96, y 2003-3656-, ha interpretado que a partir de lo dispuesto en sus artículos 169 y primer párrafo del artículo 170, la titularidad primaria en materia de planificación urbana local corresponde a las municipalidades, con exclusión de cualquier otro ente público. En este sentido, en el Código Municipal, número 4574, de cuatro de mayo de mil novecientos setenta, -vigente hasta mil novecientos noventa y ocho-, en su artículo 4. En consonancia con la anterior disposición, y como un derivado de las normas constitucionales, son concordantes los artículos 15 y 19 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, número 4240, de quince de noviembre de mil novecientos sesenta y ocho, en tanto disponen textualmente:

"Artículo 15.- Conforme al precepto del artículo 169 de la Constitución Política, reconócese la competencia y autoridad de los gobiernos municipales para planificar y controlar el desarrollo urbano, dentro de los límites de su territorio jurisdiccional. Consecuentemente, cada uno de ellos dispondrá lo que proceda para implantar un plan regulador, y los reglamentos de desarrollo urbano conexos, en las áreas donde deba regir, sin perjuIcio de extender todos o algunos de sus efectos a otros sectores, en que priven razones calificadas para establecer un determinado régimen contralor." (El resaltado no es del original.)

"Artículo 19.- Cada Municipalidad emitirá y promulgará las reglas procesales necesarias para el debido acatamiento del plan regulador y para la protección de los intereses de las salud, seguridad, comodidad y bienestar de la comunidad." (El resaltado no es del original.)

V.- DE LA COMPETENCIA MUNICIPAL EN LA VERIFICACIÓN DEL CUMPLIMIENTO DE LAS NORMAS URBANÍSTICAS.- En cuanto al segundo ámbito enunciado, es el atinente al control que ejercen las Autoridades municipales respecto del cumplimiento de la normativa urbanística local. En este sentido, como lo ha señalado este Tribunal en diversos pronunciamientos (entre ellos, los número 175-2009, de las quince horas cuarenta minutos 176-2009, de las quince horas cincuenta minutos, ambos, del treinta de enero del dos mil nueve), "los gobiernos locales deben actuar oportunamente en el ejercicio del poder de policía, utilizando las potestades que el ordenamiento jurídico les ha otorgado para alcanzar sus cometidos" (el subrayado no es del original); que en la materia de urbanismo, se concreta en el control de los procesos de urbanización y fraccionamiento, y que se concreta de manera taxativa en el artículo 1 de la Ley de Construcciones, en tanto dispone literalmente:

"Las Municipalidades de la República son las encargadas de que las ciudades y demás poblaciones reúnan las condiciones necesarias de seguridad, salubridad, comodidad, y belleza en sus vías públicas, en los edificios y construcciones que en terrenos de las mismas levanten sin perjuicio de las facultades que las leyes conceden en estas materia a otros órganos administrativos." Por su parter, el "poder de policía" es la competencia que se le reconoce a la Administración, para que, con fundamento en una ley, regule y reglamente una actividad, a fin de asegurar el orden público, la salubridad, la tranquilidad, la seguridad de las personas, así como la organización moral, política y económica de la sociedad; atribución, en virtud de la cual, la imposición de restricciones al goce de los derechos fundamentales, resulta razonable, en tanto su justificación se encuentra precisamente en la consideración de que los derechos fundamentales se encuentran limitados por los de las demás personas, toda vez que deben coexistir con todos y cada uno de los otros derechos fundamentales. Con lo cual, las medidas que el Estado adopte con la finalidad de proteger la seguridad, la salubridad y tranquilidad, son de interés público social, que se manifiestan por medio del poder de policía, entendida como la facultad reguladora del goce de los derechos y del cumplimiento de los deberes constitucionales. (En este sentido, se pueden consultar las sentencias número 401-91, de las catorce horas del veinte de febrero y 619-91, de las catorce horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintidós de marzo, ambas, resoluciones de mil novecientos noventa y uno y 2003-2864, de las quince horas veinte minutos del nueve de abril del dos mil tres, de la Sala Constitucional.)

VI- DE LA DISTINCIÓN DE LOS PROCESOS DE FRACCIONAMIENTO Y URBANIZACIÓN.- Por la trascendencia derivada de las implicaciones jurídicas que conllevan los procesos de fraccionamiento y urbanizaciones, resulta necesario clarificar el significado de ambos conceptos. Así, "El fraccionamiento, es la división de un predio con la finalidad de introducirlo al comercio de los hombres, lo que supone, tal y como lo debe constatar cada gobierno local al otorgar el visado correspondiente, que el mismo se ajuste, en cuanto a tamaño y características, a las disposiciones urbanísticas vigentes, en especial, al Plan Regulador del suelo local –si lo hubiere- así como a la normativa de desarrollo y demás leyes especiales de orden público. El fraccionamiento que la ley denomina como “simple”, no incluye un proceso de habilitación urbana para el uso y disfrute de las parcelas resultantes de ese fraccionamiento y ello es así porque el legislador parte de que en estos, los fundos cuentan con accesos y áreas verdes producto de un desarrollo urbanístico anterior. Es por este motivo que el artículo 40 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana dispone:

“(…)Asimismo se exceptúa de la obligación de ceder áreas para parques y facilidades comunales a los simples fraccionamientos de parcelas en áreas previamente urbanizadas…” (el destacado no es del original).

Cuando una determinada área se encuentra previamente urbanizada, los adquirentes de las parcelas fraccionadas cuentan con acceso a los fundos, parques y facilidades comunales y es que no debe perderse de vista que ello hace parte de su derecho a disfrutar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado (artículo 50 constitucional). Por este motivo –se reitera- el legislador no ha estimado necesario exigir en el caso del fraccionamiento “simple” con desarrollo urbanístico, mayores dotaciones de tierra por motivos de interés social. El visado para fraccionamientos simples, por su poca trascendencia, suele otorgarse a un funcionario (v.gr. Ingeniero Municipal) diverso de aquél al que se encomiendan los visados “complejos” (v. gr. Concejo Municipal, comisiones de urbanismo, etc), careciendo el primero de competencia para autorizar un visado diverso; ello en el caso de que las normas urbanísticas hagan tal distinción. Ahora bien, al fraccionamiento que hace parte del proceso urbanizador y que conlleva una habilitación de los fundos, por vez primera, para fines urbanos, debe proveérsele de calles, áreas verdes y parques, así como de los servicios necesarios para su uso y disfrute. En este segundo supuesto, estamos ante un proceso complejo de fraccionamiento y urbanización que introduce limitaciones a la propiedad privada por razón de urbanismo (artículo 22 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana), las que el Tribunal Constitucional ha señalado son totalmente conformes con el Derecho de la Constitución (voto N° 5097-93 de las 10:24 hrs del 15 de octubre de 1993 ) . El proyecto residencial o de fraccionamiento que llamaremos “complejo”, se encuentra previsto en el numeral 40 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana que, en lo conducente, dispone:

“Todo fraccionador de terrenos (…) y todo urbanizador cederá gratuitamente al uso público tanto las áreas destinadas a vías como las correspondientes a parques y facilidades comunales; lo que fijará por los dos conceptos últimos se determinará en el respectivo reglamento, mediante la fijación de porcentajes, del área total a fraccionar o urbanizar, que podrá fluctuar entre un cinco por ciento a un veinte por ciento, según el tamaño promedio de los lotes, el uso que se pretenda dar al terreno y las normas al respecto. No obstante lo anterior, la suma de los terrenos que deben cederse para vías públicas, parques y facilidades comunales no excederá de un cuarenta y cinco por ciento de la superficie total del terreno a fraccionar o urbanizar. (…)

La obligación del urbanizador de dotar las parcelas fraccionadas de accesos, zonas verdes, parques, vías públicas, le obliga a acatar las disposiciones urbanas que establecen estándares mínimos en cuanto a espacio, calidad, cantidad y demás requisitos exigidos por ley y los reglamentos de desarrollo en cuanto a esas áreas. El gobierno local tiene que ejercer oportunamente su poder de policía, garantizando a los vecinos del cantón, que las obras se realizarán de la forma que las normas urbanísticas lo indican y con las condiciones que aquellas disponen. Basta que un parcelamiento requiera obras para habilitar el ingreso y brindar servicios diversos a algunos de esos fundos, para sostener que no existe un “simple fraccionamiento”, sino un proyecto residencial que debe, en consecuencia, cumplir con todos los requisitos señalados. Los proyectos residenciales urbanos sólo pueden habilitar el ingreso a los fundos a través de vías públicas que deben tener las dimensiones y exigencias de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos y, el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamintos y Urbanizaciones, a falta, -en este ultimo caso- de disposiciones concretas en las normas locales. Ninguno de los órganos municipales tiene competencia para autorizar un proyecto en el que las habilitaciones a los fundos se hace mediante “servidumbres agrícolas adoquinadas”, "servidumbres agrícolas" o “simples servidumbres”, puesto que ellas son figuras propias del Derecho Privado y no del régimen urbanístico residencial que se rige por las normas y principios del Derecho Público." (Resoluciones número 175-2009 y 176-2009, supra citadas.)

Al tenor de lo cual, reviste de especial interés el control que corresponde verificar al gobierno local, en este caso a cargo del órgano deliberativo (Concejo), tratándose de la aprobación de permisos de construcción de urbanizaciones, ya que debe corroborar que cumple a cabalidad con los requerimientos de ley, a saber dotación de vías públicas, áreas verdes y comunales, y en especial -de relevancia para resolución de este asunto- de la habilitación e implementación, a cargo del urbanizador, de los servicios públicos, tales como el de la luz, telefonía, agua potable y acueductos y alcantarillados, éste último, en caso de que exista la infraestructura para ello. Con lo cual, la no adecuación de los proyectos urbanísticos a los requerimientos establecidos en el ordenamiento urbano, obligan -per ser-, al rechazo de las gestiones incoadas, en aplicación del principio de legalidad, que sujeta a todo el aparato estatal, del que forman parte las municipalidades.”