Municipal license for artisanal bakery in residential zonePatente municipal para panadería artesanal en zona residencial

V.- On the merits: This Section of the Tribunal considers that the appeal was correctly filed. Agreement No. IV of the Ordinary Session No. 127, held by the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal) on July 18, 2000, containing the grounds for the rejection of the business license (patente) ordered by Agreement No. III of that same municipal body in Ordinary Session No. 89, held on October 26, 1999, does not constitute a mere procedural act, as the Municipality understands it, nor is it an execution or ratification of a previous one, nor is it independent of the latter; rather, both constitute the full text of a single administrative act. For this reason, the municipal argument in this regard is rejected, since the appeal against the first inherently implies a valid and admissible challenge against the second. (articles 133, 136, 140, 141, directly applicable, and 240.1, 245, 247.1 and 348, supplementarily applicable, all of the Ley General de la Administración Pública).

VI.-This collegiate body further considers that the denial of the business license (patente) ordered by the local government of that Canton, for the reasons that will be stated below, is an act that is not in accordance with the law and the provisions that regulate the matter. Article 17 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana establishes the prior and indispensable requirements for the correct implementation of an Urban Master Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano), which in the case under examination, it has been demonstrated has not been verified. And it is that in this case, the so-called Reglamento de Construcciones of the INVU, published in La Gaceta No. 56, Supplement (Alcance) No. 17 of March 22, 1983, and its amendments, especially the modification to its Article IV.6 published in La Gaceta No. 96 of May 20, 1993, is applicable on a supplementary basis, given the lack of an Urban Master Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) for the Municipality of Tibás, as established by articles 21 and 24 of the cited Law and Voto No. 4205-96 issued by the Sala Constitucional at 2:33 p.m. you (sic) may be (sic)…” 2. The statement of reasons may consist of an explicit or unequivocal reference to the grounds of the petitioner’s request, or to proposals, opinions, or prior resolutions that have truly determined the adoption of the act, provided that a copy is attached.” VII.- In view of the foregoing, this collegiate body considers that, although the grounds – the factual and legal presumptions – for issuing the act were: that the preparation of homemade bread and pastries is an industry and that it is located in a residential zone such as the Jardines de Tibás Urbanization and that as such it would use gas cylinders that are dangerous for the community, since the walls of the properties are not suitable for that type of business, the truth is that: FIRST: according to the merits of the case file, this is not an “industry” in the manufacturing sense, as the Municipality seems to have classified it, but rather a task reasonably in accordance with the concept of “family artisanal activity” (actividad artesanal familiar). Since it is a work activity – preparation of homemade bread and pastries –, family or domestic – typical independent work –, carried out personally and exclusively by the appellant – helped by her husband –, and consequently with her personal touch, during daytime hours and that excludes dispatch or direct sale to consumers on the site. As such, in accordance with the cited regulation. This is confirmed by the terms of the application, the insurance policy exemption from the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, the original sanitary operating permit, the lease agreement, and the Official Dictionary of the Language itself, which in this regard states: Elaborate. (From Lat. Elaborare.) trans. To prepare a product by means of suitable work. Artisanal work. 2. Art or work of artisans. Artisan. From low Lat. Artesanus, and this from Lat. Ars, rtis, art.) m. and f. Person who exercises an art or merely mechanical trade. In modern times, this name is used to distinguish the person who makes household items on their own account, imparting a personal stamp, as opposed to the factory worker. Factory. (From Lat. Fabrica.) f. Action and effect of manufacturing. 2. Establishment equipped with the machinery, tools, and facilities necessary for the manufacture of certain objects, obtaining certain products, or the industrial transformation of an energy source. Manufacture. (From Lat. Fabricare.) trans. To produce objects in series, generally by mechanical means. Industry. (From Lat. Industria.) Skill and dexterity or artifice to do something. 2. Set of material operations executed for the obtaining, transformation, or transportation of one or several natural products. 3. Sum and set of industries of one or several natural products. 3. Sum and set of industries of the same or several types, of an entire country or part of it. Moreover, the ground is non-existent since it is recorded in the case file that both the property – certainly located in a residential zone – and the activity – “pastry making” – analogous in nature to “preparation of homemade bread and pastries” – had already been studied and had authorization from the Department of Cadastre (Departamento de Catastro), as they were compatible with the predominant residential use. This is evidenced by the documents “Formula Para la Aprobación de Trámite de Patente” and “Formulario para la Aprobación de Tramite de Patente”, both from the Department of Cadastre and addressed to the Department of Patentes, which refer to study # 341 carried out by that municipal office, on the occasion of a request for land-use change (cambio de uso), which are clear in indicating the verification of compliance with the provisions of La Gaceta # 96 of May 20, 1993, as well as the corresponding requirements – Article 4.6.4 of the cited Reglamento de Construcciones – such as facing a national or main road of the urbanization, not being located on an Alameda or a street with a right-of-way of less than 10 meters, the lot frontage equal to the predominant frontage in the urbanization, activity compatible with residential use, the urbanization’s commercial area fully utilized, and a written consent from the adjoining landowners. Documents whose referral in consultation to the INVU, unlike the opinion of the municipal legal advisory service, is optional. The fact that the application was submitted by the owner/lessor and not by her tenant, the appellant herein, is also no impediment since, due to its condition, the land-use change (cambio de uso) permit is not granted intuito personae but rather in re. That is to say, regarding the premises and not in relation to the person of the applicant. All of which was, for reasons unknown, simply ignored by the Municipality, but which this Tribunal cannot overlook. SECOND: On the other hand, oddly, the case file – neither the administrative nor the main file – does not contain a certified copy of the full text or the relevant parts of Municipal Act # 89, in which the business license (patente) was heard, deliberated, and resolved to be rejected, but only notification letters regarding the relevant parts of the agreement, such as to determine – without any doubt – that by the date of the Session of October 26, 1999, the ground that was subsequently notified existed or at least was truly considered for the rejection. Namely, the insecurity for the community concerning the gas cylinders in relation to the unsuitability of the walls. And, even if it had been so, there is no record that said conclusion derived, at that time, from any technical study on the matter – which is of no kind in the case file –, since, in principle, that type of energy is not prohibited as long as it is properly arranged and used. Which logically leads one to think that there was no expert opinion involved, but rather that this reasoning was just that. This is confirmed by the circumstances that, on the contrary, since September 16, 1999, an inspection had been carried out by the Department of Engineering which, among other things, ruled that the physical condition of the premises, approximately 24 meters, was good; an inspection that concluded without any special additional observation, and that; on September 21, 1999, after proceeding to verify the requirements for a new business license (patente), it was concluded that it met them. In any case, said ground became non-existent since, at the time the Council heard the revocation – the written challenge of August 8, 2000 –, against its Agreement IV, Session No. 127, of July 18, 2000, which as stated is an integral part of Agreement III of the Act of Session # 89, of October 26, 1999, the Municipality already had letter Ts- 036-2000 RQJ dated March 30, 2000, from the Ministry of Health, which clearly indicates that regarding the removal of the oven that uses LPG gas, it had already been replaced by an electric one. This was also not considered by the Municipal Council. After all of which, this collegiate body considers, without any doubt, that due to the non-existence of the ground, the agreement denying the business license (patente) is an administrative act vitiated by absolute nullity and therefore illegal. (articles 133.1.2, 136.1.2, 214.1.2, 216.1 and 221 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública) [...].

IX.- It is expressly recorded, however, that in cases such as this one, in accordance with articles IV.6.4.1 and IV.6.4.7 of the cited Reglamento de Construcciones, the business license (patente) for the described activity is granted as a conditional use, with the understanding that all nuisances must be confined within the property; that for its renewal, the history of the establishment is taken into account, as well as the indicated confinement, the control of which must be carried out by the Municipality, preserving the conditions established by other laws and regulations; and that pursuant to Article 81 bis of the Código Municipal, the license (licencia) may be suspended, apart from for non-payment of two or more quarters, also for non-compliance with the requirements ordered in the laws for developing the activity.

X.- As a corollary of all the foregoing, it is necessary to accept the appeal filed, annul as illegal the agreements of the Municipal Council of Tibás taken in Ordinary Session No. 127, held on July 18, 2000, Agreement No. IV and in Ordinary Session No. 89, held on October 26, 1999, Agreement No. III, which deny the business license (patente), so that the Municipality instead proceeds to grant it, if no other cause beyond that examined herein prevents it, and to declare the administrative remedies exhausted, since there is no further appeal. (article 6 of Ley No. 7274 of December 10, 1991)." "V.- On the merits: This Section of the Tribunal considers that the appeal was correctly filed. Agreement No. IV of Ordinary Session No. 127, held by the Municipal Council on July 18, 2000, containing the reasons for the rejection of the business license (patente) ordered by Agreement No. III of that same municipal body in Ordinary Session No. 89, held on October 26, 1999, does not constitute a mere procedural act, as the Municipality understands it, nor is it an execution or ratification of a previous one, nor is it independent of the latter, but rather both constitute the full text of a single administrative act. For this reason, the municipal allegation in this regard is rejected by virtue of the fact that the appeal against the first inherently implies a valid and admissible challenge against the second. (Articles 133, 136, 140, 141, directly applicable, and 240.1, 245, 247.1 and 348, suppletorily applicable, all of the Ley General de la Administración Pública).

VI.- This collegiate body considers, moreover, that the denial of the business license ordered by the local government of that Canton, for the reasons that will be stated below, is an act that is not in accordance with the law and the provisions that regulate the matter. Article 17 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana establishes the prior and indispensable requirements for the correct implementation of a Master Urban Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano), which in the case under review, it was demonstrated has not been verified. And it is that in the specific case, the so-called Reglamento de Construcciones of the INVU, published in La Gaceta No. 56, Alcance No. 17 of March 22, 1983, and its reforms, especially the modification in its article IV.6 published in La Gaceta No. 96 of May 20, 1993, is applicable, which is suppletorily applicable, in the absence of a Master Urban Plan of the Municipality of Tibás, as informed by articles 21 and 24 of the cited Law and Voto No. 4205-96 issued by the Sala Constitucional at 2:33 p.m. on August 20, 1996, in which it was ordered, in what is of exclusive interest, that upon declaring the text of article 115 of Ley 7015 unconstitutional, which was the Law Modifying the Ordinary Budget for the Republic (Fiscal Period 1985); thereby leaving in force the text issued by Ley No. 5900, of April 19, 1976, which provides: "The Institute shall issue the development regulations relating to the matters referred to in article 21 of this Law (Planificación Urbana)." Thus, the Territorial Administrations may well authorize land-use changes (cambios de uso de suelo) in residential developments (urbanizaciones), when the proposed activity is, among other requirements, compatible with the predominant residential use (article IV.6.4.4 Gaceta No. 96 of May 20, 1993). Likewise, that regulatory body in its article IV.6.4.6, exhaustively establishes the permitted uses. The rule indicates: "In a residential development facing a street with a right-of-way greater than ten meters, the following uses are permitted for: I and II Cycle Education, CEN-CINAI, Homes for the Elderly and Disabled, Care Centers for children and adolescents, Daycare ... and family craft activities (actividades artesanales familiares) provided that the activity is carried out by a maximum of 5 people and its schedule is daytime and there is no direct sale of the product on the site. In case of non-compliance, the Municipality must rescind the business license after requesting a technical report from the Ministry of Health. ...". For its part, we have that article 81 of the Código Municipal establishes that the municipal license can only be denied when the activity is contrary to the law, morality, or good customs, when the establishment has not met the legal and regulatory requirements, or when the activity, by reason of its physical location, is not permitted by the laws or, failing that, by the current municipal regulations. Finally, we have that articles 133.1.2 and 136.1.2. of Chapter Three, Of the elements and validity, of Title Six, Of Administrative Acts, of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, applicable to the Municipalities, provide: "Article 133.1. The motive shall be legitimate and exist as it has been taken into account to issue the act. 2. When not regulated, it shall be proportionate to the content, and when regulated imprecisely, it shall be reasonably in accordance with the indeterminate concepts employed by the legal system." "Article 136.-1. The following shall be motivated with mention, succinct at least, of their foundations: a) Acts that deny subjective rights; b) Those that resolve appeals; c), d), e), f) Those that must be so by virtue of law. 2. The motivation may consist of explicit or unequivocal reference to the motives of the petitioner's request, or to prior proposals, opinions, or resolutions that have actually determined the adoption of the act, provided that a copy is attached." VII.- In view of the foregoing, this collegiate body considers that, although the motives - supposed facts and Law - for issuing the act were: that the making of homemade bread and pastry is an industry and that it is located in a residential area such as the Urbanización Jardines de Tibás and that as such it would use gas cylinders that are dangerous for the community, since the walls of the properties are not suitable for that type of business, the truth is that: FIRST: according to the merit of the case file, it is not an "industry" in the manufacturing sense, as the Municipality seems to have classified it, but rather a labor reasonably in accordance with the concept of "family craft activity." Since, it is a labor activity - making homemade bread and pastry -, family or domestic - typical independent work -, carried out personally and exclusively by the appellant – helped by her husband –, and consequently with her personal touch, during daytime hours and that excludes the dispatch or direct sale to consumers on the site. As such, in accordance with the cited regulation. Which is confirmed by the terms of the application, the exemption from the risk policy of the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, the original sanitary operating permit, the lease contract, and the Official Dictionary of the Language itself, which in this regard says: Elaborate. ... Crafts. 2. Art or work of artisans. Artisan. ... Person who exercises a merely mechanical art or trade. Modernly, this name is used to distinguish the person who makes household objects on their own account, imprinting them with a personal touch, unlike the factory worker. Factory. ... Establishment equipped with the machinery, tools, and installations necessary for the manufacture of certain objects, obtaining of certain products, or industrial transformation of an energy source. Manufacture. ... Produce objects in series, generally by mechanical means. Industry. ... Skill and dexterity or artifice to do something. 2. Set of material operations executed for the obtaining, transformation, or transportation of one or several natural products. 3. Sum and set of the industries of the same or several products. ... Furthermore, the motive is non-existent since it is recorded in the file that both the property - certainly located in a residential area -, and the activity – "pastry making" – analogous in nature to "making of homemade bread and pastry" – had already been studied and had authorization from the Department of Cadastre, for being compatible with the predominant residential use. Thus evidenced by the documents "Formula Para la Aprobación de Trámite de Patente" and "Formulario para la Aprobación de Trámite de Patente", both from the Department of Cadastre and addressed to the Department of Business Licenses and which refer to study # 341 carried out by that municipal office, on the occasion of a request for land-use change, which are clear in indicating the verification of compliance with the provisions of La Gaceta # 96 of May 20, 1993, as well as the corresponding requirements – Article 4.6.4 of the cited Reglamento de Construcciones – such as facing a national or main road of the residential development, not being located on a tree-lined avenue (Alameda) or street less than 10 meters, front of the lot equal to the predominant one in the residential development, activity compatible with residential use, commercial area of the residential development completely utilized, and written consent of the neighbors. Documents whose referral in consultation to the INVU, unlike the opinion of the municipal legal advisory, is optional. The fact that the application was submitted by the owner-landlord and not by her tenant, the appellant here, is also not an obstacle since, by its condition, the change-of-use permit is not granted intuito personae but in re. That is, regarding the premises and not in relation to the person of the applicant. All of which was, for unknown reasons, simply ignored by the Municipality but which this Tribunal cannot overlook. SECOND: On the other hand, it is not recorded in the file, strangely - neither in the administrative file nor in the principal one -, a certified copy of the integral text or the relevant part of Municipal Act # 89, in which the business license was considered, deliberated, and decided to be rejected, but only official notification letters of the relevant part of the agreement, in order to determine - without a doubt - that on the date of the Session of October 26, 1999, what was subsequently notified existed or at least had been really considered as a motive for the rejection. Namely, the insecurity for the community regarding the gas cylinders in relation to the unsuitability of the walls. And, even if it had been so, it is not recorded that said conclusion derived, at that time, from any technical study in this regard - of which no kind is recorded in the file -, since in principle said energy is not prohibited as long as it is arranged and used correctly. Which logically leads one to think that no expert opinion was involved but that said reasoning was just that. Which is confirmed in the circumstances that, on the contrary, since September 16, 1999, an inspection had been carried out by the Engineering Department which, among other things, ruled that the physical condition of the premises, of approximately 24 square meters, was good; an inspection that concluded without any special additional observation, and that; on September 21, 1999, after proceeding to verify the requirements for a new business license, it was concluded that it met them. In any case, said motive became non-existent since at the time the Council heard the revocation - brief challenging its Agreement IV, Session No. 127, of July 18, 2000, of August 8, 2000 - which, as stated, is an integral part of Agreement III of the Act of Session # 89, of October 26, 1999, the Municipality already had official communication Ts-036-2000 RQJ dated March 30, 2000, from the Ministry of Health, which clearly indicates that regarding the elimination of the oven using LPG gas, it had already been replaced by an electric one. Which was also not considered by the Municipal Council. After all of which, this collegiate body considers, without a doubt, that by reason of the non-existence of motive, the agreement denying the business license results in an administrative act vitiated by absolute nullity and therefore illegal. (articles 133.1.2, 136.1.2, 214.1.2, 216.1 and 221 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública) [...].

IX.- It is expressly recorded, however, that in cases like the present one, in accordance with articles IV.6.4.1 and IV.6.4.7 of the cited Reglamento de Construcciones, the business license for the described activity is given as a conditional use, on the understanding that all nuisances must be confined within the property; that for its renewal, the establishment's history is taken into account as well as the indicated confinement, whose control must be carried out by the Municipality, preserving the conditions established by other laws and regulations; and that according to article 81 bis of the Código Municipal, the license may be suspended, apart from for non-payment of two or more quarters, also for non-compliance with the requirements ordered in the laws for the development of the activity.

X.- As a corollary of all the foregoing, it is necessary to uphold the appeal filed, annul as illegal the agreements of the Municipal Council of Tibás taken in Ordinary Session No. 127, held on July 18, 2000, Agreement No. IV and in Ordinary Session No. 89, held on October 26, 1999, Agreement No. III, which deny the business license, so that in its place the Municipality proceeds to grant it, if another cause unrelated to the one examined here does not prevent it, and to consider the administrative channel exhausted, by reason of there being no further appeal. (article 6 of Ley No. 7274 of December 10, 1991)."

"V.- Sobre el fondo: Estima esta Sección del Tribunal, que la apelación se interpuso correctamente. El acuerdo No. IV de la Sesión Ordinaria No. 127, celebrada por el Concejo Municipal el día 18 de julio del 2000, conteniendo los motivos del rechazo de la patente dispuesta por acuerdo No. III de ese mismo órgano municipal en la Sesión Ordinaria No. 89, celebrada el día 26 de octubre de 1999, no constituye acto de mero trámite, como lo entiende la Municipalidad, como tampoco ejecución o ratificación de otro anterior, ni es independiente de éste último, sino que ambos constituyen texto íntegro de un solo acto administrativo. Razón por la cual se rechaza el alegato municipal al respecto en virtud de que el recurso contra el primero inherentemente implica impugnación válida y admisible contra el segundo. ( artículos 133, 136, 140, 141, directamente aplicables y 240.1, 245, 247. 1 y 348, supletoriamente aplicables, todos de la Ley General de la Administración Pública). VI.-Estima este órgano colegiado, por lo demás, que la denegatoria de la patente dispuesta por el gobierno local de ese Cantón, por las razones que de seguido se dirán, es un acto que no se encuentra conforme a derecho y a las disposiciones que al efecto regulan la materia. El artículo 17 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana establece los requisitos previos e indispensables para la correcta implementación de un Plan Regulador Urbano, lo cual en el caso bajo examen, quedó demostrado que no se ha verificado. Y es que en la especie resulta de aplicación el denominado Reglamento de Construcciones del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, publicado en La Gaceta No. 56 Alcance No. 17 de 22 de marzo de 1983, y sus reformas, especialmente la modificación en su artículo IV. 6 publicada en La Gaceta No. 96 de 20 de mayo de 1993, el cual resulta de aplicación supletoria, a falta de Plan Regulador Urbano del Municipio de Tibás, según así lo informan los artículos 21, 24 de la citada Ley y el voto No. 4205-96 dictado por la Sala Constitucional a las 14:33 horas del 20 de agosto de 1996, en el cual se dispuso en lo de exclusivo interés, que al declararse inconstitucional el texto del artículo 115 de la Ley 7015, que era Ley de Modificación del Presupuesto Ordinario para la República (Período Fiscal 1985); quedando en virtud de ello vigente el texto dictado por Ley No. 5900, de 19 de abril de 1976, y que dispone: “El Instituto dictará las normas de desarrollo relativas a las materias a que se refiere el artículo 21 de esta Ley (Planificación Urbana)”. Así las cosas, las Administraciones Territoriales bien pueden autorizar cambios de uso de suelo en urbanizaciones, cuando la actividad propuesta sea, entre otros requisitos, compatible con el uso residencial predominante (artículo IV.6.4.4 Gaceta No. 96 de 20 de mayo de 1993). Igualmente, ese cuerpo normativo en su artículo IV.6.4.6, establece de manera taxativa los usos permitidos. Indica la norma: “En una urbanización frente a calle mayor de diez metros de derecho de vía, se permiten los siguientes usos para: Educación de I y II Ciclo, CEN-CINAI, Hogar de Ancianos y Minusválidos, Centro de Atención para niños y adolescentes, Guardería … y actividades artesanales familiares siempre y cuando la actividad sea realizada por un máximo de 5 personas y su horario sea diurno y no exista venta directa del producto en el sitio. En caso de incumplimiento, la Municipalidad deberá rescindir la patente solicitando de previo un informe técnico al Ministerio de Salud. …”. Por su parte, tenemos que el artículo 81 del Código Municipal establece que la licencia municipal sólo puede ser denegada cuando la actividad sea contraria a la ley, la moral o las buenas costumbres, cuando el establecimiento no haya llenado los requisitos legales y reglamentarios o cuando la actividad, en razón de su ubicación física, no esté permitida por las leyes o, en su defecto, por los reglamentos municipales vigentes. Finalmente, tenemos que los artículos 133.1.2 y 136.1.2. del Capítulo Tercero De los elementos y de la validez, del Título Sexto De Los Actos Administrativos, de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, aplicables a las Municipalidades, disponen: “Artículo 133.1. El motivo deberá ser legítimo y existir tal y como ha sido tomando en cuenta para dictar el acto. 2. Cuando no esté regulado deberá ser proporcionado al contenido y cuando esté regulado de forma imprecisa deberá ser razonablemente conforme con los conceptos indeterminados empleados por el ordenamiento.”. “Artículo 136.-1. Serán motivados con mención, suscinta al menos, de sus fundamentos: a) Los actos que (sic) denieguen derechos subjetivos; b) Los que resuelvan recursos; c), d), e), f) Los que deban serlo en virtud de ley” 2. La motivación podrá consistir en la referencia propuestas, dictámenes o resoluciones previas que hayan determinado realmente la adopción del acto, a condición de que se acompañe copia.”. VII.- Atendido lo anterior, estima este órgano colegiado que, si bien los motivos - supuestos de hecho y de Derecho -, para dictar el acto fueron: que la elaboración de pan casero y repostería es una industria y que está ubicada en una zona residencial como lo es la Urbanización Jardines de Tibás y que como tal utilizaría cilindros de gas que resultan peligrosos para la comunidad, ya que las paredes de los inmuebles no son aptas para ese tipo de negocios, es lo cierto que: PRIMERO: de acuerdo al mérito de los autos, no se trata de una “industria” en el sentido fabril, como parece haberla encasillado la Municipalidad, sino de una labor razonablemente conforme con el concepto de “actividad artesanal familiar”. Ya que, se trata de una actividad laboral - elaboración de pan casero y repostería -, familiar o doméstica - típico trabajo independiente -, realizada personal y exclusivamente por la apelante –ayudada por su esposo -, y por consecuencia con su sello personal, en horario diurno y que excluye el despacho o venta directa a los consumidores en el sitio. Como tal, conforme con el reglamento citado. Lo cual es confirmado por los términos de la solicitud, la exoneración de póliza de riesgos del Instituto Nacional de Seguros, el permiso sanitario de funcionamiento original, el contrato de arrendamiento y el propio Diccionario Oficial de la Lengua que al respecto dice: Elaborar. (Del lat. Elaborare.) tr. Preparar un producto por medio de un trabajo adecuado. Artesanía. 2. Arte u obra de los artesanos. Artesano, na. Del b. Lat. Artesanus, y este del lat. Ars, rtis, arte.) m. Y f. Persona que ejercita un arte u oficio meramente mecánico. Modernamente se distingue con este nombre al que hace por su cuenta objetos de uso doméstico, imprimiéndoles un sello personal, a diferencia del obrero fabril. Fábrica. (Del lat. Fabrica.) f. Acción y efecto de fabricar. 2. Establecimiento dotado de la maquinaria, herramienta e instalaciones necesarias para la fabricación de ciertos objetos, obtención de determinados productos o transformación industrial de una fuente de energía. Fabricar. (Del lat. Fabricare.) tr. Producir objetos en serie, generalmente por medios mecánicos. Industria. (Del lat. Industria.) Maña y destreza o artificio para hacer una cosa. 2. Conjunto de operaciones materiales ejecutadas para la obtención, transformación o transporte de uno o varios productos naturales. 3. Suma y conjunto de las industrias de uno mismo o de varios productos naturales. 3. Suma y conjunto de las industrias de uno mismo o de varios géneros, de todo un país o parte de él. Además, el motivo resulta inexistente ya que en autos consta que tanto el inmueble - ciertamente ubicado en zona residencial -, como la actividad – “elaboración de pastelería” – análoga por su índole a “elaboración de pan casero y repostería – ya habían sido estudiados y contaban con autorización del Departamento de Catastro, por resultar compatible con el uso residencial predominante. Así evidenciado por los documentos “Formula Para la Aprobación de Trámite de Patente” y “Formulario para la Aprobación de Tramite de Patente”, ambos del Departamento de Catastro y dirigidos al de Patentes y que refieren estudio # 341 realizado por aquélla oficina municipal, con motivo de solicitud de cambio de uso, los cuales son claros en indicar la verificación del cumplimiento de lo establecido en La Gaceta # 96 del 20 de mayo de 1993, así como los requisitos correspondientes – Artículo 4.6.4 del Reglamento de Construcciones citado – tales como enfrentar vía nacional o principal de la urbanización, no estar ubicado en Alameda o calle con menos de 10 metros, frente del lote igual al predominante en urbanización, actividad compatible con el uso residencial, área comercial de la urbanización totalmente utilizada y escrito de consentimiento de los colindantes. Documentos cuya remisión en consulta al Instituto Nacional de Urbanismo, a diferencia de la opinión de la asesoría legal municipal, resulta potestativa. El hecho de que la solicitud hubiese sido presentada por la propietaria arrendante y no por su inquilina, la aquí apelante, tampoco es óbice ya que por su condición, el permiso de cambio de uso no se otorga intuito personae sino in re. Es decir respecto el local y no con relación a la persona del solicitante. Todo lo cual fue, por razones que se desconocen, sencillamente ignorado por la Municipalidad pero que este Tribunal no puede soslayar. SEGUNDO: Por otra parte, no consta en autos, extrañamente - ni en el administrativo ni en el principal -, copia certificada del texto integral o en lo conducente del Acta Municipal # 89, en que se conoció, deliberó y resolvió rechazar la patente, sino sólo oficios de notificación en lo conducente del acuerdo, como para determinar - sin lugar a dudas -, que a la fecha de la Sesión del 26 de octubre de 1999 existiera o al menos se hubiese considerado realmente como motivo para el rechazo, el que posteriormente se notificó. A saber, la inseguridad para la comunidad a propósito de los cilindros de gas con relación a la ineptitud de las paredes. Y, aún cuando así hubiere sido, no consta que dicha conclusión derivara, en ese momento, de algún estudio técnico al respecto – que de ninguna clase consta en autos -, ya que en principio dicha energía no es prohibida en tanto se disponga y use correctamente. Lo que induce a pensar, lógicamente, que no medió la opinión experta sino que dicho razonamiento fue solo eso. Lo cual se confirma en las circunstancias de que, por el contrario, desde el 16 de setiembre de 1999 se había realizado inspección por parte del Departamento de Ingeniería que entre otras cosas dictaminó que el estado físico del local, de aproximadamente 24 metros, era bueno; inspección que concluyó sin observación adicional especial ninguna, y que; el 21 de setiembre de 1999, luego de procederse a la comprobación de requisitos para patente nueva se concluyera que la misma reunía los mismos. En cualquier caso, dicho motivo devino inexistente ya que al momento de conocer el Concejo de la revocatoria - escrito de impugnación de 8 de agosto del 2000 -, contra su Acuerdo IV, Sesión No. 127, del 18 de julio del 2000, que como se dijo es parte integrante del Acuerdo III del Acta de la Sesión # 89, del 26 de octubre de 1999, ya la Municipalidad contaba con oficio Ts- 036-2000 RQJ de fecha 30 de marzo del 2000 del Ministerio de Salud, el cual indica claramente que en cuanto a la eliminación del horno que usa gas LGP, este ya había sido sustituido por uno eléctrico. Lo que tampoco fue considerado por el Concejo Municipal. Tras todo lo cual, este órgano colegiado estima, sin lugar a dudas, que por razón de la inexistencia de motivo, el acuerdo de denegatoria de la patente resulta ser un acto administrativo viciado de nulidad absoluta y por ende ilegal. ( artículos 133.1.2, 136.1.2, 214.1.2, 216.1 y 221 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública) [...]. IX.- Se deja constancia expresa, eso sí, que en casos como el presente, de conformidad con los artículos IV.6. 4.1 y IV.6.4.7 del Reglamento de Construcciones citado, la patente para la actividad reseñada se da como uso condicional, en el entendido de que todas las molestias deben confinarse dentro de la propiedad; que para su renovación se toma en cuenta el historial del establecimiento así como el confinamiento indicado, cuyo control ha de ser llevado por la Municipalidad, preservándose las condiciones que establezcan otras leyes y reglamentos; y que conforme al artículo 81 bis del Código Municipal, la licencia puede ser suspendida, aparte de por falta de pago de dos o más trimestres, también por incumplimiento de los requisitos ordenados en las leyes para el desarrollo de la actividad. X.- Como corolario de todo lo expuesto, se impone acoger la apelación interpuesta, anular por ilegales los acuerdos del Concejo Municipal de Tibás tomados en la Sesión Ordinaria No. 127, celebrada el día 18 de julio del 2000, Acuerdo No. IV y en la Sesión Ordinaria No. 89, celebrada el día 26 de octubre de 1999, Acuerdo No. III, que deniegan la patente, para que en su lugar proceda la Municipalidad a otorgarla, si otra causa ajena a la aquí examinada no lo impide y dar por agotada la vía administrativa, en razón de no existir ulterior recurso. (artículo 6 de la Ley No. 7274 del 10 de diciembre de 1991)."