Annulment of construction permits in Takiscú project for violating Oreamuno Zoning PlanNulidad de visados y permisos de construcción en proyecto Takiscú por infracción al Plan Regulador de Oreamuno

No. 3818-10 CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL. THIRD SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. ANEXO A. Goicoechea, at eleven hours fifty minutes on the eighth of October of two thousand ten.- Veto filed by Nombre40649, Nombre20665 of the Municipality of Oreamuno, against the agreement of the Municipal Council of that Canton, article 15, No. 3077-2010, adopted in session number 302-2010, held on February 23, 2010, which decided to accept the recommendation of the Legal Affairs Committee, to reject the Mayor's Office's request to declare the act of plan approval (visado de planos) of the Takiscú project null and void and to order the initiation of a lesividad process, and instead to order the granting of construction permits and other related accreditations as soon as possible. The interested parties are the companies Taquiscú Sociedad Anónima, represented by Adolfo Guardia Esquivel, ID number CED77674 and Franco Fernández Esquivel, ID number CED47517, in their capacity as generalísimos attorneys-in-fact without limit of sum (folio 1414), and Finca Upsilón S.A., legal ID number CED77675, represented by its generalísimo attorney-in-fact without limit of sum, also Mr. Franco Fernández Esquivel (folios 1339 and 1459).

CONSIDERING

I.Proven facts. The following are taken as proven facts: 1) In Municipal Council of Oreamuno agreement No. 333-2006, article 17, minute No. 029-2006, taken in the session held by the Municipal Council on September 12, 2006, it was decided to reject official communication DI-URBA-18-06 of June 19, 2006, from the Engineering Department, in which the Municipal Engineer recommended that the Council approve the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of twenty lots located facing public streets and the construction permit in the Takiscú project, located at Dirección11402, in a special protection zone. It also agreed to establish disciplinary measures against the officials of Municipal Engineering; denying the permits requested by the company and ordered the closure and stoppage of works of the cited subdivision (fraccionamiento) (folios 156 to 161); 2) In the agreement taken by the Municipal Council, article 37, No. 1578-2008 of session 147-2008 of March 11, 2008, the council body issued directives to the Municipal Engineer to grant the respective construction permits to the company Upsilón S.A., which already had the respective approval (visado) of its plans (folios 668 to 671); 3) Against the previous agreement, the Nombre20665 filed a formal veto on March 27, 2008, which was rejected by the Municipal Council and by this same Section, in resolution No. 177-2009 of fifteen hours fifty-five minutes of January 30, 2009 (veto at folios 740 to 749, resolution at folios 1393 to 1413); 4) On April 8, 2008, the company Soluciones Económicas S.A. filed an extraordinary appeal for review against agreement No. 333-2006, article 17, minute No. 029-2006, taken in the session held by the Municipal Council on September 12, 2006 (folios 802 to 815); 5) The Municipal Council of Oreamuno, in agreement No. 1652-2008, adopted in session No. 156-2008 held on April 24, 2008, accepted in all its terms the extraordinary appeal for review, filed against the previous agreement (folios 879 to 893); 6) Disagreeing with the resolution, the Municipal Nombre20665 of Oreamuno filed a veto against what was agreed by the Municipal Council, which was rejected by the Municipal Council in agreement No. 1704-2008, taken in session number 162-2008 of May 20, 2008, and ordered the referral of the case file to this Tribunal (folios 911 to 920); 7) In Resolution 176-2009, of 15:50 hours on January 30, 2009, this same Section rejected the veto filed and ordered in Considering VIII), the following:

"CONCLUSION: the Taquiscú S.A. project lacks the corresponding permits and, the situation of the municipal approvals (visados municipales) -which must be reviewed in light of what is indicated in the transcribed text- must be addressed by the Municipal Council as soon as possible insofar as, in accordance with the provisions of article 174 of the General Law of Public Administration:

" 1. The Administration shall be obliged to annul ex officio the absolutely null act, within the limitations of this law ".

By reason of the above, the Municipal Council, as supreme head of the local government, and the municipal Nombre20665 as executor of its agreements, must proceed immediately to determine if, in accordance with the current urban development regulations, it must proceed to the elimination of the approvals (visados) of the project that face this block of legality. Regarding the requests of individuals related to the construction permits of the cited project, which lacks, as indicated, the corresponding permits issued by the competent body, it must be indicated that, by provision of numeral 146.3 of the General Law of Public Administration:

"3.- Administrative execution of ineffective or absolutely null acts shall not proceed, and the same, if it occurs, shall produce criminal liability of the public servant who ordered it, without prejudice to other resulting liabilities." " 4.- Execution in these circumstances shall be considered an abuse of power." (folio 1373 to 1392) 8) By reason of the previous resolution, the Nombre20665 presented on February 24, 2010, a formal "Request for Declaration of Lesividad and administrative procedure", through official communication AM-0412-2009-mvrq dated February 24, 2010, with the purpose of annulling the approvals (visados) of plans. In said document, he considered that the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of Takiscú, being located in a special protection zone, had violated the provisions contained in article 17 of the Zoning Regulation of the Regulatory Plan of San Rafael de Oreamuno, which establish that in such places the permitted residential uses are limited to single-family dwellings of suburban or agricultural characteristics, excluding residential complexes and developments, with minimum lot sizes of one hectare and a minimum frontage of forty meters, resulting that during the years 2006 and 2007 the Municipal Engineer approved (visó) thirty-one lot segregations ranging between 900 m2 and 2000 m2, and a construction license was granted for an internal agricultural easement (servidumbre agrícola) of cobblestone, which provided access to several lots. Furthermore, he considered as another defect of illegality the fact that the plans were not approved (visados) by the Municipal Council. Based on this, he requested that lesividad, absolute nullity, evident and manifest, proceedings be initiated for the thirty-one plans that are approved (visados), the opening of the administrative procedure be carried out, and the construction permit for the mentioned easement (servidumbre) be declared null (see registry reports 1086 to 1124, official communication at folios 11127 to 1152); 9) The Legal Affairs Committee issued a negative opinion on the Mayor's request, considering that the project had complied with the requirements for obtaining permission for lot subdivision (lotificación) facing a national highway and a public street, with agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas) of 14 meters, resulting that currently all plans are correctly approved (visados) by the Engineering Department. It added that due to the nature of the project, "Lot subdivision (Lotificación) facing two existing public streets, the national highway and Dirección11403", it conforms to the provisions of the Cadastre Law and the Executive Decrees of INVU, which it considers are above the Regulatory Plan and the Zoning Regulation. It recommended assessing the harm to third parties acting in good faith and the budgetary limitations for making indemnity payments and the expenses this may generate for the Municipal Treasury. It was additionally based on the fact that INVU had communicated in official communications AM-0311-2007 of March 9, 2007, AM-1931-2007 of April 17, 2007, that what was proposed was not a residential development but a lot subdivision (lotificación) (folios 1177 to 1181); 10) The Municipal Council, in article 15, agreement 3077-2010, adopted in session number 302-2010, held on February 23, 2010, decided to accept the recommendation of the Legal Affairs Committee, to reject the Mayor's Office's request to declare that the act of plan approval (visado de planos) of the Takiscú project is null, denying the initiation of a lesividad process and ordered the granting of construction permits and other related accreditations as soon as possible (folios 1279 to 1286); 11) On March 1, 2010, the Nombre20665 filed a formal veto against the previous agreement (folios 1289 to 1321); 12) The Municipal Council rejected the veto and referred the matter to this Tribunal, through agreement No. 3134-2010 known in Session No. 308-2010 held on March 23, 2010 (folios 1325 to 1334).

II.Grounds for the Veto: The allegations of the veto filed are aimed at accepting the request made by the Mayor, to declare the lesividad or absolute, evident, and manifest nullity of the approval (visado) of thirty-one plans of lots located in the Takiscú project, together with the nullity of the agricultural easement (servidumbre agrícola) that provides access to several of those lots. The arguments of the veto can be summarized as grounds of legality, taking up the same legal foundations of the initial request presented before the Municipal Council, which were indicated in the sixth proven fact of this resolution.

III.- Regarding the regulations applicable to this project. One of the main reasons for rejecting the nullity action is that the council members consider the applicable regulations are found in the Cadastre Law and Executive Decrees of INVU, regulations they consider hierarchically superior to the Regulatory Plan of Oreamuno. On this point, the competence of municipalities regarding urban planning must be clarified, regarding which this Tribunal has stated the following:

IV.- OF THE MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN WHAT PERTAINS TO THE URBAN PLANNING OF THE CANTON. NORMATIVE REGULATION FROM WHICH IT EMANATES.- In view of the claim dealing with the issuance of a certificate of non-conforming land use (uso de suelo como no conforme), this Tribunal deems it appropriate to make some brief reflections on the competence of local governments in urban matters. It is clarified that said power has a double aspect, thus, firstly, concerning the definition of normative regulations -promulgation of the respective regulations -regulatory plans and related regulations- and secondly, that concerning control -exercise of police power- in the territorial circumscription. Indeed, it must be remembered that urban regulation has traditionally been entrusted, without any discussion, to municipalities, as it has been considered that

"(...) urban planning competence has been a genuine municipal competence, perhaps the first among all" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Nombre7411 and PAREJO ALFONSO, Nombre45684, Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, Spain, S.N.E., 1981. p. 116.);

in such a way that it has been configured as a tradition of Urban Development Law, especially in those moments when its content has been expressed through "construction and urban police ordinances", under the competence of local governments, under the understanding that public urban planning competence is proper to the city, and consequently, to the municipalities. Thus, urban planning begins as an exclusively municipal competence. Subsequently, as it ceases to be a function specific to the urban sphere and seeks to cover the planning of the entire territory, other higher Administrations assume responsibility for it, thereby modifying the competence level of urban matters, by including other instances, in our context, such as the National Institute of Housing and Urban Development (INVU) -a decentralized entity-, and the Ministries of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications, with the Technical Environmental Secretariat (SETENA) (a deconcentrated body) and the Ministry of National Planning. But with respect to local urban planning itself, it is worth remembering that it is in the Construction Law, approved by Decree-Law number 833, of November fourth, nineteen hundred forty-nine -a pre-constitutional norm, having been promulgated by the de facto Government of the Founding Junta of the Second Republic, led by José Figueres Ferrer-, where it is established that the Municipalities are responsible for ensuring that cities and other towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, 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 (article 1), as well as that no building may be made in the country that contravenes its provisions (article 74). And notwithstanding that our current Political Constitution –of November seventh, 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, the primary ownership in matters of local urban planning corresponds to the municipalities, to the exclusion of any other public entity. In this sense, in the Municipal Code, number 4574, of May fourth, nineteen hundred seventy, -in force until nineteen hundred ninety-eight-, urban matters were expressly recognized as a municipal competence, in its article 4. In accordance with the previous provision, and as a derivative of constitutional norms, articles 15 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law, number 4240, of November fifteenth, nineteen hundred sixty-eight, are concordant, as they literally provide:

"Article 15.- In accordance with the precept of article 169 of the Political Constitution, the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their jurisdictional territory, is recognized. Consequently, each 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 prevail for establishing a specific control regime." (Emphasis is not from 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." (Emphasis is not from the original.)

V.- OF THE MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN PLANNING NORMS.- Regarding the second area stated, it concerns the control exercised by the Municipal Authorities respecting compliance with local urban planning regulations. In this sense, as this Tribunal has pointed out in various pronouncements (among them, numbers 175-2009, of fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, of fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of January thirty, 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 purposes" (underlining is not from the original); which, in the matter of urban planning, is concretized in the control of urbanization and subdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is concretized in an exhaustive manner 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, "police power" is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a law, it can regulate and rule an activity, in order to ensure public order, health, 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, 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. Whereby, the measures that the State adopts for the purpose of protecting safety, health, and tranquility, are of public social interest, which are manifested through 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, of fourteen hours on February twentieth and 619-91, of fourteen hours forty-five minutes on March twenty-second, both resolutions of nineteen ninety-one, and 2003-2864, of fifteen hours twenty minutes on April ninth of two thousand three, of the Constitutional Chamber.)

VI.- OF URBAN PLANNING REGULATIONS IN GENERAL AND MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS.- The content of urban planning regulations in our (Costa Rican) legal system must then be clarified. First of all, it is noted that the term "urban planning regulations" must be understood in a broad sense and not restricted to the regulations in this matter that emanate from a municipal agreement; as it refers to the generality of urban planning instruments, which derive from various administrative instances, and which in doctrine has been conceptualized as "[...] an instrument, approved by an act of Public Power, that orders the territory, establishing provisions on the location of production and residence centers in a way convenient for the best distribution of the population; regulates the use of land for its public and private purpose and, especially, its urbanization and building, and, in doing so, defines the content of property rights and programs the development of urban management." (CARCELER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico. Second Edition. Editorial Tecnos, S.A. Barcelona. Spain. 1992. p. 34.)

Thus, in the national sphere, there are various urban planning regulations, in view of the body responsible for its adoption and, consequently, the scope of coverage of the national territory over which it exercises its application: that is, those of national and regional order, whose approval is the responsibility of the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy and the National Institute of Housing and Urban Development (INVU), which contain the general guidelines for planning in this matter, and finally, the local, cantonal, or municipal ones, which are those that the municipalities elaborate, process, approve, and execute. When the term "regulatory plan" is used, a meaning that is adopted by our national legislation in article 1 of the Urban Planning Law, which defines it as:

"the local planning instrument that defines in a set of plans, maps, regulations, and any other document, graphic or supplement, the development policy and plans for the distribution of the population, land uses, circulation routes, public services, community facilities, and construction, conservation, and rehabilitation of urban areas"; popularly, reference is made to urban planning regulations issued by local governments; however, we must understand that the regulations of the first two orders are also included, that is, the national and regional ones, as they have the same content and fulfill the same planning function for the territory, at the urban level and in determining the possible uses of land. These normative bodies have a specific content, that is, the planning and ordering of land use, for the creation of urban centers –cities, developments, industrial projects or parks, parks, public roads, public services, etc.- within the scope of a territorial circumscription, be it the canton or part of it; or also at the regional level, in the case of the Regional Urban Development Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Area, approved by Decree number 3332, of April twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred eighty-two, and its amendments; which at the moment is the only urban planning regulation in our country issued at a regional level; and without at this moment, a regulation of this nature having been adopted at a national level. Consequently, this implies the location, regarding public buildings, and zoning, regarding private building. Thus, it not only determines the use or purpose of the lots, but also their configuration and extension; population density, percentage of land that may be used, the number of floors, type, and purpose of the buildings; all the above, subject to general uniform norms for each kind of them throughout the entire zone. Likewise, it guides the architectural composition of buildings, and regulates, if necessary, their aesthetic characteristics; a competence it is not superfluous to point out, has not been exercised for the moment in our country (except, perhaps, in very sporadic cases). They are made up of both written norms and graphics, plans, and attached documents that help determine their content, which is of an absolutely normative nature, which has the following effects: a) they regulate the powers of exercising property rights, according to the classification and qualification of the lands contained therein; b) they have indefinite validity but are susceptible to modification by subsequent revisions; c) their effectiveness is "erga omnes", although reduced to a specific territory or territorial circumscription, according to its degree (national, regional, or local), as it binds both the Administration in general and individuals; and d) it cannot contain reserves of dispensation.

VII.- OF THE CONTENT OF REGULATORY PLANS.- By reason of its broad content, the Urban Planning Law establishes in its article 21 which are the main regulations that are complementary normative instruments of all urban planning regulation, known as a "Plan", whether national, regional, or local, namely:

a.- ZONING: through which norms for the use of territory are established, it being necessary to remember that this is a basic concept of urban planning, consisting of reserving determined zones of a territory for concrete needs or functions; and it ranges from the creation of industrial zones to the establishment of residential, political-administrative zones, sports zones, green zones, of special environmental protection, and others (CALVO MURILLO, Virgilio, "Derecho Urbanístico: Fundamentos e Instituciones", Revista Judicial, Year II, No. 5, Poder Judicial de Costa Rica, September 1977, p. 92.) It is the first, and perhaps most important regulation that must accompany every urban plan, in accordance with article 21, subsection 1) of the Urban Planning Law, since, as its name indicates, it is responsible for the planning and determination of land use, with a view to rational land use and to ensure satisfactory environmental living conditions and qualities, thereby conditioning the use of real estate property through the delimitation of areas, according to the categorization adopted. (BANDEIRA DE MELLO, Celso Antonio. Figuras jurídicas del planeamiento urbano en el Brasil. In: Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano. Editorial Universidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. pp. 388 and 389.) In this way, the urban development regime of property rights is not uniform by the mere fact that the land is subject to planning, but differs according to the type of land in which the property in question is classified; which demonstrates the importance of zoning. (CARCELLER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. Instituciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Fifth edition. Editorial Montecorvo, S.A. Madrid, Spain. 1992. p. 333.) Thus, based on this regulation, the exact definition of the possible (permitted) uses in each zone is established, with the consequent impact on property rights; by conditioning where one can and must reside, where one can engage in commerce, where services must be provided, where industry must be allowed, and where one can recreate and entertain; which leads us to consider the seriousness with which it must be formulated, which requires not only criteria of opportunity and convenience, but above all, technical and objective ones. It is clear that the content of the land statute determines the scope of ownership and conditions its exercise, diversifying into situations favoring private initiative, and likewise, establishing linkages that restrict its exercise. The function of classifying land for the establishment of the corresponding legal regime falls to the General Plan, of which the zoning regulation forms a part; which must contain the urban planning classification and qualification of the land. By classification, one must understand the category or type of land (urban, developable, programmed or non-programmed, and non-developable, industrial, reserve or for environmental protection, residential, institutional, etc.) according to its basic urban planning purpose; qualification applies to designate the subdivision of those land types into zones characterized by specific urban planning contents or uses; and in this sense, it is linked to the technique of zoning, which is born when there is a tendency to separate buildings destined for residence from industrial installations. It is clear that the regulations contained in the zoning regulation come to assist in delineating the content of property rights, insofar as its content is the result of the constitutional and legal regime of property, as it is not an absolute right, but subject to regulations by virtue of the recognition of the fundamental element of the social function of property, and the contingencies of urban coexistence. The legitimacy of the regulations or limitations contained in zoning norms is conditioned by the following principles: a) only norms of a general nature constitute zoning, that is, those covering a category of goods, also qualified by their spatial location, insofar as such location is not singularizing, and b) zoning regulations cannot be unlimited, as they must preserve the essential core of the property right (of use, enjoyment, pleasure, and disposition, not in an unrestricted sense); otherwise, one would be facing a suppression of the right, that is, an expropriation. Therefore, zoning cannot entail the annulment or paralysis of the manifestations of property rights, which in no way should be confused with the expressions or patrimonial significance of property. There is only an obligation to indemnify for the imposition of these measures when they reach the essential core of this right, defined by constitutional jurisprudence as the possibility of carrying out some type of exploitation on the property, perhaps not the one desired by its owner. Thus, limitations imposed on property that allow the owner the possibility of "normally" exploiting the good will be legitimate, except, of course, for the part or function affected by the limitation imposed by the State, thereby respecting the natural use of the good, by maintaining its value as a means of production or economic value in the market.

(In this regard, see, among others, rulings number 0796-91, at fifteen hours ten minutes on April twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-one; number 5893-95, at nine hours forty-eight minutes on October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five; and number 2345-96, at nine hours twenty-four minutes on May seventeenth, nineteen ninety-six.) The Full Court so indicated in relation to the limitations to be imposed on property when they exceed the indicated threshold, in an extraordinary session on June sixteenth, nineteen eighty-three:

"[...] that is, 'limitations' as Article 45 calls them, but not dispossession of private property nor deprivation of a primary attribute of ownership, because preventing the enjoyment of goods is equivalent, at least in this case, to a form of expropriation without the prior compensation requirement that the Political Charter mandates." The Constitutional Chamber ruled in the same sense in the cited rulings number 5097-93 and 2345-96; under the following considerations:

"IV.) For the Chamber, the reasonable limits that the State can impose on private property, in accordance with its nature, are constitutionally possible as long as they do not empty its content. When this occurs, it ceases to be a reasonable limitation and becomes a deprivation of the right itself" (ruling number 5097-93, cited above); "That is, the attributes of property may be limited, as long as the owner reserves for himself the possibility of normally exploiting the asset, obviously excluding the part or function affected by the limitation imposed by the State. Outside these parameters, if social welfare demands sacrifices from only one or a few, compensation must be paid, as occurs when the sacrifice imposed on the owner is of such an identity that it causes the total loss of the asset. Thus, the limitation on property withstands constitutional analysis when the affectation of the essential attributes of property—those that allow the natural use of the thing within the current socio-economic reality—does not cause the nature of the asset to disappear or make the use of the thing impossible, because the State imposes authorization or approval requirements so complex that they imply, in fact, the impossibility of exploiting the asset" (ruling number 2345-96, cited above).

Thus, Article 24 of the Urban Planning Law determines the content of these regulations in the following manner: a) the determination of land uses; b) matters relating to the location, height, and building area of constructions on the lot; c) the surface area and dimensions of lots, which directly affects the determination of land density; d) the size of setbacks, yards, and other open spaces, and lot coverage by buildings and structures; e) the provision of space for parking, loading, and unloading of vehicles off the streets; f) size, location, and characteristics of signs or advertising advertisements; and g) any other architectural or urban planning detail related to land use, the regulation of which is of interest to the local community. For this reason, it is mandatory to reserve zones that have a special affectation by reason of their use, such as those near airports, those affected by the protection of forest, historical, and architectural patrimony, or the State's natural patrimony, which derive from Articles 50 and 89 of the Political Constitution, as ordered by Article 25 of the Urban Planning Law; b.- the SUBDIVISION (FRACCIONAMIENTO) and URBANIZATION regulation: which, according to Article 32 of the Urban Planning Law, aims to determine under what conditions a municipality must permit or regulate subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization projects in its jurisdiction, for which requirements are established corresponding to access to public roads, transfer of areas for public use, standards for the construction of streets and sidewalks, pavements, pipes, storm and sanitary drainage systems, electrification and public lighting, among others. In this sense, the importance for Urban Planning Law of controlling subdivision (fraccionamiento) actions must be highlighted, which is beyond any doubt. In this regard, the Superior Administrative Litigation Court states:

“IV.- From the foregoing, it must be insisted that the control of urban development as a competence of the municipalities implies both the power to issue regulatory plans, but above all, it implies the competence to “control” the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of land by means of the same regulatory plans and with the granting of the corresponding municipal approval (visado) of the respective plat, as expressed by numeral 33 of the cited Urban Planning Law. In the same order of things, according to Article 10, subsection 2) of the Urban Planning Law, it is the responsibility of the Urban Planning Directorate of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism to approve (visar) the corresponding plans for urbanization or subdivision (fraccionamiento) projects for urbanization purposes prior to municipal approval (Article 33 ibidem). This is a competence that translates into a control function by the Urban Planning Directorate in relation to the planning and urban control of the municipalities (Articles 7, subsection 3) and 9 of the aforementioned law). They become advisors or monitors, able to inform or even denounce to the Municipalities regarding a possible violation of the law or the local regulatory plan, even being able to issue an act suspending a specific work, in which a violation of the law on urban planning matters has been verified. According to Article 36, subsection b) ibidem, municipalities may not grant the respective approvals (visados) of plans for urban projects in areas subject to control when they do not have the required permit (approval [visado] of the Urban Planning Directorate).” (Third Section, Superior Administrative Litigation Court, ruling number 791-2002 at ten hours ten minutes on September twenty-seventh, two thousand two.) (The highlighting is not from the original.)

And indeed, omitting controls (visados) for purposes of subdivision (fraccionamiento) is one of the most common and dangerous ways of circumventing urban standards and thwarting all regulatory instruments in the matter, causing serious consequences. Among these, we can cite the impossibility of planning and providing basic services, the construction of housing complexes in high-risk zones due to natural emergencies, or building in zones that, due to their characteristics, should not be destined for constructions, because they are aquifer recharge areas or have high environmental value; just to cite a few examples; c.- the OFFICIAL MAP: which, according to Article 1 of the Urban Planning Law, "is the plat or set of plats in which the position of the layouts of public roads and areas to be reserved for communal uses and services is precisely indicated"; the content of which is regulated in Articles 42 and 43 of the cited Law:

"Article 42.- The Official Map regulation shall establish the rules on reservations, acquisition, use, and conservation of the areas necessary for roads, parks, squares, buildings, and other communal uses, expressing the location and size of those already delivered to public service and those demarcated only preventively." "Article 43.- The Official Map, together with the plats or the cadastre that complements it, shall constitute a reliable special registry on the ownership and affectation to public domain of the lands or spaces already delivered to public uses”; d.- the URBAN RENEWAL regulation: whose content is determined in Articles 51 et seq. of the reference Law, as follows:

"Article 51.- The Urban Renewal Regulation shall contain the regulations locally adopted to conserve, rehabilitate, or remodel defective, deteriorated, or decaying urban areas, taking into account inconvenient parceling or building, the lack of communal services and facilities, or any other condition adverse to general safety, health, and welfare"; which is of transcending importance, especially regarding the protection of the historical architectural patrimony, or for the safeguarding of the safety of a neighborhood's inhabitants; e.- and finally, the CONSTRUCTIONS regulation; which aims to technically regulate all the requirements that any type of construction must meet in accordance with the definition of the concept given in Article 1 of the reference Law, which defines it as "every structure that is fixed or incorporated into land; it includes any building, reconstruction, alteration, or expansion work that implies permanence." Thus, its objective is to set the standards for the planning, design, and construction of buildings, streets, sports fields, industrial and machinery installations, and all those works additional to these, in everything related to architecture, civil, electrical, mechanical, or sanitary engineering, for the purpose of promoting, ensuring, and protecting common health, economy, comfort, and welfare through requirements that guarantee in such works their solidity, stability, safety, health, adequate lighting, and ventilation.

VIII.- ON THE LEGAL NATURE OF REGULATORY PLANS AND THEIR CONTENT.- Urban planning regulations, which, as indicated, comprise a very varied set of rules; a product of the action of the various public entities that intervene in this matter; from which we find legal norms, norms of a regulatory nature with the force of law (law in the material sense), and, of course, regulatory provisions. Such that we can well conclude that our urban planning legal system is made up of norms of a different nature, precisely by virtue of two important factors: first, by the body or institution from which it emanates (be it the Legislative Assembly, the Executive Branch or the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, or the municipalities); and second, and as derived from the former, the scope of coverage of the regulation, be it national, regional, or local binding. Thus, urban planning regulations of a legal nature do not pose a legal problem, neither in doctrine nor in jurisprudence, since they are legitimate, provided they are approved by a qualified vote, that is, with the minimum vote of thirty-eight deputies, by reason of their content; under the terms provided in the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Political Constitution itself, insofar as they impose social interest limitations. It is worth reiterating that this qualified voting requirement is not merely formal but substantial, as it implies the necessary consensus among the various fractions of the political parties that make up the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, there is no major discussion about the legitimacy and normative rank of the Urban Planning Law, which fully complies with the constitutional requirement, having been approved in compliance with the constitutional requirement. Now, insofar as urban planning regulations constitute a set of heterogeneous norms, precisely because they derive from various public instances, and consequently, as a manifestation of various instances of public power (Legislative Power, Administrative power, and local power). It is our criterion that the analysis of these regulations must start from the content of Article 45 of the Constitution, whose second paragraph legitimizes the establishment of social interest limitations on property, provided they are established by qualified law, a substantial and not formal requirement, as it implies legislative consensus for their adoption. In this sense, as the Constitutional Chamber has considered in its jurisprudence, urban planning limitations and regulations are of social interest, insofar as they are imposed precisely to facilitate coexistence in society, and translate into impediments or obligations for the owner, and which, for the most part, have a very old origin in our legal system, deriving—many of them—from provisions of the Civil Code, dating from eighteen eighty-eight. Constitutional jurisprudence has recognized two types of social interest that legitimize—or justify—the imposition of limitations on property: these are those relating to environmental protection and those of an urban planning nature, the latter, from the development made in ruling number 4205-96, cited above. So that, in a strict sense, it should be considered that urban plans—all in general, be they national, regional, and local in scope—by reason of their content, have the normative rank of laws in the material sense, since they impose obligations, duties, and limit rights, particularly the exercise of the right of property, as pointed out by the Argentine jurist Edgardo O. SCOTTI:

"A plan for a specific urban nucleus implies not only establishing policies aimed at the adequate organization of activities in space, but it means guiding and conditioning the actions of the public and private sectors through the use of legal instruments that, through incentives, requirements, or prohibitions, delimit the exercise of the right of property and the other functions and uses that can be developed in the urban sphere." (Urban Law and Planning. Editorial Universidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. p. 77.)

In this regard, there is no doubt about the direct impact of urban plans on the exercise of the fundamental rights of private property and freedom of enterprise, insofar as from the content of their regulations, the development of industry and commerce is also inferred (Articles 45 and 47 of the Political Constitution), as well as the consequent protection of another fundamental right, that is, a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution); as considered by the Constitutional Chamber in ruling number 5303-93:

"... the limitation on property imposed by a regulatory plan is constitutionally possible, because the right of property is not unlimited; rather, there is a general framework within which the owner can act and that must be compatible with the constitutional content of that right. By the expressed, in the judgment of this Court, the imposed limitation, as long as adjusted to a valid regulatory plan, does not violate Article 45 of the Political Constitution as suggested in the appeal, insofar as that regulatory plan does not deconstitutionalize the private property that is affected by that instrument. A contrario sensu, if the limitations exceed the minimum parameters of reasonableness and proportionality, they would be contrary to the Political Constitution." - Thus, it has been considered that the content imposed in the various urban plans—in their complete dimension, be they national, regional, and local—is in accordance with the constitutional requirement, by deriving from a legal provision—the Urban Planning Law—, which was indeed approved in compliance with the constitutional condition—two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Assembly—, by virtue of which, that legitimization is transferred to them. And adding to the above, it must be considered that regional plans, in this case, the Regional Plan for Urban Development of the Greater Metropolitan Area, have that character by virtue of express legal mandate, according to Article 64 of the Urban Planning Law, as they textually indicate:

"Article 64.- The Metropolitan Regulatory Plan, its regulations, and the respective amendments shall acquire the force of law for all the municipalities of the circuit that have agreed to its adoption." (The highlighting is not from the original.)

Finally, regarding municipal regulatory plans, we can defend this value—of law in the material sense—based on the following reasons: a) by reason of their content, which imposes obligations on owners and limitations on property, as indicated previously; b) by reason of their reinforced approval procedure, which constitutes a manifestation of direct democracy; since for the approval of these regulations, it is required, as an essential requirement, the holding of an oral and public hearing, under the terms provided in Article 19 of the Urban Planning Law; and likewise, the plan is adopted and imposed by agreement of the Municipal Council, the deliberative body of the municipalities; and c) by legal equivalency, from the provisions of the transcribed Article 64 of the Urban Planning Law. Ergo, if a regional urban planning regulation acquires the rank of law for the Municipality that adopts it, and this is by Council agreement, it is proper that the one gestated by the municipality itself and governing only its territorial circumscription also acquires that condition. In any case, our Constitutional Court has clearly and precisely indicated that regulatory plans, despite being regulatory provisions emanating from the municipalities, have the normative rank of laws in the material sense. In this regard, rulings number 2006-13330, at seventeen hours thirty-three minutes on December sixth, two thousand six; 2007-5575, at fifteen hours twenty-four minutes on April twenty-fifth, two thousand seven; and 2008-18438, at seventeen hours fifty-six minutes on December eleventh, two thousand eight, can be consulted." (See Ruling of this same Section No. 2412-2010, at fifteen hours five minutes on June twenty-fourth, two thousand ten.)

IV.- Being clear then as to the role of the Zoning Regulation of the Oreamuno Regulatory Plan, which must be understood with the effect of a law in the material sense by reason of its content, without a doubt the legal criterion expressed by the Legal Affairs Commission and accepted by the Municipal Council in the vetoed agreement, which considers that the Regulatory Plan is below the Construction Law and the regulations of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, is a legally improper thesis. Thus, it can only be concluded that the actions taken in this regard by the body of council members constitute an irregular action before the disapplication of norms with normative value prevalent by specialty in this case, binding both for the Administration and for private individuals, which has full application precisely in the canton having been approved by the Municipality itself. The INVU regulations are applicable only in the absence of a Municipal Regulatory Plan, as indicated in ruling 4205-96 of the Constitutional Chamber.

V.- On the nature of the Takiscú project and the illegality defects noted by the Municipal Nombre20665. Every urban process tends to develop a portion of land, which aims to endow a portion of land with the services typical of cities or towns, such as public roads, water, telephone, parks, etc., which is a complex process of environmental alteration with great effect on natural and artificial ecosystems, since the majority of this type of works compact the land and cover an important part of the surface with an impermeable layer, which may affect aquifer reserves, increase runoff, alter natural drains, and increase the flow of rivers and other watercourses, in addition to eliminating the original landscape. Precisely, Articles 7.1 and 17 of the San Rafael de Oreamuno Zoning Regulation respond to this, where the protection zone of this canton is "created to stop peripheral urban development and to continue and intensify agricultural, livestock, and forest use in it," so that new urbanizations are not permitted, authorizing single-family residential uses of suburban or agricultural characteristics with the exclusion of residential complexes and urbanizations, where the minimum lot size is one hectare. This regulation must be integrated with the rest of urban planning norms and, especially, with the Urban Planning Law, which clearly differentiates between the process of subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization, which are indispensable due to the legal implications these processes entail. From resolutions 175-2009, of fifteen hours forty minutes and 176-2009, of fifteen hours fifty minutes, both, on January thirtieth, two thousand nine, the local government was made aware, always in relation to the Takiscú project, that, "Subdivision (Fraccionamiento), is the division of a property with the purpose of introducing it into commerce among men, which presumes, 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 land Regulatory Plan—if one exists—as well as to 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 assumes that in these, the plots have accesses and green areas resulting from previous urban development. It is for this reason that Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law provides:

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

When a specific area has been previously urbanized, the purchasers of the subdivided parcels have access to the plots, parks, and communal facilities, and it must not be lost sight of 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 land endowments for social interest reasons. The approval (visado) for simple subdivisions (fraccionamientos), due to its limited significance, is usually granted to an official (e.g., Municipal Engineer) other than 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); this in the event that urban planning norms make such a distinction. Now, the subdivision (fraccionamiento) that is part of the urbanization process and entails a habilitation of the plots, for the first time, for urban purposes, must be provided with streets, green areas, and parks, as well as the services necessary for their use and enjoyment. In this second scenario, we are dealing with a complex process of subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization that introduces limitations on private property for urban planning reasons (Article 22 of the Urban Planning Law), which the Constitutional Court has indicated are fully in accordance with Constitutional Law (Ruling No. 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 land subdivider (…) and every urbanizer shall transfer, free of charge, for public use, both the areas destined for roads and those corresponding to parks and communal facilities; what shall be established for the latter two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, through the establishment of percentages of the total area to be subdivided (fraccionar) or urbanized, which may fluctuate between five percent and twenty percent, depending on the average size of the lots, the intended use of the land, and the applicable regulations. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the lands that must be transferred for public roads, parks, and communal facilities shall not exceed forty-five percent of the total surface area of the land to be subdivided (fraccionar) or urbanized. (…)

The urbanizer's obligation to endow the subdivided parcels with accesses, green zones, parks, public roads, obliges him to comply with urban 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 opportunely exercise its police power, guaranteeing to the canton's residents that the works will be carried out in the manner that urban planning norms indicate and with the conditions that those provisions establish. It is enough that a parceling requires works to enable entry and provide various services to some of those plots, to maintain that there is not a 'simple subdivision (fraccionamiento)', but rather a residential project that must, consequently, comply with all the indicated requirements. Urban residential projects can only enable entry to the plots through public roads that must have the dimensions and requirements of the General Public Roads Law and, the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions (Fraccionamientos) and Urbanizations, in the absence—in this last case—of specific provisions in local norms." Thus, the failure of urban projects to conform to the requirements established in the urban planning system obliges—per se—the rejection of the initiated proceedings, in application of the principle of legality.

VI.- Having been accredited in the case file that in reality Takiscú has become a complex destined for residential use located in a protection zone, which currently has thirty-one approved (visados) lots whose surface area is less than one hectare, plus an internal easement (servidumbre) with cobblestones, poorly called "agricultural easement (servidumbre agrícola)", destined to give access to several of those lots, it is the unanimous criterion of this Court that we are in the presence of serious defects at the time of granting the approvals (visados) of all the respective plats and construction permits. Note that a housing complex was built that disregards the applicable regulations due to the geographical location in which it is found. It cannot be classified as a "simple subdivision (fraccionamiento simple)", what is in reality, by all appearances, an entire urban project aimed at providing housing solutions on 31 lots. On this particular, it must be indicated that even though the mother property fronts on public roads, this is not sufficient to classify it as a simple subdivision (fraccionamiento), it being evident that the opening of the poorly named agricultural easement is nothing more than a luxury street that gives access to lots which, without it, would not have access, in addition to the fact that full compliance was not given to all the necessary requirements for such effect, which include, among others, the presentation of the preliminary project and the donation of public areas and installation of all public services at the developer's expense. The foregoing means that the vetoed Municipal Council agreement made an incorrect application of the legality block, a situation that must be understood by both the developers and the purchasers, for the right of property, as transcribed above, is not unlimited, and must submit, by constitutional imperative, to the legal limitations imposed on the use and enjoyment of the land for the benefit of the community. Based on these findings of fact and law, nothing remains but to conclude, once again, that what was resolved by the municipality regarding the granting of any approval (visado) or construction permit in Takiscú has defects in its essential elements due to transgression of the urban planning system and affectation of the public interest, in accordance with the doctrine contemplated in the General Law of Public Administration, for we are in the presence of omissions and substantial defects of the administrative act, which punishes what was acted upon with absolute nullity, understood as the motive, content, and purpose (Articles 131 to 133 and 136), for which it is imperative that the nullity be formally declared, through the procedures provided by the legal system for that purpose.

VII.- On the competent body for granting the approvals (visados). Likewise, it is appropriate to analyze the absence of participation of the Municipal Council in the analyzed actions, alleged by the Mayor, since it was the Municipal Engineer who originally conferred the approvals (visados). Nombre20665 alleges that this is an own and exclusive competence of the Municipal Council, which it estimates is another defect of nullity. As noted in the list of proven facts, during the years 2006 and 2007, the Municipal Engineer conferred the 31 approvals (visados) of plats. Only in the agreement adopted by the Municipal Council, Article 37, No. 1578-2008 of session 147-2008 of March 11, 2008, did the body of council members confer directives to the Municipal Engineer, so that he would grant and confer the respective construction permits to the company Upsilón, represented here.

Only in this specific case did the Municipal Council remedy the defect noted by the Mayor, since pursuant to article 13, subsection p) of the Código Municipal—formerly subsection o), the numbering having been changed by Ley 8822 of April 29, 2010—the Council is the competent body in urban planning matters and, therefore, it is the one responsible for approving everything concerning this project, given that it is not a simple subdivision (fraccionamiento simple). In any case, this Court must emphasize that for the Engineer to approve the endorsement (visado), a prior council agreement authorizing the development was necessary, an element that does not appear in the file. Therefore, the defect alleged by Nombre20665 in the veto filed is indeed evident.

VIII.- On the validity of the agreement of the Municipal Council of Oreamuno, No. 333-2006, article 17, minutes No. 029-2006, taken at the session held on September 12, 2006. The intervening parties Taquiscú S.A. and Finca Upsilón S.A., in their capacity as developer of Takiscú and lot owners, respectively, as well as the Municipal Council in the agreement that rejected the Mayor's request, consider that the arguments contained in official communication AM-0412-2009-mvrq, called "Request for Declaration of Lesividad and Administrative Procedure," are incorrect, given that agreement No. 333-2006, article 17, minutes No. 029-2006, of the ordinary session of September 12, 2006, which the Mayor seeks to apply, is not in force. On this point, Nombre20665 invokes the application of the aforementioned agreement, which had provided, several years prior, to reject official communication DI-URBA-18-06 of June 19, 2006, from the Engineering Department, in which approval was requested for the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of twenty lots located facing public streets and for the construction permit in the Takiscú project, to establish disciplinary measures against municipal engineering officials, to deny the permits requested by the company, and to proceed with the closure and stoppage of works of said subdivision (fraccionamiento). However, upon analyzing the appellate phases, it is clear that the extraordinary review appeal was granted by the Municipal Council, in agreement No. 1652-2008, adopted at session No. 156-2008 held on April 24, 2008, whose veto did not succeed. Thus, the aforementioned agreement that Nombre20665 seeks to apply has no legal effect, in accordance with the provisions of article 157 of the Código Municipal, so the invocation made by Nombre20665 aimed at obtaining the annulment of the endorsements (visados) based on the application of that agreement is entirely improper. Therefore, the arguments made by the Council and the intervening party are correct in considering that the annulment of the endorsements (visados) cannot be requested on the basis of an ineffective administrative act. However, since this is not the only argument put forth in the veto filed, the other elements of Nombre20665's objection provide sufficient merit to resolve in the manner done in this resolution.

IX.- On the annulment invoked and the procedure for declaring it. Having clearly observed the serious defects of annulment of the Takiscú project, even though municipal agreement No. 333-2006, article 17, minutes No. 029-2006 taken at the session held on September 12, 2006 is not in force, and based on the respective endorsements (visados) and permits, the Municipality of Oreamuno can now proceed against its own acts, in application of articles 173 and 183 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública and 34 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, for violation of articles 131 through 133 and 136 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, 40 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, 7 and 17 of the Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de San Rafael de Oreamuno. These elements are sufficient to grant the Mayor's request, and with it, the veto filed. There is no legal possibility that empowers the local administration to reject the respective annulment action, since pursuant to article 174 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, "The Administration shall be obligated to annul ex officio the absolutely null act, within the limitations of this law," thus leaving no room for administrative discretion in making this decision. This implies, then, that the arguments made by the Municipal Council regarding the budgetary impact that potential indemnities could generate are a matter of convenience that falls far from legality and, therefore, cannot be imposed over the legal order. In any case, to avoid confusion, the Local Government is advised that the mechanisms for annulment of a declarative-of-rights administrative act provided for in the Ley General de la Administración Pública are two, mutually exclusive. The local government may proceed to appoint a directing body and initiate absolute annulment (nulidad absoluta) proceedings, when it is evident and manifest, resulting then in the administrative venue decreeing the annulment of the actions taken, as regulated by articles 173, 308 and following of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, by instituting the ordinary procedure for this purpose; or, it may issue the declaration of lesividad (declaratoria de lesividad) and file contentious-administrative processes in the jurisdictional venue for absolute annulment (nulidad absoluta) that is not evident or manifest. Note that the two procedures should not be confused, since one is in the administrative venue while the other is conducted in the jurisdictional venue. The details of each were set forth in the preceding resolutions of this same Section (175-2009, 176-2009 and 177-2009) and, therefore, the Council must decide which of the two legally viable options it chooses.

X.- Corollary. Having observed the defects stated above in the granting of the plan endorsements (visados de planos) in the Takiscú project, as well as the annulment of the construction permit for the internal cobblestone easement (servidumbre interna en adoquín), the proper course is to grant the Veto filed by Municipal Nombre20665, and the Municipal Council must proceed as indicated in the preceding Considerando.

Por tanto

The veto filed is granted.

Hubert Fernández Argüello Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Evelyn Solano Ulloa In that document, it considered that the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of Takiscú, being located in a special protection zone, had violated the provisions contained in Article 17 of the Zoning Regulations of the San Rafael de Oreamuno Regulatory Plan, which establish that in such places the permitted residential uses are limited to single-family dwellings of suburban or agricultural characteristics, excluding residential complexes and urbanizations, with minimum plot sizes of one hectare and a minimum frontage of forty meters, resulting in the fact that **during 2006 and 2007 the Municipal Engineer endorsed thirty-one lot segregations ranging from 900 mts2 to 2000 mts2, and a construction license was granted for an internal agricultural cobblestone easement (servidumbre) that provided access to several lots**. Furthermore, it considered as another defect of illegality the fact that the plans were not endorsed by the Municipal Council. Based on this, it requested that proceedings for the declaration of harmfulness (lesividad), and absolute, evident, and manifest nullity, be initiated against the thirty-one plans that are endorsed, that the administrative procedure be opened, and that the construction permit for the aforementioned easement (servidumbre) be declared null (see registry reports 1086 to 1124, official letter at folios 11127 to 1152); **9)** The Legal Affairs Commission issued a negative ruling on the Mayor's request, considering that the project had complied with the requirements for obtaining a permit for a lot subdivision (lotificación) fronting a national highway and a public street, with agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas) of 14 meters, resulting in that currently all the plans are correctly endorsed by the Engineering Department. It added that due to the nature of the project, "Lot subdivision (Lotificación) fronting two existing public streets, the national highway and Dirección11403 ", it conforms to the provisions of the Cadastre Law and the Executive Decrees of the INVU, which it considers are above the Regulatory Plan and the Zoning Regulations. It recommended evaluating the harm to third parties in good faith and the budgetary limitations for making indemnifications and the expenses this could generate for the Municipal Treasury. It was additionally based on the fact that the INVU had communicated in official letters AM-0311-2007 of March 9, 2007, and AM-1931-2007 of April 17, 2007, that what was proposed was not a residential complex but a lot subdivision (lotificación) (folios 1177 to 1181); **10)** The **Municipal Council, in Article 15, agreement 3077-2010, adopted in session number 302-2010, held on February 23, 2010,** decided to accept the recommendation of the Legal Commission, in the sense of rejecting the Mayor's Office's request to declare that the act of endorsing the plans for the Takiscú project is null, denying the initiation of a harmfulness (lesividad) proceeding, and ordered that the construction permits and other related accreditations be granted as soon as possible (folios 1279 to 1286); **11)** On March 1, 2010, Nombre20665 interposed a formal veto against the previous agreement (folios 1289 to 1321); **12)** The Municipal Council rejected the veto and referred the matter to this Tribunal, through Agreement No. 3134-2010 known in Session No. 308-2010 held on March 23, 2010 (folios 1325 to 1334).

**II. Grounds for the Veto:** The arguments of the veto interposed are aimed at having the request made by the Mayor be upheld, so that the harmfulness (lesividad) or absolute, evident, and manifest nullity of the endorsement of thirty-one plans for lots located in the Takiscú project be declared, along with the nullity of the agricultural easement (servidumbre agrícola) that provides access to several of those lots. The arguments of the veto can be summarized as reasons of legality, taking up the same legal grounds of the initial request that he presented before the Municipal Council, which were indicated in proven fact six of this resolution.

**III.- On the applicable regulations in this project.** One of the main reasons for rejecting the nullity action is that the council members consider that the applicable regulations are found in the Cadastre Law and Executive Decrees of the INVU, regulations which they consider to be of a higher hierarchical order than the Regulatory Plan of Oreamuno. On this particular point, it must be clarified regarding the competence of the municipalities concerning urban planning, regarding which this Tribunal has expressed itself in the following terms:

*IV.- ON MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN MATTERS CONCERNING THE URBAN PLANNING OF THE CANTON. NORMATIVE REGULATION FROM WHICH IT EMANATES.-* In view that the claim concerns *the issuance of a certificate of land use as non-conforming*, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to make some brief reflections on the competence of local governments in urban planning matters. It is clarified that this power has a dual aspect, thus, in the first place, concerning the *definition of normative regulations* -promulgation of the respective regulations -regulatory plans and related regulations- and in the second place, that concerning *control* -exercise of the police power- in the territorial jurisdiction. In effect, it must be remembered that *urban planning regulation has been entrusted traditionally, and without any discussion, to the municipalities*, since it has been considered that

"(...) urban planning competence has been a genuine municipal competence, perhaps the first among all" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Nombre7411 and PAREJO ALFONSO, Nombre45684, *Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico*. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, España, S.N.E., 1981. p. 116.);

so that it has been configured as a tradition of Urban Planning Law, especially in those moments when its content has been expressed through "building and urban police ordinances", within the competence of local governments, under the understanding that public urban planning competence is proper to the city, and consequently, to the municipalities. Thus, urbanism begins by being an exclusively municipal competence. Subsequently, 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 become responsible for it, thereby modifying the competence level of urban planning matters, by including other instances, in our environment, such as the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism -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 with regard strictly to *local urban planning*, it is worth remembering that it is in the Construction Law, approved by Decree-Law number 833, of November four, nineteen forty-nine -a pre-constitutional norm, having been promulgated by the De Facto Government of the Founding Junta of the Second Republic, led by José Figueres Ferrer-, where it is established that *the Municipalities are responsible for ensuring that cities and other population centers meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty in their public roads and in the buildings and constructions erected on their lands*, without prejudice to the powers that the laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies (Article 1), as well as that no building may be erected in the country that contravenes its provisions (Article 74). And despite the fact that our current Political Constitution –of November seven, nineteen forty-nine- is somewhat sparse in the definition of the proper and essential functions of the 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, *the primary ownership in matters of local urban planning corresponds to the municipalities, to the exclusion of any other public entity*. In this sense, in the Municipal Code, number 4574, of May four, nineteen seventy, -in force until nineteen ninety-eight-, the matter of urbanism was expressly recognized as a municipal competence, in its Article 4. In accordance with the previous provision, and *as a derivative of the constitutional norms, Articles 15 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law, number 4240, of November fifteen, nineteen sixty-eight, are concordant*, as they textually provide:

"*Article 15.-* In accordance with the precept of Article 169 of the Political Constitution, *the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their jurisdictional territory, is recognized*. Consequently, *each 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 prevail to establish a specific controlling regime." (The highlighting is not from the original.)

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

*V.- ON MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN PLANNING NORMS.-* Regarding the second area mentioned, it is that concerning the control exercised by municipal Authorities regarding compliance with local urban planning regulations. In this sense, as this Tribunal has pointed out in various pronouncements (among them, numbers 175-2009, of fifteen hours forty minutes and 176-2009, of fifteen hours fifty minutes, both, of January thirty, two thousand nine), "local governments must act in a timely manner in the *exercise of the police power*, 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 urbanism, is concretized in the control of urbanization and subdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is concretized in a restrictive manner in Article 1 of the Construction Law, as it literally provides:

"The Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that cities and other population centers meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty in their public roads, in the buildings and constructions erected on their lands, without prejudice to the powers that the laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies." For its part, the "*police power*" is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a law, it regulates and governs an activity, in order to ensure *public order, health, 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, as its justification lies precisely in the consideration that fundamental rights are limited by those of other persons, since they must coexist with all and each of the other fundamental rights. With which, the measures that the State adopts with the purpose of protecting security, health, and tranquility, are of public social interest, which are manifested through the police power, understood as the regulatory faculty of the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional duties. (In this sense, one can consult judgments number 401-91, of fourteen hours of February twenty and 619-91, of fourteen hours forty-five minutes of March twenty-two, both resolutions of nineteen ninety-one and 2003-2864, of fifteen hours twenty minutes of April nine, two thousand three, from the Constitutional Chamber.)

*VI.- ON URBAN PLANNING REGULATIONS IN GENERAL AND MUNICIPAL ONES.-* The content of urban planning regulations in our (Costa Rican) legal system must then be clarified. First of all, it is noted that the term "*urban planning regulations*" must be understood in a broad sense and not restricted to the regulations that in this matter emanate from a municipal agreement; as it refers *to the generality of urban planning instruments, which derive from various administrative instances*, and which in doctrine has been conceptualized as "[...] an instrument, approved by an act of Public Power, which organizes the territory, establishing provisions on the location of production and residence centers in the manner convenient for the best distribution of the population; regulates land use for its public and private destiny and, especially, its urbanization and building, and, in doing so, defines the content of property rights and programs the development of urban management." (CARCELER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. *Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico*. Segunda Edición. Editorial Tecnos, S.A. Barcelona. España. 1992. p.

34.)</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Thus, at the national level, there are various urban planning regulations, depending on the body responsible for their adoption and, consequently, the scope of coverage of the national territory over which they exercise their application: namely, those of a </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">national order</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> and </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">the regional ones</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">, whose approval is the responsibility of the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy and the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo), which contain the general guidelines for planning in this matter, and finally, </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">the local, cantonal or municipal ones</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">, which are those drawn up, processed, approved and executed by the municipalities. When the term \"</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">regulatory plan (plan regulador)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">\" is used, a meaning adopted by our national legislation in Article 1 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), which defines it as: </span></p><p style=\"margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">\"the local planning instrument that defines, in a set of plans, maps, regulations and any other document, graphic or supplement, the development policy and the plans for the distribution of the population, land uses, circulation routes, public services, community facilities, and construction, conservation and rehabilitation of urban areas\";</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">popularly, reference is made to the urban planning regulations emanating from local governments; however, we must understand that the regulations of the first two orders, namely the national and regional ones, are also included, insofar as they have the same content and fulfill the same land-ordering function, at the urban level and in determining the possible uses of the land. These regulatory bodies have a specific content, namely, the ordering and planning of land use, for the creation of urban centers – cities, urbanizations, industrial projects or parks, parks, public roads, public services, etc. – within the scope of a territorial circumscription, be it the canton or part thereof; or also at a regional level, as in the case of the Regional Urban Development Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Area (Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano del Gran Área Metropolitana), approved by Decree number 3332, of the twenty-sixth of April, nineteen eighty-two, and its amendments; which at the moment is the only urban planning regulation in our country issued at a regional level; and without, at this time, a regulation of this nature having been adopted at the national level. Consequently, this implies location, with respect to public buildings, and zoning, with respect to private building. Thus, it not only determines the use or purpose of the lots, but also their configuration and extension; the population density, the percentage of land that may be used, the number of floors, the class and the purpose of the buildings; all of the foregoing, subject to uniform general standards for each type of the same throughout the entire zone. Likewise, it guides the architectural composition of the buildings, and regulates, if necessary, their aesthetic characteristics; a competence which it is not superfluous to point out has not been exercised at the moment in our country (except, perhaps, in very sporadic cases). They are made up of both written standards and graphics, plans and attached documents that help determine their content, which is of an absolutely normative character, which has the following effects: </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">a)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> they regulate the powers for exercising the right of ownership, according to the classification and qualification of the lands contained therein; </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">b) </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">they have indefinite validity, but are susceptible to modification by subsequent revisions; </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">c) </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">their effectiveness is \"erga omnes\", although reduced to a specific territory or territorial circumscription, according to its degree (national, regional or local), insofar as they bind both the Administration in general and private individuals; and </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">d) </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">they may not contain reservations for dispensation.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">VII.- ON THE CONTENT OF REGULATORY PLANS.- </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">It is because of their broad content that the Urban Planning Law establishes in its Article 21 which are the main regulations that are complementary normative instruments of any urban planning regulation, known as a \"Plan\", whether national, regional or local, namely: </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">a.- the </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">ZONING</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> regulation: </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">through which standards for land use are established, bearing in mind that this is a basic concept of urban planning, consisting of reserving certain zones of a territory for specific needs or functions; and it ranges from the creation of industrial zones to the designation of residential, political-administrative zones, sports zones, green zones, zones of special environmental protection and others (CALVO MURILLO, Virgilio, \"</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">Urban Law: Fundamentals and Institutions (Derecho Urbanístico: Fundamentos e Instituciones)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">\", </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">Judicial Review (Revista Judicial)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">, Year II, No. 5, Judicial Branch of Costa Rica, September 1977, p. 92.) It is the first, and perhaps most important regulation that must accompany any urban plan, in accordance with Article 21, subsection 1) of the Urban Planning Law, since, as its name indicates, </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">it is responsible for the ordering and determination of land use, with a view to rational land use and to ensure satisfactory environmental conditions and qualities of life, thereby conditioning the use of immovable property, through the delimitation of areas, according to the categorization adopted</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. (BANDEIRA DE MELLO, Celso Antonio. </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">Legal figures of urban planning in Brazil (Figuras jurídicas del planeamiento urbano en el Brasil)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. In: </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">Law and Urban Planning (Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. Editorial Universidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. pp. 388 and 389.) In this way, the </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">urban legal regime of the right of ownership is not uniform simply because the land is subject to planning, but rather differs according to the type of land in which the property in question is classified; which demonstrates the importance of zoning. </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(CARCELLER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">Institutions of Urban Law (Instituciones de Derecho Urbanístico)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. Fifth edition. Editorial Montecorvo, S.A. Madrid, Spain. 1992. p. 333.) Thus, based on this regulation, the exact definition of the possible (permitted) uses in each zone is established, with the consequent impact on the right of ownership; by conditioning where one can and must reside, where one can trade, where services must be provided, where industry can be established, and where one can recreate and entertain; which leads us to consider the seriousness with which it must be formulated, requiring </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">not only criteria of opportunity and convenience, but above all technical and objective ones</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. It is clear that </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">the content of the land statute determines the scope of ownership and conditions its exercise, diversifying into situations favoring private initiative, and likewise, establishes limitations that restrict its exercise</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. The function of classifying land for the establishment of the corresponding legal regime falls to the General Plan, of which the zoning regulation forms a part; which must contain the urban classification and qualification of the land. By classification, the category or type of land (urban, developable, scheduled or non-scheduled, and non-developable, industrial, reserve or for environmental protection, residential, institutional, etc.) must be understood according to its basic urban purpose; qualification applies to designate the subdivision of these types of land into zones characterized by specific urban planning contents or uses; and in this sense, it is linked to the technique of zoning, which arose when there was a tendency to separate buildings intended for residences from industrial facilities. It is clear that </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">the regulations contained in the zoning regulation come to assist in outlining the content of the right of ownership, insofar as its content is the result of the constitutional and legal regime of property, as it is not an absolute right, but subject to regulations by virtue of the recognition of the fundamental element of the social function of property, and the contingencies of urban coexistence</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. The legitimacy of the regulations or limitations contained in the zoning standards is conditioned by the following principles: </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">a)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> only standards of a general nature make up zoning, that is, those that cover a category of goods, also qualified by their spatial location, insofar as such location is not singularizing, and </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">b)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> zoning regulations cannot be unlimited, insofar as they must preserve the essential core of the right of ownership (use, enjoyment, and disposal, not in an unrestricted sense); otherwise, there will be a suppression of the right, that is, an expropriation. </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic\">So, zoning cannot entail the annulment or paralysis of the manifestations of the right of ownership, which in no way should be confused with the expressions or patrimonial significance of the property. There is only an obligation to compensate for the imposition of these measures when they reach the essential core of this right, defined by constitutional jurisprudence as the possibility of carrying out some type of exploitation on the property, perhaps not the one desired by its owner. Thus, </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">limitations imposed on property that allow the owner the possibility of \"normally\" exploiting the asset will be legitimate, except, of course, for the part or function affected by the limitation imposed by the State, thereby respecting the natural use of the asset, by maintaining its value as a means of production or economic value in the market</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic\">. (In this sense, among others, see rulings number 0796-91, of fifteen hours ten minutes of the twenty-sixth of April, nineteen ninety-one; number 5893-95, of nine hours forty-eight minutes of the twenty-seventh of October, nineteen ninety-five, and number 2345-96, of nine hours twenty-four minutes of the seventeenth of May, nineteen ninety-six.) This was stated by the Full Court in relation to the limitations to be imposed on property when they cross the indicated limit, in an extraordinary session of the sixteenth of June, nineteen eighty-three:</span></p><p style=\"margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic\">\"[...] that is to say 'limitations' as Article 45 calls them, but not dispossession of private property nor deprivation of a primary attribute of ownership, because preventing the enjoyment of goods is equivalent, at least in this case, to a form of expropriation without the prior compensation requirement ordered by the Political Constitution (Carta Política).\"</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled in the same sense in the aforementioned rulings number 5097-93 and 2345-96; under the following considerations:</span></p><p style=\"margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">\"</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">IV.)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> For this Chamber (Sala), the reasonable limits that the State can impose on private property, in accordance with its nature, </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">are constitutionally possible as long as they do not empty its content</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. When this occurs, it ceases to be a reasonable limitation and becomes a deprivation of the right itself\" (ruling number 5097-93, cited above);</span></p><p style=\"margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">\"That is, </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">the attributes of property may be limited, as long as the owner reserves for himself the possibility of normally exploiting the asset, excluding, of course, the part or the function affected by the limitation imposed by the State</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. Outside of these parameters, if social welfare requires sacrifices from only one or a few, compensation must be paid, just as occurs when the sacrifice imposed on the owner is of such an identity that it causes him to lose the asset entirely. Thus, </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">the limitation on property withstands constitutional analysis, when the impact on the essential attributes of property, which are those that allow the natural use of the thing within the current socio-economic reality, does not cause the nature of the asset to disappear or make the use of the thing impossible</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">, because the State imposes authorization or approval requirements so complex that they imply, in fact, the impossibility of usufructing the asset\" (ruling number 2345-96, cited above).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Thus, Article 24 of the Urban Planning Law determines the content of these regulations in the following manner: </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">a) </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">the determination of land uses; </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">b)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> matters relating to the location, height and building area of constructions; </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">c)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> the surface area and dimensions of lots, which has a direct impact on the determination of land density; </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">d)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> the size of setbacks, yards and other open spaces, and coverage of the lot by buildings and structures; </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">e) </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">the provision of space for parking, loading and unloading of vehicles off the streets; </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">f)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> size, location and characteristics of signs or advertisements; and </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">g)</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> any other architectural or urban planning detail relating to land use, whose regulation is of interest to the local community. For this reason, it is obligatory to reserve zones that have a special affectation due to their use, such as those near airports, those affected by protection of the forestry and historical and architectural heritage, or the natural heritage of the State, deriving from Articles 50 and 89 of the Political Constitution, as ordered by Article 25 of the Urban Planning Law;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">b.- the </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">SUBDIVISION and URBANIZATION</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> regulation: </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">which, pursuant to Article 32 of the Urban Planning Law, aims to determine under what conditions a municipality must permit or regulate subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization projects in its jurisdiction, for which requirements are established corresponding to access to the public road, the transfer of areas for public use, standards for the construction of streets and sidewalks, pavements, pipes, storm and sanitary drainage, electrification and public lighting, among others. In this sense, the importance for Urban Law of the </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">control of subdivision actions</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> must be highlighted, which leaves no room for doubt.</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> In this regard, the Contentious-Administrative High Court (Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo) states:</span></p><p style=\"margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">IV.- </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">From what has been said, it should be insisted that </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">the control of urban development, as a competence of the municipalities, implies both the power to issue regulatory plans, but above all, it implies the competence to “control” the subdivision of land through those same regulatory plans and with the granting of the corresponding municipal approval (visado) to the respective plan, as expressed in numeral 33 of the aforementioned Urban Planning Law</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. In the same order of things, according to Article 10, subsection 2) of the Urban Planning Law, it is the responsibility of the Urban Planning Directorate (Dirección de Urbanismo) of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism to approve the corresponding plans for urbanization or subdivision (fraccionamiento) projects for urbanization purposes prior to municipal approval (Article 33 ibidem). This is a competence that translates into a control function on the part of the Urban Planning Directorate in relation to the planning and urban control of the municipalities (Articles 7, subsection 3) and 9 of the aforementioned law). They become advisors or monitors, being able to inform or even denounce the Municipalities regarding a possible infraction of the law or the local regulatory plan, and may even issue an act suspending a determined work, in which an infraction of the law on urban planning matters has been verified. According to Article 36, subsection b) ibidem, municipalities may not grant the respective approvals to plans for urban projects in areas subject to control when they do not have the required permit (approval of the Urban Planning Directorate).” (Third Section, Contentious-Administrative High Court, ruling number 791-2002 of ten hours ten minutes of the twenty-seventh of September, two thousand two.) (The highlighting is not from the original.)</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">And indeed, </span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">omitting the controls (visados) for subdivision purposes is one of the most common and dangerous ways to circumvent urban standards and thwart all the regulatory instruments in this matter, which causes serious consequences</span><span style=\"font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">.</span></p> Among these, we can cite the impossibility of planning and supplying basic services, **the construction of housing complexes in areas of high risk due to natural emergencies or building in zones that, due to their characteristics, should not be destined for construction**, because they are areas of aquifer recharge or have high environmental value; just to cite a few examples; **c.- the OFFICIAL MAP (MAPA OFICIAL):** which, according to Article 1 of the Urban Planning Law, "is the map or set of maps that accurately indicates the position of the layouts of public roads and areas to be reserved for community uses and services"; the content of which is regulated in Articles 42 and 43 of the aforementioned Law:

"**Article 42.-** The regulation of the Official Map shall establish the rules on reservations, acquisition, use, and conservation of the areas necessary for roads, parks, plazas, buildings, and other community uses, expressing the location and size of those already delivered to public service and those demarcated only preventively." "**Article 43.-** The Official Map, together with the plans or the cadastre that complements it, shall constitute a special, reliable registry of the ownership and public domain encumbrance of the lands or spaces already delivered to public uses"; **d.-** the **URBAN RENEWAL (RENOVACIÓN URBANA)** plan: whose content is determined in Article 51 of the reference Law, as follows:

"**Article 51.-** The Urban Renewal Regulation shall contain the regulations locally adopted to conserve, rehabilitate, or remodel defective, deteriorated, or declining urban areas, taking into account inconvenient parceling or building, the lack of community services and facilities, or any other condition adverse to general safety, health, and well-being"; which is of transcendental importance, especially when it comes to the protection of the historical-architectural heritage, or for safeguarding the safety of a neighborhood's inhabitants; **e.-** and finally, the **CONSTRUCTION (CONSTRUCCIONES)** plan; which aims to technically regulate all the requirements that any type of construction must meet according to the definition of the concept given in Article 1 of the reference Law, which considers it as "any structure that is fixed or incorporated into a terrain; it includes any work of building, reconstruction, alteration, or expansion that implies permanence." Thus, its objective is to set the norms for the planning, design, and construction of buildings, streets, sports fields, industrial and machinery installations, and all works additional to these, in everything related to architecture, civil, electrical, mechanical, or sanitary engineering, with the purpose of promoting, ensuring, and protecting health, economy, comfort, and common well-being through requirements that guarantee in such works their solidity, stability, safety, health, adequate lighting, and ventilation.

**VIII.- THE LEGAL NATURE OF REGULATORY PLANS AND THEIR CONTENT.-** Urban planning regulations, which as indicated, comprise a very varied set of norms; a product of the action of the diverse public entities that intervene in this matter; from which we find legal norms, regulatory norms with the force of law (law in a material sense), and of course, regulatory norms. So, we can well conclude that our urban planning legal system is made up of norms of different natures, precisely by virtue of two important factors: firstly, by the organ or institution from which it emanates (be it the Legislative Assembly, the Executive Branch, the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, or the municipalities); and secondly, and as a derivative of the former, the scope of coverage of the regulation, be it national, regional, or local linkage. Thus, urban planning regulations of a legal nature do not pose a legal problem, neither in doctrine nor in jurisprudence, since they are legitimate, as long as they are approved by a qualified vote, that is, with the minimum vote of thirty-eight deputies, due to their content; in the terms provided in the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Political Constitution itself, as long as social interest limitations are imposed from them. It is worth reiterating that this qualified voting requirement is not merely formal but substantial, insofar as it implies the necessary consensus among the various fractions of the political parties that make up the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, there is not much discussion about the legitimacy and normative rank of the Urban Planning Law, which fully complies with the constitutional requirement, having been approved in compliance with the constitutional requirement. Now, while urban planning regulations constitute a set of heterogeneous norms, precisely because they derive from various public instances, and consequently, as a manifestation of various instances of public power (Legislative Power, Administrative power, and local power). It is our criterion that the analysis of these regulations must start from the content of Article 45 of the constitution, whose second paragraph legitimizes the establishment of social interest limitations on property, as long as they are established by a qualified law, a substantial and not formal requirement, as it implies legislative consensus for its adoption. In this sense, as the Constitutional Chamber has considered in its jurisprudence, urban planning limitations and regulations are of social interest, insofar as they are imposed precisely to facilitate coexistence in society, and translate into impediments or obligations for the owner, and which for the most part, have a fairly old origin in our legal system, deriving -many of them- from provisions of the Civil Code, dating from eighteen eighty-eight. Constitutional jurisprudence has recognized two types of social interest that legitimize -or justify- the imposition of limitations on property: these are those related to **environmental protection** and those of an **urban planning nature**, the latter, based on the development made in ruling number 4205-96, cited above. So, in a strict sense, it should be considered that urban plans - **all in general, be they national, regional, and local in scope** -, due to their content, have the normative rank of laws in a material sense, since they impose obligations, duties, and limit rights, particularly the exercise of the right of property, just as the Argentine jurist Edgardo O. SCOTTI points out:

"A plan for a specific urban nucleus implies not only establishing policies aimed at the adequate organization of activities in space, but also means guiding and conditioning the actions of the public and private sectors through the use of legal instruments that, through stimuli, requirements, or prohibitions, delimit the exercise of the right of property and the other functions and uses that can be developed in the urban sphere." (Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano. Editorial Universidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. p. 77.)

In this regard, there is no doubt about the direct incidence of urban plans on the exercise of the fundamental rights of private property and freedom of enterprise, as the development of industry and commerce is also inferred from the content of their regulations (Articles 45 and 47 of the Political Constitution), as well as the consequent protection of another fundamental right, that of an environment that is environmentally and ecologically balanced (Article 50 of the Political Constitution); as the Constitutional Chamber considered in ruling number 5303-93:

"... the limitation on property imposed by a regulatory plan is constitutionally possible, because the right of property is not unlimited, rather, there is a general framework within which the owner can act and which must be compatible with the constitutional content of that right. In light of the foregoing, in the judgment of this Tribunal, the limitation imposed, as long as it is adjusted to a current regulatory plan, does not violate, as suggested in the appeal, Article 45 of the Political Constitution, as long as that regulatory plan does not deconstitutionalize the private property that is affected by that instrument. A contrario sensu, if the limitations exceed the minimum parameters of reasonableness and proportionality, they would be contrary to the Political Constitution.".

Thus, **it has been considered that the content imposed in the various urban plans -in their complete dimension, be they national, regional, and local- is in accordance with the constitutional requirement, for deriving from a legal provision –the Urban Planning Law–, which was approved in compliance with the constitutional condition –two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Assembly–, by virtue of which, that legitimation is transferred to them**. And adding to the above, it must be considered that regional plans, in this case, the Regional Urban Development Plan of the Greater Metropolitan Area, have that character by virtue of an express legal mandate, according to Article 64 of the Urban Planning Law, as they textually indicate:

"**Article 64.-** The Metropolitan Regulatory Plan, its regulations, and the respective amendments, **shall acquire the force of law for all the municipalities of the circuit that have agreed to its adoption.**" (The highlighting is not from the original.)

Finally, regarding municipal regulatory plans, we can defend this value –**as law in a material sense**– based on the following reasons: **a) by reason of their content**, which imposes obligations for owners and limitations on property, as indicated above; **b.) by reason of their reinforced approval procedure**, which constitutes a manifestation of direct democracy; insofar as for the approval of these regulations, **an oral and public hearing is required as an essential requirement**, under the terms provided in Article 19 of the Urban Planning Law; and likewise, the plan is adopted and imposed by agreement of the Municipal Council, the deliberative body of the municipalities; and **c) by legal equivalence**, from the provisions of the transcribed Article 64 of the Urban Planning Law. Ergo, if a regional urban planning scheme acquires the rank of law for the Municipality that adopts it, and this is by Council agreement, it is proper that this condition is also acquired by the one that has been generated by the municipality itself and governs only its territorial circumscription. In any case, our Constitutional Court has clearly and precisely indicated that regulatory plans, despite being regulatory regulations emanating from the municipalities, have the normative rank of laws in a material sense. In this regard, rulings number 2006-13330, of seventeen hours thirty-three minutes on the sixth of December two thousand six; 2007-5575; of fifteen hours twenty-four minutes on the twenty-fifth of April two thousand seven; and 2008-18438, of seventeen hours fifty-six minutes on the eleventh of December two thousand eight can be consulted." **(See Ruling of this same Section No. 2412-2010, of fifteen hours five minutes on the twenty-fourth of June two thousand ten.)** **IV.-** Having clarified, then, the role of the Zoning Regulation of the Oreamuno Regulatory Plan, which must be understood as having the effect of a law in a material sense due to its content, without a doubt the legal criterion expressed by the Legal Affairs Committee and accepted by the Municipal Council in the vetoed agreement, which considers that the Regulatory Plan is below the Construction Law and the regulations of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, is a legally improper thesis. Therefore, it can only be concluded that the actions taken by the body of councilors constitute an irregular act in the face of the misapplication of norms with prevailing normative value in this case, binding for both the Administration and for individuals, which have full application precisely in the canton having been approved by the Municipality itself. The INVU regulations are applicable only in the absence of a Municipal Regulatory Plan, as indicated in ruling 4205-96 of the Constitutional Chamber.

**V.- On the nature of the Takiscú project and the illegality defects observed by the Municipal [cuerpo].** Every urban development process tends to develop a portion of land, the purpose of which is to provide a portion of land with the services typical of metropolises or cities, such as public roads, water, telephone, parks, etc., which is a complex process of environmental alteration with a great effect on natural and artificial ecosystems, since most of these types of works compact the land and cover an important part of the surface with an impermeable layer, which can affect aquifer reserves, increase runoff, alter natural drainage, and increase the flow of rivers and other water courses, in addition to eliminating the original landscape. Precisely, Articles 7.1 and 17 of the Zoning Regulation of San Rafael de Oreamuno respond to this, where the protection zone of this canton is "created to stop peripheral urban development and to continue and intensify agricultural, livestock, and forestry use in it," so that new developments (urbanizaciones) are not permitted, authorizing single-family housing uses of suburban or agricultural characteristics with the exclusion of residential complexes and developments, where the minimum lot size is one hectare. This regulation must be integrated into the rest of the urban planning regulations and, especially, with the Urban Planning Law, which clearly differentiates between the subdivision (fraccionamiento) process and the development process, which are essential due to the legal implications that these processes entail. From resolutions 175-2009, of fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, of fifteen hours fifty minutes, both, of the thirtieth of January two thousand nine, the local government was made aware, always in relation to the Takiscú project, that, "**The subdivision (fraccionamiento)** is the division of a property with the purpose of introducing it into the commerce of men, which supposes, just as each local government must verify when granting the corresponding approval, that it conforms, in terms of size and characteristics, to the current urban planning provisions, especially the local land Regulatory Plan –if any– as well as the development regulations and other special laws of public order. The subdivision that the law calls **"simple,"** does not include a process of urban habilitation for the use and enjoyment of the parcels resulting from that subdivision, and this is so because the legislator assumes that in these, the properties have access and green areas resulting from a previous urban development.

It is for this reason that Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law provides:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 42.55pt; text-indent:28.35pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">“(…)Likewise, the obligation to cede land for parks and communal facilities is excepted for simple subdivisions of parcels in previously urbanized areas…” (emphasis is not from the original). </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; text-indent:28.35pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">When a specific area is previously urbanized, the acquirers of the subdivided parcels have access to the lots, parks, and communal facilities, and it should not be forgotten 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 with urban development, greater land contributions for reasons of social interest. The approval (visado) for simple subdivisions, due to their limited significance, is usually granted to 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. That being said, the subdivision that is part of the urbanization process and which entails enabling the lots, for the first time, for urban purposes, must be provided with streets, green areas and parks, as well as the services necessary for their use and enjoyment. In this second scenario, we are dealing with a complex process of subdivision and urbanization that introduces limitations on private property for reasons of urban planning (Article 22 of the Urban Planning Law), which the Constitutional Court has indicated are fully consistent with Constitutional Law (ruling Voto N° 5097-93 of 10:24 hrs on October 15, 1993). The residential or subdivision project that we shall call “complex” is provided for in numeral 40 of the Urban Planning Law, which, in its relevant part, states:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 42.55pt; text-indent:28.35pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">“Every subdivider of land (…) and every urban developer shall cede free of charge to public use both the areas destined for roads and those corresponding to parks and communal facilities; the amount to be set for the latter two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, by setting percentages of the total area to be subdivided or urbanized, which may range from five percent to twenty percent, according to the average size of the lots, the intended use of the land, and the applicable rules. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the lands to be ceded for public roads, parks, and communal facilities shall not exceed forty-five percent of the total surface area of the land to be subdivided or urbanized. (…)</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt; text-indent:28.35pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">The urban developer's obligation to provide the subdivided parcels with access points, green zones, parks, and 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 development regulations concerning those areas. The local government must exercise its police power in a timely manner, guaranteeing to the canton's residents that the works will be carried out in the manner indicated by urban planning regulations and with the conditions that those regulations stipulate. It is sufficient that a parceling (parcelamiento) requires works to enable ingress and provide diverse services to some of those lots, to maintain that a “simple subdivision” does not exist, but rather a residential project that must, consequently, comply with all the indicated requirements. Urban residential projects can only enable ingress to the lots through public roads 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."</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'">Thus, the failure of urban projects to conform to the requirements established in urban planning regulations compels – per se – the rejection of the initiated procedures, in application of the principle of legality.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">VI.-</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> Having been demonstrated in the case file</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> that, in reality, Takiscú has become a complex destined for residential use located in a protection zone, which currently has thirty-one approved lots whose surface area is less than one hectare,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> plus</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> an internal easement (servidumbre) with pavers, poorly named "agricultural easement (servidumbre agrícola)", destined to provide access to several of those lots,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> it is the unanimous opinion of this Tribunal that we are in the presence of serious defects (vicios) at the time of granting the approvals for all the respective plans and construction permits.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> Note that a housing complex was erected that ignores the applicable regulations due to its geographic location. It cannot be classified as a "simple subdivision",</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> as what</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> it is, in all evidence,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> an entire urban project whose purpose is to provide housing solutions on 31 lots.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> On this point, it must be indicated that even though the parent property fronts on public roads, this is not sufficient to classify it as a simple subdivision, evidencing that the opening of the poorly named agricultural easement (servidumbre agrícola) is nothing more than a luxury street that provides access to lots that, without it, would not have access, and furthermore that there was not full compliance with all the necessary requirements for such effect,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> which</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> include, among others, the presentation of the preliminary project and</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> the donation of the public areas and</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> installation of all public services at the developer's expense. The foregoing means that the agreement</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> of the vetoed Municipal Council incorrectly applied the body of law, a situation that must be understood by both the developers and the acquirers,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> because the right to property, as</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> transcribed above, is not unlimited, and must</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> be subjected, by constitutional imperative, to the legal limitations</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> imposed on the use and enjoyment of land for the benefit of the community.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> Based on these findings of fact and law,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> there is nothing left but to conclude, once again, that what was resolved by the municipality regarding the granting of any approval</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> or construction permit in Takiscú has defects in its essential elements due to transgression of urban planning regulations and impairment of the public interest, pursuant to the doctrine contemplated in the General Law of Public Administration,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> as we are in</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> the presence of</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> omissions</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> and substantial defects (vicios sustanciales) in the administrative act, </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'">which punishes what has been done with absolute nullity,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> understood as the</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> motive, content</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> and purpose</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> (Articles 131</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> to 133 and 136),</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> which is why it is imperative that the nullity be</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> formally declared, through the procedures provided</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> by the legal system</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> for that purpose.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">VII.- On the competent body for granting approvals. </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'">Likewise, </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101">it is appropriate to analyze the absence of participation by the Municipal Council in the examined actions, challenged by the Mayor, since who originally granted the approvals was the Municipal Engineer.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> The Nombre20665 alleges that this is an authority proper and exclusive to the Municipal Council, which it considers to be another defect (vicio) of nullity. As can be seen in the list of proven facts,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> during the years 2006 and 2007 the Municipal Engineer granted the 31 plan approvals.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> Only</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> in the agreement made by the Municipal Council, article 37,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> No. 1578-2008 of session 147-2008 of March 11, 2008,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> did the body of councilors issue directives to the Municipal Engineer, for them to grant them and confer the respective construction permits to the company Upsilón, represented here. Only in this</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> specific case </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'">did the Municipal Council remedy the</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> defect (vicio) noted by the Mayor,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> since under Article 13 subsection p) of the Municipal Code – formerly subsection o), the numbering having been shifted by Law 8822 of April 29, 2010 –,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; color:#010101"> the Council </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">is the competent body in matters of urban planning and, therefore, it is the one responsible for</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> the approval of everything concerning this project,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> given that this is not a simple subdivision. In any case, this Tribunal must emphasize</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> that for the Engineer</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> to approve the stamp, a prior agreement by the Council was necessary, authorizing the urbanization,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> an element that is not on record in the case file.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> Therefore,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> indeed</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> the defect (vicio) alleged by the Nombre20665 in the veto filed is appreciated.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">VIII.- On the effectiveness of the agreement</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> of the Municipal Council of Oreamuno, No. 333-2006, article 17, minutes No. 029-2006 taken in the session held on the twelfth day of September, two thousand six.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> The interested parties Taquiscú S.A.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> and</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> Finca Upsilón S.A.,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> in their capacity as developer of</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> Takiscú and owners of lots, respectively,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> as well as the Municipal Council in the agreement that rejected the Mayor's request, consider that the arguments contained in official communication AM-0412-2009-mvrq, called</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">"Solicitud de Declaratoria</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold"> de Lesividad y de procedimiento administrativo"</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'">, are incorrect, since the agreement</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> No. 333-2006, article 17, minutes No. 029-2006, of the regular session of September 12, 2006,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> which the Mayor intends to apply, is not in force. On this point, the Nombre20665 invokes the application of the aforementioned agreement, which had ordered, several years earlier, rejecting the official communication DI-URBA-18-06 of June 19, 2006, from the Engineering Department, in which approval was requested for the subdivision of twenty lots located</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> fronting public roads</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> and the construction permit in the Takiscú project, establishing disciplinary measures against the municipal Engineering officials, denying the permits requested by the company, and proceeding to close and</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> halt works on said subdivision.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> However, upon analyzing the appellate phases, it appears that the extraordinary motion for review was granted by the</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> Municipal Council, in agreement No. 1652-2008, adopted in session No. 156-2008 held on April 24, 2008,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> whose veto did not prosper.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> Thus,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> the mentioned agreement which the Nombre20665 intends to apply</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> produces no effects, as provided by Article 157 of the Municipal Code, therefore the invocation made by the Nombre20665 seeking the nullity of the approvals based on the application of that agreement is completely inadmissible. Consequently, the arguments presented by the</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> Council and the interested party</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> are correct, in considering that the nullity of the approvals cannot be sought on the basis</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> of an ineffective administrative act.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> However, as this is not the only argument argued in the veto that was filed,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> the other elements of the Nombre20665's objection provide sufficient merit to resolve as is done in this ruling.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">IX.- On the nullity invoked and the procedure to declare it.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> Having clearly appreciated the serious defects of nullity of the Takiscú project, even though the municipal agreement No. </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">333-2006, article 17, minutes No. 029-2006</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> taken in the session held</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> on September 12, 2006, is not in force, and having as a basis</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> the respective approvals and permits,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> the Municipality of Oreamuno can now well proceed against its own acts, in application</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> of articles 173 and 183</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> of the General Law of Public Administration and 34 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, due to transgression of articles 131</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> to 133 and 136 of the General Law of Public Administration, 40 of the Urban Planning Law, 7 and 17 of the</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> Zoning Regulation of the Regulatory Plan of San Rafael de Oreamuno. These elements are sufficient to grant the Mayor's request, and with it, the veto that was filed.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> There is no legal possibility empowering the local administration to reject the respective nullity action, because as provided by article 174 of the General Law of Public Administration,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic"> "The Administration shall be obligated to annul ex officio the absolutely null act, within the limitations of this law", </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'">leaving no room whatsoever for administrative discretion regarding the taking of this decision. This implies, then, that the arguments put forth by the Municipal Council regarding the budgetary impact that any eventual compensation could generate, is a matter</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> of convenience</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> that is far removed from legality and which, therefore,</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'"> cannot be imposed above the legal system.</span></p> In any case, for the purpose of avoiding confusion, it is clarified to the Local Government that the mechanisms for nullity (nulidad) of an administrative act that declares rights, as provided for in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, are two, mutually exclusive. The local government may well proceed to appoint a directing body and initiate absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) proceedings, when the nullity is evident and manifest, resulting then in the administrative venue (sede administrativa) decreeing the nullity of what was done, as regulated by Articles 173, 308 and following of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, through the establishment of the ordinary procedure for this purpose; or, it may issue a declaration of harmfulness (declaratoria de lesividad) and bring contentious-administrative proceedings in the jurisdictional venue (sede jurisdiccional) in the case of absolute nullity that is not evident nor manifest. It should be noted that the two procedures must not be confused, as one takes place in the administrative venue while the other unfolds in the jurisdictional venue. The details of each were set out in the preceding resolutions of this same Section (175-2009, 176-2009 and 177-2009) and, therefore, the Council (Concejo) must decide which of the two legally viable options it chooses.

X.- Corollary. Having assessed the defects set forth above in the granting of the plan approvals (visados de planos) in the Takiscú project, as well as the nullity of the construction permit for the internal cobblestone easement (servidumbre interna en adoquín), the proper course is to uphold the Veto filed by the Municipal [official] Nombre20665, and the Municipal Council must proceed as indicated in the preceding Considerando.

Por tanto

The veto filed is upheld.

Hubert Fernández Argüello Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Evelyn Solano Ulloa

II.Grounds for the Veto: The arguments of the veto filed are directed at having the request made by the Mayor granted, so that the lesivity or absolute, evident, and manifest nullity of the approval of thirty-one plot plans located in the Takiscú project is declared, along with the nullity of the agricultural easement (servidumbre agrícola) that provides access to several of those plots. The arguments of the veto can be summarized as grounds of legality, taking up the same legal foundations of the initial request that he presented before the Municipal Council, which were indicated in proven fact six of this resolution.

III.- On the applicable regulations in this project. One of the main reasons for rejecting the nullity action rests on the fact that the council members consider that the applicable regulations are found in the Cadastre Law and Executive Decrees of the INVU, regulations they consider to be of a higher hierarchical order than the Regulatory Plan of Oreamuno. On this particular matter, clarification must be made regarding the competence of the municipalities concerning urban planning (ordenación urbanística), about which this Tribunal has expressed itself in the following terms:

IV.- OF MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE URBAN PLANNING OF THE CANTON. NORMATIVE REGULATION FROM WHICH IT EMANATES.- In view of the fact that the claim revolves around the issuance of a certificate for a non-conforming land use (uso de suelo como no conforme), this Tribunal deems it advisable to make a few brief reflections on the competence of local governments in urban planning matters. It is clarified that this power has a twofold aspect: first, concerning the definition of normative regulations -the enactment of the respective regulations -regulatory plans and related regulations- and second, concerning control -the exercise of police power (poder de policía)- in the territorial jurisdiction. Indeed, it must be remembered that urban planning regulation has traditionally been entrusted, without any discussion, to the municipalities, insofar as it has been considered that

"(...) urban planning competence has been a genuine municipal competence, perhaps the foremost among all" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Eduardo and PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, Spain, S.N.E., 1981. p. 116.);

so that it has been configured as a tradition of Urban Planning Law, especially in those moments when its content has been expressed through "building and urban police ordinances", under the purview of local governments, under the understanding that public urban planning competence is proper to the city, and consequently, to the municipalities. Thus, urbanism begins by being an exclusively municipal competence. Subsequently, as it ceases to be a function solely of the urban sphere and seeks to encompass the planning of the entire territory, other higher Administrations take responsibility for it, thereby modifying the competence level of urban planning matters, by including other instances, in our environment, such as the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo -a decentralized entity-, and the Ministries of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, with the Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (a deconcentrated body) and the Ministry of National Planning. But regarding what properly pertains to local urban planning (planificación urbana local), it is worth remembering that it is in the Construction Law, approved by Decree-Law number 833, of the fourth of November, nineteen forty-nine -a pre-constitutional norm, having been enacted by the de facto Government of the Founding Junta of the Second Republic, directed by José Figueres Ferrer-, where it is established that the Municipalities are responsible for ensuring that cities and other towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, health (salubridad), comfort, and beauty in their public roads and in the buildings and constructions erected on lands thereof, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies (Article 1), as well as that no building may be erected in the country that contravenes its provisions (Article 74). And notwithstanding that our current Constitution –of the seventh of November, nineteen forty-nine- is somewhat sparse in defining the proper and essential functions of the municipalities, 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, primary ownership in matters of local urban planning corresponds to the municipalities, to the exclusion of any other public entity. In this regard, in the Municipal Code, number 4574, of the fourth of May, nineteen seventy, -in force until nineteen ninety-eight-, urban development matters were expressly recognized as municipal competence, in its Article 4. In accordance with the foregoing provision, and as a derivative of constitutional norms, Articles 15 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law, number 4240, of the fifteenth of November, nineteen sixty-eight, are concordant, insofar as they literally provide:

"Article 15.- In accordance with the precept of Article 169 of the Political Constitution, the competence 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 whatever is necessary 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 prevail for establishing a specific control regime." (Emphasis is not from 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 the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community." (Emphasis is not from the original.)

V.- OF MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN PLANNING RULES.- As for the second area enunciated, it concerns the control exercised by municipal Authorities regarding compliance with local urban planning regulations. In this sense, as this Tribunal has pointed out in various rulings (among them, numbers 175-2009, at fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, at fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of the thirtieth of January, 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" (underlining is not from the original); which in the matter of urban planning, is concretized in the control of urbanization and subdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is explicitly specified 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 towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty in their public roads, in the buildings and constructions erected on lands thereof, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies." For its part, the "police power" is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a law, it regulates an activity, in order to ensure public order, health, 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, insofar as its justification lies 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. With which, the measures that the State adopts for the purpose of protecting safety, health, and tranquility are of social public interest, which are manifested through police power, understood as the regulatory power over the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional duties. (In this sense, one may consult rulings number 401-91, at fourteen hours of the twentieth of February, and 619-91, at fourteen hours forty-five minutes of the twenty-second of March, both resolutions of nineteen ninety-one, and 2003-2864, at fifteen hours twenty minutes of the ninth of April, two thousand three, of the Sala Constitucional.)

VI.- OF URBAN PLANNING REGULATIONS IN GENERAL AND MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS.- The content of the urban planning regulations in our legal system (Costa Rican) must then be clarified. First of all, it is noted that the term "urban planning regulations" must be understood in a broad sense and not restricted to the regulations that emanate from a municipal agreement in this matter; insofar as it refers to the generality of urban planning instruments, which derive from various administrative instances, and which in doctrine has been conceptualized as "[...] an instrument, approved by an act of Public Power, that orders the territory, establishing provisions on the location of production and residential centers in the manner most convenient for the better distribution of the population; regulates land use for its public and private destiny and, especially, its urbanization and building, and, in doing so, defines the content of property rights and programs the development of urban planning management." (CARCELER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico. Second Edition. Editorial Tecnos, S.A. Barcelona. Spain. 1992. p. 34.)

Thus, in the national sphere, there are various urban planning regulations, depending on the body responsible for their adoption and, consequently, the scope of coverage of the national territory over which they apply: namely, those of national order and regional ones, the approval of which is the responsibility of the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy and the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, which contain the general guidelines for planning in this matter, and finally, local, cantonal, or municipal ones, which are those elaborated, processed, approved, and executed by the municipalities. When the term "regulatory plan" (plan regulador) is used, a term adopted by our national legislation in Article 1 of the Urban Planning Law, which defines it as:

"the local planning instrument that defines, in a set of plans, maps, regulations, and any other document, graphic, or supplement, the development policy and the plans for the distribution of the population, land uses, circulation routes, public services, community facilities, and construction, conservation, and rehabilitation of urban areas"; popularly, it refers to the urban planning regulations emanating from local governments; however, we must understand that the regulations of the first two orders are also included, that is, the national and regional ones, insofar as they have the same content and fulfill the same ordering function of the territory, at an urban level and in determining the possible uses of the land. These normative bodies have a specific content, that is, the ordering and planning of land use, for the creation of urban centers –cities, urbanizations, industrial projects or parks, parks, public roads, public services, etc.- within the scope of a territorial jurisdiction, be it the canton or part of it; or also at the regional level, in the case of the Regional Urban Development Plan of the Gran Área Metropolitana, approved by Decree number 3332, of the twenty-sixth of April, nineteen eighty-two, and its amendments; which at present is the only urban planning regulation in our country issued at the regional level; and without, at this time, a regulation of this nature having been adopted at the national level. Consequently, this implies localization, with respect to public buildings, and zoning (zonificación), with respect to private building. Thus, it determines not only the use or destiny of the plots, but also their configuration and extension; the population density, the percentage of the land that may be used, the number of floors, the class, and the destiny of the buildings; all of the foregoing, subject to uniform general rules for each type thereof throughout the entire zone.

Likewise, it guides the architectural composition of buildings, and regulates, if necessary, their aesthetic characteristics; a power that, it is worth noting, has not been exercised to date in our country (except, perhaps, in very sporadic cases). They are made up of written norms as well as graphics, plans, and annexed documents that help determine their content, which is absolutely normative in nature, which has the following effects: <b>a)</b> they regulate the powers of exercising the right to property, according to the classification and qualification of the lands contained therein; <b>b)</b> they have indefinite validity, but are susceptible to modification by subsequent revisions; <b>c)</b> their efficacy is "erga omnes", although reduced to a specific territory or territorial circumscription, depending on its level (national, regional, or local), as it binds both the Administration in general and private parties; and <b>d)</b> they cannot contain dispensation reserves.

**VII.- THE CONTENT OF REGULATORY PLANS (PLANES REGULADORES).-** Due to their broad content, the Urban Planning Law in its Article 21 establishes the main regulations that are complementary normative instruments of any urbanistic regulation, known as a "Plan", whether national, regional, or local, namely:

**a.- the ZONING (ZONIFICACIÓN) regulation:** through which norms for land use are established, recalling that it is a basic concept of urban planning, consisting of reserving certain zones of a territory for specific needs or functions; and it ranges from the creation of industrial zones to the setting of residential, political-administrative zones, sports zones, green zones, special environmental protection zones, and others (CALVO MURILLO, Virgilio, "Urbanistic Law: Fundamentals and Institutions", *Judicial Review*, Year II, No. 5, Judicial Branch of Costa Rica, September 1977, p. 92.) It is the first, and perhaps most important regulation that must accompany any urbanistic plan, in accordance with Article 21, clause 1) of the Urban Planning Law, given that, as its name indicates, **it is responsible for the ordering and determination of land use, with a view to a rational use of the land and to ensure satisfactory environmental living conditions and qualities, thereby conditioning the use of real estate property, through the delimitation of areas, according to the adopted categorization.** (BANDEIRA DE MELLO, Celso Antonio. *Legal Figures of Urban Planning in Brazil*. In: *Law and Urban Planning*. University Publishing House, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. pp. 388 and 389.) Thus, the **urbanistic regime of property rights is not uniform by the mere fact of land being subject to planning, but rather differs according to the type of land in which the property in question is classified; which evidences the importance of zoning.** (CARCELLER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. *Institutions of Urbanistic Law*. Fifth edition. Montecorvo Publishing, S.A. Madrid, Spain. 1992. p. 333.) Thus, from this regulation, the exact definition of possible (permitted) uses in each zone is established, with the consequent incidence on property rights; by conditioning where one can and must reside, where one can engage in commerce, where services must be provided, where industry can be carried out, and where one can recreate and entertain oneself; which leads us to consider the seriousness with which it must be formulated, which requires **not only criteria of opportunity and convenience, but above all technical and objective criteria.** It is clear that **the content of the land statute determines the scope of ownership and conditions its exercise, diversifying into situations favoring private initiative, and likewise, establishes linkages that restrict its exercise.** The function of land classification for the establishment of the corresponding legal regime is the responsibility of the General Plan, of which the zoning regulation forms a part; which must contain the urbanistic classification and qualification of the land. By classification, one should understand the category or type of land (urban, urbanizable, programmed or non-programmed and non-urbanizable, industrial, reserve or for environmental protection, residential, institutional, etc.) according to its basic urbanistic purpose; qualification applies to designate the subdivision of these types of land into zones characterized by specific urbanistic contents or uses; and in this sense, it is linked to the technique of zoning, which was born when there was a tendency to separate buildings intended for residence from industrial installations. It is clear that **the regulations contained in the zoning regulation come to assist in delineating the content of property rights, as the content thereof is the result of the constitutional and legal regime of property, as it is not an absolute right, but subject to regulations by virtue of the recognition of the fundamental element of the social function of property, and the contingencies of urban coexistence.** The legitimacy of the regulations or limitations contained in the zoning norms is conditioned upon the following principles: **a)** only norms of a general nature constitute zoning, that is, those covering a category of goods, also qualified by their spatial location, provided such location is not singularizing, and **b)** zoning regulations cannot be unlimited, as they must preserve the essential core of the property right (of use, enjoyment, and disposal, not in an unrestricted sense); otherwise, one is facing a suppression of the right, namely, an expropriation. So much so that zoning cannot entail the annulment or paralysis of the manifestations of property rights, which in no way should be confused with the patrimonial expressions or meaning of property. There is only an obligation to compensate for the imposition of these measures when they affect the essential core of this right, defined by constitutional jurisprudence as the possibility of carrying out some type of exploitation on the good, perhaps not the one desired by its owner. Consequently, **the limitations imposed on property that allow the owner the possibility of exploiting the good "normally" shall be legitimate, except, of course, the part or function affected by the limitation imposed by the State, thereby respecting the natural use of the good, by maintaining its value as a means of production or economic value in the market.** (In this regard, among others, see rulings number 0796-91, at fifteen hours and ten minutes on April twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-one; number 5893-95, at nine hours and forty-eight minutes on October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five, and number 2345-96, at nine hours and twenty-four minutes on May seventeenth, nineteen ninety-six.) The Supreme Court, en banc, so indicated in relation to the limitations to be imposed on property when they exceed the indicated limit, in an extraordinary session on June sixteenth, nineteen eighty-three:

"[...] that is, 'limitations' as Article 45 calls them, but not dispossession of private property nor deprivation of a primary attribute of ownership, because preventing the enjoyment of goods is equivalent, at least in this case, to a form of expropriation without the requirement of prior compensation ordered by the Constitution (Carta Política)." The Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ruled in the same sense in the cited rulings number 5097-93 and 2345-96; under the following considerations:

"**IV.)** For the Chamber (Sala), the reasonable limits that the State can impose on private property, in accordance with its nature, **are constitutionally possible as long as they do not empty its content.** When this occurs, it ceases to be a reasonable limitation and becomes a deprivation of the right itself" (ruling number 5097-93, supra citada); "That is to say, *the attributes of property can be limited, as long as the owner reserves for himself the possibility of exploiting the good normally, excluding, of course, the part or function affected by the limitation imposed by the State*. Outside these parameters, if social welfare requires sacrifices from one or a few only, compensation must be paid, just as when the sacrifice imposed on the owner is of such an identity that it causes him to lose the good entirely. Thus, *the limitation on property withstands constitutional analysis when the affectation to the essential attributes of property, which are those that allow the natural use of the thing within the current socio-economic reality, does not make the nature of the good disappear or make the use of the thing impossible*, because the State imposes authorization or approval requirements so complex that they imply, in fact, the impossibility of usufructing the good" (ruling number 2345-96, supra citada).

Thus, Article 24 of the Urban Planning Law determines the content of these regulations as follows: **a)** the determination of land uses; **b)** matters relating to the location, height, and construction area of buildings; **c)** the surface area and dimensions of lots, which has a direct impact on determining land density; **d)** the size of setbacks, yards, and other open spaces, and lot coverage by buildings and structures; **e)** the provision of space for parking, loading, and unloading of vehicles off the streets; **f)** size, location, and characteristics of signs or advertisements; and **g)** any other architectural or urbanistic detail related to land use, whose regulation is of interest to the local community. For this reason, it is mandatory to reserve zones that have a special affectation due to their use, such as those near airports, those affected for the protection of forest and historical-architectural heritage, or the natural heritage of the State, which derive from Articles 50 and 89 of the Constitution (Constitución Política), as ordered by Article 25 of the Urban Planning Law; **b.- the SUBDIVISION (FRACCIONAMIENTO) and URBANIZATION regulation:** which, pursuant to Article 32 of the Urban Planning Law, aims to determine under what conditions a municipality must permit or regulate subdivision and urbanization projects in its jurisdiction, for which requirements are set regarding access to the public road, transfer of areas for public use, norms for the construction of streets and sidewalks, pavements, pipes, storm and sanitary drains, electrification, and public lighting, among others. In this sense, the importance for Urbanistic Law of the **control of subdivision actions (fraccionamiento)** must be highlighted, which offers no doubt. In this regard, the Superior Administrative Litigation Court states:

"**IV.-** From the foregoing, it must be insisted that **the control of urban development as a competence of the municipalities implies both the power to issue regulatory plans (planes reguladores), but above all, it implies the competence to "control" the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of lands by means of the same regulatory plans and with the granting of the corresponding municipal approval (visado) to the respective plan, as expressed in numeral 33 of the cited Urban Planning Law.** In the same vein, according to Article 10 clause 2) of the Urban Planning Law, it is the responsibility of the Urbanism Directorate of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism to approve (visar) the corresponding plans for urbanization or subdivision projects for urbanization purposes prior to municipal approval (Article 33 ibid). It is a competence that translates into a control function by the Urbanism Directorate in relation to the planning and urbanistic control of the municipalities (Articles 7, clause 3) and 9 of the aforementioned law). They become advisors or watchdogs, being able to inform or even denounce to the Municipalities regarding an eventual infraction of the law or the local regulatory plan, and may even issue an act of suspension of a specific work, in which the infraction of the law in urbanistic matters has been proven. According to Article 36, clause b) ibid, municipalities cannot grant the respective approvals (visados) to plans for urbanistic projects in areas subject to control when they do not have the required permit (approval (visado) of the Urbanism Directorate)." (Third Section, Superior Administrative Litigation Court, ruling number 791-2002 at ten hours ten minutes on September twenty-seventh, two thousand two.) (Highlighting is not from the original.)

And indeed, **omitting the controls (visados) for subdivision purposes is one of the most common and dangerous ways to circumvent urbanistic standards and bring down all the regulatory instruments in the matter, which causes serious consequences.** Among these, we can cite the impossibility of planning and supplying basic services, **the construction of housing complexes in high-risk zones due to natural emergencies or building in zones that, due to their characteristics, should not be destined for constructions**, because they are for aquifer recharge or have high environmental value; just to cite some examples; **c.- the OFFICIAL MAP (MAPA OFICIAL):** which, pursuant to Article 1 of the Urban Planning Law, "is the plan or set of plans on which the exact position of the layouts of public roads and areas to be reserved for communal uses and services is indicated"; whose content is regulated in Articles 42 and 43 of the cited Law:

"**Article 42.-** The Official Map regulation will establish the norms on reserves, acquisition, use, and conservation of the necessary areas for roads, parks, plazas, buildings, and other communal uses, stating the location and the size of those already dedicated to public service and those demarcated only preventively." "**Article 43.-** The Official Map, together with the plans or the cadastre that complements it, shall constitute a special, reliable registry on property and affectation to the public domain of lands or spaces already dedicated to public uses"; **d.-** the **URBAN RENEWAL (RENOVACIÓN URBANA) regulation:** whose content is determined in Article 51 of the referenced Law, as follows:

"**Article 51.-** The Urban Renewal Regulation will contain the regulations locally adopted to conserve, rehabilitate, or remodel defective, deteriorated, or decaying urban areas, taking into account inconvenient parceling or building, the lack of communal services and facilities, or any other condition adverse to general safety, health, and welfare"; which is of transcendental importance, especially regarding the protection of historical-architectural heritage, or for safeguarding the security of the inhabitants of a neighborhood; **e.-** and finally, the **CONSTRUCTIONS (CONSTRUCCIONES)** regulation; which aims to technically regulate all the requirements that any type of construction must meet according to the definition of the concept given in Article 1 of the referenced Law, which defines it as "any structure that is fixed or incorporated into land; it includes any work of building, reconstruction, alteration, or expansion that implies permanence." Thus, its objective is to set the norms for the planning, design, and construction of buildings, streets, sports fields, industrial installations and machinery, and all works additional to these, in everything related to architecture, civil, electrical, mechanical, or sanitary engineering, with the aim of promoting, ensuring, and protecting health, economy, comfort, and common welfare through requirements that guarantee in such works their solidity, stability, safety, health, adequate lighting, and ventilation.

**VIII.- THE LEGAL NATURE (NATURALEZA JURÍDICA) OF REGULATORY PLANS AND THEIR CONTENT.-** Urbanistic regulations, which as indicated, comprise a very varied set of norms; a product of the action of the various public entities that intervene in this matter; from which we find legal norms, norms of a regulatory nature with the force of law (law in the material sense), and of course, regulatory norms. Thus, we can well conclude that our urbanistic legal system is made up of norms of different natures, precisely by virtue of two important factors: firstly, the body or institution from which it emanates (that is, the Legislative Assembly (Asamblea Legislativa), the Executive Branch, the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism, or the municipalities); and secondly, and derived from the former, the scope of coverage of the regulation, that is, of national, regional, or local binding effect. Thus, urbanistic regulations of a legal order do not present a legal problem, either in doctrine or in jurisprudence, given that they are legitimate, as long as they are approved by a qualified vote, that is, with the minimum vote of thirty-eight deputies, due to their content; under the terms provided in the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Constitution itself, insofar as they impose limitations of social interest. It is worth reiterating that this requirement of a qualified vote is not merely formal, but substantial, as it implies the necessary consensus among the various fractions of the political parties that make up the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, there is no major discussion about the legitimacy and normative rank of the Urban Planning Law, which fully complies with the constitutional requirement, having been approved in compliance with the constitutional requirement. Now, insofar as urbanistic regulations constitute a set of heterogeneous norms, precisely because they derive from various public instances, and consequently, as a manifestation of various instances of public power (Legislative Power, Administrative power, and local power). It is our view that the analysis of these regulations must start from the content of Article 45 of the Constitution, whose second paragraph legitimizes the establishment of limitations of social interest on property, provided that they are established by a qualified law, a substantial and not formal requirement, as it implies legislative consensus for their adoption. In this sense, as the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has considered in its jurisprudence, urbanistic limitations and regulations are of social interest, as they are imposed precisely to facilitate coexistence in society, and translate into impediments or obligations for the owner, and most of which have a quite ancient origin in our legal system, deriving – many of them – from provisions of the Civil Code, which dates back to eighteen eighty-eight. Constitutional jurisprudence has recognized two types of social interest that legitimize – or justify – the imposition of limitations on property: these are those related to the **protection of the environment** and those of an **urbanistic order**, the latter, from the development made in ruling number 4205-96, cited above. Consequently, in a strict sense, it should be considered that urbanistic plans – **all in general, that is, those at the national, regional, and local levels –, by reason of their content, have the normative rank of laws in the material sense, as they impose obligations, duties, and limit rights, in particular the exercise of property rights**, as pointed out by the Argentine jurist Edgardo O. SCOTTI:

"A plan for a specific urban nucleus implies not only establishing policies aimed at the adequate organization of activities in space, but also means guiding and conditioning the actions of the public and private sectors through the use of legal instruments that, through incentives, demands, or prohibitions, delimit the exercise of property rights and the other functions and uses that can be developed in the urban sphere."(*Law and Urban Planning*. University Publishing House, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. p. 77.)

In this regard, there is no doubt about the direct incidence of urbanistic plans on the exercise of the fundamental rights of private property and freedom of enterprise, insofar as the content of their regulations also implies the development of industry and commerce (Articles 45 and 47 of the Constitution (Constitución Política)), as well as the consequent protection of another fundamental right, namely, that of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Constitution (Constitución Política)); as the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) considered in ruling number 5303-93:

"... the limitation on property imposed by a regulatory plan is constitutionally possible, because the right to property is not unlimited; rather, there is a general framework within which the owner can act and which must be compatible with the constitutional content of that right. Given the foregoing, in the judgment of this Court, the imposed limitation, as adjusted to a current regulatory plan, does not violate, as suggested in the appeal, Article 45 of the Constitution (Constitución Política), insofar as that regulatory plan does not unconstitutionally alter the private property that is affected by that instrument." Conversely, if the limitations exceed the minimum parameters of reasonableness and proportionality, they would be contrary to <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Constitución Política." w:st="on">la Constitución Política.</st1:PersonName>".- Thus, **it has been considered that the content imposed in the various urban plans—in their complete dimension, be they national, regional, and local—is in accordance with the constitutional requirement, as it derives from a legal provision –<st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Planificación Urbana–, which was indeed approved in compliance with the constitutional condition –two-thirds of the total members of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Asamblea Legislativa-," w:st="on">la Asamblea Legislativa-,</st1:PersonName> by virtue of which, that legitimacy is transferred to them**. And in addition to the above, it must be considered that regional plans, in this case, the Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano, del Gran Área Metropolitana, have that character by virtue of an express legal mandate, pursuant to Article 64 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Planificación Urbana, as they textually state:

"**Article 64.-** The Plan Regulador Metropolitano, its regulations, and the respective amendments, **shall acquire the force of law for all the municipalities of the circuit that has agreed to its adoption.**" (The emphasis is not from the original.)

Finally, regarding the municipal regulatory plans (planes reguladores), we can defend this value –**of law in a material sense**- based on the following reasons: **a) <u>by reason of its content</u>**, which imposes obligations on property owners and limitations on property, as indicated previously; **b.) <u>by reason of its reinforced approval procedure</u>**, which constitutes a manifestation of direct democracy; since for the approval of these regulations, **the holding of an oral and public hearing is required as an essential requirement**, under the terms provided in Article 19 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Planificación Urbana; and likewise, the plan is adopted and imposed by agreement of the Concejo Municipal, the deliberative body of the municipalities; and **c) <u>by legal comparison</u>**, from the provisions of the transcribed Article 64 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Planificación Urbana. Ergo, if a regional urban planning ordinance acquires the rank of law for <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Municipalidad" w:st="on">la Municipalidad</st1:PersonName> that adopts it, and this is by agreement of the Concejo, it is proper that this condition is also acquired by one that has been created by the municipality itself and governs only its territorial circumscription. In any case, our Tribunal Constitucional has clearly and precisely indicated that regulatory plans (planes reguladores), despite being regulatory provisions issued by the municipalities, have the normative rank of laws in a material sense. In this regard, see judgments number 2006-13330, of seventeen hours thirty-three minutes of December six, two thousand six; 2007-5575; of fifteen hours twenty-four minutes of April twenty-fifth, two thousand seven and 2008-18438, of seventeen hours fifty-six minutes of December eleventh, two thousand eight." (See Ruling of this same Section No. 2412-2010, of the fifteen hours five minutes of June twenty-fourth, two thousand ten.)

**IV.-** Having thus clarified the role of the Reglamento de Zonificación of the Plan Regulador of Oreamuno, which must be understood as having the effect of a law in a material sense by reason of its content, without a doubt the legal opinion expressed by <st1:PersonName ProductID="La Comisión" w:st="on">la Comisión</st1:PersonName> de Asuntos Jurídicos and accepted by the Concejo Municipal in the vetoed agreement, which considers that the Plan Regulador is below <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Construcciones and the regulations of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, is a legally improper thesis. Therefore, one cannot but conclude that the action taken in this regard by the body of council members constitutes an irregular action given the non-application of norms with prevailing normative value due to specialty in this case, binding both for <st1:PersonName ProductID="La Administración" w:st="on">la Administración</st1:PersonName> and for private individuals, which has full application precisely in the canton having been approved by the Municipality itself. The regulations of the INVU are applicable only in the absence of a Plan Regulador of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Municipalidad" w:st="on">la Municipalidad</st1:PersonName>, as indicated in judgment 4205-96 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Sala Constitucional." w:st="on">la Sala Constitucional.</st1:PersonName> **V.- On the nature of the Takiscú project and the defects of illegality noted by the Alcalde Municipal.** Any urban development process tends to develop a portion of land, the purpose of which is to provide a portion of land with the services typical of cities or towns, such as public roads, water, telephone, parks, etc., which is a complex process of environmental alteration with great effect on natural and artificial ecosystems, since most of these types of works compact the land and cover a significant part of the surface with an impermeable layer, which can affect aquifer reserves, increase runoff, alter natural drainage, and increase the flow of rivers and other water courses, in addition to eliminating the original landscape. It is precisely to this that Articles 7.1 and 17 of the Reglamento de Zonificación of San Rafael de Oreamuno respond, where the protection zone of this canton is "*created to stop peripheral urban development and to continue and intensify agricultural, livestock, and forestry use in it*", so that new developments (urbanizaciones) are not permitted, authorizing single-family housing uses of suburban or agricultural characteristics with the exclusion of residential complexes (conjuntos residenciales) and developments (urbanizaciones), where the minimum lot size is one hectare. This regulation must be integrated with the rest of the urban planning norms and, especially, with <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Planificación Urbana, which clearly differentiates between the subdivision (fraccionamiento) process and the development (urbanización) process, which are indispensable due to the legal implications that these processes entail. Since resolutions 175-2009, of fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, of fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of January thirtieth, two thousand nine, the local government was made aware, always in relation to the Takiscú project, that, "**<i>The subdivision (fraccionamiento)</i></b><i>, is the division of a property with 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 to the Plan Regulador of the local land –if one exists– as well as to the development regulations and other special public order laws. The subdivision that the law calls **"simple" (simple),** does not include a process of urban habilitation for the use and enjoyment of the parcels resulting from that subdivision, and this is so because the legislator assumes that in these cases, the properties have access and green areas resulting from a previous urban development. It is for this reason that Article 40 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Planificación Urbana provides:</i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent:1.0cm"><i>“(…)Likewise, **<u>simple subdivisions of parcels</u>** in <u>areas **previously** developed</u> are exempted from the obligation to cede areas for parks and community facilities…” (the highlighting is not from the original). </i> *When a certain area is previously developed, the acquirers of the subdivided parcels have access to properties, parks, and community facilities, and it must not be lost sight of 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 with urban development, greater allocations of land for reasons of social interest. The approval (visado) for simple subdivisions, due to their limited significance, is usually granted to an official (e.g., Ingeniero Municipal) different from the one entrusted with the “complex” approvals (e.g., Concejo Municipal, urban planning commissions, etc.), the former lacking the competence to authorize a different approval; this in the event that urban planning norms make such a distinction. Now, **<u>the subdivision that is part of the development process</u>** and that entails a habilitation of the properties, **<u>for the first time,</u> for urban purposes,** must be provided **<u>with streets, green areas, and parks</u>**, as well as the **<u>services</u>** necessary for its use and enjoyment. In this second case, we are dealing with <u>a complex process of subdivision and development that introduces</u> limitations on private property for urban planning reasons (Article 22 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Planificación Urbana), which the Tribunal Constitucional has indicated are fully in accordance with the Law of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Constitución" w:st="on">la Constitución</st1:PersonName> (vote N° 5097-93 of 10:24 hrs of October 15, 1993 ). The residential or subdivision project that we will call “complex,” is provided for in numeral 40 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Planificación Urbana which, as applicable, provides:* *“**Every subdivider (fraccionador)** of land (…) and every **developer (urbanizador)** shall cede gratuitously for public use both the areas destined for roads and those corresponding to parks and community facilities; what is to be fixed for the latter two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, by setting percentages of the total area to be subdivided or developed, 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 norms in this regard. Notwithstanding the above, the sum of the land 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 developed. (…)* *The developer's obligation to provide the subdivided parcels with access, 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 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 with the conditions they provide. <u>The mere fact that a parceling requires works to enable entry and provide various services to some of those properties is sufficient to assert that a “simple subdivision” does **not** exist, but rather a residential project that must, consequently, comply with all the indicated requirements.</u> Urban residential projects can only enable entry to the properties through **<u>public roads</u>** that must have the dimensions and requirements of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley General" w:st="on">la Ley General</st1:PersonName> de Caminos Públicos and, the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, in the absence -in this latter case- of specific provisions in local norms."* Thus, the failure of urban development projects to adapt to the requirements established in the urban planning system obliges -*per se*- the rejection of the actions initiated, in application of the principle of legality.

**VI.-** Having been accredited in the case file that in reality Takiscú has become a complex destined for residential use located in a protection zone, which currently has thirty-one approved (visados) lots whose surface area is less than one hectare, plus an internal easement (servidumbre) with pavers, poorly named "agricultural easement (servidumbre agrícola)", destined to provide access to several of those lots, it is the unanimous opinion of this Tribunal that we are in the presence of serious defects at the time of granting the approvals (visados) of all the respective plans and construction permits. Note that a residential complex was built that ignores the applicable regulations due to its geographic location. It cannot be classified as a "simple subdivision (fraccionamiento simple)", which is in reality, clearly, an entire urban development project whose purpose is to provide housing solutions on 31 lots. On this particular point, it must be stated that even though the parent property is located facing public roads, this is not sufficient to classify it as a simple subdivision, it being evident that the opening of the poorly named agricultural easement is nothing more than a luxury street that gives access to lots that, without it, would have none, in addition to the fact that full compliance with all the necessary requirements for such effect was not given, which include, among others, the presentation of the preliminary project and the donation of public areas and installation of all public services at the expense of the developer. The foregoing means that the vetoed agreement of the Concejo Municipal made an incorrect application of the block of legality, a situation that must be understood both by the developers and by the acquirers, since the right to property, just as was transcribed above, is not unlimited, and must, by constitutional imperative, submit to the legal limitations imposed on the use and enjoyment of the land for the benefit of the community. Based on these factual and legal grounds, there is no other conclusion, once again, than that the resolution by the municipality regarding the granting of any approval (visado) or construction permit in Takiscú has defects in its essential elements due to transgression of the urban planning system and affectation of the public interest, in accordance with the doctrine contemplated in <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley General" w:st="on">la Ley General</st1:PersonName> de <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Administración Publica" w:st="on">la Administración Publica</st1:PersonName>, as we find ourselves in **the presence of omissions and substantial defects of the administrative act,** which punishes what has been done with absolute nullity, these being understood as the motive, content, and purpose (Articles 131 to 133 and 136), for which it is imperative that the nullity be formally declared, through the procedures provided for this purpose by the legal system.

**VII.- On the competent body for granting approvals (visados).** Likewise, it is necessary to analyze the absence of participation of the Concejo Municipal in the analyzed actions, alleged by the Alcalde, since it was the Ingeniero Municipal who originally granted the approvals (visados). The Alcalde claims that this is an exclusive and sole competence of the Concejo Municipal, which he considers is another defect of nullity. As seen in the list of proven facts, during the years 2006 and 2007 the Ingeniero Municipal granted the 31 approvals (visados) of plans. Only in the agreement made by the Concejo Municipal, Article 37, No. 1578-2008 of session 147-2008 of March 11, 2008, did the body of council members confer directives to the Ingeniero Municipal, so that he would grant them and confer the respective construction permits to the company Upsilón, represented here. Only in this specific case did the Concejo Municipal remedy the defect noted by the Alcalde, since according to Article 13, subsection p) of the Código Municipal -previously subsection o), numbering changed by Ley 8822 of April 29, 2010-, the Concejo **is the competent body in urban planning matters and, therefore, it is the one responsible for the approval of everything concerning this project, given that it is not a simple subdivision. In any case, this Tribunal must emphasize that for the Ingeniero to approve the approval (visado), a prior agreement of the Concejo was necessary, authorizing the development, an element that does not appear in the case file. Therefore, indeed the defect alleged by the Alcalde in the interposed veto is noted.** **VIII.- On the validity of the agreement of the Concejo Municipal of Oreamuno, N° 333-2006, Article 17, record N° 029-2006 taken at the session held on September twelfth, two thousand six.** The intervening parties Taquiscú S.A. and Finca Upsilón S.A., in their capacity as developer of Takiscú and owners of lots, respectively, as well as the Concejo Municipal in the agreement that rejected the Alcalde's request, consider that the arguments contained in official letter AM-0412-2009-mvrq, called **"Solicitud de Declaratoria de Lesividad y de procedimiento administrativo"**, are incorrect, given that agreement No. 333-2006, Article 17, record No. 029-2006, of the ordinary session of September 12, 2006, which the Alcalde seeks to apply, is not in force. On this particular point, the Alcalde invokes the application of the mentioned agreement, which had ordered, several years ago, to reject official letter DI-URBA-18-06 of June 19, 2006 from the Departamento de Ingeniería, in which the approval was requested for the subdivision of twenty lots located facing public roads and for the construction permit in the Takiscú project, to establish disciplinary measures against the officials of the municipal Engineering department, to deny the permits requested by the company, and to proceed with the closure and stoppage of works of the cited subdivision. However, upon analyzing the appeal phases, it can be deduced that the extraordinary appeal for review was accepted by the Concejo Municipal, in agreement N° 1652-2008, adopted in session N° 156-2008 held on April 24, 2008, whose veto did not prosper. Thus, the mentioned agreement that the Alcalde seeks to apply has no effect, in accordance with the provisions of Article 157 of the Código Municipal, so the invocation made by the Alcalde aimed at obtaining the nullity of the approvals (visados) based on the application of that agreement is totally improper. Therefore, the arguments put forward by the Concejo and the intervener are correct, in considering that the nullity of the approvals (visados) cannot be requested on the basis of an ineffective administrative act. However, since this argument is not the only one argued by the interposed veto, the other elements of the Alcalde's objection provide sufficient merit to resolve in the manner done in this resolution.

**IX.- On the invoked nullity and the procedure to declare it.** Having clearly noted the serious defects of nullity of the Takiscú project, even though municipal agreement No. **333-2006, Article 17, record N° 029-2006** taken at the session held on September 12, 2006, is not in force, and having as a basis the respective approvals (visados) and permits, <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Municipalidad" w:st="on">la Municipalidad</st1:PersonName> of Oreamuno may well now go against its own acts, in application of numerals 173 and 183 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley General" w:st="on">la Ley General</st1:PersonName> de <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Administración Pública" w:st="on">la Administración Pública</st1:PersonName> and 34 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, for transgression of numerals 131 to 133 and 136 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley General" w:st="on">la Ley General</st1:PersonName> de <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Administración Pública" w:st="on">la Administración Pública</st1:PersonName>, 40 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Planificación Urbana, 7 and 17 of the Reglamento de Zonificación of the Plan Regulador of San Rafael de Oreamuno. These elements are sufficient to accept the Alcalde's request, and with it, the interposed veto. There is no legal possibility that empowers the local administration to reject the respective nullity petition, since as provided by numeral 174 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley General" w:st="on">la Ley General</st1:PersonName> de <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Administración Pública" w:st="on">la Administración Pública</st1:PersonName>, <i>"<st1:PersonName ProductID="La Administración" w:st="on">La Administración</st1:PersonName> shall be obligated to annul ex officio the absolutely null act, within the limitations of this law "</i>, there being therefore no room whatsoever for administrative discretion in making this decision. This implies, then, that the arguments put forward by the Concejo Municipal regarding the budgetary impact that potential compensations could generate is an aspect of convenience that is far from legality and that, therefore, cannot prevail over the legal system. In any case, to avoid confusion, it is clarified to the Local Government that the mechanisms for nullity of the administrative act declaratory of rights provided for by <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley General" w:st="on">la Ley General</st1:PersonName> de <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Administración Pública" w:st="on">la Administración Pública</st1:PersonName> are two, <u>mutually exclusive</u>. The local government may well proceed to appoint a directing body and initiate the proceedings for absolute nullity, <u>when this is evident and manifest</u>, resulting then in the administrative venue decreeing the nullity of what has been done, as regulated by Articles 173, 308 and following of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley General" w:st="on">la Ley General</st1:PersonName> de <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Administración Pública" w:st="on">la Administración Pública</st1:PersonName>, by establishing the ordinary procedure for this purpose; or, it may issue the declaration of lesivity (declaratoria de lesividad) and initiate contentious-administrative proceedings in the jurisdictional venue in the case of absolute nullity that is not evident or manifest. Note that the two procedures should not be confused, since one is in the administrative venue while the other takes place in the jurisdictional venue. The details of each were set out in the previous resolutions of this same Section (175-2009, 176-2009, and 177-2009) and, therefore, the Concejo must decide which of the two legally viable options it chooses.

X.- Corollary. Having assessed the defects stated above in the granting of the plan approvals (visados de planos) in the Takiscú project, as well as the nullity of the construction permit for the internal easement (servidumbre interna) in paving stone, the appropriate course is to uphold the Veto filed by the Municipal Mayor, and the Municipal Council must proceed as indicated in the preceding Considerando.

II.Grounds for the Veto: The arguments of the lodged veto are aimed at having the request made by the Mayor granted, so that the injuriousness or absolute, evident, and manifest nullity of the approval of thirty-one plot plans located in the Takiscú project be declared, along with the nullity of the agricultural easement (servidumbre agrícola) that provides access to several of those plots. The arguments of the veto can be summarized as reasons of legality, taking up the same legal foundations of the initial request presented to the Municipal Council, which were indicated in the sixth proven fact of this decision.

III.- Regarding the applicable regulations in this project. One of the main reasons for rejecting the nullity petition lies in the fact that the council members consider that the applicable regulations are found in the Cadastre Law (Ley de Catastro) and the Executive Decrees of the INVU, regulations they consider to be of a higher hierarchical order than the Regulatory Plan of Oreamuno (Plan Regulador de Oreamuno). In this regard, a clarification must be made regarding the competence of the municipalities concerning urban planning, on which matter this Tribunal has pronounced in the following terms:

*IV.- REGARDING MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE URBAN PLANNING OF THE CANTON. NORMATIVE REGULATION FROM WHICH IT ARISES.- Given that the claim concerns the issuance of a certificate for land use as non-conforming, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to make some brief reflections on the competence of local governments in urban matters. It is clarified that this authority has a dual aspect, thus, firstly, concerning the definition of normative regulations -promulgation of the respective regulations - regulatory plans and related regulations- and secondly, concerning the control -exercise of police power (poder de policía)- within the territorial jurisdiction. Indeed, it must be remembered that urban planning regulation has been traditionally entrusted, and without any discussion, to the municipalities, as it has been considered that* *"(...) urban planning competence has been a genuine municipal competence, perhaps the first among all" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, [Nombre7411] and PAREJO ALFONSO, [Nombre45684], Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, España, S.N.E., 1981. p. 116.);* *so that it has been configured as a tradition of Urban Development Law, especially in those moments when its content has been expressed through "ordinances of construction and urban police", within the competence of local governments, under the understanding that public urban planning competence is inherent to the city, and consequently, to the municipalities. Thus, urbanism begins by being an exclusively municipal competence. Subsequently, as it ceases to be a function typical of the urban environment and seeks to encompass the planning of the entire territory, other higher Administrations become responsible for it, thereby modifying the competence level of urban 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 Secretaría Técnica Ambiental (a deconcentrated body) and the Ministry of National Planning. But regarding what properly concerns local urban planning, it is worth remembering that it is in the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones), approved by Decree-Law number 833, of November fourth, nineteen hundred and forty-nine -a pre-constitutional norm, having been promulgated by the de facto Government of the Founding Junta of the Second Republic, led by José Figueres Ferrer-, where it is established that the Municipalities are responsible for ensuring that cities and other towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty in their public roads and in the buildings and constructions erected on their land, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies (article 1), as well as that no building may be erected in the country that contradicts its provisions (article 74). And notwithstanding that our current Political Constitution –of November seventh, nineteen hundred and forty-nine– is somewhat sparing in defining the proper and essential functions of the municipalities, 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, the primary authority in matters of local urban planning belongs to the municipalities, to the exclusion of any other public entity. In this sense, in the Municipal Code, number 4574, of May fourth, nineteen hundred and seventy, –in force until nineteen hundred and ninety-eight–, the matter of urbanism was expressly recognized as a municipal competence, in its article 4. In accordance with the previous provision, and as a derivative of constitutional norms, articles 15 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law, number 4240, of November fifteenth, nineteen hundred and sixty-eight, are concordant, insofar as they literally state:* *"Article 15.- Pursuant to the precept of article 169 of the Political Constitution, the competence and authority of municipal governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their jurisdictional territory, is recognized. Consequently, each of them shall provide whatever is appropriate to implement a regulatory plan (plan regulador), 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 prevail to establish a specific controlling regime." (Highlighting is not in the original.)* *"Article 19.- Each Municipality shall issue and promulgate the procedural rules necessary for the due compliance with the regulatory plan (plan regulador) and for the protection of the interests of health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community." (Highlighting is not in the original.)* *V.- REGARDING MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN VERIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN PLANNING REGULATIONS.- As for the second area mentioned, it pertains to the control exercised by municipal Authorities regarding compliance with local urban planning regulations. In this sense, as this Tribunal has pointed out 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), "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 objectives" (underlining is not in the original); which in urban planning matters is embodied in the control of urbanization and subdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is concretely and exhaustively specified in article 1 of the Construction Law, insofar as it literally states:* *"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 roads, and in the buildings and constructions erected on their land, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies."* *For its part, "police power (poder de policía)" is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a law, it regulates and governs an activity, in order to ensure public order, health, tranquility, the safety of individuals, 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 those of other persons, since they must coexist with each and every one of the other fundamental rights. Therefore, the measures adopted by the State with the purpose of protecting safety, health, and tranquility are of public social interest, which manifest through the police power, understood as the regulatory power over the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional duties. (In this sense, 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 hundred and ninety-one, and 2003-2864, at fifteen hours twenty minutes on April ninth, two thousand three, of the Constitutional Chamber, can be consulted.)* *VI.- REGARDING URBAN PLANNING REGULATIONS IN GENERAL AND MUNICIPAL REGULATIONS.- The content of urban planning regulations in our (Costa Rican) legal system must therefore be clarified. First of all, it is noted that the term "urban planning regulations" must be understood in a broad sense and not restricted to the regulations in this matter emanating from a municipal agreement; insofar as it refers to the generality of urban planning instruments, which derive from various administrative instances, and which in doctrine has been conceptualized as* *"[...] an instrument, approved by an act of Public Power, that organizes the territory, establishing provisions on the location of production and residence centers in the manner most suitable for the best distribution of the population; regulates land use for its public and private purpose and, especially, its urbanization and building, and, in so doing, defines the content of property rights and programs the development of urban management." (CARCELER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico. Second Edition. Editorial Tecnos, S.A. Barcelona. Spain. 1992. p. 34.)* *Thus, within the national sphere, there are various urban planning regulations, depending on the body responsible for their adoption and, consequently, the territorial coverage area over which it exercises application: namely, those of national and regional scope, whose approval is the responsibility of the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy and the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, which contain the general guidelines of planning in this matter, and finally, the local, cantonal, or municipal ones, which are those that the municipalities develop, process, approve, and execute. When the term "regulatory plan (plan regulador)" is used, a meaning adopted by our national legislation in article 1 of the Urban Planning Law, which defines it as:* *"the local planning instrument that defines, in a set of drawings, maps, regulations, and any other document, graphic, or supplement, the development policy and the plans for population distribution, land uses, circulation routes, public services, community facilities, and construction, conservation, and rehabilitation of urban areas";* *popularly, reference is made to urban planning regulations emanating from local governments; however, we must understand that the regulations of the first two orders, that is, the national and regional ones, are also included, as they have the same content and fulfill the same territorial ordering function, at the urban level and in determining possible land uses. These normative bodies have a specific content, that is, the organization and planning of land use, for the creation of urban centers –cities, residential developments, industrial projects or parks, parks, public roads, public services, etc.– within the scope of a territorial jurisdiction, be it the canton or part of it; or also at the regional level, as in the case of the Regional Urban Development Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Area, approved by Decree number 3332, of April twenty-sixth, nineteen hundred and eighty-two, and its amendments; which is currently the only urban planning regulation in our country enacted at the regional level; and no regulation of this nature has yet been adopted at the national level. Consequently, this implies the location, regarding public buildings, and zoning, regarding private building. Thus, it not only determines the use or purpose of the lots, but also their configuration and extension; the population density, the percentage of land that can be used, the number of floors, the class and purpose of the buildings; all of the foregoing, subject to uniform general standards for each type thereof throughout the entire zone. Likewise, it guides the architectural composition of the buildings, and regulates, if necessary, their aesthetic characteristics; a competence which, it is worth noting, has not been exercised so far in our country (except, perhaps, in very sporadic cases). They are made up of both written norms and graphics, plans, and annexed documents that help determine their content, which is absolutely normative in nature, which has the following effects: a) they regulate the powers regarding the exercise of property rights, according to the classification and qualification of the land contained therein; b) they have indefinite validity, but are susceptible to modification by subsequent revisions; c) their effectiveness is "erga omnes", although reduced to a specific territory or territorial jurisdiction, according to its level (national, regional or local), as it binds both the Administration in general and private parties; and d) they cannot contain reservations for exemption.* *VII.- REGARDING THE CONTENT OF REGULATORY PLANS.- It is due to its broad content that the Urban Planning Law establishes in its article 21 the main regulations that are complementary normative instruments of any urban planning regulation, known as a "Plan", whether national, regional, or local, namely:* *a.- that of ZONING: through which standards for the use of the territory are established, it being worth remembering that this is a basic concept of urbanism, consisting of reserving certain zones of a territory for specific needs or functions; and it ranges from the creation of industrial zones to the setting of residential, political-administrative zones, sports zones, green zones, and zones of special environmental protection, among others (CALVO MURILLO, Virgilio, "Derecho Urbanístico: Fundamentos e Instituciones", Revista Judicial, Year II, No. 5, Poder Judicial de Costa Rica, September 1977, p. 92.) It is the first, and perhaps most important, regulation that must accompany every urban plan, in accordance with article 21, subsection 1) of the Urban Planning Law, seeing as, as its name indicates, it is responsible for the organization and determination of land use, with a view to rational land use and to ensure satisfactory environmental living conditions and qualities, thereby conditioning the use of real estate property, through the delimitation of areas, according to the categorization adopted. (BANDEIRA DE MELLO, Celso Antonio. Figuras jurídicas del planeamiento urbano en el Brasil. In: Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano. Editorial Universidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. pp. 388 and 389.) In this way, the urban planning regime of property rights is not uniform by the mere fact of the land being subject to planning, but differs according to the type of land under which the property in question is classified; which demonstrates the importance of zoning. (CARCELLER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. Instituciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Fifth edition. Editorial Montecorvo, S.A. Madrid, Spain. 1992. p.

333.) Thus, based on this regulation, the exact definition of possible (permitted) uses in each zone is established, with the consequent impact on property rights; by conditioning where one can and must reside, where one can engage in commerce, where services are to be provided, where industry must be allowed, and where one can engage in recreation and entertainment; which leads us to consider the seriousness with which it must be formulated, which requires, <span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">not only criteria of opportunity and convenience, but above all, technical and objective criteria</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. It is clear that </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the content of the land-use statute determines the scope of ownership and conditions its exercise, diversifying into situations that favor private initiative, and likewise, establishes linkages that restrict its exercise</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. The function of land-use classification for establishing the corresponding legal regime falls to the Plan General, of which the zoning regulation (reglamento de zonificación) forms a part; which must contain the classification and urban planning designation of the land. Classification should be understood as the category or type of land (urban, developable, programmed or non-programmed and non-developable, industrial, reserve or for environmental protection, residential, institutional, etc.) according to its basic urban purpose; designation is applied to designate the subdivision of those types of land into zones characterized by specific urban content or uses; and in this sense, it is linked to the technique of zoning, which is born when there is a tendency to separate buildings intended for residences from industrial installations. It is clear that </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the regulations contained in the zoning regulation come to assist in delineating the content of property rights, insofar as the content thereof is the result of the constitutional and legal property regime, as it is not an absolute right, but subject to regulations by virtue of the recognition of the fundamental element of the social function of property, and the contingencies of urban coexistence</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. The legitimacy of the regulations or limitations contained in the zoning rules is conditioned on the following principles: </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">a)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> zoning is only composed of rules of a general nature, that is, those covering a category of goods, also qualified by their spatial location, insofar as such location is not singularizing, and </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">b)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> zoning regulations cannot be unlimited, as they must preserve the essential core of the property right (of use, enjoyment, pleasure, and disposal, not in an unrestricted sense); otherwise, there will be a suppression of the right, that is, an expropriation (expropiación). </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">Therefore, zoning cannot entail the annulment or paralysis of the manifestations of the property right, which should in no way be confused with the expressions or patrimonial significance of the property. There is only an obligation to compensate for the imposition of these measures when they reach the essential core of this right, defined by constitutional jurisprudence as the possibility of carrying out some type of exploitation on the property, perhaps not the one desired by its owner. Thus, </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">limitations imposed on property that allow the owner the possibility of exploiting the property "normally" shall be legitimate, except, of course, for the part or function affected by the limitation imposed by the State, thereby respecting the natural use of the property, by maintaining its value as a means of production or economic value in the market</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">. (In this regard, among others, see rulings number 0796-91, of fifteen hours and ten minutes on April twenty-sixth, nineteen ninety-one; number 5893-95, of nine hours and forty-eight minutes on October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-five; and number 2345-96, of nine hours and twenty-four minutes on May seventeenth, nineteen ninety-six.) This was stated by the Corte Plena in an extraordinary session on June sixteenth, nineteen eighty-three, regarding limitations to be imposed on property when they exceed the indicated limit:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">"[...] that is, 'limitations' as they are called in Article 45, but not dispossession of private property nor deprivation of a primary attribute of ownership, because preventing the enjoyment of goods is equivalent, at least in this case, to a form of expropriation without the requirement of prior compensation ordered by the Carta Política."</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">In the same vein, the Sala Constitucional ruled in the cited rulings number 5097-93 and 2345-96, under the following considerations:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">"</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">IV.)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> For this Chamber, the reasonable limits that the State can impose on private property, in accordance with its nature, </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">are constitutionally possible as long as they do not empty its content</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. When this occurs, it ceases to be a reasonable limitation and becomes a deprivation of the right itself" (ruling number 5097-93, cited above);</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">"That is, </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">the attributes of property may be limited, as long as the owner reserves for himself the possibility of exploiting the property normally, excluding, of course, the part or the function affected by the limitation imposed by the State</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. Outside these parameters, if social welfare demands sacrifices from only one or a few, they must be compensated, just as occurs when the sacrifice imposed on the owner is of such magnitude that it causes the total loss of the property. Thus, </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">the limitation on property withstands constitutional analysis when the affectation of the essential attributes of property, which are those that allow the natural use of the thing within the current socio-economic reality, does not cause the nature of the property to disappear or make the use of the thing impossible</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">, because the State imposes authorization or approval requirements so complex that they imply, in fact, the impossibility of usufructing the property" (ruling number 2345-96, cited above).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">Thus, Article 24 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana determines the content of these regulations in the following manner: </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">a) </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the determination of land uses; </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">b)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> matters relating to the location, height, and building area of constructions; </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">c)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> the surface area and dimensions of lots, which has a direct impact on the determination of land density; </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">d)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> the size of setbacks, yards, and other open spaces, and lot coverage by buildings and structures; </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">e)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> the provision of space for parking, loading, and unloading of vehicles off the streets; </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">f)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> size, location, and characteristics of signs or advertisements; and </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">g)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> any other architectural or urban detail relating to land use, the regulation of which is of interest to the local community. For this reason, it is mandatory to reserve zones that have a special affectation due to their use, such as those near airports, those affected by the protection of forest, historical, and architectural heritage, or the natural heritage of the State, which derive from Articles 50 and 89 of the Constitución Política, as ordered by Article 25 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">b.- the </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">SUBDIVISION and URBANIZATION (FRACCIONAMIENTO y URBANIZACIÓN)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> Regulation: </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">which, pursuant to Article 32 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, aims to determine under what conditions a municipality must permit or regulate subdivision and urbanization projects in its jurisdiction, for which requirements are set out corresponding to access to public roads, transfer of areas for public use, standards for the construction of streets and sidewalks, pavements, pipes, storm and sanitary drainage, electrification and public lighting, among others. In this sense, the importance for Urban Planning Law of </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the control of subdivision actions</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> must be highlighted, which is beyond any doubt.</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> In this regard, the Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo states:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">“</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">IV.- </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">From the foregoing, it should be reiterated that </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">the control of urban development as a competence of the municipalities implies both the power to issue regulatory plans, but above all, it implies the competence to “control” the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of land through those same regulatory plans and with the granting of the corresponding municipal approval (visado municipal) on the respective plan, as expressed in section 33 of the cited Ley de Planificación Urbana</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. In the same vein, according to Article 10, subsection 2) of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, it is the responsibility of the Dirección de Urbanismo of the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo (INVU) to approve the corresponding plans regarding urbanization projects or subdivision for urbanization purposes prior to municipal approval (Article 33, ibidem). It is a competence that translates into a control function by the Dirección de Urbanismo in relation to the urban planning and control of the municipalities (Articles 7, subsection 3) and 9 of the aforementioned law). They become advisors or monitors, being able to inform or even report to the Municipalities regarding a possible infraction of the law or the local regulatory plan, and may even issue an act to suspend a specific work in which the infraction of the law on urban planning matters has been proven</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. According to Article 36, subsection b) ibidem, the municipalities cannot grant the respective approvals to plans for urban development projects in areas subject to control when they do not have the requisite permit (approval of the Dirección de Urbanismo).” (Section Three, Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo, ruling number 791-2002 of ten hours ten minutes on September twenty-seventh of the year two thousand two.) (The highlighting is not from the original.)</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">And indeed, </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">omitting controls (approvals) for subdivision purposes is one of the most common and dangerous ways to circumvent urban standards and thwart all regulatory instruments in this area, causing serious consequences</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. Among these, we can cite the impossibility of planning and providing basic services, </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">the construction of housing complexes in high-risk zones due to natural emergencies, or building in zones that, due to their characteristics, should not be intended for constructions</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">, because they are aquifer recharge areas or have high environmental value; just to cite a few examples;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">c.- the </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">OFFICIAL MAP (MAPA OFICIAL)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">: </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">which, pursuant to Article 1 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, "is the plan or set of plans that accurately indicates the position of the layouts of public roads and areas to be reserved for communal uses and services"; whose content is regulated in Articles 42 and 43 of the cited Law:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">"</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">Article 42.-</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> The Official Map regulation shall establish the rules on reservations, acquisition, use, and conservation of the areas necessary for roads, parks, plazas, buildings, and other communal uses, expressing the location and size of those already dedicated to public service and those demarcated only preventively."</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">"</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">Article 43.-</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic"> The Official Map, together with the plans or the cadastre that complements it, shall constitute a special, reliable register on the ownership and dedication to the public domain of lands or spaces already dedicated to public uses”;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">d.- </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">the </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">URBAN RENEWAL (RENOVACIÓN URBANA)</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic"> Regulation: </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">whose content is determined in Article 51 of the reference Law, as follows:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">"</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">Article 51.-</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> The Urban Renewal Regulation shall contain the regulations locally adopted to conserve, rehabilitate, or remodel defective, deteriorated, or decaying urban areas, taking into account inconvenient parceling or building, the lack of communal services and facilities, or any other condition adverse to general safety, health, and welfare";</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">which is of transcendental importance, especially when dealing with the protection of historical-architectural heritage, or for safeguarding the safety of a neighborhood's inhabitants;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">e.- </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">and finally, the </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">CONSTRUCTIONS</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> Regulation; which aims to technically regulate all the requirements that any type of construction must meet, according to the definition of the concept given in Article 1 of the reference Law, which defines it as "any structure that is fixed or incorporated into land; it includes any work of building, reconstruction, alteration, or expansion that implies permanence." Thus, its objective is to set the standards for the planning, design, and construction of buildings, streets, sports fields, industrial installations and machinery, and all works additional to these, in everything related to architecture, civil, electrical, mechanical, or sanitary engineering, in order to promote, ensure, and protect health, economy, comfort, and general welfare through requirements that guarantee in such works their solidity, stability, safety, health, adequate lighting, and ventilation.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">VIII.- OF THE LEGAL NATURE OF REGULATORY PLANS AND THEIR CONTENT.-</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic"> Urban planning regulations, which, as indicated, comprise a highly varied set of norms; a product of the action of the various public entities involved in this matter; from where we find legal norms, norms of a regulatory nature with the force of law (law in the material sense), and of course, regulatory norms. Thus, we can well conclude that our urban legal system is made up of norms of different natures, precisely by virtue of two important factors: first, the body or institution from which it emanates (be it the Asamblea Legislativa, the Poder Ejecutivo or Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, or the municipalities); and second, and derived from the above, the scope of coverage of the regulation, be it national, regional, or local binding. Thus, urban planning regulations of a legal nature do not pose a legal problem, neither in doctrine nor in jurisprudence, since they are legitimate, provided they are approved by a qualified vote, that is, with a minimum vote of thirty-eight deputies, due to their content; under the terms provided in the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Constitución Política itself, insofar as they impose limitations of social interest. It is worth reiterating that this qualified voting requirement is not merely formal, but substantial, as it implies the necessary consensus among the various fractions of the political parties that make up the Asamblea Legislativa. Therefore, there is no major discussion about the legitimacy and normative rank of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, which fully complies with the constitutional requirement, having been approved in compliance with the constitutional requirement. Now, while urban planning regulations constitute a set of heterogeneous norms, precisely because they derive from various public instances, and consequently, as a manifestation of various instances of public power (Legislative Power, Administrative power, and local power). It is our criterion that the analysis of these regulations must start from the content of Article 45 of the Constitution, whose second paragraph legitimizes the establishment of limitations of social interest on property, provided they are established by qualified law, a substantial and non-formal requirement, as it implies legislative consensus for their adoption. In this sense, as considered by the Sala Constitucional in its jurisprudence, limitations and regulations of an urban nature are of social interest, insofar as they are imposed precisely to facilitate coexistence in society, and translate into impediments or obligations for the owner, and most of them have a rather ancient origin in our legal system, deriving -many of them- from provisions of the Civil Code, dating from eighteen eighty-eight. Constitutional jurisprudence has recognized two types of social interest that legitimize -or justify- the imposition of limitations on property: these are those relating to </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">environmental protection</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic"> and those of an </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic">urban development nature</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">, the latter, based on the development made in ruling number 4205-96, cited above. Thus, strictly speaking, it should be considered that urban plans -</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">all in general, whether national, regional, or local in scope-, by reason of their content, have the normative rank of laws in the material sense, since they impose obligations, duties, and limit rights, particularly the exercise of property rights</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">, as pointed out by the Argentine jurist Edgardo O. SCOTTI:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">"A plan for a specific urban nucleus implies not only establishing policies aimed at the adequate organization of activities in space, but also means guiding and conditioning the actions of the public and private sectors through the use of legal instruments that, through incentives, requirements, or prohibitions, delimit the exercise of property rights and the other functions and uses that can be developed in the urban environment."</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">(</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic">. Editorial Universidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. p. 77.)</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">In this regard, there is no doubt of the direct impact of urban plans on the exercise of the fundamental rights of private property and freedom of enterprise, insofar as the development of industry and commerce is also inferred from the content of their regulations (Articles 45 and 47 of the Constitución Política), as well as the consequent protection of another fundamental right, that is, that of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Constitución Política); as considered by the Sala Constitucional in ruling number 5303-93:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 28.35pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-indent:28.35pt; font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-style:italic; color:#010101">"... the limitation on property imposed by a regulatory plan (plan regulador) is constitutionally possible, because the right to property is not unlimited; rather, there is a general framework within which the owner can act and which must be compatible with the constitutional content of that right. For the reasons expressed, in the opinion of this Tribunal, the limitation imposed, as long as it is adjusted to a valid regulatory plan, does not violate, as suggested in the appeal, Article 45 of the Constitución Política, as long as that regulatory plan does not deconstitutionalize the private property that is affected by that instrument.</span></p> Conversely, if the limitations exceed the minimum parameters of reasonableness and proportionality, they would be contrary to the Political Constitution.

Thus, it has been considered that the content imposed in the various urban plans—in their complete dimension, be they national, regional, and local—is in accordance with the constitutional requirement, because it derives from a legal provision—the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana)—which was indeed approved in compliance with the constitutional condition—two-thirds of the total members of the Legislative Assembly—by virtue of which, that legitimacy is transferred to said plans. And in addition to the above, it must be considered that regional plans, in this case, the Regional Urban Development Plan for the Gran Área Metropolitana (Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano, del Gran Área Metropolitana), have that character by virtue of an express legal mandate, in accordance with Article 64 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), which literally states:

"Article 64.- The Metropolitan Master Plan (Plan Regulador Metropolitano), its regulations, and the respective amendments, shall acquire the force of law for all the municipalities of the circuit that has agreed to its adoption." (The highlighting is not from the original.)

Finally, regarding the municipal master plans (planes reguladores municipalidades), we can defend this value—of law in a material sense—based on the following grounds: a) by reason of its content, which imposes obligations on owners and property limitations (limitaciones a la propiedad), as indicated previously; b.) by reason of its reinforced approval procedure, which constitutes a manifestation of direct democracy; in that for the approval of these regulations, the holding of an oral and public hearing is required, as an essential requirement, under the terms provided in Article 19 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana); and likewise, the plan is adopted and imposed by agreement of the Municipal Council, the deliberative body of the municipalities; and c) by legal equivalence, of what is provided in the transcribed Article 64 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana). Ergo, if a regional urban planning regulation acquires the rank of law for the Municipality that adopts it, and this is by agreement of the Council, it stands to reason that this condition is also acquired by that which has been gestated by the municipality itself and governs only its territorial circumscription. In any case, our Constitutional Court has clearly and precisely indicated that master plans (planes reguladores), despite being regulatory regulations issued by the municipalities, have the normative rank of laws in a material sense. In this regard, rulings number 2006-13330, of seventeen hours thirty-three minutes on December sixth, two thousand six; 2007-5575; of fifteen hours twenty-four minutes on April twenty-fifth, two thousand seven and 2008-18438, of seventeen hours fifty-six minutes on December eleventh, two thousand eight can be consulted." (See Ruling (Voto) of this same Section No. 2412-2010, of fifteen hours five minutes on June twenty-fourth, two thousand ten.)

IV.- Having clearly established then the role of the Zoning Regulation (Reglamento de Zonificación) of the Oreamuno Master Plan (Plan Regulador de Oreamuno), which must be understood with the effect of a law in a material sense by reason of its content, without a doubt the legal opinion expressed by the Legal Affairs Commission and accepted by the Municipal Council in the vetoed agreement, which considers that the Master Plan (Plan Regulador) is below the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) and the regulations of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU), is a legally improper thesis. This being the case, one can only conclude that what was done in this regard by the body of councilors constitutes an irregular action in the face of the disapplication of norms with normative value prevailing by specialty in this case, binding both for the Administration and for private individuals, which is fully applicable precisely in the canton having been approved by the Municipality itself. The INVU regulations are applicable only in the absence of a Municipal Master Plan (Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad), as indicated in ruling 4205-96 of the Constitutional Chamber.

V.- On the nature of the Takiscú project and the illegality defects appreciated by the Municipal [Body]. Every urban development process (proceso urbanístico) aims to develop a portion of land, whose purpose is to endow a portion of land with the services typical of large cities, such as public roads, water, telephone, parks, etc., which is a complex process of environmental alteration with a great effect on natural and artificial ecosystems, since most of these types of works compact the land and cover an important part of the surface with an impermeable layer, which could potentially affect aquifer reserves, increase runoff, alter natural drains and increase the flow of rivers and other water courses, in addition to eliminating the original landscape. Precisely, Articles 7.1 and 17 of the Zoning Regulation of San Rafael de Oreamuno (Reglamento de Zonificación de San Rafael de Oreamuno) respond to this, where the protection zone of this canton is "created to stop peripheral urban development and to continue and intensify agricultural, livestock, and forestry use therein," so that new developments (urbanizaciones) are not permitted, authorizing single-family housing uses of suburban or agricultural characteristics with the exclusion of residential complexes and developments (urbanizaciones), where the minimum lot size (cabida mínima) is one hectare. This regulation must be integrated with the rest of the urban planning norms and, especially, with the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), which clearly differentiates between the process of subdivision (fraccionamiento) and development (urbanización), which are indispensable due to the legal implications that these processes entail. Since resolutions 175-2009, of fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, of fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of January thirtieth, two thousand nine, the local government was made aware, always in relation to the Takiscú project, that, "Subdivision (fraccionamiento), is the division of a property with 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, to the local land Master Plan (Plan Regulador) –if one exists– as well as to the development regulations and other special public order laws. The subdivision (fraccionamiento) that the law designates as “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, the plots of land have access and green areas resulting from a previous urban development. It is for this reason that Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana) provides:

“(...) Likewise, the obligation to cede areas for parks and communal facilities is excepted for simple subdivisions of parcels (simples fraccionamientos de parcelas) in previously urbanized areas (...) (the highlighting is not from the original).

When a certain area is previously urbanized, the purchasers of the subdivided parcels have access to the plots, parks, and communal facilities, and it must not be lost sight of 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 a “simple” subdivision (fraccionamiento) with urban development, greater provisions of land for reasons of social interest. The approval (visado) for simple subdivisions (fraccionamientos), due to their little significance, is usually granted to an official (e.g., Municipal Engineer) different from the one entrusted with “complex” approvals (visados) (e.g., Municipal Council, urbanism commissions, etc.), with the former lacking competence to authorize a different approval (visado); this in the event that urban planning regulations make such a distinction. Now then, the subdivision (fraccionamiento) that forms part of the development process (proceso urbanizador) and which entails a habilitation of the plots, for the first time, for urban purposes, must be provided with streets, green areas and parks, as well as the services necessary for their use and enjoyment. In this second scenario, we are facing a complex process of subdivision and development (proceso complejo de fraccionamiento y urbanización) that introduces limitations on private property due to urban planning (Article 22 of the Urban Planning Law, Ley de Planificación Urbana), which the Constitutional Court has indicated are entirely in accordance with the Law of the Constitution (ruling No. 5097-93 of 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 (Ley de Planificación Urbana) which, in the pertinent part, provides:

“Every subdivider (fraccionador) of lands (...) and every developer (urbanizador) shall cede gratuitously for public use both the areas destined for roads and those corresponding to parks and communal facilities; that which shall be set for the latter two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, through the setting of percentages of the total area to be subdivided (fraccionar) or developed (urbanizar), 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 respective norms. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the lands to be ceded for public roads, parks, and communal facilities shall not exceed forty-five percent of the total surface area of the land to be subdivided (fraccionar) or developed (urbanizar). (...)” The obligation of the developer (urbanizador) to endow the subdivided parcels with accesses, green zones, parks, public roads, obliges them to abide by 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 that urban planning regulations indicate and under the conditions that those provide. It is sufficient that a parcelization requires works to enable ingress and provide various services to some of those plots, to hold 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 ingress to the plots through public roads that must have the dimensions and requirements of the General Public Roads Law (Ley General de Caminos Públicos) and, the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Developments (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones), in the absence -in this latter case- of specific provisions in local norms." This being the case, the failure of urban development projects to adapt to the requirements established in the urban planning system obliges -per se- the rejection of the initiated proceedings, in application of the principle of legality.

VI.- Having been proven in the case records that in reality Takiscú has become a complex destined for residential use located in a protection zone, which currently has thirty-one approved (visados) lots whose surface area is less than one hectare, plus an internal easement (servidumbre) with cobblestones, poorly named "agricultural easement (servidumbre agrícola)," destined to give access to several of those lots, it is the unanimous opinion of this Court that we are in the presence of serious defects at the time of granting the approvals (visados) of all the respective plans and construction permits. Note that a housing complex was built that ignores the applicable regulations due to the geographic location in which it is located. What is in reality clearly an entire urban development project (proyecto urbanístico) that aims to provide housing solutions on 31 lots cannot be classified as a "simple subdivision (fraccionamiento)." Regarding this particular, it must be indicated that even though the parent property is located facing public roads, this is not sufficient to classify it as a subdivision (fraccionamiento), it being evident that the opening of the poorly named agricultural easement (servidumbre agrícola) is nothing more than a luxury street that gives access to lots that, without it, would not have access, in addition to the fact that full compliance with all the necessary requirements for that purpose was not given, which include, among others, the presentation of the draft plan (anteproyecto) and the donation of the public areas and installation of all public services at the developer's expense.

The foregoing means that the vetoed Municipal Council agreement incorrectly applied the body of law, a situation that must be understood by both developers and purchasers, since the right to property, as transcribed above, is not unlimited and must, by constitutional mandate, be subject to the legal limitations imposed on the use and enjoyment of land for the benefit of the community. Based on these grounds of fact and law, there is no alternative but to conclude, once again, that the municipality's resolution regarding the granting of any approval (visado) or construction permit in Takiscú has defects in its essential elements due to violation of urban planning regulations and harm to the public interest, in accordance with the doctrine contained in the Ley General de la Administración Pública, as we are in the presence of omissions and substantial defects of the administrative act, which punishes what was done with absolute nullity, these being understood as the grounds (motivo), content (contenido), and purpose (fin) (Articles 131 to 133 and 136), and it is therefore imperative that the nullity be formally declared, through the procedures provided for by the legal system for that purpose.

**VII.- Regarding the competent body for granting approvals.** Likewise, the absence of participation of the Municipal Council in the analyzed actions, alleged by the Mayor, should be examined, since it was the Municipal Engineer who originally granted the approvals. Nombre20665 alleges that this is a competence proper and exclusive to the Municipal Council, which it considers to be another defect of nullity. As was seen in the list of proven facts, during the years 2006 and 2007 the Municipal Engineer granted the 31 plan approvals. Only in the agreement taken by the Municipal Council, Article 37, No. 1578-2008 of session 147-2008 of March 11, 2008, did the council body issue directives to the Municipal Engineer to grant and issue the respective construction permits to the corporation Upsilón, represented here. Only in this specific case did the Municipal Council rectify the defect noted by the Mayor, since according to Article 13, subsection p) of the Código Municipal—formerly subsection o), the numbering changed by Ley 8822 of April 29, 2010—the Council is the competent body in matters of urban planning, and therefore, it is responsible for the approval of everything concerning this project, given that this is not a simple subdivision (fraccionamiento). In any case, this Tribunal must emphasize that for the Engineer to approve the approval, a prior Council agreement authorizing the urbanization was necessary, an element that does not appear in the case file. Therefore, the defect alleged by Nombre20665 in the veto filed is indeed observed.

**VIII.- Regarding the validity of the agreement of the Municipal Council of Oreamuno, No. 333-2006, Article 17, Minutes No. 029-2006, taken in the session held on September twelfth, two thousand six.** The interveners Taquiscú S.A. and Finca Upsilón S.A., in their capacity as developer of Takiscú and owners of lots, respectively, as well as the Municipal Council in the agreement that rejected the Mayor's request, consider that the arguments contained in official communication AM-0412-2009-mvrq, called "Solicitud de Declaratoria de Lesividad y de procedimiento administrativo," are incorrect, since agreement No. 333-2006, Article 17, Minutes No. 029-2006, of the ordinary session of September 12, 2006, which the Mayor intends to apply, is not in force. On this particular matter, Nombre20665 invokes the application of the mentioned agreement, which had ordered, several years prior, the rejection of official communication DI-URBA-18-06 of June 19, 2006, from the Engineering Department, which requested the approval of the subdivision of twenty lots located facing public streets and the construction permit in the Takiscú project, the establishment of disciplinary measures against municipal Engineering officials, the denial of the permits requested by the company, and the closure and stoppage of works in said subdivision. However, upon analyzing the appellate phases, it is clear that the extraordinary motion for review was granted by the Municipal Council, in agreement No. 1652-2008, adopted in session No. 156-2008 held on April 24, 2008, whose veto did not succeed. That being the case, the mentioned agreement that Nombre20665 intends to apply has no effect, in accordance with the provisions of Article 157 of the Código Municipal, and therefore the invocation made by Nombre20665 aimed at obtaining the nullity of the approvals based on the application of that agreement is entirely improper. Consequently, the arguments set forth by the Council and the intervener are correct, in considering that the nullity of the approvals cannot be requested based on an ineffective administrative act. However, as this is not the only argument put forward by the filed veto, the other elements of Nombre20665's objection provide sufficient merit to resolve in the manner set forth in this resolution.

**IX.- Regarding the nullity invoked and the procedure for declaring it.** The serious defects of nullity of the Takiscú project having been clearly observed, even though municipal agreement No. 333-2006, Article 17, Minutes No. 029-2006, taken in the session held on September 12, 2006, is not in force, and based on the respective approvals and permits, the Municipality of Oreamuno may now proceed against its own acts, in application of numerals 173 and 183 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública and 34 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, due to violation of numerals 131 to 133 and 136 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, 40 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana, 7 and 17 of the Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de San Rafael de Oreamuno. These elements are sufficient to grant the Mayor's request, and with it, the filed veto. There is no legal possibility that empowers the local administration to reject the respective nullity action, since according to the provisions of numeral 174 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, "The Administration shall be obligated to annul ex officio the absolutely null act, within the limitations of this law," thus leaving no room whatsoever for administrative discretion regarding the making of this decision. This implies, then, that the arguments put forward by the Municipal Council regarding the budgetary impact that eventual compensations could generate is a matter of convenience that departs from legality and, therefore, cannot be imposed above the legal system. In any case, for the purpose of avoiding confusion, the Local Government is advised that the mechanisms for nullity of an administrative act declarative of rights provided for in the Ley General de la Administración Pública are two, mutually exclusive. The local government may either proceed to appoint a directing body and initiate absolute nullity proceedings, when this is evident and manifest, with the result that the nullity of what was done is decreed at the administrative level, as regulated by Articles 173, 308 and following of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, by instituting the ordinary procedure for that purpose; or, it may issue the declaration of lesividad (declaratoria de lesividad) and file contentious-administrative proceedings at the jurisdictional level for absolute nullity that is not evident or manifest. Note that the two procedures should not be confused, as one is at the administrative level while the other takes place at the jurisdictional level. The detail of each was set forth in the preceding resolutions of this same Section (175-2009, 176-2009, and 177-2009) and, therefore, the Council must decide which of the two legally viable options it chooses.

**X.- Corollary.** Having observed the defects described above in the granting of the plan approvals in the Takiscú project, as well as the nullity of the construction permit for the internal easement (servidumbre) in paving stone, the appropriate course of action is to grant the Veto filed by the Municipal Nombre20665, and the Municipal Council must proceed as indicated in the preceding Considerando.

**Por tanto** The filed veto is granted.

**Hubert Fernández Argüello** **Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes** **Evelyn Solano Ulloa**

No. 3818-10 TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN TERCERA. II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. ANEXO A. Goicoechea, a las once horas cincuenta minutos del ocho de octubre del dos mil diez.- Veto interpuesto por Nombre40649 , Nombre20665 de la Municipalidad de Oreamuno, contra el acuerdo del Concejo Municipal de ese Cantón, artículo 15, No. 3077-2010, adoptado en la sesión número 302-2010, celebrada el día 23 de febrero del 2010 que dispuso acoger la recomendación de la Comisión de Jurídicos, en el sentido de rechazar la solicitud de la Alcaldía a efectos de declarar que el acto de visado de planos del proyecto Takiscú es nulo y ordenar el inicio de un proceso de lesividad, para en su lugar ordenar el otorgamiento de los permisos de construcción y demás acreditaciones relacionadas a la mayor brevedad posible. Intervienen como interesados las sociedades Taquiscú Sociedad Anónima, representada por Adolfo Guardia Esquivel, cédula CED77674 y Franco Fernández Esquivel, cédula CED47517, en calidad de apoderados generalísimos sin límite de suma (folio 1414), y Finca Upsilón S.A., cédula jurídica CED77675, representada por su apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, también el señor Franco Fernández Esquivel(folios 1339 y 1459).

CONSIDERANDO

I.Hechos probados. Se tienen como hechos probados los siguientes: 1) En acuerdo del Concejo Municipal de Oreamuno, N° 333-2006, artículo 17, acta N° 029-2006 tomado en la sesión celebrada por el Concejo Municipal el día doce de septiembre de 2006, se dispuso rechazar el oficio DI-URBA-18-06 del 19 de junio del 2006 del Departamento de Ingeniería, en el que el Ingeniero Municipal recomendaba al Concejo la aprobación del fraccionamiento de veinte lotes ubicados frente a calles públicas y del permiso de construcción en el proyecto Takiscú, ubicado Dirección11402 , en zona especial de protección. Acordó también establecer las medidas disciplinarias contra los funcionarios de Ingeniería municipal; negando los permisos solicitados por la empresa y ordenó proceder a la clausura y paralización de obras del citado fraccionamiento (folios 156 a 161); 2) En el acuerdo tomado por el Concejo Municipal, artículo 37, No. 1578-2008 de la sesión 147-2008 del 11 de marzo del 2008, el cuerpo de ediles emitió directrices al Ingeniero Municipal, para que otorgara los permisos de construcción respectivos a la sociedad Upsilón S.A., la cual ya contaba con el respectivo visado de sus planos (folios 668 a 671); 3) Contra el anterior acuerdo, el Nombre20665 interpuso formal veto el 27 de marzo del 2008, el cual fue rechazado por el Concejo Municipal y por esta misma Sección, en resolución No. 177-2009 de las quince horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del treinta de enero del dos mil nueve (veto a folios 740 a 749, resolución a folios 1393 a 1413); 4) El 8 de abril del 2008, la empresa Soluciones Económicas S.A. presentó recurso extraordinario de revisión contra el acuerdo N° 333-2006, artículo 17, acta N° 029-2006 tomado en la sesión celebrada por el Concejo Municipal el día doce de septiembre de 2006 (folios 802 a 815); 5) El Concejo Municipal de Oreamuno, en acuerdo N° 1652-2008, adoptado en la sesión N° 156-2008 celebrada el 24 de abril de 2008, acogió en todos sus extremos el recurso extraordinario de revisión, presentado en contra del anterior acuerdo (folios 879 a 893); 6) Inconforme con lo resuelto, el Nombre20665 Municipal de Oreamuno interpuso veto contra lo acordado por el Concejo Municipal, el cual fue rechazado por el Concejo Municipal en el acuerdo N° 1704-2008, tomado en la sesión número 162-2008 del 20 de mayo de 2008 y ordenó la remisión del expediente a este Tribunal (folios 911 a 920); 7) En Resolución 176-2009, de las 15:50 horas del 30 enero 2009, esta misma Sección rechazó el veto interpuesto y dispuso en el Considerando VIII), lo siguiente:

"CONCLUSIÓN: el proyecto Taquiscú S.A. carece de los permisos correspondientes y, la situación de los visados municipales -que deben revisarse a la luz de lo indicado en lo transcrito- debe ser atendida por el Concejo Municipal a la brevedad posible en el tanto, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 174 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública:

" 1. La Administración estará obligada a anular de oficio el acto absolutamente nulo, dentro de las limitaciones de esta ley ".

En razón de lo anterior, el Concejo Municipal, como jerarca supremo del gobierno local y, el Nombre20665 municipal como ejecutor de sus acuerdos, deben proceder de inmediato a determinar si, con arreglo a la normativa urbanística vigente, debe proceder a la eliminación de los visados del proyecto que se enfrentan a ese bloque de legalidad. En cuanto a las peticiones de los particulares relacionadas con los permisos constructivos del citado proyecto, que carece como se indicó de los permisos correspondientes extendidos por el órgano competente, debe indicarse que, por disposición del numeral 146.3 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública "3.- No procederá la ejecución administrativa de los actos ineficaces o absolutamente nulos y la misma, de darse, producirá responsabilidad penal del servidor que la haya ordenado, sin perjuicio de las otras resultantes.

4.- La ejecución en estas circunstancias se reputará como abuso de poder". (folio 1373 a 1392) 8) En razón de la anterior resolución, el Nombre20665 presentó el día 24 de febrero del 2010, formal "Solicitud de Declaratoria de Lesividad y de procedimiento administrativo", mediante oficio AM-0412-2009-mvrq de fecha 24 de febrero del 2010, con la finalidad de anular los visados de planos. En dicho documento consideró que el fraccionamiento de Takiscú, al encontrarse en zona especial de protección, había transgredido las disposiciones contenidas en el artículo 17 del Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de San Rafael de Oreamuno, que establecen que en tales lugares los usos habitacionales permitidos se limitan a vivienda unifamiliar de características suburbanas o agrícolas, excluyendo los conjuntos residenciales y las urbanizaciones, con cabidas mínimas de una hectárea y frente mínimo de cuarenta metros, resultando que durante los años 2006 y 2007 el Ingeniero Municipal visó treinta y un segregaciones de lotes que oscilan entre los 900 mts2 y los 2000 mts2, y se confirió licencia de construcción de una servidumbre agrícola interna de adoquín, que daba acceso a varios lotes. Además, estimó como otro vicio de ilegalidad el hecho de que los planos no fueron visados por el Concejo Municipal. Con base en ello, solicitó se iniciaran los procedimientos de lesividad, nulidad absoluta, evidente y manifiesta, de los treinta y un planos que se encuentran visados, se realice la apertura del procedimiento administrativo y se declare nulo el permiso de construcción de la servidumbre mencionada (ver informes registrales 1086 a 1124, oficio a folios 11127 a 1152); 9) La Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos dictaminó en forma negativa la solicitud del señor Alcalde, estimando que en el proyecto se había cumplido con los requisitos para obtención de permiso para lotificación frente a carretera nacional y a calle pública, con servidumbres agrícolas de 14 metros, resultando que actualmente todos los planos se encuentran correctamente visado por el Departamento de Ingeniería. Agregó que en razón de la naturaleza del proyecto, "Lotificación frente a dos calles públicas existentes, la carretera nacional y Dirección11403 ", se ajusta a las disposiciones de la Ley de Catastro y los Decretos Ejecutivos del INVU, los cuales estima se encuentran por encima del Plan Regulador y del Reglamento de Zonificación. Recomendó valorar el perjuicio a terceros de buena fe y las limitaciones presupuestarias para realizar indemnizaciones y los gastos que puede ello generar a la Hacienda Municipal. Se fundamentó adicionalmente en que el INVU había comunicado en oficios AM-0311-2007 del 9 de marzo del 2007, AM-1931-2007 del 17 de abril del 2007, que lo planteado no era un residencial sino una lotificación (folios 1177 a 1181); 10) El Concejo Municipal, en artículo 15, acuerdo 3077-2010, adoptado en la sesión número 302-2010, celebrada el día 23 de febrero del 2010 dispuso acoger la recomendación de la Comisión de Jurídicos, en el sentido de rechazar la solicitud de la Alcaldía a efectos de declarar que el acto de visado de planos del proyecto Takiscú es nulo, denegando el inicio de un proceso de lesividad y ordenó otorgar los permisos de construcción y demás acreditaciones relacionadas a la mayor brevedad posible (folios 1279 a 1286); 11) El 01 de marzo del 2010 el Nombre20665 interpuso formal veto en contra del acuerdo anterior (folios 1289 a 1321); 12) El Concejo Municipal rechazó el veto y elevó el asunto ante este Tribunal, mediante acuerdo No. 3134-2010 conocido en la Sesión No. 308-2010 celebrada el 23 de marzo del 2010 (folios 1325 a 1334).

II.Fundamentos del Veto: Los alegatos del veto interpuesto están dirigidos a que se acoja la solicitud formulada por el señor Alcalde, para que se declare la lesividad o nulidad absoluta, evidente y manifiesta, del visado de treinta y un planos de lotes ubicados en el proyecto Takiscú, junto con la nulidad de la servidumbre agrícola que da acceso a varios de esos lotes. Se puede resumir los argumentos del veto en motivos de legalidad, retomando lo mismos fundamentos jurídicos de la solicitud inicial que presentó ante el Concejo Municipal, que se indicaron en el hecho probado sexto de esta resolución.

III.- Sobre la normativa aplicable en este proyecto. Uno de los principales motivos para rechazar la gestión de nulidad, estriba en que los ediles estiman que la normativa aplicable se encuentra en la Ley de Catastro y Decretos Ejecutivos del INVU, normativa que consideran de orden jerárquico superior al Plan Regulador de Oreamuno. Sobre este particular, debe clarificarse sobre la competencia de las municipalidades en lo concerniente a la ordenación urbanística, respecto de lo cual este Tribunal se ha manifestado en los siguientes términos:

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 el dictado de certificado de un uso de suelo como no conforme, estima conveniente este Tribunal hacer unas breves reflexiones en torno a la competencia de los gobiernos locales en la materia urbanística. Se aclara que dicha potestad tiene una doble vertiente, así, en primer lugar, en lo concerniente a la definición de las regulaciones normativas -promulgación de las respectivas regulaciones -planes reguladores y regulaciones conexas- y en segundo lugar, el concerniente al control -ejercicio del poder de policía- en la circunscripción territorial. En efecto, debe recordarse que 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, Nombre7411 y PAREJO ALFONSO, Nombre45684, 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-, expresamente se reconoció como competencia municipal, la materia de urbanismo, 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 parte, 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 LAS REGULACIONES URBANÍSTICAS EN GENERAL Y LAS MUNICIPALES.- Debe entonces, clarificarse el contenido de la normativa urbanística, en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico (costarricense.) Primero que nada, se advierte que el vocablo "regulaciones urbanísticas" debe ser entendido en un sentido amplio y no restringido a las regulaciones que en esta materia emanan de un acuerdo municipal; en tanto está referido a la generalidad de los instrumentos de planificación urbanísticas, que derivan de diversas instancias administrativas, y que en doctrina ha sido conceptualizado como "[...] un instrumento, aprobado por un acto del Poder Público, que ordena el territorio, estableciendo previsiones sobre el emplazamiento de los centros de producción y de residencia del modo conveniente para la mejor distribución de la población; regula la utilización del suelo para su destino público y privado y, en especial, su urbanización y edificación, y, al hacerlo, define el contenido del derecho de propiedad y programa el desarrollo de la gestión urbanística." (CARCELER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. Introducción al Derecho Urbanístico. Segunda Edición. Editorial Tecnos, S.A. Barcelona. España. 1992. p. 34.)

Así, en el ámbito nacional existen diversas regulaciones urbanísticas, en atención al órgano que le corresponde su adopción y, en consecuencia, al ámbito de cobertura del territorio nacional sobre el que ejerce su aplicación: sea, las de orden nacional y las regionales, de aprobación a cargo del Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica e Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, que contienen las directrices generales de la planificación en esta materia, y finalmente, las locales, cantonales o municipales, que son los que elaboran, tramitan, aprueban y ejecutan las municipalidades. Cuando se utiliza el término "plan regulador", acepción que es adoptada por nuestra legislación nacional en el artículo 1º de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, que lo define como:

"el Instrumento de planificación de planificación local que, define en un conjunto de planos, mapas, reglamentos y cualquier otro documento, gráfico o suplemento, la política de desarrollo y los planes para la distribución de la población, usos de la tierra, vías de circulación, servicios públicos, facilidades comunales, y construcción, conservación y rehabilitación de áreas urbanas"; popularmente se hace referencia a las regulaciones urbanísticas emandas de los gobiernos locales; sin embargo, debemos entender que también están comprendidas las regulaciones de los dos primeros órdenes, sea, las nacionales y regionales, en tanto tienen el mismo contenido y cumplen la misma función ordenadora del territorio, a nivel urbano y de determinación de los usos posibles del suelo. Estos cuerpos normativos tienen un contenido específico, sea, la ordenación y planificación del uso del suelo, para la creación de centros urbanos –ciudades, urbanizaciones, proyectos o parques industriales, parques, vías públicas, servicios públicos, etc.- en el ámbito de una circunscripción territorial, sea el cantón o parte de éste; o también a nivel regional, caso del Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano, del Gran Área Metropolitana, aprobado mediante Decreto número 3332, del veintiséis de abril de mil novecientos ochenta y dos, y sus reformas; que al momento es la única regulación urbanística en nuestro país dictada a nivel regional; y sin que a este momento, se haya adoptado una regulación de esta índole, a nivel nacional. Consecuentemente, ello implica la localización, respecto de los edificios públicos, y la zonificación, respecto de la edificación particular. Así, no sólo determina el uso o destino de los lotes, sino también la configuración y extensión de los mismos; la densidad de población, porcentaje del terreno que pueda ser utilizado, el número de plantas, clase y el destino de las edificaciones; todo lo anterior, con sujeción a normas generales uniformes para cada especie de los mismos en toda la zona. Asimismo, orienta la composición arquitectónica de las edificaciones, y regula, en caso de ser necesario, sus características estéticas; competencia que no está de más en señalar, que no ha sido ejercida por el momento en nuestro país (salvo, quizás, en casos muy esporádicos). Están conformados tanto por normas escritas como por gráficos, planos y documentos anexos que ayudan a determinar su contenido, el cual es de carácter absolutamente normativo, lo cual tiene los siguientes efectos: a) regulan las facultades del ejercicio del derecho de propiedad, según la clasificación y calificación de los terrenos en ellos contenidos; b) tienen vigencia indefinida, pero susceptible de ser modificada por ulteriores revisiones; c) su eficacia es "erga omnes", aunque reducida a un determinado territorio o circunscripción territorial, según el grado del mismo (nacional, regional o local), en tanto vincula tanto a la Administración en general, como a los particulares; y d) no puede contener reservas de dispensa.

VII.- DEL CONTENIDO DE LOS PLANES REGULADORES.- Es razón de su amplio contenido que los planes reguladores la Ley de Planificación Urbana establece en su artículo 21 cuáles son los principales reglamentos que son instrumentos normativos complementarios de toda regulación urbanística, conocida como "Plan", ya sea nacional, regional o local, a saber:

a.- el de ZONIFICACIÓN: mediante el cual se establecen normas para el uso del territorio, debiéndose recordar que se trata de un concepto básico del urbanismo, consistente en reservar determinadas zonas de un territorio para necesidades o funciones concretas; y abarca desde la creación de zonas industriales hasta la fijación de zonas residenciales, político-administrativas, zonas deportivas, zonas verdes, de protección especial ambiental y otras (CALVO MURILLO, Virgilio, "Derecho Urbanístico: Fundamentos e Instituciones", Revista Judicial, Año II, No. 5, Poder Judicial de Costa Rica, Setiembre de 1977, p. 92.) Es el primero, y tal vez más importante reglamento que debe acompañar a todo plan urbanístico, de conformidad con el artículo 21 inciso 1) de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, toda vez que, como su nombre lo indica, le corresponde la ordenación y determinación del uso del suelo, con vistas a un uso racional de la tierra y para asegurar condiciones y calidades ambientales de vida satisfactoria, con lo cual, condiciona el uso de la propiedad inmobiliaria, mediante la delimitación de áreas, según la categorización adoptada. (BANDEIRA DE MELLO, Celso Antonio. Figuras jurídicas del planeamiento urbano en el Brasil. En: Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano. Editorial Universidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. pp. 388 y 389.) De esta suerte, el régimen urbanístico del derecho de propiedad no es uniforme por el mero hecho de quedar el suelo sujeto al planeamiento, sino que difiere según el tipo de suelo en que resulta clasificada la finca de que se trate; lo cual evidencia la importancia de la zonificación. (CARCELLER FERNÁNDEZ, Antonio. Instituciones de Derecho Urbanístico. Quinta edición. Editorial Montecorvo, S.A. Madrid, España. 1992. p. 333.) Así, a partir de esta regulación se establece la definición exacta de los usos posibles (permitidos) en cada zona, con la consecuente incidencia en el derecho de la propiedad; al condicionar dónde se puede y se debe residir, dónde se puede comerciar, dónde se han de prestar los servicios, dónde se ha de poder hacer la industria, y dónde se ha de poder recrear y entretener; lo cual nos lleva a considerar la seriedad con que debe ser formulada, que requiere, no sólo criterios de oportunidad y conveniencia, sino sobre todo técnicos y objetivos. Queda claro que el contenido del estatuto del suelo determina el ámbito del dominio y condiciona su ejercicio, diversificándose en situaciones favorecedoras de la iniciativa privada, y asimismo, establece vinculaciones que restringen su ejercicio. La función de clasificación del suelo para el establecimiento del régimen jurídico correspondiente incumbe al Plan General, del cual, el reglamento de zonificación forma parte; el cual, debe de contener la clasificación y calificación urbanística del suelo. Por clasificación debe entenderse la categoría o tipo de suelo (urbano, urbanizable, programado o no programado y no urbanizable, industrial, de reserva o para la protección ambiental, residencial, institucional, etc.) según su destino urbanístico básico; la calificación aplica para designar la subdivisión de esos tipos de suelo en zonas caracterizadas por específicos contenidos o aprovechamientos urbanísticos; y en este sentido, va ligada a la técnica de la zonificación, que nace cuando se tiende a separar la edificación destinada a residencia de las instalaciones industriales. Queda claro que las regulaciones contenidas en el reglamento de zonificación vienen a coadyuvar en el delineamiento del contenido del derecho de propiedad, en tanto el contenido del mismo es el resultado del régimen constitucional y legal de la propiedad, en tanto no es un derecho absoluto, sino sujeto a regulaciones en virtud del reconocimiento del elemento fundamental de la función social de la propiedad, y de las contingencias de la convivencia urbana. La legitimidad de las regulaciones o limitaciones contenidas en las normas de zonificación está condicionada a los siguientes principios: a) sólo componen la zonificación, las normas que tengan carácter general, sea, que abarquen una categoría de bienes, también calificados por su ubicación espacial, en tanto que tal ubicación no sea singularizadora, y b) las regulaciones de zonificación no pueden ser ilimitadas, en tanto debe de preservar el núcleo esencial del derecho de propiedad (de uso, disfrute, gozo y disposición, no en sentido irrestricto); caso contrario se estará ante una supresión del derecho, sea una expropiación. De manera que, la zonificación no puede conllevar la anulación o paralización de las manifestaciones del derecho de propiedad, que en modo alguno deben de confundirse con las expresiones o significado patrimonial de la propiedad. Sólo existe obligación de indemnizar por la imposición de estas medidas cuando alcancen el núcleo esencial de este derecho, definido por la jurisprudencia constitucional en la posibilidad de realizar algún tipo de explotación en el bien, tal vez, no el querido por su titular. De tal suerte, serán legítimas las limitaciones que se impongan a la propiedad que permitan al propietario la posibilidad de explotar "normalmente" el bien, salvo, claro está, la parte o función afectada por la limitación impuesta por el Estado, con lo cual se respeta el uso natural del bien, al mantenerse su valor como medio de producción o valor económico en el mercado. (En este sentido, entre otras, véanse las sentencias número 0796-91, de las quince horas diez minutos del veintiséis de abril de mil novecientos noventa y uno; número 5893-95, de las nueve horas cuarenta y ocho minutos del veintisiete de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y cinco, y número 2345-96, de las nueve horas veinticuatro minutos del diecisiete de mayo de mil novecientos noventa y seis.) Así lo señaló la Corte Plena en relación con las limitaciones a imponer a la propiedad cuando traspasan el límite señalado, en sesión extraordinaria del dieciséis de junio de mil novecientos ochenta y tres:

"[...] es decir «limitaciones» como las llama el artículo 45, pero no despojo de la propiedad privada ni privación de un atributo primario del dominio, porque impedir el goce de los bienes equivale, al menos en este caso, a una forma de expropiación sin el requisito de previa indemnización que ordena la Carta Política." En igual sentido se pronunció la Sala Constitucional en las citadas sentencias número 5097-93 y 2345-96; bajo las siguientes consideraciones:

"IV.) Para la Sala los límites razonables que el Estado puede imponer a la propiedad privada, de acuerdo con su naturaleza, son constitucionalmente posibles en tanto no vacíen su contenido. Cuando ello ocurre deja de ser ya una limitación razonable para convertirse en una privación del derecho mismo" (sentencia número 5097-93, supra citada); "Es decir, pueden limitarse los atributos de la propiedad, en tanto el propietario reserve para sí la posibilidad de explotar normalmente el bien, excluida claro está, la parte o la función afectada por la limitación impuesta por el Estado. Fuera de estos parámetros, si el bienestar social exige sacrificios de uno o de algunos únicamente, debe ser indemnizado, lo mismo que ocurre cuando el sacrificio que se impone al propietario es de tal identidad, que lo hace perder en su totalidad el bien. Así, la limitación a la propiedad resiste el análisis constitucional, cuando la afectación a los atributos esenciales de la propiedad que son aquellos que permiten el uso natural de la cosa dentro de la realidad socio-económica actual, no hace desaparecer la naturaleza del bien o haga imposible el uso de la cosa, porque el Estado imponga requisitos de autorización o de aprobación tan complejos que impliquen de hecho, la imposibilidad de usufructuar el bien" (sentencia número 2345-96, supra citada).

Es así, el artículo 24 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, determina el contenido de estos reglamentos de la siguiente manera: a) la determinación de los usos de la tierra; b) lo relativo a la localización, altura y área de construcción de las edificaciones; c) la superficie y dimensiones de los lotes, lo cual tiene directa incidencia en la determinación de la densidad de la tierra; d) el tamaño de los retiros, patios y demás espacios abiertos, y cobertura del lote por edificios y estructuras; e) la provisión de espacio para estacionamientos, carga y descarga de los vehículos fuera de las calles; f) tamaño, ubicación y características de los rótulos o anuncios publicitarios; y g) cualquier otro detalle arquitectónico o urbanístico relativo al uso del suelo, cuya regulación tenga interés para la comunidad local. Por tal motivo, resulta obligado reservar las zonas que tienen una especial afectación en razón de su uso, tales como las que están cerca de los aeropuertos, las que tienen una afectación por protección de los patrimonios forestal e histórico y arquitectónico, o patrimonio natural del Estado, que derivan de los artículos 50 y 89 de la Constitución Política, según lo ordena el artículo 25 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana; b.- el de FRACCIONAMIENTO y URBANIZACIÓN: que conforme al artículo 32 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, pretende determinar bajo qué condiciones una municipalidad ha de permitir o regular el fraccionamiento y los proyectos de urbanizaciones en su jurisdicción, para lo cual se disponen requisitos correspondientes al acceso a la vía pública, cesión de áreas para uso público, normas para construcción de calles y aceras, pavimentos, cañerías, drenajes pluviales y sanitarios, electrificación y alumbrado público, entre otros. En este sentido debe resaltarse la importancia para el Derecho Urbanístico del control de las acciones de fraccionamiento, lo cual no ofrece duda alguna. Al respecto, señala el Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo:

“IV.- De lo dicho, cabe insistir, que el control del desarrollo urbano como competencia de las municipalidades, implica tanto la potestad de dictar planes reguladores, pero sobre todo, implica la competencia para “controlar” el fraccionamiento de terrenos por medio de los mismos planes reguladores y con el otorgamiento del correspondiente visado municipal al plano respectivo, tal y como lo expresa el numeral 33 de la citada Ley de Planificación Urbana. En el mismo orden de cosas, según el artículo 10 inciso 2) de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, corresponde a la Dirección de Urbanismo del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, visar los planos correspondientes en cuanto a proyectos de urbanización o fraccionamiento para efectos de urbanización en forma previa a la aprobación municipal (artículo 33 ibídem). Se trata de una competencia que se traduce en una función de control por parte de la Dirección de Urbanismo en relación con la planificación y control urbanístico de las municipalidades (artículos 7, inciso 3) y 9 de la supra indicada ley. Se convierten en asesores o vigilantes pudiendo informar o bien hasta denunciar a las Municipalidades, respecto de una eventual infracción a la ley o al plan regulador local, pudiendo incluso emitir un acto de suspensión de determinada obra, en la que se hubiere comprobado la infracción a la ley en materia de urbanismo. Según el artículo 36, inciso b) ibídem, las municipalidades no pueden otorgar los respectivos visados a planos para proyectos urbanísticos en áreas sujetas a control cuando no cuenten con el permiso de rigor (visado de la Dirección de Urbanismo).” (Sección Tercera, Tribunal Superior Contencioso Administrativo, sentencia número 791-2002 de las diez horas diez minutos del veintisiete de setiembre del año dos mil dos.) (El resaltado no es del original.)

Y es que, en efecto, el omitir los controles (visados) para efectos de fraccionamiento es una de las formas más comunes y peligrosas de burlar los estándares urbanísticos y dar al traste con todos los instrumentos de regulación en la materia, lo que provoca serias consecuencias. Entre éstas, podemos citar la imposibilidad de planificar y suministrar servicios básicos, la construcción de conjuntos de vivienda en zonas de alto riesgo por emergencias naturales o la edificación en zonas que por sus características no deben ser destinadas a construcciones, por ser de recarga acuífera o tener un alto valor desde el punto de vista ambiental; solo por citar algunos ejemplos; c.- el MAPA OFICIAL: que conforme al artículo 1 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, "es el plano o conjunto de planos en que se indica con exactitud la posición de los trazados de las vías públicas y áreas a reservar para usos y servicios comunales"; cuyo contenido se regula en los artículos 42 y 43 de la citada Ley:

"Artículo 42.- El reglamento del Mapa Oficial establecerá las normas sobre reservas, adquisición, uso y conservación de las áreas necesarias para vías, parques, plazas, edificios y demás usos comunales, expresando la localización y el tamaño de las ya entregadas al servicio público y de las demarcadas solo preventivamente." "Artículo 43.- El Mapa Oficial, junto con los planos o el catastro que lo complemente, constituirá registro especial fehaciente sobre propiedad y afectación a dominio público de los terrenos o espacios ya entregados a usos públicos”; d.- el de RENOVACIÓN URBANA: cuyo contenido está determinado en los artículos 51 permite de la Ley de referencia, de la siguiente manera:

"Artículo 51.- El Reglamento de Renovación Urbana contendrá las regulaciones que localmente se adopten para conservar, rehabilitar o remodelar las áreas urbanas defectuosas, deterioradas o en decadencia, tomando en cuenta la inconveniente parcelación o edificación, la carencia de servicios y facilidades comunales, o cualquier otra condición adversa a la seguridad, salubridad y bienestar generales"; que resulta de trascendental importancia, sobre todo tratándose de la protección del patrimonio histórico arquitectónico, o para la salvaguarda de la seguridad de los habitantes de un barrio; e.- y finalmente, el de CONSTRUCCIONES; que pretende regular técnicamente todos los requisitos que debe cumplir cualquier tipo de construcción conforme a la definición del concepto dada en el artículo 1 de la Ley de referencia, que la tiene como "toda estructura que se fije o se incorpore a un terreno; incluye cualquier obra de edificación, reconstrucción, alteración o ampliación que implique permanencia." Así, su objetivo es fijar las normas para la planificación, diseño y construcción de edificios, calles, campos deportivos, instalaciones industriales y de maquinaria y todas aquellas obras adicionales a éstas, en todo lo relativo a la arquitectura, ingeniería civil, eléctrica, mecánica o sanitaria, con el fin de fomentar, asegurar y proteger la salud, economía, comodidad y bienestar común mediante requisitos que garanticen en tales obras su solidez, estabilidad, seguridad, salubridad, iluminación y ventilación adecuadas.

VIII.- DE LA NATURALEZA JURÍDICA DE LOS PLANES REGULADORES Y SU CONTENIDO.- Las regulaciones urbanísticas, que según se indicó, comprenden un conjunto muy variados de normas; producto de la acción de las diversas entidades públicas que intervienen en esta materia; de donde encontramos, normas legales, normas de carácter reglamentario con valor ley (ley en sentido material), y por supuesto, normas reglamentarias. De tal suerte, que bien podemos concluir, que nuestro ordenamiento jurídico urbanístico está conformado por normas de distinta naturaleza, precisamente en virtud de dos factores importantes, en primer lugar, por el órgano o institución de la que dimana (sea, la Asamblea Legislativa, el Poder Ejecutivo o Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, o las municipalidades); y en segundo lugar, y como derivado del anterior, él ámbito de cobertura de la regulación, sea, de vinculación nacional, regional o local. Así, las regulaciones urbanísticas de orden legal no resultan un problema jurídico, ni en la doctrina, ni en la jurisprudencia, toda vez que las mismas son legítimas, siempre y cuando se aprueben mediante votación calificada, esto es, con el voto mínimo de treinta y ocho diputados, en razón de su contenido; en los términos previstos en el párrafo segundo del artículo 45 de la propia Constitución Política, en tanto de ellas, se imponen limitaciones de interés social. No está de más reiterar que este requisito de votación calificada no es meramente formal, sino sustancial, en cuanto implica el necesario consenso entre las diversas fracciones de los partidos políticos que integran la Asamblea Legislativa. Por ello, no hay mayor discusión acerca de la legitimidad y rango normativo de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, que cumple a cabalidad con el requisito constitucional, al haber sido aprobada en cumplimiento del requisito constitucional. Ahora bien, en tanto las regulaciones urbanísticas constituyen un conjunto de normas heterogéneas, precisamente por derivar de diversas instancias públicas, y en consecuencia, como manifestación de diversas instancias del poder público (Poder Legislativo, poder Administrativo y poder local). Es nuestro criterio, que el análisis de estas regulaciones debe partir del contenido del artículo 45 constitucional, cuyo párrafo segundo legitima el establecimiento de limitaciones de interés social a la propiedad, siempre y cuando las mismas sean establecidas mediante ley calificada, requisito sustancial y no formal, al implicar el consenso legislativo para su adopción. En este sentido, tal y como lo ha considerado la Sala Constitucional en su jurisprudencia, las limitaciones y regulaciones de orden urbanístico son de interés social, en tanto se imponen precisamente para facilitar la convivencia en sociedad, y se traducen en impedimentos u obligaciones para el propietario, y que en su mayoría, tienen un origen bastante antiguo en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, al derivar -muchas de ellas- de disposiciones del Código Civil, que data de mil ochocientos ochenta y ocho. La jurisprudencia constitucional ha reconocido dos tipos interés social que legitiman -o justifican- la imposición de limitaciones a la propiedad: estos son las relativos a la protección del ambiente y las de orden urbanístico, estas últimas, a partir del desarrollo que se hace en la sentencia número 4205-96, supra citada. De manera, que en sentido estricto, debiera de estimarse que los planes urbanísticos -todos en general, sea los de ámbito nacional, regional y local-, en razón de su contenido, tienen el rango normativo de leyes en sentido material, toda vez que impone obligaciones, deberes y limitan derechos, en particular el ejercicio del derecho de propiedad, tal y cual lo señala el jurista argentino Edgardo O. SCOTTI :

"Un plan para determinado núcleo urbano implica no sólo establecer políticas destinadas a la adecuada organización de las actividades en el espacio, sino significa orientar y condicionar las acciones de los sectores públicos y privados mediante la utilización de instrumentos jurídicos que, mediante estímulos, exigencias o prohibición es, delimitan el ejercicio del derecho de propiedad y las demás funciones y usos que pueden desarrollarse en el ámbito urbano."(Derecho y Planeamiento Urbano.Editorial Universidad, Buenos Aires. Argentina. 1983. p. 77.)

A este respecto, no queda duda de la directa incidencia de los planes urbanísticos sobre el ejercicio de los derechos fundamentales de la propiedad privada y de la libertad de empresa, en tanto del contenido de sus regulaciones, se infiere también el desarrollo de la industria y comercio (artículos 45 y 47 de la Constitución Política), así como la consiguiente tutela de otro derecho fundamental, sea, la de un ambiente ambiente y ecológicamente equilibrado (artículo 50 de la Constitución Política); tal y como lo consideró la Sala Constitucional en sentencia número 5303-93:

"... la limitación a la propiedad impuesta por un plan regulador es constitucionalmente posible, debido a que el derecho de propiedad no es ilimitado, antes bien, existe un marco general dentro del que puede actuar el propietario y que debe ser compatible con el contenido constitucional de ese derecho. Por lo expresado, a juicio de este Tribunal, la limitación impuesta, en tanto ajustada a un plan regulador vigente, no violenta como se sugiere en el recurso el artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, en tanto ese plan regulador no desconstitucionalice la propiedad privada que se vea afectada por ese instrumento. A contrario sensu, si las limitaciones exceden los parámetros mínimos de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, resultarían contrarias a la Constitución Política.".- Así, se ha estimado que el contenido que se impone en los diversos planes urbanísticos -en su completa dimensión, sea los nacionales, regionales y locales- es acorde con la exigencia constitucional, por derivar de una disposición legal –la Ley de Planificación Urbana-, que sí fue aprobada en cumplimiento del condicionante constitucional –dos tercios del total de los miembros de la Asamblea Legislativa-, en virtud de lo cual, esa legitimación se transfiere a los mismos. Y aunando a lo anterior, debe considerarse que, los planes regionales, en este caso, el Plan Regional de Desarrollo Urbano, del Gran Área Metropolitana, tiene ese carácter en virtud de expreso mandato legal, conforme al artículo 64 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, en tanto indican textualmente:

"Artículo 64.- El Plan Regulador Metropolitano, sus reglamentos y las enmiendas respectivas, adquirirán fuerza de ley para todas las municipalidades del circuito que haya acordado su adopción."El resaltado no es del original.)

Finalmente, respecto de los planes reguladores municipalidades, podemos defender este valor –de ley en sentido material- con base en los siguientes motivos: a) en razón de su contenido, que impone obligaciones para los propietarios y limitaciones a la propiedad, según se indicó anteriormente; b.) en razón de su procedimiento reforzado de aprobación, que constituye una manifestación de la democracia directa; en tanto para la aprobación de estas regulaciones, se requiere, como requisito esencial, la celebración de una audiencia oral y pública, en los términos previstos en el artículo 19 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana; y asimismo, el plan se adopta e impone mediante acuerdo del Concejo municipal, órgano deliberativo de los municipios; y c) por equiparación legal, de lo dispuesto en el transcrito artículo 64 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana. Ergo, si una ordenación urbanística a nivel regional adquiere el rango de ley para la Municipalidad que lo adopta, y ello es por acuerdo del Concejo, lo propio es que también esa condición la adquiera el que ha sido gestado por el propio municipio y rige únicamente su circunscripción territorial. En todo caso, nuestro Tribunal Constitucional, ha señalado de manera clara y precisa, que los planes reguladores, no obstante ser regulaciones reglamentarias emanadas de las municipalidades, tienen el rango normativo de las leyes en sentido material. En tal sentido pueden consultarse las sentencias número 2006-13330, de las diecisiete horas treinta y tres minutos del seis de diciembre del dos mil seis; 2007-5575; de las quince horas veinticuatro minutos del veinticinco de abril del dos mil siete y 2008-18438, de las diecisiete horas cincuenta y seis minutos del once de diciembre del dos mil ocho." (Ver Voto de esta misma Sección No. 2412-2010, de las quince horas cinco minutos del veinticuatro de junio del dos mil diez.)

IV.- Teniendo claro entonces cuál es el papel del Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de Oreamuno, el cual se debe entender con efecto de una ley en sentido material en razón de su contenido, sin lugar a dudas el criterio jurídico externado por la Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos y acogido por el Concejo Municipal en el acuerdo vetado, que considera que el Plan Regulador está por debajo de la Ley de Construcciones y de los reglamentos del Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, es una tesis jurídicamente improcedente. Así las cosas, no puede más que concluirse que lo actuado al respecto por el cuerpo de ediles resulta una actuación irregular ante la desaplicación de normas con valor normativo prevalente por especialidad en este caso, vinculante tanto para la Administración como para los particulares, que tiene plena aplicación precisamente en el cantón al haber sido aprobado por la propia Municipalidad. La normativa del INVU es aplicable sólo en ausencia de Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad, según se indicó en la sentencia 4205-96 de la Sala Constitucional.

V.- Sobre la naturaleza del proyecto Takiscú y los vicios de ilegalidad apreciados por el Nombre20665 Municipal. Todo proceso urbanístico tiende a desarrollar una porción de terreno, el cual tiene como finalidad dotar una porción de terreno de los servicios propios de las urbes o ciudades, como vías públicas, agua, teléfono, parques, etc., lo cual es un proceso complejo de alteración ambiental de gran efecto sobre los ecosistemas naturales y artificiales, ya que la mayoría de este tipo de obras compacta los terrenos y cubre una parte importante de la superficie de una capa impermeabilizante, con lo que se pueden llegar a afectar las reservas de acuíferos, se aumenta la escorrentía, se alteran los desagues naturales y se aumenta el caudal de los ríos y otros cursos del agua, además de eliminar el paisaje original. Precisamente, a ello responden los artículos 7.1 y 17 del Reglamento de Zonificación de San Rafael de Oreamuno, en donde la zona de protección de este cantón está "creada para detener el desarrollo urbano periférico y continuar e intensificar en ella el uso agrícola, pecuario y forestal", de manera que no se permiten nuevas urbanizaciones, autorizando usos de vivienda unifamiliar de características suburbanas o agrícolas con exclusión de conjuntos residenciales y urbanizaciones, en donde la cabida mínima es de una hectárea. Esta normativa debe ser integrada en el resto de normas de orden urbanístico y, especialmente, con la Ley de Planificación Urbana, que claramente diferencia entre el proceso de fraccionamiento y de urbanización, las cuales son indispensables debido a las implicaciones jurídicas que conllevan estos procesos. Desde las resoluciones 175-2009, de las quince horas cuarenta minutos y 176-2009, de las quince horas cincuenta minutos, ambas, del treinta de enero del dos mil nueve, se le hizo saber al gobierno local, siempre en relación con el proyecto Takiscú, que, "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 Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, a falta, -en este ultimo caso- de disposiciones concretas en las normas locales." Así las cosas, la no adecuación de los proyectos urbanísticos a los requerimientos establecidos en el ordenamiento urbano, obligan -per se-, al rechazo de las gestiones incoadas, en aplicación del principio de legalidad.

VI.- Habiéndose acreditado en los autos que en la realidad Takiscú se ha convertido en un complejo destinado al uso residencial ubicado en zona de protección, que actualmente cuenta con treinta y un lotes visados cuya superficie es menor a una hectárea, más una servidumbre interna con adoquines, mal denominada "servidumbre agrícola", destinada a dar acceso a varios de esos lotes, es criterio unánime de este Tribunal que estamos en presencia de vicios graves a la hora de otorgar los visados de todos los planos respectivos y permisos constructivos. Nótese que se levantó un complejo habitacional que desconoce la normativa aplicable por la ubicación geográfica en que se encuentra. No puede ser clasificado como un "fraccionamiento simple", lo que en realidad es a todas luces todo un proyecto urbanístico que tiene como fin brindar soluciones habitacionales en 31 lotes. Sobre este particular, debe indicarse que aún cuando la finca madre se encuentra frente a vías públicas, ello no es suficiente para clasificarla como fraccionamiento, evidenciándose que la apertura de la mal denominada servidumbre agrícola no es más que una calle de lujo que da acceso a lotes que, sin ella, no lo tendrían, además que no se dio cabal cumplimiento de todos los requisitos necesarios para tal efecto, que incluyen, entre otros, la presentación del anteproyecto y la donación de las áreas públicas e instalación de todos lo servicios públicos a cargo del desarrollador. Lo anterior quiere decir que el acuerdo del Concejo Municipal vetado hizo incorrecta aplicación del bloque de legalidad, situación que debe ser entendida tanto por los desarrolladores como por los adquirientes, pues el derecho de propiedad, tal y como se transcribió líneas atrás, no es ilimitado, debiendo someterse por imperativo constitucional, a las limitaciones legales impuestas sobre el uso y disfrute de la tierra en beneficio de la colectividad. Con base en estos fundamentos de hecho y de derecho, no queda más que concluir, una vez más, que lo resuelto por la municipalidad respecto del otorgamiento de cualquier visado o permiso de construcción en Takiscú tiene vicios en sus elementos esenciales por transgresión al ordenamiento urbanístico y afectación del interés público, conforme a la doctrina contemplada en la Ley General de la Administración Publica, pues nos encontramos en presencia de omisiones y vicios sustanciales del acto administrativo, que castiga con nulidad absoluta lo actuado, entendidos estos como el motivo, contenido y fin (artículos 131 a 133 y 136), por lo que es imperativo que la nulidad sea formalmente declarada, mediante los procedimientos previstos por el ordenamiento jurídico al efecto.

VII.- Sobre el órgano competente para el otorgamiento de los visados. Asimismo, cabe analizar la ausencia de participación del Concejo Municipal en las actuaciones analizadas, acusada por el Alcalde, pues quien confirió originalmente los visados fue el Ingeniero Municipal. El Nombre20665 alega que esta es una competencia propia y exclusiva del Concejo Municipal, lo cual estima es otro vicio de nulidad. Conforme se apreció en el elenco de hechos probados, durante los años 2006 y 2007 el Ingeniero Municipal confirió los 31 visados de planos. Únicamente en el acuerdo tomado por el Concejo Municipal, artículo 37, No, 1578-2008 de la sesión 147-2008 del 11 de marzo del 2008, el cuerpo de ediles confirió directrices al Ingeniero Municipal, para que los otorgara y confiriera los permisos de construcción respectivos a la sociedad Upsilón, aquí representada. Sólo en este caso específico el Concejo Municipal subsanó el vicio apreciado por el Alcalde, pues conforme al artículo 13 inciso p) del Código Municipal -anteriormente inciso o), corrida la numeración por Ley 8822 del 29 de abril del 2010-, el Concejo es el órgano competente en materia de urbanismo y, por ende, es al que le corresponde la aprobación de todo lo concerniente con este proyecto, dado que no se trata de un fraccionamiento simple. En todo caso, debe enfatizar este Tribunal que para que el Ingeniero aprobar el visado, era necesario un acuerdo previo del Concejo, autorizando la urbanización, elemento que no consta en autos. Por ende, efectivamente se aprecia el vicio acusado por el Nombre20665 en el veto interpuesto.

VIII.- Sobre la vigencia del acuerdo del Concejo Municipal de Oreamuno, N° 333-2006, artículo 17, acta N° 029-2006 tomado en la sesión celebrada el día doce de septiembre de 2006. Los intervinientes Taquiscú S.A. y Finca Upsilón S.A., en su condición de desarrollador de Takiscú y propietarios de lotes, respectivamente, así como el Concejo Municipal en el acuerdo que rechazó la solicitud del Alcalde, estiman que los argumentos contenidos en el oficio AM-0412-2009-mvrq, denominado "Solicitud de Declaratoria de Lesividad y de procedimiento administrativo", resultan incorrectos, toda vez que el acuerdo No. 333-2006, artículo 17, acta No. 029-2006, de la sesión ordinaria del 12 de setiembre del 2006, que pretende aplicar el Alcalde, no se encuentra vigente. Sobre este particular, el Nombre20665 invoca la aplicación del mencionado acuerdo, que había dispuesto, desde hacía varios años atrás, rechazar el oficio DI-URBA-18-06 del 19 de junio del 2006 del Departamento de Ingeniería, en el que se pidió la aprobación del fraccionamiento de veinte lotes ubicados frente a calles públicas y del permiso de construcción en el proyecto Takiscú, establecer las medidas disciplinarias contra los funcionarios de Ingeniería municipal, negar los permisos solicitados por la empresa y proceder a la clausura y paralización de obras del citado fraccionamiento. Sin embargo, al analizar las fases recursivas, se desprende que el recurso extraordinario de revisión fue acogido por el Concejo Municipal, en acuerdo N° 1652-2008, adoptado en la sesión N° 156-2008 celebrada el 24 de abril de 2008, cuyo veto no prosperó. Así las cosas, el acuerdo mencionado y que pretende aplicar el Nombre20665 no surte efectos, conforme lo dispone el artículo 157 del Código Municipal, por lo que la invocación que hace el Nombre20665 tendiente a obtener la nulidad de los visados con base en la aplicación de ese acuerdo resulta totalmente improcedente. Por ende, los alegatos expuestos por el Concejo y el interviniente, son correctos, al considerar que no se puede pedir la nulidad de los visados sobre la base de un acto administrativo ineficaz. Sin embargo, no siendo este argumento el único que arguye el veto interpuesto, los demás elementos de la objeción del Nombre20665 dan mérito suficiente para resolver de la manera en que se hace en esta resolución.

IX.- Sobre la nulidad invocada y el procedimiento para declararla. Apreciados con claridad los graves vicios de nulidad del proyecto Takiscú, aún y cuando no está vigente el acuerdo municipal No. 333-2006, artículo 17, acta N° 029-2006 tomado en la sesión celebrada el 12 de septiembre de 2006, y teniendo como base los visados y permisos respectivos, bien puede ahora la Municipalidad de Oreamuno venirse en contra de sus propios actos, en aplicación de los numerales 173 y 183 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y 34 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, por transgresión a los numerales 131 a 133 y 136 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, 40 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, 7 y 17 del Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de San Rafael de Oreamuno. Estos elementos son suficientes para acoger la solicitud del Alcalde, y con ella, el veto interpuesto. No existe posibilidad legal que faculte a la administración local a rechazar la gestión de nulidad respectiva, pues conforme lo dispone el numeral 174 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, "La Administración estará obligada a anular de oficio el acto absolutamente nulo, dentro de las limitaciones de esta ley ", no quedando entonces espacio alguno para la discrecionalidad administrativa en cuanto a la toma de esta decisión. Ello implica, entonces, que los argumentos esgrimidos por el Concejo Municipal respecto del impacto presupuestario que las eventuales indemnizaciones podría generar, es un aspecto de conveniencia que dista de la legalidad y que, por lo tanto, no puede imponerse por encima del ordenamiento jurídico. En todo caso, a efectos de evitar confusiones, se aclara al Gobierno Local que los mecanismos de nulidad del acto administrativo declarativo de derechos que prevé la Ley General de la Administración Pública son dos, excluyentes entre sí. Bien puede el gobierno local proceder a nombrar un órgano director e iniciar las diligencias de nulidad absoluta, cuando esta sea evidente y manifiesta, resultando entonces que en sede administrativa se decreta la nulidad de lo actuado, conforme lo regulan los artículo 173, 308 y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, mediante la instauración del procedimiento ordinario al efecto; o bien, puede emitir la declaratoria de lesividad y entablar los procesos contencioso- administrativo en sede jurisdiccional ante la nulidad absoluta, no evidente ni manifiesta. Nótese que no se deben confundir ambos procedimientos, pues uno es en sede administrativa mientras que el otro se desarrolla en sede jurisdiccional. El detalle de cada uno fue expuesto en las resoluciones precedentes de esta misma Sección (175-2009, 176-2009 y 177-2009) y, por lo tanto, deberá decidir el Concejo por cuál de las dos opciones jurídicamente viables se decide.

X.- Corolario. Apreciados los vicios enunciados anteriormente en el otorgamiento de los visados de planos en el proyecto Takiscú, así como la nulidad del permiso de construcción de la servidumbre interna en adoquín, lo procedente es acoger el Veto interpuesto por el Nombre20665 Municipal, debiendo proceder el Concejo Municipal conforme lo indicado en el Considerando anterior.

Por tanto

Se acoge el veto interpuesto.

Hubert Fernández Argüello Silvia Consuelo Fernández Brenes Evelyn Solano Ulloa