Res. 00005-2015 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección VI — Denial of Agricultural-Zone Subdivision Under Zoning Plan

OutcomeResultado

DeniedSin lugar

The court upheld the lack-of-right defense and dismissed the claim against the Municipality of La Unión, affirming the denial of a land-use permit for subdivision in an agricultural zone.Se acogió la excepción de falta de derecho y se declaró improcedente la demanda contra la Municipalidad de La Unión, confirmando la denegatoria de uso de suelo para fraccionamiento en zona agrícola.

SummaryResumen

The Administrative Contentious Court dismissed a property owner's challenge to the Municipality of La Unión's ruling that his 9,077.44 m² lot was unsuitable for subdivision because it lay in an agricultural zone under the 2003 Cantonal Zoning Plan. The plaintiff argued discrimination and inequality of treatment because neighboring lots had residential use, but the Court found the denial strictly complied with Articles 2 and 9 of the zoning regulations, which require a minimum lot size of one hectare and prohibit new subdivisions in agricultural zones. Prior residential permits in the area predated the zoning plan and thus did not breach equality principles. The Court upheld the municipality's lack-of-right exception and imposed costs on the plaintiff.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo desestimó la demanda de un propietario que cuestionaba la resolución de la Municipalidad de La Unión que calificó su terreno de 9077,44 m² como uso no conforme para segregación, por encontrarse en zona agrícola según el Plan Regulador cantonal (2003). El actor alegó discriminación y violación de igualdad porque predios vecinos tenían uso habitacional, pero el Tribunal constató que la negativa se ajustaba estrictamente a los artículos 2 y 9 del reglamento de zonificación, que exigen lote mínimo de 1 hectárea y prohíben fraccionamientos en zona agrícola. Las autorizaciones previas de vivienda en la zona fueron anteriores al plan regulador, por lo que no vulneraban el principio de igualdad. Se acogió la excepción de falta de derecho y se condenó en costas al actor.

Key excerptExtracto clave

Upon reviewing the facts of this complaint and the evidence presented, it is established that the land-use application filed by the plaintiff (proven fact 2) for subdivision purposes was denied (or more precisely, rated as “non-conforming use”) by the Urban Planning Department of the Municipality of La Unión (proven fact 3), which, in support of the denial, provided a virtually verbatim transcription of Section 9 of the Cantonal Zoning and Planning Regulations. Thereafter, in response to the challenge lodged by the petitioner (proven fact 4), the same office denied the reconsideration, clarifying or reiterating that the intended subdivision runs counter to the cited regulations, because the mother parcel does not meet the minimum size required for that purpose and – obviously – nor would any daughter parcels. Indeed, the plaintiff's property measures 9,077.44 square meters (proven fact 1), whereas the minimum size required for parcels located in an agricultural zone is one hectare (i.e., 10,000 square meters). In any event, in areas designated as agricultural zones no new urbanizations are allowed, pursuant to Article 2 ibid. Hence, both the contested resolution and the one confirming it on appeal (proven fact 6) are reasonably grounded in applicable normative provisions, which the plaintiff chose not to challenge, as explained above.Revisados los hechos de esta demanda y la prueba aportada, se constata que la solicitud de uso de suelo formulada por el accionante (hecho probado 2), para efectos de fraccionamiento, fue denegada (o, más exactamente, fue calificada como de “uso no conforme”) por la Dirección de Planificación Urbana de la Municipalidad de La Unión (hecho probado 3), el cual, para fundamentar el rechazo, hizo una transcripción virtualmente literal de lo dispuesto en el numeral 9 del Reglamento de Zonificación y Plan Regulador de ese cantón. Luego, ante la impugnación interpuesta por el gestionante (hecho probado 4), ese mismo despacho rechazó la revocatoria, aclarando o reiterando que el fraccionamiento pretendido es contrario a la normativa indicada, puesto que la finca madre no posee las dimensiones mínimas necesarias para tal efecto y –obviamente– tampoco las tendrían sus hijas. Efectivamente, el inmueble del que el actor es titular mide 9077,44 metros cuadrados (hecho probado 1), mientras que las dimensiones mínimas exigidas para fincas situadas en zona agrícola es de una hectárea (es decir, 10.000 metros cuadrados). En todo caso, en las zonas calificadas como agrícolas no se permite la edificación de nuevas urbanizaciones, conforme al artículo 2 ibídem. Por ende, tanto la resolución cuestionada como la que la confirmó en alzada (hecho probado 6) están razonablemente fundadas en disposiciones normativas vigentes, que la parte actora dispuso no atacar, según se explicó supra. Una vez examinados los hechos y las pruebas, se comprueba que la solicitud de uso del suelo para fraccionamiento presentada por el demandante fue denegada (o, más exactamente, calificada como 'uso no conforme') por la Dirección de Planificación Urbana de la Municipalidad de La Unión. Para justificar el rechazo, dicha oficina transcribió casi literalmente lo dispuesto en el artículo 9 del Reglamento de Zonificación y Plan Regulador del cantón. Posteriormente, ante la impugnación del interesado, la misma oficina rechazó la revocatoria, aclarando o reiterando que la segregación pretendida contraviene dicha normativa, ya que la finca matriz no posee las dimensiones mínimas necesarias y, evidentemente, tampoco las tendrían las fincas resultantes.

Pull quotesCitas destacadas

"el inmueble del que el actor es titular mide 9077,44 metros cuadrados (...), mientras que las dimensiones mínimas exigidas para fincas situadas en zona agrícola es de una hectárea (es decir, 10.000 metros cuadrados)."

"the plaintiff's property measures 9,077.44 square meters (...), whereas the minimum size required for parcels located in an agricultural zone is one hectare (i.e., 10,000 square meters)."

Considerando VII

"el inmueble del que el actor es titular mide 9077,44 metros cuadrados (...), mientras que las dimensiones mínimas exigidas para fincas situadas en zona agrícola es de una hectárea (es decir, 10.000 metros cuadrados)."

Considerando VII

"en las zonas calificadas como agrícolas no se permite la edificación de nuevas urbanizaciones, conforme al artículo 2 ibídem."

"in areas designated as agricultural zones no new urbanizations are allowed, pursuant to Article 2 ibid."

Considerando VII

"en las zonas calificadas como agrícolas no se permite la edificación de nuevas urbanizaciones, conforme al artículo 2 ibídem."

Considerando VII

"tanto la resolución cuestionada como la que la confirmó en alzada están razonablemente fundadas en disposiciones normativas vigentes"

"both the contested resolution and the one confirming it on appeal are reasonably grounded in applicable normative provisions"

Considerando VII

"tanto la resolución cuestionada como la que la confirmó en alzada están razonablemente fundadas en disposiciones normativas vigentes"

Considerando VII

Full documentDocumento completo

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Goicoechea Central: 2545-0003  Fax: 2545-0033  Correo electrónico: ...01 Proceso: Puro derecho Actor: Nombre50633 Demandada: Municipalidad de La Unión de Cartago N° 5-2015-VI TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA (SECCIÓN SEXTA). Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, at ten forty hours on the fourteenth of January of two thousand fifteen.- Ordinary proceeding declared a pure matter of law, followed before this Court by Nombre50633 , single, merchant, resident of San José, with residence ID number CED108191 (f. 37); against the MUNICIPALIDAD DE LA UNIóN DE CARTAGO, on behalf of which its then Mayor Nombre136257 appeared, who did not state personal details (f. 55). Also intervening in the proceeding, in the capacity of special judicial legal representatives: a) for the plaintiff, attorneys Arnoldo Solano Rodríguez, who does not state marital status or domicile, with identity card number CED108192 (f. 36) and Nombre74651 , divorced, resident of San José, with identity card number CED108193 (f. 66); and, b) for the defendant, Licda. Ana María Campos Guevara, single, resident of La Unión, with identity card number CED108194 (f. 64). The natural persons cited are of legal age and the latter three are attorneys.-

RESULTANDO:

1.- That the plaintiff, based on the facts and citations of law that he set forth, in a brief filed on August 9, 2013, filed a lawsuit whose claim –adjusted in the preliminary hearing– consists of requesting that the judgment declare “that the (...) resolution ML U SPPU 120 11 877532 C 565938-84 [that imposes] agricultural zone status on our cadastral plan C 565938-84, is illegal and unconstitutional, because it discriminates and makes our property the only one with agricultural vocation, within a housing complex. / That not being able to use pesticides, fungicides, or agricultural products that contaminate the environment, due to the existence of neighbors who have residential use, and the right to a healthy environment, makes the agricultural vocation illegal and unconstitutional. / Not being able to use the property for animals, pigsties, livestock, etc. (sic) Since this harms the health of immediately neighboring residents, makes the agricultural vocation illegal and unconstitutional for being disproportionate, and lacking reasonableness / Therefore, the judgment must declare that the application that the regulatory plan makes to the property of Partido de Cartago, real property registration number (sic) Placa8639 and plan Placa25280 , corresponds to residential use, and subdivision must be permitted in accordance with urban law regulations.” (f. 37-41; thus established in the preliminary hearing; what is indicated in square brackets is not from the original).- 2.- The defendant answered negatively to the action and raised the defense of lack of right (f. 55-59).- 3.- In the preliminary hearing held starting at 13:30 hours on June 23, 2014 –with the attendance of both parties and under the direction of the procedural judge Lic. Rodolfo Marenco Ortiz– the claim was set in the manner described in resultando one supra. Then, as there was no further evidence to receive apart from the documentary evidence, the proceeding was declared a pure matter of law, in accordance with Article 98 subsection 2) of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (CPCA), whereupon the parties proceeded to orally present their conclusions (hearing recorded and attached to the case file on its corresponding electronic medium; minute at f. 67-69).- 4.- The case file was transferred to this Sixth Section. This resolution is issued after deliberation. With the caveats made in considerando I, no grounds for nullity capable of invalidating the actions taken are observed.- Judge Hess Araya authors the opinion, with the affirmative vote of judges Garita Navarro and Baltodano Gómez (the latter intervenes due to the incapacity of Judge Fernández Brenes, according to the substitution roster of the office); and,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- PRELIMINARILY. Upon careful review of the case file, it is observed that in this matter the summons to the conciliation hearing referred to in Article 70.2 of the CPCA was omitted, without either of the parties having previously manifested their refusal to participate in it. However, considering that conciliation is a waivable procedural step and that during the clarification stage of the preliminary hearing neither party raised any objection in this regard, this Court understands that there was a tacit waiver of said alternative resolution mechanism and, therefore, that there is no defenselessness or nullity whatsoever that merits being declared here.- II.- PROVEN FACTS. The following relevant facts are considered as such:

1. That the plaintiff is the owner of the property registered in the Public Registry, province of Cartago, registration number Placa8639, which is described as land for agriculture located in San Ramón de La Unión de Cartago. It measures 9077.44 square meters and corresponds to cadastral plan number C-565938-84 (f. 27-29 and 31 of the judicial case file; f. 2 of the administrative case file).- 2. That on August 3, 2011, the now plaintiff submitted to the defendant a request for land use (uso de suelo) approval, “for the property of Partido de Cartago, real property registration (sic) Placa8639, cadastral plan Placa25280 , in order to permit subdivision (fraccionamiento) of this property, which previously had an agricultural vocation, but that urban development, authorized by the Municipalidad de la Unión, determined the change from agricultural vocation to residential use” (fact 1 of the lawsuit, uncontested; f. 3-4 of the administrative case file).- 3. That by resolution number MLU-SPPU-1210-11-8737532-C565938-84 of August 23, 2011, the Urban Planning Directorate of the defendant municipality indicated, for relevant purposes: “APPLICANT: Nombre50633 . / CADASTRAL PLAN: C-565938-84. / ZONE: AGRICULTURAL ZONE. / USE: NON-CONFORMING. / ACTIVITY: SEGREGATION. / Agricultural zone (Z AG): / a) Purposes. This zone is necessary to retain urban development and continue agricultural use within the canton. / b) Permitted uses: / 1. Agricultural and livestock uses / 2. Single-family housing of suburban or agricultural characteristics; residential complexes and urbanizations are excluded in all cases. / 3. Farms (poultry, beekeeping) provided that the regulations in force on the matter are complied with. / b) (sic) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are not permitted. / d) Requirements: / 1. Minimum lot surface area 1 Ha / 2. Minimum lot frontage 40 meters / 3. Setbacks / Front 15 meters / Lateral 5 meters / Rear 5 meters / 4. Building coverage (cobertura) 15% of the lot area / 5. Maximum floor area, double the building coverage area. Projects in this zone are subject to an environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental).” (fact 2 of the lawsuit, uncontested; f. 8-9 of the judicial case file; f. 6-7 of the administrative case file; capital letters are from the original).- 4. That against the resolution indicated in the previous fact, the interested party filed a motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal (recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio) (fact 3 of the lawsuit, uncontested; f. 8-9 of the administrative case file).- 5. That by resolution number DCU-403-2011, undated time, on September 16, 2011, the Urban Planning Directorate rejected the motion for revocation and forwarded the appeal to the Municipal Mayor. As reasoning, the following was stated, for relevant purposes: “In view of the reasons set forth in the document ‘Motion for Revocation with Subsidiary Appeal’, (...), dated September 1, 2011; it is indicated that the case, the regulatory plan, and the existing file with documentation have been analyzed. The land use (uso de suelo) was requested for segregation. Said request was rejected according to the zoning of the Regulatory Plan because plan C-565938-84 is located in an AGRICULTURAL ZONE and the regulatory plan regulations dictate for said zone ‘Requirements: 1. Minimum lot surface area 1Ha. 2. Minimum lot frontage 40 meters.’ / The Municipalidad de La Unión Regulatory Plan and its Regulations were approved in gazette N91 (sic) on May 14, 2003. It is mandatory (sic) and seeks to guide the physical development of the canton within reasonable expansion, thus safeguarding agricultural use and reserves. It also seeks to promote and protect the well-being of the population (see Art. 1 of the Regulatory Plan Regulations). For any segregation that is desired within the canton, the minimum size and frontage according to the designated zone must be met. If construction permits have been granted, it is because the zone allows single-family housing. If the lots where said permits were issued are smaller, they probably existed before the regulatory plan.” (fact 4 of the lawsuit, uncontested; f. 12-13 of the administrative case file).- 6. That by resolution at 14:00 hours on October 27, 2011, the Municipal Mayor of La Unión rejected the appeal. In this regard, it considered, for relevant purposes: “That the property for which land use (uso de suelo) was requested for lot segregation is a zone identified as an agricultural zone, this is determined after analysis of the cadastral plan and the zone where it is located, according to the Regulatory Plan of the Canton of La Unión. / According to the Urban Planning Department, the location of the property and the cadastral plan is in an agricultural zone, according to the Regulatory Plan that governs the Canton of La Unión, as stated, which means that only agricultural and livestock uses are permitted, single-family housing of suburban or agricultural characteristics; residential complexes and urbanizations are excluded in all cases. The foregoing because, being an agricultural zone, granting a land use different from what the Regulatory Plan states would be infringing a mandatory compliance norm such as this regulation, which establishes, among other things, a minimum lot surface area of one Ha. With a minimum lot frontage of 40 meters. / It is important (sic) to mention to the appellant that if land uses for housing were granted at the time, it is because it was done before the entry into force of the Regulatory Plan, that is, before May 14, 2003, and therefore no violation of the principle of equality enshrined in the Political Constitution is being caused. / Nor is any violation of property rights evident, since, as stated, the challenged resolution is based on fully current norms. / The Procuraduría General de la República, in report C-256-2009, regarding the legal nature of land use certificates, has stated: / ‘The certification of land use is a concrete legal act by which the local Administration certifies the conformity or non-conformity of the land use with what is established in the respective zoning. This clearly follows from the provisions of Article 28 of the Urban Planning Law.’ / As can be observed, land use certification is simply limited to indicating what is appropriate or not to establish on the property for which the land use is requested. In this case, it involves segregating a property located in an agricultural zone, a situation that is not possible, as stated, due to what is stipulated in the Regulatory Plan.” (fact 5 of the lawsuit, uncontested; f. 6-7 of the judicial case file; f. 21-22 of the administrative case file).- 7. That by brief filed on October 31, 2011, the interested party filed a “motion for appeal and review” against the newly cited ruling of the Municipal Mayor (fact 6 of the lawsuit, uncontested regarding what is indicated; f. 23 of the administrative case file).- 8. That by administrative resolution at 15:30 hours on November 24, 2011, the Municipal Mayor of La Unión admitted the appeal filed before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo (fact 6 of the lawsuit, uncontested regarding what is indicated; f. 26 of the administrative case file).- 9. That by Resolution No. 135-2012 at 14:35 hours on April 19, 2012, the Third Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo declared the appeal formulated was improperly admitted (f. 38-41 of the administrative case file).- III.- UNPROVEN FACTS. None of relevance.- IV.- ALLEGATIONS OF THE PARTIES. The plaintiff states, in summary, that on August 3, 2011, he submitted to the defendant municipality a land use (uso de suelo) request for subdivision (fraccionamiento) purposes, which was resolved by the Urban Planning Directorate in a non-conforming sense, indicating that his property is for agricultural use. He filed a motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal against that determination, which were rejected. He points out that all neighboring properties have residential use, and that only his remained agricultural, a situation he deems illegal and arbitrary.- V.- For its part, in response to the plaintiff's arguments, the defendant responds, in summary, that the submitted request was rejected in accordance with the Regulatory Plan of the Canton of La Unión, because the property in question is located in an agricultural zone, and residential complexes and urbanizations are excluded in all cases. It warns that if land uses (usos de suelo) for housing were granted in the zone at the time, it is because this predated the entry into force of the mentioned Regulatory Plan, which is from May 14, 2003. It cites the constitutional case law on the matter, as well as the provisions of Articles 15, 17, 19, 24, and 64 of the Urban Planning Law. It denies that the plaintiff's property right is being emptied of its content.- VI.- ON THE MERITS. The filed lawsuit is without merit and must be declared so. Note that, in the original formulation of the procedural claim (visible at f. 40), the plaintiff challenged the Regulatory Plan of the canton of La Unión, to the extent that it determines that his property is classified as an agricultural zone. However, in the preliminary hearing held in this matter, it is recorded in the digital recording that, in response to a question asked by the procedural judge to clarify the petition, the special judicial legal representative of the plaintiff expressly and clearly stated that the sole claim is –rather– the declaration of nullity of resolution number MLU-SPPU-1210-11-8737532-C565938-84 of August 23, 2011, by which the Urban Planning Directorate of the defendant municipality rejected the land use (uso de suelo) request submitted. Now, the Zoning Regulations and Regulatory Plan of the Canton of La Unión were published in the official gazette La Gaceta No. 91 of May 14, 2003, and, of interest for the sub lite, state:

“Article 2- General regulations. For the purposes of this regulation, the entire canton of La Unión is divided (sic) into the following zones:

(...)

7. Agricultural Zone (ZAG) e) Construction permits, licenses, or uses:

1. The Municipalidad will not grant permits for the construction, expansion, or remodeling of buildings or urbanizations that contravene the zoning or any of the provisions of this regulation. When appropriate, the document recording the permit for construction, expansion, or remodeling of buildings or urbanizations shall establish the other requirements affecting the work.

2. Likewise, no licenses or permits for the use of any property or use permits for any property shall be granted if the requested use does not conform to the zoning or to any of the provisions of this regulation.

3. The use permit referred to in Article 33 of the Urban Planning Law shall not be granted for lots resulting from subdivision (fraccionamiento) or urbanization if the resulting portions do not meet the requirements established in this regulation, in addition to the general norms.

f)Urbanizations, subdivision (fraccionamiento), and constructions:

1. (...).

2. In the agricultural zone, new urbanizations shall not be permitted. Constructions and subdivisions (fraccionamientos) shall be permitted, under the requirements for this zone indicated below in this regulation.

g)Existing lots or properties and existing constructions:

1. The minimum surface areas and frontages stipulated in this regulation for each and every zone shall be required for new lots or properties, the product or result of a subdivision (fraccionamiento) of a parent property, at the time of granting the corresponding permits.

(...)” “Article 9- Agricultural zone (Z AG):

a)Purposes. This zone is necessary to retain urban development and continue agricultural use within the canton.
b)Permitted uses:

1. Agricultural and livestock uses 2. Single-family housing of suburban or agricultural characteristics; residential complexes and urbanizations are excluded in all cases.

3. Farms (poultry, beekeeping) provided that the regulations in force on the matter are complied with.

c)Conditional uses. Conditional uses are not permitted.
d)Requirements:

1. Minimum lot surface area 1 Ha 2. Minimum lot frontage 40 meters 3. Setbacks Front 15 meters Lateral 5 meters Rear 5 meters 4. Building coverage (cobertura) 15% of the lot area 5. Maximum floor area, double the building coverage area. Projects in this zone are subject to an environmental impact study (estudio de impacto ambiental).” VII.- Having reviewed the facts of this lawsuit and the evidence provided, it is verified that the land use (uso de suelo) request made by the plaintiff (proven fact 2), for subdivision (fraccionamiento) purposes, was denied (or, more accurately, was qualified as “non-conforming use”) by the Urban Planning Directorate of the Municipalidad de La Unión (proven fact 3), which, to support the denial, made a virtually literal transcription of the provisions of section 9 of the Zoning Regulations and Regulatory Plan of that canton. Then, in response to the challenge filed by the applicant (proven fact 4), that same office rejected the revocation, clarifying or reiterating that the intended subdivision (fraccionamiento) is contrary to the indicated regulations because the parent property does not have the minimum dimensions necessary for that purpose and –obviously– neither would its resulting lots. Indeed, the property owned by the plaintiff measures 9077.44 square meters (proven fact 1), while the minimum dimensions required for properties located in an agricultural zone is one hectare (that is, 10,000 square meters). In any case, in zones classified as agricultural, the construction of new urbanizations is not permitted, in accordance with Article 2 ibid. Therefore, both the challenged resolution and the one that confirmed it on appeal (proven fact 6) are reasonably based on current regulatory provisions, which the plaintiff chose not to challenge, as explained supra. Consequently, in what was resolved by the defendant local corporation, there is no substantial nonconformity with the legal system capable of giving rise to the nullity that is petitioned. This must inevitably lead to the action being dismissed.- VIII.- Finally, it is worth recalling that the allegations of unconstitutionality raised in the lawsuit cannot be heard in this venue, as they correspond to the exclusive and excluding jurisdiction of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), so nothing further need be said in this regard.- IX.- REGARDING THE RAISED DEFENSE. The defendant raised that of lack of right, which, based on the previous considerations, must be upheld, dismissing the lawsuit in all its respects.- X.- REGARDING COSTS. Article 193 of the CPCA establishes that procedural and personal costs are imposed on the losing party by the mere fact of being so, a pronouncement that must even be made ex officio, in accordance with the provisions of that same norm, in conjunction with section 119.2 ibid. The waiver of this condemnation is only viable: a) when there is, in the Court's judgment, sufficient reason to litigate; b) when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence unknown to the opposing party; or c) when plus petitio is incurred, that is, when the difference between the amount claimed and the amount ultimately obtained is fifteen percent (15%) or more, unless the bases of the claim are expressly considered provisional or their determination depends on judicial discretion or expert opinions (section 194 ibid). In the case at hand, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions set forth in the applicable regulations and break the principle of condemnation to the losing party. Therefore, payment of both costs is imposed on the plaintiff.-

POR TANTO:

The defense of lack of right is upheld. The lawsuit filed by Nombre50633 against the Municipalidad de La Unión de Cartago is declared WITHOUT MERIT. Both costs are charged to the plaintiff. NOTIFÍQUESE.- CHRISTIAN HESS ARAYA ROBERTO GARITA NAVARRO ELÍAS BALTODANO GÓMEZ The cited individuals are of legal age and the last three are attorneys.-WHEREAS:1.- That the plaintiff, based on the facts and legal citations set forth, in a brief filed on August 9, 2013, filed a lawsuit whose claim –adjusted in the preliminary hearing– consists of requesting that the judgment declare “that the (...) resolution ML U SPPU 120 11 877532 C 565938-84 [that imposes] on our cadastral survey C 565938-84 the condition of agricultural zone, is illegal and unconstitutional, since it discriminates and makes our property the only one with agricultural vocation within a housing development. / That since it is impossible to use pesticides, fungicides, or agricultural products that contaminate the environment, due to the existence of neighbors with residential use, and the right to a healthy environment, the agricultural vocation is illegal and unconstitutional. / Since it is impossible to use the property for animals, pigsties, livestock, etc. (sic) Since this harms the health of the immediately adjacent neighbors, the agricultural vocation will be (sic) illegal and unconstitutional for being disproportionate and lacking reasonableness / Therefore, the judgment must declare that the application made by the regulatory plan to the property of the Cartago Registry real folio registration number (sic) Placa8639 and plan Placa25280, corresponds to a residential use, and subdivision must be permitted in accordance with urban law regulations.” (f. 37-41; as established in the preliminary hearing; the text in square brackets is not from the original).-2.- The defendant answered the action negatively and raised the defense of lack of right (f. 55-59).-3.- In the preliminary hearing held starting at 13:30 hours on June 23, 2014 –with the attendance of both parties and under the direction of the procedural judge Lic. Rodolfo Marenco Ortiz– the claim was established in the manner set forth in the first considering clause supra. Then, since there was no further evidence to receive apart from the documentary evidence, the proceeding was declared as one of pure law, in accordance with Article 98 subsection 2) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (CPCA), whereupon the parties proceeded to orally present their conclusions (hearing recorded and attached to the case file on its corresponding electronic medium; minutes at f. 67-69).-4.- The case file was referred to this Sixth Section. This resolution is issued after deliberation. With the exceptions noted in Considering Clause I, no grounds for nullity capable of invalidating the proceedings are noted.-Drafted by Judge Hess Araya, with the affirmative vote of Judges Garita Navarro and Baltodano Gómez (the latter intervening due to the incapacity of Judge Fernández Brenes, pursuant to the office substitution roster); and,CONSIDERING:I.- PRELIMINARY MATTER. Upon careful review of the case file, it is observed that in this matter the summons to the conciliation hearing referred to in Article 70.2 of the CPCA was omitted, without either party having previously expressed their refusal to participate in it. However, considering that conciliation is a waivable procedural step and that at the cleansing stage of the preliminary hearing neither party raised any objection in this regard, this Court understands that there was a tacit waiver of said alternative resolution mechanism and, therefore, that there is no defenselessness or nullity that merits being declared here.-II.- PROVEN FACTS. The following are held as such, being of relevance:1.      That the plaintiff is the owner of the property registered in the Public Registry, province of Cartago, registration number Placa8639, described as land for agriculture located in San Ramón de La Unión de Cartago. It measures 9077.44 square meters and corresponds to cadastral plan number C-565938-84 (f. 27-29 and 31 of the judicial file; f. 2 of the administrative file).-2.      That on August 3, 2011, the now plaintiff submitted to the defendant a request for land use (uso de suelo), “for the property of the Cartago Registry real folio registration (sic) Placa8639, cadastral plan Placa25280, in order to allow the subdivision (fraccionamiento) of this property, which previously was considered as having agricultural vocation, but which urban development, authorized by the Municipality of La Unión, determined the change from agricultural vocation to residential use” (fact 1 of the complaint, uncontested; f. 3-4 of the administrative file).-3.      That through resolution number MLU-SPPU-1210-11-8737532-C565938-84 of August 23, 2011, the Urban Planning Directorate of the defendant municipality indicated, as relevant: “APPLICANT: Nombre50633   . / CADASTRAL PLAN: C-565938-84. / ZONE: AGRICULTURAL ZONE. / USE: NON-CONFORMING. / ACTIVITY: SEGREGATION. / Agricultural zone (Z AG): / a) Purposes. This zone is necessary to retain urban development and continue agricultural use within the canton. / b) Permitted uses: / 1. Agricultural and livestock uses / 2. Single-family dwelling of suburban or agricultural characteristics, residential complexes and urbanizations are excluded in all cases. / 3. Farms (poultry, beekeeping) provided that current regulations on the matter are complied with. / b) (sic) Conditional uses. No conditional uses are permitted. / d) Requirements: / 1. Minimum lot area 1 Ha / 2. Minimum lot frontage 40 meters / 3. Setbacks / Front 15 meters / Side 5 meters / Rear 5 meters / 4. Coverage 15% of the lot area / 5. Maximum floor area, twice the coverage area. Projects in this zone are subject to an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental).” (fact 2 of the complaint, uncontested; f. 8-9 of the judicial file; f. 6-7 of the administrative file; uppercase is from the original).-4.      That against the resolution indicated in the previous fact, the interested party filed an appeal for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) with a subsidiary appeal (apelación en subsidio) (fact 3 of the complaint, uncontested; f. 8-9 of the administrative file).-5.      That through resolution number DCU-403-2011, undated, of September 16, 2011, the Urban Planning Directorate rejected the appeal for reconsideration and sent the appeal to the Municipal Mayor. As grounds, the following was indicated, as relevant: “In view of the reasons set forth in the document ‘Appeal for Reconsideration with Subsidiary Appeal’, (...), dated September 1, 2011; it is indicated that the case, the regulatory plan (plan regulador) and the existing file with documentation have been analyzed. The land use (uso de suelo) was requested for segregation. Said request was rejected according to the zoning of the Regulatory Plan since plan C-565938-84 is located in an AGRICULTURAL ZONE and the regulatory plan regulation dictates for said zone ‘Requirements: 1. Minimum lot area 1Ha. 2. Minimum lot frontage 40 meters.’ / The Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of La Unión and its Regulation were approved in official gazette N91 (sic) of May 14, 2003. It is mandatory and seeks to guide the physical development of the canton within reasonable expansion, thereby safeguarding agricultural use and reserves. It also seeks to promote and protect the well-being of the population (see Art. 1 of the Regulatory Plan Regulation). For any segregation that is to be carried out within the canton, the minimum size and frontage according to the designated zone must be met. If construction permits have been granted, it is because the zone allows single-family dwellings. If the lots where said permits were issued are smaller, these probably existed before the regulatory plan.” (fact 4 of the complaint, uncontested; f. 12-13 of the administrative file).-6.      That by resolution of 14:00 hours on October 27, 2011, the Municipal Mayor of La Unión rejected the appeal. In this regard, he considered, as pertinent: “That the property for which land use was requested for lot segregation is a zone identified as an agricultural zone; this is determined after analyzing the cadastral plan and the zone where it is located, according to the Regulatory Plan of the Canton of La Unión. / According to the Urban Planning Department, the location of the property and the cadastral plan is in an agricultural zone, according to the Regulatory Plan that governs the Canton of La Unión, as stated, which means that only agricultural and livestock uses, single-family dwellings of suburban or agricultural characteristics are permitted; residential complexes and urbanizations are excluded in all cases. The foregoing because, being an agricultural zone, granting a land use different from that mentioned in the Regulatory Plan would infringe a mandatory norm such as this norm, which establishes, among other things, a minimum lot area of one Ha. With a minimum lot frontage of 40 meters. / It is important to mention to the appellant that if land uses for housing were granted at the time, it is because it was done before the entry into force of the Regulatory Plan, that is, before May 14, 2003, so no violation of the principle of equality enshrined in the Political Constitution is being caused. / Nor is any violation of property rights noted, since, as stated, the contested resolution is based on fully current norms. / The Procuraduría General de la República in report C-256-2009, regarding the legal nature of land use certificates, has indicated: / ‘The land use certification is a specific legal act by which the local Administration certifies the conformity or not of the land use with what is established in the respective zoning. This is clearly derived from the provisions of Article 28 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana.’ / As can be observed, the land use simply limits itself to indicating what is appropriate or not to establish on the property for which land use is requested. In this case, it involves segregating a property located in an agricultural zone, a situation that is not possible, as stated, due to what is stipulated in the Regulatory Plan.” (fact 5 of the complaint, uncontested; f. 6-7 of the judicial file; f. 21-22 of the administrative file).-7.      That by brief filed on October 31, 2011, the interested party filed an “appeal and review appeal” against the aforementioned ruling of the Municipal Mayor (fact 6 of the complaint, uncontested as to what is indicated; f. 23 of the administrative file).-8.      That through administrative resolution of 15:30 hours on November 24, 2011, the Municipal Mayor of La Unión admitted the appeal filed before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo (fact 6 of the complaint, uncontested as to what is indicated; f. 26 of the administrative file).-9.      That by resolution No. 135-2012 of 14:35 hours on April 19, 2012, the Third Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo declared the appeal filed as wrongly admitted (f. 38-41 of the administrative file).-III.- FACTS NOT PROVEN. None of relevance.-IV.- ALLEGATIONS OF THE PARTIES. The plaintiff states, in summary, that on August 3, 2011, he submitted to the defendant municipality a land use request for subdivision (fraccionamiento) purposes, which was resolved by the Urban Planning Directorate in a non-conforming manner, indicating that his property is for agricultural use. He filed an appeal for reconsideration with a subsidiary appeal against said determination, which were rejected. He indicates that all adjacent properties have residential use, and only his was kept as agricultural, which he deems illegal and arbitrary.-V.- In turn, to the plaintiff's arguments, the defendant responds, in synthesis, that the submitted request was rejected in accordance with the Regulatory Plan of the Canton of La Unión, since the property in question is located in an agricultural zone, with residential complexes and urbanizations being excluded in all cases. It warns that if land uses for housing were granted in the zone at the time, it is because that predated the entry into force of the aforementioned Regulatory Plan, which is from May 14, 2003. It refers to the constitutional jurisprudence on the matter, as well as to the provisions of Articles 15, 17, 19, 24 and 64 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana. It denies that the plaintiff's property right is being emptied of content.-VI.- ON THE MERITS. The filed lawsuit is unfounded and must be declared as such. It should be noted that, in the original formulation of the procedural claim (visible at f. 40), the plaintiff challenged the Regulatory Plan of the canton of La Unión, to the extent that it determines that his property is classified as an agricultural zone. However, in the preliminary hearing held in this matter, it is recorded in the digital recording that, in response to a question posed by the procedural judge for the purpose of clarifying the petition, the plaintiff's special judicial representative stated expressly and clearly that the only claim asserted is –rather– the declaration of nullity of resolution number MLU-SPPU-1210-11-8737532-C565938-84 of August 23, 2011, by which the Urban Planning Directorate of the defendant municipality rejected the land use request submitted. Now, the Zoning Regulation and Regulatory Plan of the Canton of La Unión was published in the official gazette La Gaceta No. 91 of May 14, 2003, and, of interest to the sub lite, states:“Article 2- General regulations. For the purposes of this regulation, the entire canton of La Unión is divided (sic) into the following zones:(...)7. Agricultural Zone (ZAG)e) Construction permits, licenses or uses:1. The Municipality shall not grant permits for the construction, expansion or remodeling of buildings or urbanizations that contravene the zoning or any of the provisions of this regulation. When appropriate, in the document containing the permit for construction, expansion or remodeling of buildings or urbanizations, the other requirements affecting the work shall be established.2. Likewise, licenses or use permits shall not be granted for any property where the requested use does not conform to the zoning or to any of the provisions of this regulation.3. The use referred to in Article 33 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana shall not be granted for lots resulting from subdivision (fraccionamiento) or urbanization, if the resulting portions do not comply with the requirements established in this regulation, in addition to the general norms.f) Urbanizations, subdivision and constructions:1. (...).2. In the agricultural zone, new urbanizations shall not be permitted. Constructions and subdivisions (fraccionamientos) shall be permitted, under the requirements for this zone indicated later in this regulation.g) Existing lots or properties and existing constructions:1. The minimum areas and frontages stipulated in this regulation for each and every one of the zones shall be required for new lots or properties, product or result of a subdivision (fraccionamiento) of a parent property at the time of granting the corresponding permits.(…)”“Article 9- Agricultural zone (Z AG):a) Purposes. This zone is necessary to retain urban development and continue agricultural use within the canton.b) Permitted uses:1. Agricultural and livestock uses2.

Single-family dwelling of suburban or agricultural characteristics; in any case, residential complexes and housing developments (urbanizaciones) are excluded.

3. Farms (poultry, apiaries), provided that the regulations in force on the matter are complied with.

c)Conditional uses. Conditional uses are not permitted.
d)Requirements:

1. Minimum lot area 1 ha 2. Minimum lot frontage 40 meters 3. Setbacks (retiros) Front 15 meters Side 5 meters Rear 5 meters 4. Coverage (cobertura) 15% of the lot area 5. Maximum floor area, twice the coverage area. Projects in this zone are subject to an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental).” VII.- Having reviewed the facts of this claim and the evidence provided, it is verified that the land-use (uso de suelo) application made by the claimant (proven fact 2), for purposes of subdivision (fraccionamiento), was denied (or, more precisely, was classified as “non-conforming use”) by the Urban Planning Directorate of the Municipality of La Unión (proven fact 3), which, to justify the rejection, made a virtually literal transcription of the provisions of numeral 9 of the Zoning and Master Plan Regulations (Reglamento de Zonificación y Plan Regulador) of that canton. Subsequently, upon the challenge filed by the applicant (proven fact 4), that same office denied the revocation, clarifying or reiterating that the intended subdivision (fraccionamiento) is contrary to the indicated regulations, since the parent parcel does not possess the minimum dimensions necessary for such purpose and –obviously– neither would its daughter parcels. Indeed, the property of which the claimant is the owner measures 9,077.44 square meters (proven fact 1), while the minimum dimensions required for properties located in an agricultural zone is one hectare (that is, 10,000 square meters). In any case, in zones classified as agricultural, the construction of new housing developments (urbanizaciones) is not permitted, in accordance with article 2 ibid. Therefore, both the challenged resolution and the one that confirmed it on appeal (proven fact 6) are reasonably grounded in current regulatory provisions, which the claimant chose not to challenge, as explained supra. Consequently, in the decision made by the respondent local corporation, there is no substantial non-conformity with the legal order capable of giving rise to the nullity sought. This must inevitably lead to the dismissal of the action.- VIII.- Finally, it is worth recalling that the allegations of unconstitutionality raised in the claim cannot be heard in this venue, as they correspond to the exclusive and excluding jurisdiction of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional); therefore, nothing further can be noted in this regard.- IX.- CONCERNING THE OBJECTION RAISED. The respondent raised the objection of lack of right, which, based on the preceding considerations, must be upheld, dismissing the claim in all its aspects.- X.- CONCERNING COSTS. Article 193 of the CPCA establishes that procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales) are imposed on the losing party for the sole fact of being so, a ruling that must even be made ex officio, according to the provisions of that same norm, in conjunction with numeral 119.2 ibid. Relief from this award is only feasible: a) when, in the opinion of the Court, there was sufficient reason to litigate; b) when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence unknown to the opposing party; or c) when plus petitio is incurred, that is, when the difference between the amount claimed and the amount ultimately obtained is fifteen percent (15%) or more, unless the bases of the claim are expressly considered provisional or their determination depends on judicial discretion or expert opinion (ordinal 194 ibid). In the instant case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions established by the applicable regulations and to break the principle of awarding costs against the losing party. Therefore, the payment of both costs is imposed on the claimant.-

POR TANTO:

The objection of lack of right is upheld. The claim filed by Nombre50633 against the Municipality of La Unión de Cartago is declared IMPROCEDENT. Both costs are to be borne by the claimant. NOTIFÍQUESE.- CHRISTIAN HESS ARAYA ROBERTO GARITA NAVARRO ELÍAS BALTODANO GÓMEZ 3-4 of the administrative file).- 3. That by resolution number MLU-SPPU-1210-11-8737532-C565938-84 of August 23, 2011, the Urban Planning Directorate (Dirección de Planificación Urbana) of the respondent municipality indicated, as relevant: *“APPLICANT: Nombre50633. / CADASTRAL MAP: C-565938-84. / ZONE: AGRICULTURAL ZONE. / USE: NON-CONFORMING. / ACTIVITY: SEGREGATION. / Agricultural zone (Z AG): / a) Purposes. This zone is necessary to retain urban development and continue agricultural use within the canton. / b) Permitted uses: / 1. Agricultural and livestock uses / 2. Single-family dwelling of suburban or agricultural characteristics, residential complexes and developments (urbanizaciones) are excluded in all cases. / 3. Farms (poultry, apiary) provided current regulations on the matter are complied with. / b) (sic) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are not permitted. / d) Requirements: / 1. Minimum lot area 1 Ha / 2. Minimum lot frontage 40 meters / 3. Setbacks / Front 15 meters / Side 5 meters / Rear 5 meters / 4. Coverage 15% of the lot area / 5. Maximum floor area, twice the coverage area. Projects in this zone are subject to an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental).”* (fact 2 of the complaint, uncontested; ff. 8-9 of the judicial file; ff. 6-7 of the administrative file; capitalization from the original).- 4. That against the resolution indicated in the previous fact, the interested party filed a motion for reversal with subsidiary appeal (recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio) (fact 3 of the complaint, uncontested; ff. 8-9 of the administrative file).- 5. That by resolution number DCU-403-2011, undated-time, of September 16, 2011, the Urban Planning Directorate rejected the motion for reversal and forwarded the appeal to the Municipal Mayor. As grounds, the following was stated, as relevant: *“In view of the reasons set forth in the document ‘Motion for Reversal with Subsidiary Appeal’ (...), dated September 1, 2011; it is indicated that the case, the regulatory plan (plan regulador), and the existing file with documentation have been analyzed. The land-use (uso de suelo) was requested for segregation (segregación). Said request was rejected according to the zoning of the Regulatory Plan since cadastral map C-565938-84 is located in an AGRICULTURAL ZONE and the Regulatory Plan regulation dictates for said zone ‘Requirements: 1. Minimum lot area 1Ha. 2. Minimum lot frontage 40 meters.’ / The Regulatory Plan of the Municipality of La Unión and its Regulation were approved in gazette N91 (sic) of May 14, 2003. It is mandatory and seeks to guide the physical development of the canton within reasonable expansion, thus safeguarding agricultural use and reserves. It also seeks to promote and protect the well-being of the population (see Art. 1 of the Regulatory Plan Regulation). For any segregation to be carried out within the canton, the minimum size and frontage according to the designated zone must be met. If construction permits have been granted it is because the zone permits single-family dwellings. If the lots where said permits were issued are smaller, these probably existed before the regulatory plan.”* (fact 4 of the complaint, uncontested; ff. 12-13 of the administrative file).- 6. That by resolution of 2:00 p.m. on October 27, 2011, the Municipal Mayor of La Unión rejected the appeal. In this regard, he considered, as pertinent: *“That the property for which land-use was requested for lot segregation is an area identified as an agricultural zone, this is determined after analysis of the cadastral map and the zone where it is located, according to the Regulatory Plan of the Canton of La Unión. / According to the Urban Planning Department, the location of the farm and the cadastral map is in an agricultural zone, according to the Regulatory Plan governing the Canton of La Unión, as stated, which means that only agricultural and livestock uses, single-family dwellings of suburban or agricultural characteristics are permitted; residential complexes and developments (urbanizaciones) are excluded in all cases. The foregoing because being an agricultural zone, by granting a land-use different from that mentioned in the Regulatory Plan, a mandatory rule such as this regulation would be infringed, which establishes among other things a minimum lot area of one Ha. With a minimum lot frontage of 40 meters. / It is important to mention to the appellant that if at some point land-uses for housing were granted, it is because it was done before the entry into force of the Regulatory Plan, that is, before May 14, 2003, so no violation of the principle of equality enshrined in the Political Constitution is being caused. / Nor is any violation of property rights apparent, this because, as stated, the contested resolution is based on fully current regulations. / The Office of the Attorney General (Procuraduría General de la República) in report C-256-2009, regarding the legal nature of land-use certificates, has stated: / ‘The certification of land-use is a specific legal act by which the local Administration certifies the conformity or non-conformity of the land-use with what is established in the respective zoning. This is clearly inferred from the provisions of article 28 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana).’ / As can be observed, the land-use certificate is simply limited to indicating what is appropriate or not to establish on the farm for which land-use is requested. In this case, it involves segregating a farm, which is located in an agricultural zone, a situation that is not possible, as stated, due to the stipulations of the Regulatory Plan.”* (fact 5 of the complaint, uncontested; ff. 6-7 of the judicial file; ff. 21-22 of the administrative file).- 7. That by brief filed on October 31, 2011, the interested party filed an “appeal and review motion” against the recently cited decision of the Municipal Mayor (fact 6 of the complaint, uncontested as to what is indicated; f. 23 of the administrative file).- 8. That by administrative resolution of 3:30 p.m. on November 24, 2011, the Municipal Mayor of La Unión admitted the appeal filed before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo) (fact 6 of the complaint, uncontested as to what is indicated; f. 26 of the administrative file).- 9. That by resolution No. 135-2012 of 2:35 p.m. on April 19, 2012, the Third Section of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal declared the appeal filed was improperly admitted (ff. 38-41 of the administrative file).- **III.- UNPROVEN FACTS.** None of relevance.- **IV.- PARTIES' ARGUMENTS.** The plaintiff states, in summary, that on August 3, 2011, he submitted to the defendant municipality a request for land-use for subdivision (fraccionamiento) purposes, which was resolved by the Urban Planning Directorate as non-conforming, indicating that the property he owns is for agricultural use. He filed a motion for reversal with subsidiary appeal against said determination, which were rejected. He points out that all adjoining properties have residential use, and only his was kept as agricultural, which he deems illegal and arbitrary.- **V.-** For its part, to the plaintiff's arguments, the defendant responds, in summary, that the application submitted was rejected in accordance with the Regulatory Plan of the Canton of La Unión, since the property in question is located in an agricultural zone, with residential complexes and developments (urbanizaciones) being excluded in all cases. It warns that if land-uses for housing were granted in the zone at some point, it is because that predated the entry into force of the mentioned Regulatory Plan, which is dated May 14, 2003. It refers to the constitutional jurisprudence on the matter, as well as to the provisions of articles 15, 17, 19, 24, and 64 of the Urban Planning Law. It denies that the plaintiff's property right is being emptied of content.- **VI.- ON THE MERITS.** The complaint filed is without merit and must be declared so. Note that, in the original formulation of the procedural claim (visible on f. 40), the plaintiff questioned the Regulatory Plan of the canton of La Unión, insofar as it determines that the property he owns is classified as an agricultural zone. However, in the preliminary hearing held in this matter, it is recorded in the digital recording that, before a question posed by the presiding judge for the purpose of clarifying the petition, the plaintiff's special judicial attorney expressly and clearly stated that the only claim asserted is – rather – the declaration of nullity of resolution number MLU-SPPU-1210-11-8737532-C565938-84 of August 23, 2011, by means of which the Urban Planning Directorate of the respondent municipality rejected the land-use application submitted. Now then, the Zoning and Regulatory Plan Regulation of the Canton of La Unión was published in the official gazette La Gaceta No. 91 of May 14, 2003, and, of interest for the sub lite, states:

*“Article 2- General regulations. For the purposes of this regulation, the entire canton of La Unión is divided into the following zones:* *(...)* *7. Agricultural Zone (ZAG)* *e) Construction permits, licenses, or usages (usados):* *1. The Municipality shall not grant permits for the construction, expansion, or remodeling of buildings or developments (urbanizaciones) that contravene the zoning or any of the provisions of this regulation. When appropriate, the document in which the permit for construction, expansion, or remodeling of buildings or developments is recorded shall establish the other requirements affecting the work.* *2. Likewise, licenses or use permits for any property shall not be granted if the requested use does not conform to the zoning or any of the provisions of this regulation.* *3. The usage (usado) referred to in article 33 of the Urban Planning Law shall not be granted for lots resulting from subdivision (fraccionamiento) or development (urbanización) if the resulting portions do not comply with the requirements established in this regulation, in addition to the general rules.* *f) Developments (Urbanizaciones), subdivision (fraccionamiento), and constructions:* *1. (...).* *2. In the agricultural zone, new developments (urbanizaciones) shall not be permitted. Constructions and subdivisions (fraccionamientos) shall be permitted, under the requirements for this zone indicated later in this regulation.* *g) Existing lots or farms and existing constructions:* *1. The minimum areas and frontages stipulated in this regulation for each and every zone shall be required for new lots or farms, resulting from or originating from a subdivision (fraccionamiento) of a mother farm at the time of granting the corresponding permits.* *(…)”* *“Article 9- Agricultural zone (Z AG):* *a) Purposes. This zone is necessary to retain urban development and continue agricultural use within the canton.* *b) Permitted uses:* *1. Agricultural and livestock uses* *2. Single-family dwelling of suburban or agricultural characteristics, residential complexes and developments (urbanizaciones) are excluded in all cases.* *3. Farms (poultry, apiary) provided current regulations on the matter are complied with.* *c) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are not permitted.* *d) Requirements:* *1. Minimum lot area 1 Ha* *2. Minimum lot frontage 40 meters* *3. Setbacks* *Front 15 meters* *Side 5 meters* *Rear 5 meters* *4. Coverage 15% of the lot area* *5. Maximum floor area, twice the coverage area. Projects in this zone are subject to an environmental impact assessment (estudio de impacto ambiental).”* **VII.-** Having reviewed the facts of this complaint and the evidence provided, it is verified that the land-use application formulated by the plaintiff (proven fact 2) for subdivision (fraccionamiento) purposes was denied (or, more precisely, was classified as “non-conforming use”) by the Urban Planning Directorate of the Municipality of La Unión (proven fact 3), which, to support the rejection, made a virtually literal transcription of the provisions of numeral 9 of the Zoning and Regulatory Plan Regulation of that canton. Later, regarding the challenge filed by the applicant (proven fact 4), that same office rejected the reversal, clarifying or reiterating that the intended subdivision (fraccionamiento) is contrary to the indicated regulations, since the mother farm does not have the minimum dimensions necessary for such effect and – obviously – neither would its daughter lots. Indeed, the property of which the plaintiff is the owner measures 9077.44 square meters (proven fact 1), while the minimum dimensions required for farms located in an agricultural zone is one hectare (that is, 10,000 square meters). In any case, in areas classified as agricultural, the construction of new developments (urbanizaciones) is not permitted, pursuant to article 2 ibidem. Therefore, both the questioned resolution and the one that confirmed it on appeal (proven fact 6) are reasonably based on current regulatory provisions, which the plaintiff chose not to attack, as explained supra. Consequently, in the decision made by the respondent local corporation, there is no substantial non-conformity with the legal system capable of giving rise to the requested nullity. This must inevitably lead to the dismissal of the action.- **VIII.-** Finally, it is worth remembering that the allegations of unconstitutionality formulated in the complaint cannot be heard in this venue, as they fall under the exclusive and excluding jurisdiction of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), so nothing more need be noted in this regard.- **IX.- REGARDING THE OBJECTION FILED.** The respondent raised the objection of lack of right, which, based on the preceding considerations, must be upheld, declaring the complaint without merit in all its aspects.- **X.- ON COSTS.** Article 193 of the CPCA establishes that procedural and personal costs are imposed on the losing party by the mere fact of being so, a pronouncement that must be made even ex officio, pursuant to the provisions of that same rule, in accordance with numeral 119.2 ibidem. The exemption from this condemnation is only viable: a) when, in the Tribunal's judgment, there was sufficient cause to litigate; b) when the judgment is rendered by virtue of evidence unknown to the opposing party; or, c) when plus petitio is incurred, that is, when the difference between what was claimed and what was ultimately obtained is fifteen percent (15%) or more, unless the bases of the claim are expressly considered provisional or their determination depends on judicial discretion or expert opinion (ordinal 194 ibidem). In the present case, this collegiate body does not find grounds to apply the exceptions established by the applicable regulation and break the rule of condemnation of the losing party. Therefore, the payment of both costs is imposed on the plaintiff.- **POR TANTO:** The objection of lack of right is upheld. The complaint filed by Nombre50633 against the Municipality of La Unión of Cartago is declared **IMPROCEDENTE**. Both costs are to be borne by the plaintiff.

NOTIFY.- CHRISTIAN HESS ARAYA ROBERTO GARITA NAVARRO ELÍAS BALTODANO GÓMEZ

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo de Goicoechea Central: 2545-0003  Fax: 2545-0033  Correo electrónico: ...01 Proceso: Puro derecho Actor: Nombre50633 Demandada: Municipalidad de La Unión de Cartago N° 5-2015-VI TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA (SECCIÓN SEXTA). Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, a las diez horas con cuarenta minutos del catorce de enero del dos mil quince.- Proceso de conocimiento declarado de puro derecho, seguido ante este Tribunal por Nombre50633 , soltero, comerciante, vecino de San José, con cédula de residencia número CED108191 (f. 37); contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE LA UNIóN DE CARTAGO, por la que compareció su entonces Alcalde Nombre136257 , quien no indicó calidades (f. 55). Intervinieron también en el proceso, en carácter de apoderados especiales judiciales: a) del actor, los licenciados Arnoldo Solano Rodríguez, no indica estado civil ni domicilio, con cédula de identidad número CED108192 (f. 36) y Nombre74651 , divorciado, vecino de San José, con cédula de identidad número CED108193 (f. 66); y, b) de la accionada, la Licda. Ana María Campos Guevara, soltera, vecina de La Unión, con cédula de identidad número CED108194 (f. 64). Las personas físicas citadas son mayores y los tres últimos son abogados.-

RESULTANDO:

1.- Que el actor, con base en los hechos y citas de derecho que expuso, en escrito presentado el 9 de agosto del 2013, formuló demanda cuya pretensión –ajustada en la audiencia preliminar– consiste en solicitar que en sentencia se declare “que la (...) resolución ML U SPPU 120 11 877532 C 565938-84 [que impone] a nuestro catastro C 565938-84 condición de zona agrícola, es ilegal e inconstitucional, pues discrimina y hace que nuestra propiedad sea la única con vocación agrícola, dentro de un conjunto habitacional. / Que al no poder utilizar pesticidas, fungicidas, o productos agrícolas que contaminan el ambiente, en razón de la existencia de vecinos que tiene un uso habitacional, y el derecho a un ambiente sano, hace que la vocación agrícola, sea ilegal e inconstitucional. / Al no poder usar la propiedad para tener animales, porquerizas, ganadería etc. (sic) Ya que ello perjudica la salud de los vecinos colindantes inmediatos, hace que la vocación agrícola será (sic) ilegal e inconstitucional por ser desproporcionada, y falta de razonabilidad / Por lo tanto en sentencia se debe declarar que la aplicación que hace el plan regulador a la finca del Partido de Cartago folio real matricula numero (sic) Placa8639 y plano Placa25280 , corresponde a un uso habitacional, y se debe de permitir el fraccionamiento conforme regulaciones de la ley urbana.” (f. 37-41; así fijado en la audiencia preliminar; lo indicado entre paréntesis cuadrados no es del original).- 2.- La demandada contestó negativamente la acción y opuso la excepción de falta de derecho (f. 55-59).- 3.- En la audiencia preliminar efectuada a partir de las 13:30 horas del 23 de junio del 2014 –con asistencia de ambas partes y bajo la conducción del juez de trámite Lic. Rodolfo Marenco Ortiz– se fijó la pretensión del modo que quedó reseñado en el resultando primero supra. Luego, al no haber más prueba que recibir aparte de la documental, se declaró el proceso como de puro derecho, de conformidad con el artículo 98 inciso 2) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (CPCA), por lo que las partes procedieron a rendir oralmente sus conclusiones (audiencia grabada y que consta adjunta al expediente en su correspondiente soporte electrónico; minuta a f. 67-69).- 4.- El expediente fue turnado a esta Sección Sexta. Esta resolución se dicta, previa deliberación. Con las salvedades que se hace en el considerando I, no se notan causales de nulidad capaces de invalidar lo actuado.- Redacta el juez Hess Araya, con el voto afirmativo de los jueces Garita Navarro y Baltodano Gómez (este último interviene por incapacidad de la jueza Fernández Brenes, conforme al rol de sustituciones del despacho); y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- DE PREVIO. Revisado cuidadosamente el expediente, se observa que en este asunto se omitió efectuar la citación a la audiencia de conciliación a que se refiere el artículo 70.2 del CPCA, sin que ninguna de las partes hubiese manifestado previamente su negativa a participar en ella. Ahora bien, considerando que la conciliación es un trámite renunciable del proceso y que en la etapa de saneamiento de la audiencia preliminar ninguna de aquéllas manifestó objeción alguna al respecto, entiende este Tribunal que existió una renuncia tácita a dicho mecanismo de resolución alternativa y, por ende, que no existe indefensión o nulidad alguna que amerite ser declarada aquí.- II.- HECHOS PROBADOS. Como tales se tiene los siguientes de relevancia:

1. Que el actor es propietario de la finca inscrita en el Registro Público, provincia de Cartago, matrícula número Placa8639, que se describe como terreno para agricultura situado en San Ramón de La Unión de Cartago. Mide 9077,44 metros cuadrados y le corresponde el número de plano catastral C-565938-84 (f. 27-29 y 31 del expediente judicial; f. 2 del expediente administrativo).- 2. Que el 3 de agosto de 2011, el ahora accionante presentó a la demandada una solicitud de uso de suelo, “en la finca del Partido de Cartago folio real matricula (sic) Placa8639, plano catastrado Placa25280 , a fin de que se permita el fraccionamiento en esta propiedad, que anteriormente se tenía como de vocación agrícola, pero que el desarrollo urbano, autorizado por la Municipalidad de la Unión, determinó la variación de la vocación agrícola por uso residencial” (hecho 1 de la demanda, no controvertido; f. 3-4 del expediente administrativo).- 3. Que mediante resolución número MLU-SPPU-1210-11-8737532-C565938-84 del 23 de agosto de 2011, la Dirección de Planificación Urbana de la municipalidad accionada indicó, en cuanto interesa: “SOLICITANTE: Nombre50633 . / PLANO DE CATASTRO: C-565938-84. / ZONA: ZONA AGRICOLA. / USO: NO CONFORME. / ACTIVIDAD: SEGREGACIÓN. / Zona agrícola (Z AG): / a) Propósitos. Esta zona es necesaria para retener el desarrollo urbano y continuar en ella el uso agrícola en el cantón. / b) Usos permitidos: / 1. Usos agropecuarios / 2. Vivienda unifamiliar de características suburbanas o agrícola, quedan excluidos en todo caso los conjuntos residencias y las urbanizaciones. / 3. Granjas (avícolas, apícolas) siempre y cuando se cumpla con la Reglamentación vigente en la materia. / b) (sic) Usos condicionales. No se permiten usos condicionales. / d) Requisitos: / 1. Superficie mínima del lote 1 Ha / 2. Frente de lote mínimo 40 metros / 3. Retiros / Frontal 15 metros / Lateral 5 metros / Posterior 5 metros / 4. Cobertura el 15% del área del lote / 5. Área máxima de piso, el doble del área de cobertura. Los proyectos en esta zona están sujetos a un estudio de impacto ambiental.” (hecho 2 de la demanda, no controvertido; f. 8-9 del expediente judicial; f. 6-7 del expediente administrativo; las mayúsculas son del original).- 4. Que contra la resolución indicada en el hecho anterior, el interesado interpuso recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio (hecho 3 de la demanda, no controvertido; f. 8-9 del expediente administrativo).- 5. Que mediante resolución número DCU-403-2011 sin hora del 16 de setiembre de 2011, la Dirección de Planificación Urbana rechazó el recurso de revocatoria y remitió el de apelación al Alcalde Municipal. Cómo fundamentación, se indicó lo siguiente, en cuanto viene relevante: “Con vista en las razones expuestas en el documento de ‘Recurso de Revocatoria con Apelación en Subsidio’, (...), con fecha 01 de setiembre del 2011; se indica que se ha analizado el caso, el plan regulador y el expediente existente con documentación. El uso de suelo se solicitó para segregación. Dicha solicitud fue rechazada según zonificación del Plan Regulador ya que el plano C-565938-84, se encuentra en ZONA AGRÍCOLA y el reglamento del Plan Regulador dicta para dicha zona ‘Requisitos: 1. Superficie mínima de lote 1Ha. 2. Frente de lote mínimo 40 metros.’ / El Plan Regulador de la Municipalidad de La Unión y su Reglamento, se encuentran aprobados en la gaceta N91 (sic) del día 14 de mayo del 2003. Es de acatamiento (sic) y busca orientar el desarrollo físico del cantón dentro de una razonable expansión cautelando de esta manera el uso agrícola y las reservas. Este además busca promover y proteger el bienestar de la población (ver Art. 1 del Reglamento del Plan Regulador). Para cualquier segregación que se quiera realizar dentro del cantón se debe cumplir con tamaño y frente mínimo según zona designada. Si se han otorgado permisos de construcción es porque la zona permite vivienda unifamiliar. Si los lotes donde se emitieron dichos permisos son de menor tamaño, estos, probablemente existen antes del plan regulador.” (hecho 4 de la demanda, no controvertido; f. 12-13 del expediente administrativo).- 6. Que por resolución de las 14:00 horas del 27 de octubre de 2011, el Alcalde Municipal de la Unión rechazó el recurso de apelación. Al respecto consideró, en lo conducente: “Que la propiedad en la cual se solicitó el uso de suelo para segregación de lotes, es una zona identificada como zona agrícola, esto se determina luego del análisis del plano de catastro y la zona donde se ubica, según el Plan Regulador del Cantón de La Unión. / Según el Departamento de Planificación Urbana, la ubicación de la finca y el plano catastrado se encuentra en una zona agrícola, según el Plan Regulador que rige el Cantón de La Unión, tal y como se dijo, lo que significa que sólo se permiten usos agropecuarios, vivienda unifamiliar de características suburbanas o agrícolas, quedan excluidos en todo caso los conjuntos residenciales y las urbanizaciones. Lo anterior por cuanto al ser una zona agrícola, al otorgar un uso de suelo distinto al que menciona el Plan Regulador, se estaría infringiendo una norma de acatamiento obligatorio como lo es esta norma, la cual establece entre otras cosas una superficie mínima del lote de una Ha. Con un frente mínimo del lote de 40 metros. / Importante (sic) mencionar al recurrente que si en su momento se otorgaron usos de suelo para vivienda, es porque se hizo antes de la entrada en vigencia del Plan Regulador, es decir, antes del 14 de mayo de 2003, por lo que no se está causando violación alguna al principio de igualdad consagrado en la Constitución Política. / Tampoco se denota ninguna violación a la propiedad, esto por cuanto, tal y como se dijo, la resolución impugnada, se fundamenta en normas totalmente vigentes. / La Procuraduría General de la República en el informe C-256-2009, en cuanto a la naturaleza jurídica de los certificados de usos de suelo ha señalado: / ‘La certificación del uso del suelo es un acto jurídico concreto por cual la Administración local acredita la conformidad o no del uso de suelo con lo establecido en la zonificación respectiva. Así se desprende con claridad de lo que dispone el artículo 28 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana.’ / Como se puede observar, el uso de suelo simplemente se limita a indicar que es lo apropiado o no para establecer en la finca en la cual se solicita el uso de suelo. En este caso se trata de segregar una finca, la cual se ubica en una zona agrícola, situación que no es posible, tal y como se dijo, esto por lo estipulado en el Plan Regulador.” (hecho 5 de la demanda, no controvertido; f. 6-7 del expediente judicial; f. 21-22 del expediente administrativo).- 7. Que por memorial presentado el 31 de octubre de 2011, el interesado interpuso “recurso de apelación y de revisión” contra el acuerdo recién citado del Alcalde Municipal (hecho 6 de la demanda, no controvertido en cuanto a lo indicado; f. 23 del expediente administrativo).- 8. Que mediante resolución administrativa de las 15:30 horas del 24 de noviembre de 2011, el Alcalde Municipal de la Unión admitió la apelación interpuesta ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo (hecho 6 de la demanda, no controvertido en cuanto a lo indicado; f. 26 del expediente administrativo).- 9. Que por resolución Nº 135-2012 de las 14:35 horas del 19 de abril de 2012, la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo declaró mal admitida la apelación formulada (f. 38-41 del expediente administrativo).- III.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS. Ninguno de relevancia.- IV.- ALEGATOS DE LAS PARTES. Manifiesta el actor, resumidamente, que el 3 de agosto de 2011 presentó a la municipalidad demandada una solicitud de uso de suelo con fines de fraccionamiento, la cual fue resuelta por la Dirección de Planificación Urbana en sentido no conforme, indicando que el inmueble de su propiedad es de uso agrícola. Formuló recurso de revocatoria con apelación subsidiaria contra dicha determinación, los cuales fueron rechazados. Señala que todas las propiedades colindantes tienen uso habitacional, siendo que solamente la suya se mantuvo como agrícola, de forma que estima ilegal y arbitraria.- V.- Por su parte, a los argumentos del actor, responde la demandada, en síntesis, que la gestión presentada fue rechazada conforme al Plan Regulador del Cantón de la Unión, pues el inmueble en cuestión se encuentra en una zona agrícola, quedando excluidos en todo caso los conjuntos residenciales y las urbanizaciones. Advierte que si en su momento se otorgaron usos de suelo para vivienda en la zona, es porque ello antecedió la entrada en vigencia del mencionado Plan Regulador, que es del 14 de mayo de 2003. Alude a la jurisprudencia constitucional de la materia, así como a lo dispuesto en los artículos 15, 17, 19, 24 y 64 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana. Niega que se esté vaciando de contenido el derecho de propiedad del actor.- VI.- SOBRE EL FONDO. La demanda planteada es improcedente y así debe ser declarado. Nótese que, en la formulación original de la pretensión procesal (visible a f. 40), el accionante cuestionaba el Plan Regulador del cantón de La Unión, en la medida en que éste determina que el inmueble de su propiedad esté clasificado como zona agrícola. No obstante, en la audiencia preliminar efectuada en este asunto, consta en la grabación digital que, ante una pregunta que le formuló el juez tramitador a los efectos de clarificar la petitoria, el apoderado especial judicial del actor señaló expresa y claramente que la única pretensión esgrimida lo es –más bien– la declaratoria de nulidad de la resolución número MLU-SPPU-1210-11-8737532-C565938-84 del 23 de agosto de 2011, por medio de la cual la Dirección de Planificación Urbana de la municipalidad accionada rechazó la solicitud de uso de suelo formulada. Ahora bien, el Reglamento de Zonificación y Plan Regulador del Cantón de La Unión fue publicado en el diario oficial La Gaceta Nº 91 del 14 de mayo del 2003 y, de interés para el sub lite, señala:

“Artículo 2º- Regulaciones generales. Para los efectos de este reglamento queda todo el cantón de La Unión do (sic) en las siguientes zonas:

(...)

7. Zona Agrícola (ZAG) e) Permisos de construcción patentes u usados:

1. La Municipalidad no otorgará permisos de construcción, ampliación o remodelación de edificios o urbanizaciones que contravengan la zonificación o cualesquiera de las disposiciones del presente reglamento. Cuando proceda en el documento en que conste el permiso de construcción, ampliación o remodelación de edificios o urbanizaciones, se establecerán los demás requisitos que afecten la obra.

2. De igual manera, no se concederán patentes o permisos de uso de cualquier inmueble o permisos de uso de cualquier inmueble en el que el uso solicitado no concuerde con la zonificación o con cualesquiera de las disposiciones de este reglamento.

3. No se otorgará el usado del artículo 33 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana o lotes producto de fraccionamiento o urbanización, si las porciones resultantes no cumplen con los requisitos establecidos en el presente reglamento, además de las normas generales.

f)Urbanizaciones, fraccionamiento y construcciones:

1. (...).

2. En la zona agrícola, no se permitirán nuevas urbanizaciones. Se permitirán construcciones y fraccionamientos, bajo los requisitos de esta zona indicados más adelante en este reglamento.

g)Lotes o fincas existentes y construcciones existentes:

1. Las superficies y frentes mínimos estipulados en este reglamento para todas y cada una de las zonas será exigible en lotes o fincas nuevas, producto o resultado de un fraccionamiento de finca madre en el momento de otorgar los permisos correspondientes.

(…)” “Artículo 9º- Zona agrícola (Z AG):

a)Propósitos. Esta zona es necesaria para retener el desarrollo urbano y continuar en ella el uso agrícola en el cantón.
b)Usos permitidos:

1. Usos agropecuarios 2. Vivienda unifamiliar de características suburbanas o agrícola, quedan excluidos en todo caso los conjuntos residencias y las urbanizaciones.

3. Granjas (avícolas, apícolas) siempre y cuando se cumpla con la Reglamentación vigente en la materia.

c)Usos condicionales. No se permiten usos condicionales.
d)Requisitos:

1. Superficie mínima del lote 1 Ha 2. Frente de lote mínimo 40 metros 3. Retiros Frontal 15 metros Lateral 5 metros Posterior 5 metros 4. Cobertura el 15% del área del lote 5. Área máxima de piso, el doble del área de cobertura. Los proyectos en esta zona están sujetos a un estudio de impacto ambiental.” VII.- Revisados los hechos de esta demanda y la prueba aportada, se constata que la solicitud de uso de suelo formulada por el accionante (hecho probado 2), para efectos de fraccionamiento, fue denegada (o, más exactamente, fue calificada como de “uso no conforme”) por la Dirección de Planificación Urbana de la Municipalidad de La Unión (hecho probado 3), el cual, para fundamentar el rechazo, hizo una transcripción virtualmente literal de lo dispuesto en el numeral 9 del Reglamento de Zonificación y Plan Regulador de ese cantón. Luego, ante la impugnación interpuesta por el gestionante (hecho probado 4), ese mismo despacho rechazó la revocatoria, aclarando o reiterando que el fraccionamiento pretendido es contrario a la normativa indicada, puesto que la finca madre no posee las dimensiones mínimas necesarias para tal efecto y –obviamente– tampoco las tendrían sus hijas. Efectivamente, el inmueble del que el actor es titular mide 9077,44 metros cuadrados (hecho probado 1), mientras que las dimensiones mínimas exigidas para fincas situadas en zona agrícola es de una hectárea (es decir, 10.000 metros cuadrados). En todo caso, en las zonas calificadas como agrícolas no se permite la edificación de nuevas urbanizaciones, conforme al artículo 2 ibídem. Por ende, tanto la resolución cuestionada como la que la confirmó en alzada (hecho probado 6) están razonablemente fundadas en disposiciones normativas vigentes, que la parte actora dispuso no atacar, según se explicó supra . Consecuentemente, en lo resuelto por la corporación local accionada no existe disconformidad sustancial alguna con el ordenamiento jurídico, capaz de dar pie a la nulidad que se peticiona. Ello indefectiblemente debe conducir a que la acción sea desestimada.- VIII.- Finalmente, no está de más recordar que los alegatos de inconstitucionalidad que formula la demanda no pueden ser conocidos en esta sede, por corresponder a la competencia exclusiva y excluyente de la Sala Constitucional, de manera que nada más cabe señalar al respecto.- IX.- ACERCA DE LA EXCEPCIÓN INTERPUESTA. La accionada opuso la de falta de derecho, la cual, con base en las consideraciones previas, debe ser acogida, declarando sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos.- X.- SOBRE LAS COSTAS. El artículo 193 del CPCA establece que las costas procesales y personales son impuestas al vencido por el solo hecho de serlo, pronunciamiento que debe hacerse incluso de oficio, al tenor de lo dispuesto en esa misma norma, en concordancia con el numeral 119.2 ibídem. La dispensa de esta condena solo es viable: a) cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar; b) cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas que desconociera la parte contraria; o bien, c) cuando se incurra en plus petitio, esto es, cuando la diferencia entre lo reclamado y lo obtenido en definitiva sea de un quince por ciento (15%) o más, a no ser que las bases de la demanda sean expresamente consideradas provisionales o su determinación dependa del arbitrio judicial o dictamen de peritos (ordinal 194 ibídem). En la especie, no encuentra este órgano colegiado motivo para aplicar las excepciones que fija la normativa aplicable y quebrar el postulado de condena al vencido. Por ende, se impone el pago de ambas costas al actor.-

POR TANTO:

Se acoge la excepción de falta de derecho. Se declara IMPROCEDENTE la demanda interpuesta por Nombre50633 contra la Municipalidad de La Unión de Cartago. Son ambas costas a cargo del actor. NOTIFÍQUESE.- CHRISTIAN HESS ARAYA ROBERTO GARITA NAVARRO ELÍAS BALTODANO GÓMEZ

TopicsTemas

Subdivision and Fraccionamiento — Decreto 6411 and Forest LotsSubdivisión y Fraccionamiento — Decreto 6411 y Lotes Boscosos

Concept anchorsAnclajes conceptuales

Ley de Planificación Urbana Art. 28
Reglamento de Zonificación y Plan Regulador del Cantón de La Unión Art. 2
Reglamento de Zonificación y Plan Regulador del Cantón de La Unión Art. 9

Spanish key termsTérminos clave en español

Denial of Agricultural-Zone Subdivision Under Zoning PlanRechazo de segregación en zona agrícola conforme al plan regulador

Stay Informed Mantente Informado

Email Updates Actualizaciones por Correo

WhatsApp Channel Canal de WhatsApp