Upholding denial of construction permit in mangrove zoneConfirmación de denegatoria de permiso de construcción en zona de manglar

Improper Jurisdictional Appeal Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A. v. Municipalidad de Quepos N° 29-2016 ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION COURT. THIRD SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, at fourteen hours twenty-five minutes on the twenty-ninth of January two thousand sixteen.

This Court, as improper jurisdictional authority, hears the appeal filed by Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A., legal ID number CED23612, represented by its unlimited general attorney-in-fact, Mr. Nombre105332 , identity card number CED23613, against Administrative Resolution No. 022-ALC-RES-2014 at 7:00 a.m. on June 6, 2014, of the Mayor of Quepos (formerly Nombre2733).

Judge Solano Ulloa writes, and:

I.- Background. The following are considered relevant background facts: 1) In Land Use (Uso de Suelo) No. SZAD 110-2011 of August 18, 2011, the Engineering and Urban Control Department of the Municipality of Nombre2733 (nowadays Quepos), informed Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A. that the land use for the property located at Dirección12487 , , cadastre plan No. P-776310-88, according to the current Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano), is located in a High Density Residential Zone, which allows complementary uses such as nursing home, souvenir sales, shop, tailor's shop, shoe store, bookstore, bazaar, jewelry store, watch repair shop, butcher shop, pulpería, general supply store, pharmacy, professional and administrative offices, aquarium, daycare, kindergarten, beauty salon, barbershop, video rental store, greengrocer, locksmith, and florist (folios 53 to 55); 2) In official communication No. DICU-399-2011 of December 1, 2011, Engineering and Urban Control rejected the construction permit application submitted by Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A. On that occasion, it was indicated that according to the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) of the City of Quepos, the indicated property is located in a High Density Residential Zone, where use for a warehouse is not permitted. Likewise, it was supported by the fact that the project does not meet the maximum coverage percentages, nor does it include parking spaces in the plans, as well as a resolution from the MINAET Nombre2733 Parrita Sub-Regional Office, for the purpose of indicating the environmental regulations on the site and any potential setbacks from the mangrove zone (folio 1); 3) On May 31, 2012, the Municipal Environmental Manager and the Municipal Engineer submitted a consultation to the Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental) to determine whether, in the zone where the property is located, given the existence of a mangrove area and adjacent areas devoid of vegetation, there are special limitations that prevent granting any construction permit (folio 2); 4) The previous inquiry was addressed by the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Area de Conservación Pacífico Central) of SINAC, in official communication No. ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 of July 12, 2012, which concluded that according to the coordinates, although the mangrove area at this site has diminished, there are indeed legal and technical limitations, therefore "construction permits cannot be granted, and although its area has been diminished by natural or anthropogenic impacts, these areas retain their original condition and the limits corresponding to official cartography prevail." Said official communication was sent to the Municipality, via official communication ACOPAC-D-465-12 of July 24, 2012 (folios 07 and 08); 5) In official communication No. DICU-344-2012 of August 21, 2012, Engineering and Urban Control notified Grupo Eminova that a new construction permit for an Office, on the same lot, was rejected, because it needed a renewal of the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) as it was expired, to provide an Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental), and to obtain a certification from the MINAET regional office, stating textually whether the property is located within or outside a mangrove zone (folio 23); 6) In official communication No. DST-253-12 of September 27, 2012, the National Institute for Innovation and Transfer in Agricultural Technology (Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia en Tecnología Agropecuaria, INTA) communicated to the Municipality of Nombre2733 that having visited the property, it corroborated that "the lands located at these geographic coordinates were artificially filled with aggregate and red clays, and underneath this fill, they do not meet the minimum conditions for any agricultural or forestry production activities. Lands of this class have utility only as zones for preservation of flora and fauna, protection of aquifer recharge areas, genetic reserve, and scenic beauty. The hydromorphic soils, hydrophilic vegetation, estuarine geographic position, and climatic condition constitute a mangrove-type wetland, which according to current legislation, would be considered wildland protection areas and patrimonial assets of the State." (folios 26 to 28); 7) In resolution No. RVLA-1167-2012-SETENA, of December 20, 2012, SETENA granted environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) to the project for a "Warehouse for storage of furniture and household goods," consisting of the construction of a 420 m2 warehouse, to be developed on the property mentioned in the previous fact (folio 31); 8) On January 24, 2013, Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A. again submitted a construction permit for "Administrative Offices," accompanied by construction plans showing a warehouse (folios 42 to 44); 9) On August 14, 2013, construction permit application No. PC-157-2013 was again submitted to build on the same lot "Office and Warehouse," later indicating the works would be offices, for "Commerce, Restaurant and Hotel Business," with a construction area of 420m2 (folios 60 and 61); 10) In official communication No. DICU-355-2012 of September 9, 2013, the Coordinator of the Department of Engineering and Urban Control communicated the rejection of the construction permit, based on official communications ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 and ACOPAC-D-465-12, because the zone is classified as mangrove (folio 93); 11) Against the previous official communication, respective ordinary appeals were filed, resulting in the reversal being rejected in resolution DICU-395-2013 at 11:40 a.m. on September 30, 2013 (folio 99); 12) In Administrative Resolution No. 022-ALC-RES-2014 at 7:00 a.m. on June 6, 2014, the Mayor of Quepos rejected the appeal, considering that she had to confirm what was resolved in official communication DICU-355-2012, given the opinion rendered in official communication ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 regarding the nature of the land. Likewise, she indicated that the municipality intends to regularize the status of nearby constructions and was not applying a "heavy hand to the appellant," clarifying that the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) is only an additional requirement that does not, by itself, confer any right (folios 107 to 11); 13) Against the resolution by the Mayor, ordinary appeals were again filed, who again rejected the appeal in resolution No. 004-ALC-RES-LUT-2015 of August 24, 2015 (folio 147).

II.- Subject Matter of the Appeal: In summary, the appellant alleges that there is inconsistency in the actions taken by the Municipality, since the same municipality had granted what it calls a "land use permit (permiso de uso de suelo)" where it indicated that the land was in an area suitable for the construction of warehouses, according to the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), the same legal instrument it now uses to reject the construction permit, which breaks legal certainty and legitimate expectations (confianza legítima). It considers this contrary to article 136 of the General Law of Public Administration, for defects in the reasoning of the act. It continues saying that because the land use was favorable, it ventured to acquire it and later began investments to erect the warehouses. It accuses the Municipality's action as fraudulent and unlawful, causing serious damages that must be compensated. It adds that the municipality never indicated to it that the place was a green zone or mangrove area, as it later does, by denying the construction permit, which is not of recent existence, since this is a private property that has existed since before 1970 and has its municipal taxes up to date. It accuses that businesses, warehouses, and services exist in the area, but the municipality does not initiate proceedings against them or against the officials who issue illegal acts, who should be held responsible for what has occurred. It states that new urban planning norms not foreseen in the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) are being applied to its direct detriment, with the gravity of emptying the content of its property right, thus producing a de facto expropriation and, therefore, we are in the presence of a de facto taking. It requests that just compensation be set in its favor, and also that the appealed official communication be revoked and the construction permit be granted.

III.- On the Merits. The starting point of this appeal lies in the fact that the appellant considers that the Land Use (Uso de Suelo) No. SZAD 110-2011 of August 18, 2011, issued by Engineering and Urban Control of the Municipality of Quepos, authorized the destination of the property with cadastre plan No. P-776310-88 for the construction of warehouses. In the first place, it must be stated that land use certificates (certificados de uso de suelo) do NOT authorize constructions; rather, they indicate whether the use intended by the interested party conforms to the zoning contained in the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) (article 28 of the Urban Planning Law). From this point of view, upon an integral reading of said document, it is evident that the aforementioned document was not specifically a land use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) in the terms provided by the Law, as it does not rule on the conformity or lack thereof of the use intended by the interested party. Specifically, what the document does is inform regarding the uses authorized for this property according to the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano), wherein it indicated that the land is located in a High Density Residential Zone, which allows several complementary uses typical and characteristic of places with a large population that meet the needs of the inhabitants of each community (nursing home, souvenir sales, shop, tailor's shop, shoe store, bookstore, bazaar, jewelry store, watch repair shop, butcher shop, pulpería, general supply store, pharmacy, professional and administrative offices, aquarium, daycare, kindergarten, beauty salon, barbershop, video rental store, greengrocer, locksmith, and florist). It does not follow from said document that, according to the urban zoning provided in the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), warehouses can be installed in that location, which is reasonable because in high population density areas, it is normal to avoid the transit of certain types of heavy cargo vehicles due to the inconveniences and nuisances they may cause to the neighbors residing there. Therefore, the appellant never obtained a conforming land use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) for warehouse use, as it has been claiming, which has consequences different from those intended in the challenge.

IV.- Firstly, it must be clarified that there are legal limitations that coexist with the zoning ordinances contained in the urban regulatory plans (planes reguladores), and their content is not inapplicable because of them. What the Municipality did is not contradictory, as it responds according to the requests of the interested party: at a first moment, on August 18, 2011, the uses permitted by the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) were indicated, and therefore, in official communication DICU-399-2011 of December 1, 2011, a first rejection of the construction permit was communicated, given that the use for a warehouse on its property lot is not permitted. This official communication was not challenged, thus it became final, which prevents the content of said administrative act from being discussed again.

V.- Being aware of this impediment, the representative of the company subsequently insisted on obtaining the construction permit, whereupon it was warned with due notice, in official communication No. DICU-344-2012 of August 21, 2012, by Engineering and Urban Control, of the risks and potential legal impediments given the possibility that the land was part of a mangrove. Through efforts by the municipality itself, certainty was obtained that the land where the property is located corresponds to a mangrove that was filled; therefore, it is not suitable for construction. This was recorded by the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Area de Conservación Pacífico Central) of SINAC, in official communication No. ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 of July 12, 2012, reinforced by the National Institute for Innovation and Transfer in Agricultural Technology (Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia en Tecnología Agropecuaria, INTA) in official communication No. DST-253-12 of September 27, 2012.

VI.- On two later occasions, January 24, 2013 and August 14, 2013, construction permit applications were again submitted. The last of these, under No. PC-157-2013, was to erect on the same lot an "Office and Warehouse," later indicating that the works would be offices. However, both the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) presented and the appellant's own statement contained in the challenge brief have been consistent that the intended use of the building would be for warehouses. By that time, the appellant was aware that this land use does not conform to the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) and had been previously warned that to obtain its construction permit, it had to ensure, through a certification issued by the competent institution, that the land was suitable for such purposes. That is, it is not true that legitimate expectations (confianza legítima) or legal certainty were violated; nor does this Chamber find the inconsistency or contradiction alleged against the Municipality. According to the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), the land use is not conforming — as was timely communicated — and furthermore, there are legal limitations given the nature of the land; all of this was communicated to the appellant. Therefore, the grievances in this regard are not shared by this Chamber, which provides grounds to reject them and, based on the foregoing, the administrative act must be confirmed.

VII.- Regarding the claims for compensation, where the appellant alleges the existence of a de facto expropriation and the occurrence of damages, as well as the possible internal liabilities of the municipality, it must be stated that this Chamber does not have jurisdiction to address them. These types of claims are to be raised in the full trial proceeding (vía de conocimiento), in light of article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Procedure Code, so this Court of improper jurisdiction cannot rule on them, as the limit of our actions is defined in articles 180 and 181 of the General Law of Public Administration, with functions as an objective controller of legality, and we cannot hear civil claims for monetary judgment. As there is no further appeal, the administrative path is hereby deemed exhausted.

THEREFORE

The appeal filed is declared without merit, the challenged resolution is confirmed, and the administrative path is deemed exhausted.

Evelyn Solano Ulloa Jorge Leiva Poveda Francisco José Chaves Torres Administrative Litigation and Civil Treasury Court, Third Section Resolution No. 29-2016 at 14:25 on January 29, 2015.

2 of 9 RVLA-1167-2012-SETENA, dated December 20, 2012, SETENA granted environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) to the project for a "Warehouse for storing furniture and household goods," consisting of the construction of a 420 m2 warehouse, to be developed on the property mentioned in the previous fact (folio 31); 8) On January 24, 2013, Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A. again submitted a building permit application for "Administrative Offices," accompanying it with construction plans showing a warehouse (folios 42 to 44); 9) On August 14, 2013, building permit application No. PC-157-2013 was again submitted, to construct on the same lot "Office and Warehouse," later indicating that the works would be offices, for use as "Commerce, Restaurant and Hotel," with a construction area of 420 m2 (folios 60 and 61); 10) In official letter No. DICU-355-2012 of September 9, 2013, the Coordinator of the Department of Engineering and Urban Control communicated the rejection of the building permit, based on official letters ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 and ACOPAC-D-465-12, because the area was classified as a mangrove (manglar) (folio 93); 11) Against the aforementioned official letter, the corresponding ordinary appeals were filed, resulting in the rejection of the revocation in resolution DICU-395-2013 at 11:40 hours on September 30, 2013 (folio 99); 12) In Administrative Resolution No. 022-ALC-RES-2014 at 7:00 hours on June 6, 2014, the Mayor of Quepos rejected the appeal, considering that she had to confirm what was decided in official letter DICU-355-2012, given the criteria expressed in official letter ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 regarding the nature of the land. She also indicated that the municipal government intended to regularize the status of nearby constructions and that it was not applying a "heavy hand to the appellant," clarifying that environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) is only an additional requirement that does not in itself confer any right (folios 107 to 11); 13) Against the decision by the Mayor, the ordinary appeals were again filed; she again rejected the appeal filing in resolution No. 004-ALC-RES-LUT-2015 of August 24, 2015 (folio 147).

II.- Object of the appeal: In summary, the appellant alleges that there is an inconsistency in the actions taken by the Municipality, since the same municipality had granted what he calls a "land-use permit (permiso de uso de suelo)" where it indicated that the land was in an area suitable for the construction of warehouses, according to the Plan Regulador, the same legal body it now uses to reject the building permit (licencia constructiva), thereby violating legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) and legitimate expectations (confianza legítima). He considers this to be contrary to Article 136 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública), due to defects in the statement of reasons (motivación) for the act. He goes on to say that because the land-use (uso del suelo) determination was favorable to him, he ventured to acquire it and then began investments for the construction of the warehouses. He accuses the Municipality's actions of being fraudulent and unlawful, causing serious damages for which he must be compensated. He adds that the municipality never told him the place was a green zone or mangrove (manglar) area, as it later did when denying the building permit (permiso de construcción), which is not of recent existence, since this is a private property that has existed since before 1970 and is up to date on its municipal taxes. He claims that businesses, warehouses, and services exist in the area, but the municipality does not open proceedings against them or against the officials who issue illegal acts, who should be held responsible for what has occurred. He states that new urban planning regulations not provided for in the Plan Regulador are intended to be applied to his direct detriment, with the seriousness that it empties the content of his property right, thereby producing a de facto expropriation (expropiación de hecho) and, therefore, we are in the presence of an unlawful act by the administration (vía de hecho). He requests that a fair compensation (indemnización) be set in his favor, and also that the challenged official letter be revoked and the building permit (permiso de construcción) be granted to him.

III.- On the merits. The starting point of this appeal lies in the fact that the appellant considers that Land-Use (Uso de Suelo) No. SZAD 110-2011 of August 18, 2011, issued by Engineering and Urban Control of the Municipality of Quepos, authorized the purpose of the property with cadastral map No. P-776310-88 for the construction of warehouses. First of all, it must be noted that land-use certificates (certificados de uso de suelo) do NOT authorize constructions, but rather indicate whether the use intended by the applicant is in conformity with the zoning (zonificación) contained in the Plan Regulador (Article 28 of the Urban Planning Law, Ley de Planificación Urbana). From this point of view, a comprehensive reading of said document shows that the cited document was not specifically a land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) under the terms provided by Law, as it does not pronounce on the conformity or non-conformity of the use intended by the applicant. Specifically, the document reports on the authorized uses for that property according to the Urban Plan Regulador, where it was indicated that the land is located in a High-Density Residential Zone, which allows several complementary uses typical and characteristic of places with a large population, which meet the needs of the locals in each community (nursing home, souvenir shop, store, tailor shop, shoe store, bookstore, bazaar, jewelry store, watchmaker, butcher shop, grocery store, supplier, pharmacy, professional and administrative offices, aquarium, daycare, kindergarten, beauty salon, barbershop, movie rental store, greengrocer, locksmith, and florist). It is not evident from this document that, according to the urban zoning (zonificación urbana) provided in the Plan Regulador, warehouses could be installed in that location, which is reasonable because in high population density areas, it is normal to avoid the transit of certain types of heavy-load vehicles due to the discomfort and nuisances they may cause to the neighbors living there. Therefore, the appellant never obtained a conforming land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) for warehouse use, as he has been alleging, which has different consequences than those intended in the appeal.

IV.- First, it must be clarified that there are legal limitations that coexist with the zoning regulations (reglamentos de zonificación) contained in the regulatory plans (planes reguladores), and their content is not inapplicable because of them. The actions taken by the Municipality are not contradictory, as they respond according to the applicant's requirements: initially, on August 18, 2011, the uses allowed by the Plan Regulador were indicated to him, and for that reason, he was informed in official letter DICU-399-2011 of December 1, 2011, of a first rejection of the building permit (licencia constructiva) because the use for a warehouse on his property lot is not permitted. This official letter was not appealed, so it became final, which prevents the content of that administrative act from being discussed again.

V.- Being aware of this impediment, the company's representative later insisted on obtaining the building permit (licencia constructiva), at which point he was warned in a timely manner, in official letter No. DICU-344-2012 of August 21, 2012, from Engineering and Urban Control, of the risks and eventual legal impediments due to the possibility that the land was part of a mangrove (manglar). Through efforts by the municipality itself, it was established with certainty that the land where the property is located corresponds to a mangrove (manglar) that was filled in; therefore, it is not suitable for construction. This was recorded by the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Area de Conservación Pacífico Central) of SINAC, in official letter No. ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 of July 12, 2012, reinforced by the National Institute of Innovation and Transfer in Agricultural Technology (Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia en Tecnología Agropecuaria, INTA) in official letter No. DST-253-12 of September 27, 2012.

VI.- On two later occasions, on January 24, 2013, and August 14, 2013, building permit (licencia constructiva) applications were submitted again. The last one, under No. PC-157-2013, was to build on the same lot "Office and Warehouse," later indicating that the works would be offices. However, both the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) presented and the appellant's own statement contained in the appeal brief have been consistent that the intended use of the building was for warehouses. By that time, the appellant was already aware that this land-use (uso del suelo) is not in conformity with the Plan Regulador and had been warned beforehand that to obtain his building permit (licencia constructiva), he had to ensure, through certification issued by the competent institution, that the land is suitable for such purposes. In other words, it is not true that legitimate expectations (confianza legítima) or legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) have been violated; nor does this Chamber find the incongruence or contradiction alleged against the Municipality. According to the Plan Regulador, the land-use (uso de suelo) is not conforming—as was timely informed to him—and, additionally, there are legal limitations given the nature of the land; all of this was communicated to the appellant. Therefore, the grievances in that sense are not shared by this Chamber, which provides grounds to reject them and, based on the foregoing, the administrative act must be confirmed.

VII.- Regarding the claims for compensation (indemnización), in which he alleges the existence of a de facto expropriation (expropiación de hecho) and the production of damages, as well as the possible internal responsibilities of the municipality, it must be noted that this Chamber is not competent to address them. That type of claims can be raised in ordinary proceedings, in light of Article 2 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), so this Court of improper hierarchy cannot pronounce, because the limit of our actions is defined in Articles 180 and 181 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública), with functions as an objective controller of legality, and we cannot hear civil treasury claims. As there is no further appeal, the administrative remedies (vía administrativa) are deemed exhausted.

POR TANTO

The appeal filed is dismissed, the challenged resolution is confirmed, and the administrative remedies (vía administrativa) are deemed exhausted.

Evelyn Solano Ulloa Jorge Leiva Poveda Francisco José Chaves Torres Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, Sección Tercera Resolución No.29-2016 at 14:25 hours on January 29, 2015. 2 of 9 P-776310-88, according to the current Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) is located in a High-Density Residential Zone (Zona Residencial Alta Densidad), which permits the complementary uses of nursing home, souvenir shop, store, tailor shop, shoe store, bookstore, bazaar, jewelry store, watch shop, butcher shop, small grocery store, general store, pharmacy, professional and administrative offices, aquarium, daycare center, kindergarten, beauty salon, barber shop, movie rental store, produce store, locksmith shop, and florist shop (folios 53 to 55); 2) In official communication No. DICU-399-2011 of December 1, 2011, Engineering and Urban Control (Ingeniería y Control Urbano) rejected the construction license application submitted by Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A. On that occasion, it was indicated that according to the Urban Regulatory Plan of the City of Quepos, the indicated property is located in the High-Density Residential Zone, where the use for a warehouse is not permitted. Likewise, it was based on the fact that the project does not meet the maximum coverage percentages, nor does it provide for parking spaces in the plans, as well as a resolution from the Sub-Regional Office Nombre2733 Parrita of MINAET, for the purpose of indicating the environmental regulations on the site and the eventual mangrove zone setbacks (retiros de la zona de manglar) (folio 1); 3) On May 31, 2012, the Municipal Environmental Manager and the Municipal Engineer presented an inquiry to the Environmental Tribunal (Tribunal Ambiental) in order to determine if, in the zone where the property is located, given that there are mangrove areas and adjacent zones devoid of vegetation, they should be informed as to whether there are special limitations that prevent granting any construction permit (folio 2); 4) The previous action was addressed by the Central Pacific Conservation Area (Area de Conservación Pacífico Central) of SINAC, in official communication No. ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 of July 12, 2012, which concluded that according to the coordinates, although the mangrove area at this site has been diminished, there are indeed legal and technical limitations, therefore "construction permits cannot be granted, and even though its area has been diminished by natural or anthropogenic impacts, they still retain their original condition and the boundaries corresponding to the official cartography prevail." Said official communication was forwarded to the Municipality, via official communication ACOPAC-D-465-12 of July 24, 2012 (folios 07 and 08); 5) In official communication No. DICU-344-2012 of August 21, 2012, Engineering and Urban Control notified Grupo Eminova that a new construction permit for an Office, on the same lot, was rejected, because it needed the renewal of the environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) as it was expired, to provide an Environmental Assessment (Evaluación Ambiental), and to obtain a certification from the regional office of MINAET, indicating textually whether the property is located inside or outside a mangrove zone (folio 23); 6) In official communication No. DST-253-12 of September 27, 2012, the National Institute for Innovation and Transfer in Agricultural Technology (Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia en Tecnología Agropecuaria, INTA) notified the Municipality of Nombre2733 that, having visited the property, it corroborated that "the lands located at these geographical coordinates were artificially filled with aggregate and red clays, and beneath this fill, they do not meet the minimum conditions for any agricultural or forestry production activities. Lands of this class have utility only as zones for the preservation of flora and fauna, protection of aquifer recharge areas, genetic reserves, and scenic beauty. The hydromorphic soils, hydrophytic vegetation, estuarine geographical position, and climatic condition constitute a mangrove-type wetland, which under current legislation would be considered wildlife protection areas and patrimonial assets of the State." (folios 26 to 28); 7) In resolution No. RVLA-1167-2012-SETENA, of December 20, 2012, SETENA granted the environmental feasibility to the project "Warehouse for the storage of furniture and household items," consisting of the construction of a 420 m2 warehouse, to be developed on the property mentioned in the previous fact (folio 31); 8) On January 24, 2013, Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A. submitted again a construction license application for "Administrative Offices," accompanied by the construction blueprints showing a warehouse (folios 42 to 44); 9) On August 14, 2013, the construction license application No. PC-157-2013 was submitted again, to build on the same lot "Office and Warehouse," later indicating that the works would be offices, intended for "Commerce, Restaurant and Hospitality," with a construction area of 420m2 (folios 60 and 61); 10) In official communication No. DICU-355-2012 of September 9, 2013, the Coordinator of the Department of Engineering and Urban Control communicated the rejection of the construction license, based on official communications ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 and ACOPAC-D-465-12, because the zone was classified as a mangrove (folio 93); 11) Against the previous official communication, successive ordinary appeals were filed, with the revocation being rejected in resolution DICU-395-2013 at 11:40 hours on September 30, 2013 (folio 99); 12) In Administrative Resolution No. 022-ALC-RES-2014 at 7:00 hours on June 6, 2014, the Mayor of Quepos rejected the appeal, considering that she had to confirm what was resolved in official communication DICU-355-2012, given the criteria expressed in official communication ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 regarding the nature of the land. Likewise, she indicated that the city council intends to regularize the state of the nearby constructions and that "heavy-handedness was not being applied to the appellant," clarifying that the environmental feasibility is only an additional requirement that does not confer any right by itself (folios 107 to 11); 13) Against the Mayor's resolution, ordinary appeals were filed again, who again rejected the appeal action in resolution No. 004-ALC-RES-LUT-2015 of August 24, 2015 (folio 147).

II.- Object of the appeal: In summary, the appellant claims that there is inconsistency in the actions taken by the Municipality, since the same municipality had granted what it calls a "land-use permit" where it indicated that the land was in an area suitable for the construction of warehouses, according to the Urban Regulatory Plan, the same legal body it now uses to reject the construction license, thereby breaking legal certainty and legitimate trust. It considers this to be contrary to Article 136 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), due to defects in the motivation of the act. It continues, stating that because the land use turned out to be favorable, it ventured to acquire it and then began the investments for the construction of the warehouses. It accuses the Municipality's actions of being fraudulent and unlawful, causing serious damages that must be compensated. It adds that the municipality never indicated to it that the place was a green zone or mangrove as it later did, when denying the construction permit, which is not of recent existence, as this is a private property that has existed since before 1970 and has its municipal taxes up to date. It claims that there are businesses, warehouses, and services in the area, but the municipality does not open proceedings against them, nor against the officials who issue illegal acts, who should be held responsible for what has occurred. It expresses that there is an attempt to apply new urban planning rules not foreseen in the Urban Regulatory Plan to its direct detriment, with the severity that the content of its property right is being emptied, thus producing a de facto expropriation and, therefore, we are in the presence of a de facto action. It requests that a fair compensation be set in its favor, and also that the challenged official communication be revoked and the construction permit be granted to it.

III.- On the merits. The starting point of this appeal lies in the fact that the appellant considers that the Land Use No. SZAD 110-2011 of August 18, 2011, issued by Engineering and Urban Control of the Municipality of Quepos, authorized the use of the property with cadastral plan No. P-776310-88 for the construction of warehouses. In the first place, it must be indicated that land-use certificates do NOT authorize constructions; rather, they indicate whether the use intended by the managed party is in accordance with the zoning contained in the Urban Regulatory Plan (Article 28 of the Urban Planning Law, Ley de Planificación Urbana). From this point of view, a comprehensive reading of said document reveals that the cited document was not specifically a land-use certificate in the terms provided by law, since it does not rule regarding the conformity or non-conformity of the use intended by the managed party. Specifically, the document merely reports on the uses authorized for that property according to the Urban Regulatory Plan, in which it was indicated that the land is located in a High-Density Residential Zone, which permits several complementary uses typical and characteristic of places with a high population with which the needs of the locals of each community are met (nursing home, souvenir shop, store, tailor shop, shoe store, bookstore, bazaar, jewelry store, watch shop, butcher shop, small grocery store, general store, pharmacy, professional and administrative offices, aquarium, daycare center, kindergarten, beauty salon, barber shop, movie rental store, produce store, locksmith shop, and florist shop). It is not evident from said document that, according to the urban zoning provided for in the Urban Regulatory Plan, warehouses can be installed in this location, which is reasonable because in high-population-density areas, it is normal to avoid the transit of certain types of heavy-load vehicles due to the discomfort and nuisance they may cause to the neighbors residing there. Therefore, the appellant never obtained a conforming land-use certificate for warehouse use, as it has been claiming, which brings consequences different from those sought in the challenge.

IV.- In the first place, it must be clarified that there are limitations of a legal nature that coexist with the zoning regulations contained in the regulatory plans, and their content is not inapplicable because of them. The actions taken by the Municipality are not contradictory, as they respond according to the requirements of the managed party: at a first moment, on August 18, 2011, it was informed of the uses permitted by the Urban Regulatory Plan and therefore, in official communication DICU-399-2011 of December 1, 2011, it was informed of a first rejection of a construction license given that the use for a warehouse on its property lot is not permitted. This official communication was not challenged, thus it became final, which prevents the content of said administrative act from being discussed again.

V.- Being aware of this impediment, the company's representative subsequently insisted on obtaining the construction license, whereupon it was warned with due advance notice, in official communication No. DICU-344-2012 of August 21, 2012, from Engineering and Urban Control, of the risks and eventual legal impediments given the possibility that the land was part of a mangrove. Through actions by the municipality itself, it was confirmed that the land where the property is located corresponds to a mangrove that was filled; therefore, it is not suitable for construction. This was recorded by the Central Pacific Conservation Area of SINAC, in official communication No. ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 of July 12, 2012, reinforced by the National Institute for Innovation and Transfer in Agricultural Technology (INTA) in official communication No. DST-253-12 of September 27, 2012.

VI.- On two subsequent occasions, on January 24, 2013, and August 14, 2013, construction license applications were submitted again. The last of them, under No. PC-157-2013, was to build an "Office and Warehouse" on the same lot, later indicating that the works would be offices. However, both the environmental feasibility presented and the appellant's own statement contained in the appeal brief have been consistent that the intended use of the building was for warehouses. By that time, the appellant was aware that this land use was not in conformity with the Urban Regulatory Plan and had been warned in advance that to obtain its construction license, it had to ensure, through a certification issued by the competent institution, that the land was suitable for such purposes. That is, it is not true that legitimate trust or legal certainty was violated; nor does this Chamber (Cámara) find the inconsistency or contradiction alleged against the Municipality. According to the Urban Regulatory Plan, the land use is not in conformity—as was timely informed to it—and, additionally, there are legal limitations given the nature of the land; all of this was communicated to the appellant. Therefore, the grievances in that sense are not shared by this Chamber, which provides grounds to reject them and, based on the foregoing, the administrative act must be confirmed.

VII.- Regarding the claims for compensation, where it alleges the existence of a de facto expropriation and the production of damages, as well as possible internal responsibilities within the municipality, it must be indicated that this Chamber is not competent to address them. These types of claims are actionable in the plenary jurisdiction, in light of Article 2 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), such that this Tribunal of improper hierarchy cannot rule on them, because the limit of our actions is defined in numerals 180 and 181 of the General Law of Public Administration, with functions as an objective controller of legality, and it cannot hear civil claims concerning public finances. As there is no further appeal, the administrative avenue shall be deemed exhausted.

POR TANTO

The appeal filed is dismissed, the challenged resolution is confirmed, and the administrative avenue is deemed exhausted.

</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">Evelyn Solano Ulloa</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center"><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">Jorge Leiva Poveda </span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:'Century Gothic'; font-weight:bold">Francisco José Chaves Torres</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Court, Third Section</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">Resolution No. 29-2016 of 2:25 p.m. on January 29</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">, 2015.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">2</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101"> of 9</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center"><span>&#xa0;</span></p></div></body></html>

Apelación en Jerarquía Impropia Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A. c/ Municipalidad de Quepos N° 29-2016 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN TERCERA. II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las catorce horas veinticinco minutos del veintinueve de enero del dos mil dieciséis.

Conoce este Tribunal, como jerarca impropio, del recurso de apelación interpuesto por Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A., cédula jurídica CED23612, representada por su apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma, el señor Nombre105332 , cédula de identidad CED23613, en contra de la Resolución Administrativa No. 022-ALC-RES-2014 de las 7:00 horas del 6 de junio del 2014, del Alcalde de Quepos (anteriormente Nombre2733).

Redacta la Juez Solano Ulloa, y:

I.- Antecedentes. Se tiene como antecedentes de relevancia, los siguientes: 1) En Uso de Suelo No. SZAD 110-2011 del 18 de agosto del 2011, Ingeniería y Control Urbano de la Municipalidad de Nombre2733 (hoy día Quepos), le informó a Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A., que el uso de suelo de la propiedad ubicada en Dirección12487 , , plano catastrado No. P-776310-88, según el Plan Regulador Urbano vigente se ubica en Zona Residencial Alta Densidad, que permite los usos complementarios de asilo, venta de souvenirs, tienda, satrería, zapatería, librería, bazar, joyería, relojería, carnicería, pulpería, abastecedor, farmacia, oficinas profesionales y administrativas, acuario, guardería, kinder, sala de belleza, barbería, tienda de alquiler de películas, verdulería, cerrajería y floristería (folio 53 a 55); 2) En oficio No. DICU-399-2011 del 1de diciembre del 2011, Ingeniería y Control Urbano rechazó la solicitud de licencia constructiva presentada por Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S.A. En esa ocasión, se le indicó que de acuerdo al Plan Regulador Urbano de la Ciudad de Quepos, la propiedad indicada se encuentra en la Zona Residencial de Alta Densidad, donde el uso para bodega no es permitido. Asimismo, se sustentó en que el proyecto no cumple los porcentajes de cobertura máxima, ni preve en los planos los espacios para estacionamientos, así como una resolución de la Oficina Sub-Regional Nombre2733 Parrita del MINAET, con el fin de que se indique las regulaciones ambientales en el sitio y los eventuales retiros de la zona de manglar (folio 1); 3) El 31 de mayo del 2012, el Gestor Ambiental Municipal y el Ingeniero Municipal, plantearon al Tribunal Ambiental, una consulta a efecto de determinar si en la zona en que se ubica la finca, en razón de que existen área de manglar y zonas colindantes desprovistas de vegetación, se le indique si existen limitaciones especiales que impidan otorgar algún permiso constructivo (folio 2); 4) La gestión anterior fue atendida por el Area de Conservación Pacífico Central del SINAC, en oficio No. ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 del 12 de julio del 2012, el cual concluyó que conforme a las coordenadas, si bien en este sitio el área de manglar se ha disminuido, que sí existen limitaciones legales y técnicas, por lo que "no se pueden otorgar permisos de construcción, y aunque su área ha sido disminuida por afectaciones naturales o antropogénicas, las mismas conservan su condición original y prevalecen los límites correspondientes a la cartografía oficial", Dicho oficio fue remitido a la Municipalidad, mediante oficio ACOPAC-D-465-12 del 24 de julio del 2012 (folios 07 y 08); 5) En oficio No. DICU-344-2012 del 21 de agosto del 2012, Ingeniería y Control Urbano le comunica a Grupo Eminova, que un nuevo permiso constructivo de Oficina, en el mismo lote, quedaba rechazado, debido a que necesitaba renovación de la viabilidad ambiental por encontrarse vencida, aportar Evaluación Ambiental y obtener una certificación de la oficina regional del MINAET, que indique textualmente si la propiedad se encuentra dentro o fuera de una zona de manglar (folio 23); 6) En oficio No. DST-253-12 del 27 de setiembre del 2012, el Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia en Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) comunicó a la Municipalidad de Nombre2733 que habiendo visitado el inmueble, corroboró que "las tierras ubicadas en estas coordenadas geográficas, fueron rellenadas artificialmente con ártido y arcillas rojas, y por debajo de este relleno, no reúnen las condiciones mínimas para actividades de producción agropecuaria o forestal alguna. Las tierras de esta clase tienen utilidad sólo como zonas de preservación de flora y fauna, protección de áreas de recarga acuífera, reserva genética y belleza escénica. Los suelos hidromórficos, vegetación hidrofílica, posición geográfica de estuario y condición climática, constituye un humedal de tipo manglar, que según la legislación vigente, se considerarían áreas de protección silvestres y bienes patrimoniales del Estado." (folios 26 a 28); 7) En resolución No. RVLA-1167-2012-SETENA, del 20 de diciembre del 2012, la SETENA confirió la viabilidad ambiental al proyecto de "Bodega para almacenamiento de muebles y artículos para el hogar", consistente en la construcción de una bodega de 420 m2, para desarrollar en la finca mencionada en el hecho anterior (folio 31); 8) El 24 de enero del 2013, Grupo Eminova del Pacífico S:A. presentó nuevamente licencia constructiva para "Oficinas Administrativas" acompañándolo de los planos constructivos con una bodega(folios 42 a 44); 9) El 14 de agosto del 2013, se presentó nuevamente la solicitud de licencia constructiva No. PC-157-2013, para construir en el mismo lote "Oficina y Bodega", indicando más adelante que las obras serían oficinas, para dedicar a "Comercio, Restaurante y Hotelería", con área constructiva de 420m2 (folios 60 y 61); 10) En oficio No. DICU-355-2012 del 9 de setiembre del 2013, el Coordinador del Departamento de Ingeniería y Control Urbano comunicó el rechazo de la licencia constructiva, con base en los oficios ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 y ACOPAC-D-465-12, por catalogarse la zona como manglar (folio 93); 11) Contra el anterior oficio se interpusieron sendos recursos ordinarios, resultando rechazada la revocatoria en resolución DICU-395-2013 de las 11:40 horas del 30 de setiembre del 2013 (folio 99); 12) En la Resolución Administrativa No. 022-ALC-RES-2014 de las 7:00 horas del 6 de junio del 2014, la Alcaldesa de Quepos rechazó la alzada, considerando que debía confirmar lo resuelto en el oficio DICU-355-2012, dado el el criterio vertido en el oficio ACOPAC-GMURN-094-12 respecto de la naturaleza del terreno. Asimismo, indicó que el ayuntamiento pretende regularizar el estado de las construcciones cercanas y no se aplicaba "mano dura al apelante", aclarándole que la viabilidad ambiental es solo un requisito adicional que no le confiere por sí misma derecho alguno (folios 107 a 11); 13) Contra lo resuelto por la Alcaldesa, fueron interpuestos nuevamente los recursos ordinarios, quien nuevamente rechazó la gestión recursiva en resolución No. 004-ALC-RES-LUT-2015 del 24 de agosto del 2015 (folio 147).

II.- Objeto del recurso: En resumen, el apelante alega que existe incongruencia en lo actuado por la Municipalidad, pues la misma municipalidad había conferido lo que denomina "permiso de uso de suelo" en donde indicó que el terreno estaba en una zona apta para la construcción de bodegas, según el Plan Regulador, mismo cuerpo jurídico que ahora utiliza para rechazar la licencia constructiva, con lo cual se qeubranda la segurídad jurídica y la confianza legítima. Considera que ello es contrario al artículo 136 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, por vicios en la motivación del acto. Continúa diciendo que debido a que el uso del suelo le resultó favorable, se aventuró en adquirirlo y luego inició las inversiones para el levantamiento de las bodegas. Acusa de dolosa y antijurídica la actuación de la Municipalidad, productora de graves daños que le deben ser indemnizados. Agrega que el municipio nunca le indicó que el lugar era zona verde o de manglar como posteriormente lo hace, al denegarle el permiso de construcción, el cual no es de reciente existencia, pues esta es una propiedad privada que existe desde antes de 1970 que tiene los impuestos municipales al día. Acusa que en el lugar existen negocios, bodegas, servicios, pero la municipalidad a ellos no les abre procedimientos contra los funcionarios que dictan actos ilegales, a quienes se les debe tener como responsables de lo acaecido. Expresa que se le pretende aplicar nuevas normas urbanísticas no previstas en el Plan regulador en su perjuicio directo, con la gravedad de que se le vacía el contenido de su derecho de propiedad, con lo que se produce una expropiación de hecho y, por ello, estamos en presencia de una vía de hecho. Pide se fije una justa indemnización a su favor, además que se revoque el oficio impugnado y se le otorgue el permiso de construcción.

III.- Sobre el fondo. El punto de partida del presente recurso de apelación, radica en el hecho que la parte apelante considera que el Uso de Suelo No. SZAD 110-2011 del 18 de agosto del 2011, emitido por Ingeniería y Control Urbano de la Municipalidad de Quepos, le autorizó el destino de la finca con plano catastrado No. P-776310-88, para la construcción de bodegas. En primer lugar, debe indicarse que los certificados de uso de suelo NO autorizan construcciones, sino que indican si el uso pretendido por el administrado, es conforme con la zonificación contenida en el Plan Regulador (artículo 28 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana). Desde este punto de vista, de la lectura integral de dicho documento, se desprende que el documento de cita no fue concretamente un certificado de uso de suelo en los términos previstos por la Ley, pues no se pronuncia respecto de la conformidad o no del uso pretendido por el administrado. En concreto, el documento lo que hace es informar respecto de los usos autorizados para esa finca según el Plan Regulador Urbano, en donde se indicó que el terreno se ubica en Zona Residencial Alta Densidad, el cual permite varios usos complementarios propios y característicos de los lugares con mucha población con los que se satisfacen las necesidades de los lugareños de cada comunidad (asilo, venta de souvenirs, tienda, sastrería, zapatería, librería, bazar, joyería, relojería, carnicería, pulpería, abastecedor, farmacia, oficinas profesionales y administrativas, acuario, guardería, kinder, sala de belleza, barbería, tienda de alquiler de películas, verdulería, cerrajería y floristería). No se desprende de dicho documento, que conforme a la zonificación urbana prevista en el Plan Regulador, en ese lugar se puedan instalar bodegas, lo cual resulta razonable pues en áreas de alta densidad poblacional, es normal evitar el tránsito de cierto tipo de vehículos de carga pesada debido a las incomodidades y molestias que puedan ocasionar a los vecinos que ahí habitan. Por ende, la parte apelante nunca obtuvo el certificado de uso de suelo conforme para uso de bodegas, como lo viene alegando, lo cual trae consecuencias distintas a las pretendidas en la impugnación.

IV.- En primer lugar, debe aclararse que existen limitaciones de orden legal que coexisten con los reglamentos de zonificación contenidos en los planes reguladores, y no por ellas su contenido es inaplicable. Lo actuado por la Municipalidad no es contradictorio, pues responde según los requerimientos del administrado: en un primer momento, el 18 de agosto del 2011, se le indica los usos que permite el Plan Regulador y por ello, se le informó en oficio DICU-399-2011 del 01 de diciembre del 2011, un primer rechazo de licencia constructiva dado que el uso para bodega en el lote de su propiedad, no es permitido. Este oficio no fue impugnado, de modo que obtuvo firmeza, lo que impide que se discuta nuevamente el contenido de dicho acto administrativo.

V.- Siendo conocedor de este impedimento, el representante de la sociedad insistió posteriormente en la obtención de la licencia constructiva, ante lo cual se le advirtió con la debida antelación, en oficio No. DICU-344-2012 del 21 de agosto del 2012, Ingeniería y Control Urbano, de los riesgos y eventuales impedimentos legales ante la posibilidad de que el terreno fuera parte de un manglar. Por gestiones de la propia municipalidad, se obtuvo certeza de que el terreno en donde se ubica la finca, corresponde a un manglar que fue rellenado; por ello, no es apto para la construcción. Así fue consignado por el Area de Conservación Pacífico Central del SINAC, en oficio No. ACOPAC-GMURN- 094-12 del 12 de julio del 2012, reforzado por el Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Transferencia en Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) en el oficio No. DST-253-12 del 27 de setiembre del 2012.

VI.- En dos ocasiones posteriores, el 24 de enero del 2013 y el 14 de agosto del 2013, se presentó nuevamente solicitudes de licencia constructiva. La última de ellas, bajo el No. PC-157-2013, lo era para levantar en el mismo lote "Oficina y Bodega", indicando mas adelante que las obras serían oficinas. Sin embargo, tanto la viabilidad ambiental presentada, como el propio dicho de la parte apelante contenido en el libelo de impugnación, han sido contestes en que el uso destinado del edificio sería para bodegas. Ya para ese momento, la parte apelante era conocedora de que ese uso del suelo no es conforme con el Plan Regulador y había sido advertida con antelación de que para obtener su licencia constructiva, debía asegurarse mediante certificación expedida por la institución competente, que el terreno es apto para tales efectos. O sea, no es cierto que se haya transgredido la confianza legítima ni la seguridad jurídica; tampoco encuentra esta Cámara la incongruencia o contradicción acusada por parte de la Municipalidad. De acuerdo con el Plan Regulador, el uso de suelo no le resulta conforme -tal y como se le informó oportunamente-, y además, existen limitaciones de orden legal dada la naturaleza del terreno; todo ello le fue comunicado a la parte apelante. Por ende, los agravios en ese sentido no son compartidos por esta Cámara, lo cual da motivos para rechazarlos y, con base en lo expuesto, el acto administrativo debe ser confirmado.

VII.- Respecto de las pretensiones indemnizatorias, en donde acusa la existencia de una expropiación de hecho y la producción de daños, así como las posibles responsabilidades a lo interno del municipio, debe indicarse que esta Cámara no es competente para atenderlas. Ese tipo de reclamaciones son planteables en la vía de conocimiento, a la luz del artículo 2 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, de modo que este Tribunal de jerarquía impropia no puede pronunciarse, pues el límite de nuestras actuaciones está definido en los numerales 180 y 181 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, con funciones de contralor objetivo de la legalidad, no pudiendo conocer respecto de pretensiones civiles de hacienda. Al no haber ulterior recurso, se ha de dar por agotada la vía administrativa.

POR TANTO

Se declara sin lugar el recurso de apelación interpuesto, se confirma la resolución impugnada y se da por agotada la vía administrativa.

Evelyn Solano Ulloa Jorge Leiva Poveda Francisco José Chaves Torres Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, Sección Tercera Resolución No.29-2016 de las 14:25 horas del 29 de enero del 2015.

2 de 9