year and a half in jail for the mayor of Piélagos, Jesus Angel Pacheco, of urban trespass. Cantabria flag
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Raven Riley Mobile Vids
The Criminal Court No. 3 of Santander has sentenced to eighteen months of imprisonment and disqualification nine Piélagos Mayor, Jesus Angel Pacheco, of a continuing offense against the ordination of the territory, in its mode of urban trespass.
Specifically, he is condemned to be granted 15 licenses to build more than 200 homes in various parts of the municipality, in breach "so blatant, clear and clear" the planning regulations and despite warnings by the municipal architect and legal services Consistory.
As explained in the statement, issued Friday, the facts back the years 2003 and 2004, when the mayor signed licenses to build houses in the towns of Zurita, Vioño, Quijano, Oruña, Liencres and Puente Arce on urban land, but had not yet consolidated account of urban land, needed to obtain licenses.
And, when licenses were awarded, in most cases these areas had no sanitation, sidewalks, water and electrical supplies, urban land necessary to be considered consolidated. The files found that in some cases there were supplies were running close to or sanitation works, but at the time of licensing were not completed and, therefore, violated the rules.
Moreover, in granting licenses, the City Council imposed a series of obligations for the development of the land, in the opinion of the court, coming to "endorse" was intended to provide plots of ground services to be consolidated city, which "would think" that lacked such services at the time of licensing.
 | ||
| |
 |
| Partial Plan approved by Pacheco. |
 |
The statement also refers to the municipal architect's report which warns that lack recommended conditions and, therefore, further steps prior to issuing licenses, as the delimitation of a coordinated action, for example.
even remember who the architect was to propose the partial suspension of licenses in the county, given the need revise the General Plan and to avoid negative as the judgments of demolition hanging over other neighborhoods in the municipality. Continue reading ...
"FAILURE" A REPORTS
The statement alleges that the mayor intends to "rely" on the advice received from legal and technical services, especially since some of them warned of the situation. Pacheco
justify their decisions on criteria of secretary and counsel of municipal services, in fact, at trial, confirmed that was guided by his instructions, but the Court stressed that no written report, only opinions "merely verbal." Instead, "ignored" reports against the municipal architect and technical legal.
In fact, the statement stressed that the mayor asked the architect to issue a new report, regardless of their personal views "which, from their point of view," can only denote an actual intention to grant the license, overcoming the hurdle of the illegal ", adding that the report itself acknowledges the City Engineer a report 'type', regardless of the number of homes affected and their characteristics.
The head of the Criminal Court No. 2 is also critical of the mayor intends to "circumvent any responsibility, "citing its" lack "of details in planning, and reminds you that you may not have notions about it when been in office since 1989.
also pointed out that in this period has emerged the town a "serious and important urban issues, with sentences of demolition of" several houses "for" incorrect documentation of urban land. "Therefore, it is considered a matter" clearly serious and grave by his institution and existing precedents. "
Without ruling on LICENSES
Regarding the situation in which there are now licensing these homes, a Once recognized it was granted without meeting the precise requirements, the statement recognizes that this same criminal proceedings could have been canceled, but so far no pronouncement on the matter.
As pointed out, although the prosecution, in its final conclusions, called for the annulment, the defense argued the situation of helplessness in which the potential would be affected (the buyers), which were not part of this process and could not defend themselves.
Therefore, to avoid the vulnerability of the buyers, the Court prefers not to cancel the licenses of time, notwithstanding that can be applied by way of Administrative Litigation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment