Administrative, Town planning, Regulatory Plan, Variant, Observation of private individuals, Specific motivation, Tar Bari, section III, 09 November 2018 n. 1466
Reason for rejection of the observations presented by the owner of an area engraved by urban variant
There is no burden of detailed reasons for the rejection of the observations presented by the owner of an area affected by urban variant in the absence of situations (source of expectations or expectations in favor of subjects whose positions appear worthy of specific considerations) exceptionally impose to the proceeding Administration a more incisive and singular motivation of the general urban planning instruments (1).
1) He clarified the Section – recalling the jurisprudence of the Council of State (Section IV, 9 December 2010, No. 8682) that in this case the conditions that impose a specific motivation are not met, such as 1) the exceeding of the standards minimums referred to in dm April 2, 1968, n. 1444 with reference to the overall urban planning for oversizing, regardless of the reference to the area destination of certain areas; 2) the injury of the qualified custody of the private, deriving from subdivision agreements, agreements of private law between the Municipality and the owners of the areas, expectations arising from judgments of cancellation of building concessions or of silence-refusal on a request for concession; 3) the modification in the agricultural area of the destination of a limited area, intercepted by funds built in a non-abusive way.
In the case under consideration, the local Resistance Administration, in disregarding the observations of the owner of the area, has in any case clearly indicated the reasons for which he considered that an area “surrounding” the village of …. (id est, that owned by the same company concerned) should also be subjected to type A zoning (similar to the original planning choice relating to the area of the ancient village), with a choice that is certainly not syndicated in the jurisdiction not affected by macroscopic defects and indeed fully in line with the provisions of art. 2, lett. a), d.m. n. 1444 of 1968 which clearly aims to protect the “historical, artistic or particular environmental value” of urban agglomerations through the formation of “homogeneous territorial areas”.
Source Administrative Justice
