{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-132365",
  "citation": "Res. 02167-2010 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Distinción entre fraccionamiento simple y urbanización compleja",
  "title_en": "Distinction between simple subdivision and complex urbanization",
  "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección III, analiza la competencia municipal en materia de ordenación urbanística y la distinción entre fraccionamiento simple y urbanización compleja. La resolución establece que las municipalidades son las titulares primarias de la planificación urbana local, conforme al artículo 169 constitucional y los artículos 15 y 19 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana. Enfatiza que el poder de policía municipal incluye el control del cumplimiento de las normas urbanísticas, verificando que los proyectos cumplan con los requisitos de cesión de áreas verdes, vías públicas y servicios. El Tribunal aclara que un fraccionamiento simple no requiere dotación de infraestructura porque se da en áreas previamente urbanizadas; en cambio, un proyecto residencial que habilite fundos por primera vez para fines urbanos es una urbanización compleja, que debe cumplir con todas las exigencias legales, incluyendo la cesión gratuita de terrenos para vías, parques y facilidades comunales. Advierte que las municipalidades no pueden autorizar habilitaciones mediante servidumbres privadas, ya que estas son ajenas al régimen urbanístico de derecho público. La omisión de estos requisitos obliga al rechazo de las solicitudes.",
  "summary_en": "The Administrative-Contentious Court, Section III, analyzes municipal competence in urban planning and the distinction between simple subdivision and complex urbanization. The ruling establishes that municipalities hold primary authority over local urban planning under Article 169 of the Constitution and Articles 15 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law. It emphasizes that the municipal police power includes monitoring compliance with urban regulations, ensuring projects meet requirements for green areas, public roads, and services. The Court clarifies that a simple subdivision does not require infrastructure provision because it occurs in already urbanized areas. However, a residential project that enables land for urban use for the first time is a complex urbanization, subject to all legal requirements, including the free transfer of land for roads, parks, and community facilities. It warns that municipalities cannot authorize access through private easements, as such mechanisms fall outside the public-law urban planning regime. Failure to meet these requirements mandates denial of the application.",
  "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III",
  "date": "2010",
  "year": "2010",
  "topic_ids": [
    "subdivision-fraccionamiento"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "subdivision-fraccionamiento",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "fraccionamiento simple",
    "urbanización compleja",
    "poder de policía",
    "plan regulador",
    "visado municipal",
    "servidumbre agrícola",
    "cesiones urbanísticas",
    "áreas previamente urbanizadas"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Art. 15",
      "law": "Ley de Planificación Urbana"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 19",
      "law": "Ley de Planificación Urbana"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 22",
      "law": "Ley de Planificación Urbana"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 40",
      "law": "Ley de Planificación Urbana"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 1",
      "law": "Ley de Construcciones"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 169",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 170",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 4",
      "law": "Código Municipal"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "fraccionamiento simple",
    "urbanización compleja",
    "poder de policía municipal",
    "plan regulador",
    "Ley de Planificación Urbana",
    "municipalidad",
    "visado municipal",
    "vías públicas",
    "áreas verdes",
    "servidumbres agrícolas",
    "derecho urbanístico"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "simple subdivision",
    "complex urbanization",
    "municipal police power",
    "regulatory plan",
    "Urban Planning Law",
    "municipal government",
    "municipal approval",
    "public roads",
    "green areas",
    "agricultural easements",
    "urban planning law"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "Basta que un parcelamiento requiera obras para habilitar el ingreso y brindar servicios diversos a algunos de esos fundos, para sostener que no existe un “simple fraccionamiento”, sino un proyecto residencial que debe, en consecuencia, cumplir con todos los requisitos señalados. Los proyectos residenciales urbanos sólo pueden habilitar el ingreso a los fundos a través de vías públicas que deben tener las dimensiones y exigencias de la Ley General de Caminos Públicos y, el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones, a falta, -en este ultimo caso- de disposiciones concretas en las normas locales. Ninguno de los órganos municipales tiene competencia para autorizar un proyecto en el que las habilitaciones a los fundos se hace mediante “servidumbres agrícolas adoquinadas”, \"servidumbres agrícolas\" o “simples servidumbres”, puesto que ellas son figuras propias del Derecho Privado y no del régimen urbanístico residencial que se rige por las normas y principios del Derecho Público.",
  "excerpt_en": "It suffices that a parceling requires works to enable access and provide various services to some of those lots to conclude that there is no 'simple subdivision,' but a residential project that must, consequently, comply with all the stated requirements. Urban residential projects can only enable access to the lots through public roads that must meet the dimensions and requirements of the General Public Roads Law and, in the absence of specific provisions in local regulations, the National Regulation for the Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations. No municipal body has the authority to approve a project where access to the lots is provided through 'paved agricultural easements,' 'agricultural easements,' or 'simple easements,' since these are figures of Private Law and not of the residential urban planning regime governed by the rules and principles of Public Law.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Reiterated criterion on subdivisions",
    "label_es": "Criterio reiterado sobre fraccionamientos",
    "summary_en": "The Court reaffirms that simple subdivisions in already urbanized areas do not require infrastructure transfers, but any project that enables lands with services and access must meet all complex urbanization requirements.",
    "summary_es": "El Tribunal reafirma que los fraccionamientos simples en áreas ya urbanizadas no requieren cesiones de infraestructura, pero cualquier proyecto que habilite terrenos con servicios y accesos debe cumplir todas las exigencias de una urbanización compleja."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando VI",
      "quote_en": "Subdivision is the division of a property for the purpose of introducing it into commerce, which requires, as each local government must verify when granting the corresponding approval, that it complies with current urban planning provisions regarding size and characteristics...",
      "quote_es": "El fraccionamiento, es la división de un predio con la finalidad de introducirlo al comercio de los hombres, lo que supone, tal y como lo debe constatar cada gobierno local al otorgar el visado correspondiente, que el mismo se ajuste, en cuanto a tamaño y características, a las disposiciones urbanísticas vigentes..."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando VI",
      "quote_en": "It suffices that a parceling requires works to enable access and provide various services to some of those lots to conclude that there is no 'simple subdivision,' but a residential project that must, consequently, comply with all the stated requirements.",
      "quote_es": "Basta que un parcelamiento requiera obras para habilitar el ingreso y brindar servicios diversos a algunos de esos fundos, para sostener que no existe un “simple fraccionamiento”, sino un proyecto residencial que debe, en consecuencia, cumplir con todos los requisitos señalados."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando IV",
      "quote_en": "Primary authority over local urban planning belongs to the municipalities, to the exclusion of any other public entity.",
      "quote_es": "La titularidad primaria en materia de planificación urbana local corresponde a las municipalidades, con exclusión de cualquier otro ente público."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-132365",
  "tier": 2,
  "_editorial_citation_count": 0,
  "regulations_by_article": null,
  "amendments_by_article": null,
  "dictamen_by_article": null,
  "concordancias_by_article": null,
  "afectaciones_by_article": null,
  "resoluciones_by_article": null,
  "cited_by_votos": [],
  "cited_norms": [],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-35669",
      "norm_num": "4240",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Planificación Urbana",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "15/11/1968"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-36307",
      "norm_num": "833",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Construcciones",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "02/11/1949"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-5561",
      "norm_num": "4574",
      "norm_name": "Código Municipal",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "04/05/1970"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "“IV.- DE LA COMPETENCIA MUNICIPAL EN LO ATINENTE A LA ORDENACIÓN URBANÍSTICA\r\nDEL CANTÓN.\r\nREGULACIÓN NORMATIVA DE LA\r\n QUE DIMANA.- En atención a que el\r\nreclamo versa sobre la negativa de disponibilidad de agua al lote con el plano\r\ncatastrado número H-571839-99, estima conveniente este Tribunal hacer unas\r\nbreves reflexiones en torno a la competencia de los gobiernos locales en la\r\nmateria urbanística, en un doble ámbito, primero que nada, en lo concerniente a\r\nla definición de las regulaciones normativas -promulgación\r\nde las respectivas regulaciones -planes reguladores y regulaciones conexas- y\r\nel control -ejercicio del poder de policía- en la\r\ncircunscripción territorial. En efecto, la regulación urbanística ha sido\r\nencomendada tradicionalmente, y sin discusión alguna, a las municipalidades,\r\nen tanto se ha estimado que \n\r\n\r\n\n\"(...) la competencia\r\nurbanística ha sido una competencia municipal genuina, quizá la primera entre\r\ntodas\" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Eduardo y PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, Lecciones\r\nde Derecho Urbanístico. Editorial Civitas,\r\n Madrid, España, S.N.E., 1981.\r\np. 116.);\n\r\n\r\n\nde\r\nmanera que se ha configurado, como una tradición del Derecho Urbanístico,\r\nespecialmente en aquellos momentos en que su contenido ha sido expresado por\r\nmedio de las \"ordenanzas de construcción y policía urbana\", de\r\ncompetencia de los gobiernos locales, bajo el entendido de que la competencia\r\npública urbanística es propia de la ciudad, y en consecuencia, de las\r\nmunicipalidades. Así, el urbanismo comienza siendo una\r\ncompetencia exclusivamente municipal. Posteriormente, a medida que va\r\ndejando de ser una función propia del ámbito urbano y pretende abarcar la\r\nordenación de todo el territorio, se responsabilizan de él otras Administraciones\r\nsuperiores, modificándose de esa manera el nivel competencial de la materia\r\nurbanística, al incluir a otras instancias, en nuestro medio, tales como el\r\nInstituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo -ente descentralizado-, y los\r\nMinisterios de Ambiente, Energía y Telecomunicaciones, con la Secretaría Técnica\r\nAmbiental (órgano desconcentrado) y el Ministerio de Planificación Nacional.\r\nPero en lo que respecta propiamente con la planificación urbana local,\r\nconviene recordar que es en la Ley de Construcciones,\r\naprobada por Decreto-Ley número 833, del cuatro de noviembre de mil novecientos\r\ncuarenta y nueve -norma pre-constitucional, al ser promulgada por el Gobierno\r\nde Facto de la Junta\r\n Fundadora de la Segunda República, dirigida por José Figueres\r\nFerrer-, donde se establece que las Municipalidades son las encargadas de\r\nque las ciudades y demás poblaciones reúnan las condiciones necesarias de\r\nseguridad, salubridad, comodidad y belleza en sus vías públicas y en los\r\nedificios y construcciones que en terrenos de las mismas se levanten,\r\nsin perjuicio de las facultades que las leyes conceden en estas materias a\r\notros órganos administrativos (artículo 1º), así como que ninguna edificación\r\npodrá hacerse en el país que contraríe sus disposiciones (artículo 74). Y no\r\nobstante que nuestra Constitución Política vigente –del siete de noviembre de\r\nmil novecientos cuarenta y nueve- es un poco parca en la definición de las\r\nfunciones propias y esenciales de las municipalidades, la jurisprudencia\r\nconstitucional -concretamente en las sentencias número 5097-93, 5303-93,\r\n6706-93, 4205-96, y 2003-3656-, ha interpretado que a partir de lo dispuesto en\r\nsus artículos 169 y primer párrafo del artículo 170, la titularidad\r\nprimaria en materia de planificación urbana local corresponde a las\r\nmunicipalidades, con exclusión de cualquier otro ente público. En\r\neste sentido, en el Código Municipal, número 4574, de cuatro de mayo de mil\r\nnovecientos setenta, -vigente hasta mil novecientos noventa y ocho-,\r\nexpresamente se reconoció como competencia municipal, la materia de urbanismo,\r\nen su artículo 4. En consonancia con la anterior disposición, y como un\r\nderivado de las normas constitucionales, son concordantes los artículos 15 y 19\r\nde la Ley de\r\nPlanificación Urbana, número 4240, de quince de noviembre de mil novecientos\r\nsesenta y ocho, en tanto disponen textualmente:\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Artículo 15.- Conforme al precepto\r\ndel artículo 169 de la\r\n Constitución Política, reconócese la competencia y\r\nautoridad de los gobiernos municipales para planificar y controlar el\r\ndesarrollo urbano, dentro de los límites de su territorio jurisdiccional.\r\nConsecuentemente, cada uno de ellos dispondrá lo que proceda para implantar\r\nun plan regulador, y los reglamentos de desarrollo urbano conexos, en las áreas\r\ndonde deba regir, sin perjuIcio de extender todos o algunos de sus efectos a\r\notros sectores, en que priven razones calificadas para establecer un\r\ndeterminado régimen contralor.\" (El resaltado no es del original.)\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Artículo 19.-\r\nCada Municipalidad emitirá y promulgará las reglas procesales necesarias\r\npara el debido acatamiento del\r\nplan regulador y para la protección de los intereses de las salud, seguridad,\r\ncomodidad y bienestar de la comunidad.\" (El resaltado no es del\r\noriginal.)\n\r\n\r\n\nV.- DE LA\r\n COMPETENCIA MUNICIPAL EN LA VERIFICACIÓN DEL\r\nCUMPLIMIENTO DE LAS NORMAS URBANÍSTICAS.- En cuanto al segundo ámbito enunciado, es el atinente al control que\r\nejercen las Autoridades municipales respecto del cumplimiento de la normativa\r\nurbanística local. En este sentido, como lo ha señalado este Tribunal en\r\ndiversos pronunciamientos (entre ellos, los número 175-2009, de las quince\r\nhoras cuarenta minutos 176-2009, de las quince horas cincuenta minutos, ambos,\r\ndel treinta de enero del dos mil nueve), \"los gobiernos\r\nlocales deben actuar oportunamente en el ejercicio del poder de policía,\r\nutilizando las potestades que el ordenamiento jurídico les ha otorgado para\r\nalcanzar sus cometidos\" (el subrayado no es del original); que en la\r\nmateria de urbanismo, se concreta en el control de los procesos de urbanización\r\ny fraccionamiento, y que se concreta de manera taxativa en el artículo 1 de la Ley de Construcciones, en\r\ntanto dispone literalmente:\n\r\n\r\n\n\"Las Municipalidades de la República son las encargadas de que las ciudades\r\ny demás poblaciones reúnan las condiciones necesarias de seguridad, salubridad,\r\ncomodidad, y belleza en sus vías públicas, en los edificios y construcciones\r\nque en terrenos de las mismas levanten sin perjuicio de las facultades que las\r\nleyes conceden en estas materia a otros órganos administrativos.\"\n\r\n\r\n\nPor su parter, el \"poder de policía\" es la competencia que se le reconoce a la Administración,\r\npara que, con fundamento en una ley, regule y reglamente una actividad, a fin\r\nde asegurar el orden público, la salubridad, la tranquilidad, la\r\nseguridad de las personas, así como la organización moral, política y económica\r\nde la sociedad; atribución, en virtud de la cual, la imposición de\r\nrestricciones al goce de los derechos fundamentales, resulta razonable, en tanto\r\nsu justificación se encuentra precisamente en la consideración de que los\r\nderechos fundamentales se encuentran limitados por los de las demás personas,\r\ntoda vez que deben coexistir con todos y cada uno de los otros derechos\r\nfundamentales. Con lo cual, las medidas que el Estado adopte con la finalidad\r\nde proteger la seguridad, la salubridad y tranquilidad, son de interés público\r\nsocial, que se manifiestan por medio del poder de policía, entendida como la\r\nfacultad reguladora del goce de los derechos y del cumplimiento de los deberes\r\nconstitucionales. (En este sentido, se pueden consultar las sentencias\r\nnúmero 401-91, de las catorce horas del veinte de febrero y 619-91, de\r\nlas catorce horas cuarenta y cinco minutos del veintidós de marzo, ambas, resoluciones\r\nde mil novecientos noventa y uno y 2003-2864, de las quince horas veinte\r\nminutos del nueve de abril del dos mil tres, de la Sala Constitucional.)\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\nVI- DE LA DISTINCIÓN\r\n DE LOS PROCESOS DE FRACCIONAMIENTO Y URBANIZACIÓN.- Por la trascendencia derivada de las implicaciones jurídicas que conllevan\r\nlos procesos de fraccionamiento y urbanizaciones, resulta necesario clarificar\r\nel significado de ambos conceptos. Así, \n\r\n\r\n\n\"El fraccionamiento, es la división de un predio con\r\nla finalidad de introducirlo al comercio de los hombres, lo que supone, tal y\r\ncomo lo debe constatar cada gobierno local al otorgar el visado\r\ncorrespondiente, que el mismo se ajuste, en cuanto a tamaño y características,\r\na las disposiciones urbanísticas vigentes, en especial, al Plan Regulador del\r\nsuelo local –si lo hubiere- así como a la normativa de desarrollo y demás leyes\r\nespeciales de orden público. El fraccionamiento que la ley denomina como “simple”, no incluye\r\nun proceso de habilitación urbana\r\npara el uso y disfrute de las parcelas resultantes de ese fraccionamiento y\r\nello es así porque el legislador parte de que en estos, los fundos cuentan con\r\naccesos y áreas verdes producto de un desarrollo urbanístico anterior. Es por este motivo que el artículo 40 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana\r\ndispone:\n\r\n\r\n\n“(…)Asimismo se exceptúa de la obligación de ceder\r\náreas para parques y facilidades comunales a los simples fraccionamientos\r\nde parcelas en áreas previamente urbanizadas…” (el\r\ndestacado no es del\r\noriginal). \n\r\n\r\n\nCuando una determinada área se encuentra previamente urbanizada, los\r\nadquirentes de las parcelas fraccionadas cuentan con acceso a los fundos,\r\nparques y facilidades comunales y es que no debe perderse de vista que ello\r\nhace parte de su derecho a disfrutar de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente\r\nequilibrado (artículo 50 constitucional). Por este\r\nmotivo –se reitera- el legislador no ha estimado necesario exigir en el caso del fraccionamiento\r\n“simple” con desarrollo urbanístico, mayores dotaciones de tierra por motivos de\r\ninterés social. El visado para fraccionamientos simples, por su poca\r\ntrascendencia, suele otorgarse a un funcionario (v.gr.\r\nIngeniero Municipal) diverso de aquél al que se encomiendan los visados\r\n“complejos” (v. gr. Concejo Municipal, comisiones de urbanismo, etc),\r\ncareciendo el primero de competencia para autorizar un visado diverso; ello en\r\nel caso de que las normas urbanísticas hagan tal distinción. Ahora bien, al\r\nfraccionamiento que hace parte del proceso urbanizador y que conlleva\r\nuna habilitación de los fundos, por vez primera, para fines urbanos,\r\ndebe proveérsele de calles, áreas verdes y parques, así como de\r\nlos servicios necesarios para su uso y disfrute. En este segundo\r\nsupuesto, estamos ante un proceso complejo de fraccionamiento y urbanización\r\nque introduce limitaciones a la propiedad privada por razón de urbanismo\r\n(artículo 22 de la Ley\r\nde Planificación Urbana), las que el Tribunal Constitucional ha señalado son\r\ntotalmente conformes con el Derecho de la Constitución (voto N°\r\n5097-93 de las 10:24 hrs del 15 de octubre de 1993 ) .\r\nEl proyecto residencial o de fraccionamiento que llamaremos “complejo”, se\r\nencuentra previsto en el numeral 40 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana que, en lo\r\nconducente, dispone:\n\r\n\r\n\n“Todo fraccionador de terrenos (…) y todo urbanizador\r\ncederá gratuitamente al uso público tanto las áreas destinadas a vías como las\r\ncorrespondientes a parques y facilidades comunales; lo que fijará por los dos\r\nconceptos últimos se determinará en el respectivo reglamento, mediante la\r\nfijación de porcentajes, del área total a fraccionar o urbanizar, que podrá\r\nfluctuar entre un cinco por ciento a un veinte por ciento, según el tamaño\r\npromedio de los lotes, el uso que se pretenda dar al terreno y las normas al\r\nrespecto. No obstante lo anterior, la suma de los terrenos que deben cederse\r\npara vías públicas, parques y facilidades comunales no excederá de un cuarenta\r\ny cinco por ciento de la superficie total del terreno a fraccionar o urbanizar.\r\n(…)\n\r\n\r\n\nLa obligación del urbanizador de dotar las parcelas fraccionadas de\r\naccesos, zonas verdes, parques, vías públicas, le obliga a acatar las\r\ndisposiciones urbanas que establecen estándares mínimos en cuanto a espacio,\r\ncalidad, cantidad y demás requisitos exigidos por ley y los reglamentos de\r\ndesarrollo en cuanto a esas áreas. El gobierno local tiene que ejercer\r\noportunamente su poder de policía, garantizando a los vecinos del cantón, que las\r\nobras se realizarán de la forma que las normas urbanísticas lo indican y con\r\nlas condiciones que aquellas disponen. Basta que un\r\nparcelamiento requiera obras para habilitar el ingreso y brindar servicios\r\ndiversos a algunos de esos fundos, para sostener que no existe un\r\n“simple fraccionamiento”, sino un proyecto residencial que debe, en\r\nconsecuencia, cumplir con todos los requisitos señalados. Los proyectos\r\nresidenciales urbanos sólo pueden habilitar el ingreso a los fundos a través de\r\nvías públicas que deben tener las dimensiones y exigencias de la Ley General de Caminos\r\nPúblicos y, el Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamintos y\r\nUrbanizaciones, a falta, -en este ultimo caso- de disposiciones concretas en\r\nlas normas locales. Ninguno de los órganos municipales tiene competencia para\r\nautorizar un proyecto en el que las habilitaciones a los fundos se hace\r\nmediante “servidumbres agrícolas adoquinadas”, \"servidumbres\r\nagrícolas\" o “simples servidumbres”, puesto que ellas son figuras\r\npropias del Derecho Privado y no del régimen urbanístico residencial que se\r\nrige por las normas y principios del Derecho Público.\" (Resoluciones número 175-2009 y 176-2009, supra\r\ncitadas.)\n\r\n\r\n\nAl tenor de lo cual, reviste de especial interés el control que corresponde\r\nverificar al gobierno local, en este caso a cargo del órgano deliberativo\r\n(Concejo), tratándose de la aprobación de permisos de construcción de\r\nurbanizaciones, ya que debe corroborar que cumple a cabalidad con los\r\nrequerimientos de ley, a saber dotación de vías públicas, áreas verdes y\r\ncomunales, y en especial -de relevancia para resolución de este asunto- de la\r\nhabilitación e implementación, a cargo del urbanizador, de los servicios\r\npúblicos, tales como el de la luz, telefonía, agua potable y acueductos y\r\nalcantarillados, éste último, en caso de que exista la infraestructura para\r\nello. Con lo cual, la no adecuación de los proyectos urbanísticos a los\r\nrequerimientos establecidos en el ordenamiento urbano, obligan -per ser-,\r\nal rechazo de las gestiones incoadas, en aplicación del principio de legalidad,\r\nque sujeta a todo el aparato estatal, del que forman parte las municipalidades.”",
  "body_en_text": "**IV.- MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION REGARDING THE URBAN PLANNING**\n**OF THE CANTON.**\n**NORMATIVE REGULATION FROM WHICH IT DERIVES.-** Given that the\nclaim concerns the denial of water availability to the lot with cadastral map\nnumber H-571839-99, this Court deems it appropriate to make some\nbrief reflections on the jurisdiction of local governments in\nurban matters, in a dual sphere: first, concerning the\n**definition of normative regulations** -the promulgation\nof the respective regulations -regulatory plans and related regulations- and\n**control** -the exercise of police power- in the\nterritorial jurisdiction. In effect, **urban regulation has been\ntraditionally entrusted, without any discussion, to the municipalities**,\nas it has been considered that\n\n\" (...) *the urban jurisdiction has been a genuine municipal jurisdiction, perhaps the first among all*\" (GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA, Eduardo and PAREJO ALFONSO, Luciano, *Lecciones de Derecho Urbanístico*. Editorial Civitas, Madrid, Spain, no publisher indicated, 1981. p. 116.);\n\nthus, it has been configured as a tradition of Urban Law,\nespecially in those moments when its content has been expressed\nthrough the \"construction and urban police ordinances\", under the\njurisdiction of local governments, with the understanding that public urban jurisdiction belongs to the city and, consequently, to the\nmunicipalities. Thus, urban planning begins as an\nexclusively municipal jurisdiction. Later, as it\nceases to be a function specific to the urban sphere and seeks to encompass the\nplanning of the entire territory, other higher Administrations\nassume responsibility for it, thereby modifying the jurisdictional level of\nurban planning matters by including other instances, in our context, such as the\nInstituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo -a decentralized entity-, and the\nMinistries of Environment, Energy, and Telecommunications, with the Technical Environmental\nSecretariat (a deconcentrated body) and the Ministry of National Planning.\nBut regarding local urban planning itself,\nit is worth recalling that it is in the Ley de Construcciones,\napproved by Decreto-Ley number 833, of November 4, nineteen hundred\nforty-nine -a pre-constitutional norm, having been promulgated by the De\nFacto Government of the Junta Fundadora de la Segunda República, led by José Figueres\nFerrer-, where it is established that **Municipalities are responsible for\nensuring that cities and other towns meet the necessary conditions of\nsafety, salubrity, comfort, and beauty in their public roads and in the\nbuildings and constructions erected on their land**,\nwithout prejudice to the powers that the laws grant in these matters to\nother administrative bodies (Article 1), and that no construction\nmay be built in the country that contravenes its provisions (Article 74). And\ndespite the fact that our current Constitución Política –of November 7,\nnineteen hundred forty-nine- is somewhat sparse in defining the\nproper and essential functions of municipalities, constitutional jurisprudence -specifically in judgments number 5097-93, 5303-93,\n6706-93, 4205-96, and 2003-3656-, has interpreted that based on the provisions of\nits Articles 169 and the first paragraph of Article 170, ***primary competency in local urban planning matters corresponds to\nmunicipalities, to the exclusion of any other public entity***. In\nthis regard, in the Código Municipal, number 4574, of May 4, nineteen hundred\nseventy, -in force until nineteen hundred ninety-eight-,\nurban planning was expressly recognized as a municipal jurisdiction,\nin its Article 4. In accordance with the foregoing provision, and ***as a\nderivate of constitutional norms, Articles 15 and 19\nof the Ley de Planificación Urbana, number 4240, of November 15, nineteen hundred\nsixty-eight, are concordant***, as they textually state:\n\n\"***Article 15.-*** *In accordance with the precept\nof Article 169 of the Constitución Política, the **jurisdiction and\nauthority of municipal governments to plan and control\nurban development, within the limits of their jurisdictional territory**, is recognized.\nConsequently, **each one of them shall provide what is appropriate to implement\na regulatory plan, and the related urban development regulations**, in the areas\nwhere it must govern, without prejudice to extending all or some of its effects to\nother sectors, where qualified reasons exist to establish a\ndetermined control regime.*\" (The highlighting is not in the original.)\n\n\"***Article 19.-***\n**Each Municipality shall issue and promulgate the necessary procedural rules\nfor the due observance of the\nregulatory plan and for the protection of the interests of health, safety,\ncomfort, and well-being of the community**.*\" (The highlighting is not in the\noriginal.)\n\n**V.- MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN THE VERIFICATION OF\nCOMPLIANCE WITH URBAN PLANNING NORMS.-** Regarding the second sphere mentioned, it pertains to the control\nexercised by municipal Authorities regarding compliance with local urban planning\nregulations. In this sense, as this Court has indicated in\nvarious pronouncements (among them, numbers 175-2009, at fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, at fifteen hours fifty minutes, both\nof January 30, two thousand nine), *“local\ngovernments must act in a timely manner in the exercise of police power,\nusing the powers that the legal system has granted them to\nachieve their objectives”* (the underline is not in the original); which in\nurban planning matters is embodied in the control of urbanization and subdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is specifically embodied in Article 1 of the Ley de Construcciones, as\nit literally states:\n\n\" The Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that the cities\nand other towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, salubrity,\ncomfort, and beauty in their public roads, in the buildings and constructions\nthat are erected on their land, without prejudice to the powers that the\nlaws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies.\"\n\nFor its part, the \"police power\" is the jurisdiction recognized to the Administration,\nso that, based on a law, it may regulate an activity, in order\nto ensure public order, salubrity, tranquility,\nsafety of persons, as well as the moral, political, and economic organization\nof society; an attribution by virtue of which the imposition of\nrestrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights is reasonable, as\nits justification lies precisely in the consideration that\nfundamental rights are limited by the rights of other persons,\nsince they must coexist with all and each of the other fundamental\nrights. Therefore, the measures adopted by the State with the purpose\nof protecting safety, salubrity, and tranquility, are of public social\ninterest, which are manifested through the police power, understood as the\nregulatory power over the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional\nduties. (In this sense, one can consult judgments\nnumber 401-91, at fourteen hours of February 20, and 619-91, at\nfourteen hours forty-five minutes of March 22, both decisions\nof nineteen hundred ninety-one, and 2003-2864, at fifteen hours twenty\nminutes of April 9, two thousand three, from the Sala Constitucional.)\n\n**VI- THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBDIVISION (FRACCIONAMIENTO) AND URBANIZATION PROCESSES.-** Due to the significance derived from the legal implications that\nsubdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization processes entail, it is necessary to clarify\nthe meaning of both concepts. Thus,\n\n\"Subdivision (Fraccionamiento), is the division of a property with\nthe purpose of introducing it into commerce, which presupposes, as\neach local government must verify when granting the corresponding\napproval, that it complies, in terms of size and characteristics,\nwith the urban development provisions in force, especially, with the local Regulatory Plan\n–if one exists- as well as with the development regulations and other\nspecial laws of public order. The subdivision (fraccionamiento) that the law terms as 'simple', does not include\na process of urban habitation enabling\nfor the use and enjoyment of the parcels resulting from that subdivision (fraccionamiento), and\nthis is so because the legislator assumes that in these, the properties have\naccesses and green areas resulting from a previous urban development. It is for this reason that Article 40 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana\nstates:\n\n'...( ) Likewise, simple subdivisions (fraccionamientos)\nof parcels in previously urbanized areas are exempted from the obligation to cede\nareas for parks and community facilities...' (the\nemphasis is not from the\noriginal).\n\nWhen a certain area is previously urbanized, the\nacquirers of the subdivided parcels have access to the properties,\nparks, and community facilities, and it must not be overlooked that this\nforms part of their right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically\nbalanced environment (Article 50 of the Constitution). For this\nreason –it is reiterated- the legislator has not deemed it necessary to require, in the case of 'simple' subdivision (fraccionamiento)\nwith urban development, larger land endowments for reasons of\nsocial interest. Approval for simple subdivisions (fraccionamientos), due to their lesser\nsignificance, is usually granted to an official (e.g.,\nMunicipal Engineer) different from the one entrusted with\n'complex' approvals (e.g. Consejo Municipal, urban planning commissions, etc.),\nwith the former lacking jurisdiction to authorize a different kind of approval; this\nin the event that urban planning norms make such a distinction. Now then, the\nsubdivision (fraccionamiento) that forms part of the urbanization process and entails\nan enabling of the properties, for the first time, for urban purposes,\nmust be provided with streets, green areas, and parks, as well as\nthe necessary services for their use and enjoyment. In this second\ncase, we are faced with a complex subdivision and urbanization process (fraccionamiento y urbanización)\nthat introduces limitations on private property for urban planning reasons\n(Article 22 of the Ley\nde Planificación Urbana), which the Constitutional Court has indicated are\nfully in conformity with Constitutional Law (vote No.\n5097-93 at 10:24 hrs. of October 15, 1993).\nThe residential or subdivision project (fraccionamiento) that we will call 'complex', is\nprovided for in Article 40 of the Ley de Planificación Urbana which, in what is\nrelevant, states:\n\n'Every land subdivider (fraccionador) ...( ) and every urbanizer\nshall cede gratuitously for public use both the areas destined for roads and those\ncorresponding to parks and community facilities; what is set for the last two\nconcepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, through the\nsetting of percentages, of the total area to subdivide or urbanize, which may\nrange between five percent and twenty percent, according to the average\nsize of the lots, the use intended for the land, and the norms in\nthis regard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the lands that must be ceded\nfor public roads, parks, and community facilities shall not exceed forty-\nfive percent of the total surface area of the land to subdivide or urbanize.\n...( )\n\nThe obligation of the urbanizer to provide the subdivided parcels with\naccesses, green zones, parks, public roads, obliges them to comply with\nurban development provisions that establish minimum standards regarding space,\nquality, quantity, and other requirements demanded by law and development\nregulations regarding those areas. The local government must exercise\nits police power in a timely manner, guaranteeing the residents of the canton that the\nworks will be carried out as urban planning norms indicate and with\nthe conditions they provide. It is enough that a\nparcelization requires works to enable access and provide various services\nto some of those properties, to assert that a\n'simple subdivision (fraccionamiento)' does not exist, but rather a residential project that must,\nconsequently, comply with all the stated requirements. Urban residential\nprojects can only enable access to the properties through\npublic roads that must have the dimensions and requirements of the Ley General de Caminos\nPúblicos and, the Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamintos y\nUrbanizaciones, in the absence, -in this last case- of specific provisions in\nlocal norms. No municipal body has the jurisdiction to\nauthorize a project in which the access enabling to the properties is done\nthrough 'paved agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas adoquinadas)', 'agricultural\neasements (servidumbres agrícolas)' or 'simple easements (servidumbres)', since these are figures\nproper to Private Law and not to the residential urban development regime, which is\ngoverned by the norms and principles of Public Law.\" (Resolutions number 175-2009 and 176-2009, supra\ncited.)\n\nIn accordance with the above, the control that the local government must carry out is of special interest, in this case by the deliberative body\n(Concejo), when it comes to the approval of construction permits for\nurbanizations, since it must verify that it fully complies with the\nlegal requirements, namely the provision of public roads, green and\ncommunal areas, and especially -of relevance for the resolution of this matter- the\nenabling and implementation, by the urbanizer, of public\nservices, such as electricity, telephony, drinking water, and aqueducts and\nsewers, the latter, in the event that the infrastructure for\nit exists. Therefore, the failure of urban development projects to meet the\nrequirements established in urban planning law obliges -per se-,\nthe rejection of the applications filed, in application of the principle of legality,\nwhich binds the entire state apparatus, of which the municipalities form a part.”\n\nIn this regard, as this Tribunal has indicated in various pronouncements (among them, numbers 175-2009, at fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, at fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of January 30, two thousand nine), \"local governments must act in a timely manner in the exercise of police power (poder de policía), using the powers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their purposes\" (emphasis not in the original); which, in the matter of urban planning, is realized in the control of urbanization and subdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is explicitly set forth in Article 1 of the Construction Law, insofar as it literally provides:\n\n\"The Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that cities and other population centers possess the necessary conditions of safety, health (salubridad), comfort, and beauty in their public thoroughfares, and in the buildings and constructions erected on their lands, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies.\"\n\nFor its part, the \"police power (poder de policía)\" is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a law, it may regulate and set rules for an activity, in order to ensure public order, health (salubridad), tranquility, the safety of persons, as well as the moral, political, and economic organization of society; an attribution by virtue of which the imposition of restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights is reasonable, since its justification is found precisely in the consideration that fundamental rights are limited by those of other persons, as they must coexist with each and every one of the other fundamental rights. Thus, the measures that the State adopts for the purpose of protecting safety, health (salubridad), and tranquility are of public social interest, manifested through the police power (poder de policía), understood as the regulatory power over the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional duties. (In this regard, see judgments number 401-91, at fourteen hours of February 20, and 619-91, at fourteen hours forty-five minutes of March 22, both resolutions of nineteen ninety-one, and 2003-2864, at fifteen hours twenty minutes of April 9, two thousand three, of the Constitutional Chamber.)\n\nVI- THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBDIVISION (FRACCIONAMIENTO) AND URBANIZATION PROCESSES.- Given the significance derived from the legal implications entailed by subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization processes, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of both concepts. Thus,\n\n\"A subdivision (fraccionamiento) is the division of a property for the purpose of introducing it into commerce, which supposes, as each local government must verify when granting the corresponding approval (visado), that it conforms, in terms of size and characteristics, to the current urban planning provisions, especially the local Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador)—if one exists—as well as the development regulations and other special public-order laws. The subdivision (fraccionamiento) that the law calls \"simple,\" does not include an urban habilitation process for the use and enjoyment of the parcels resulting from that subdivision (fraccionamiento), and this is so because the legislator starts from the premise that, in these cases, the properties have access and green areas as a result of prior urban development. It is for this reason that Article 40 of the Urban Planning Law provides:\n\n\"(…) Likewise, simple subdivisions of parcels in previously urbanized areas are exempt from the obligation to cede areas for parks and community facilities…\" (highlighting is not from the original).\n\nWhen a specific area has been previously urbanized, the acquirers of the subdivided parcels have access to the properties, parks, and community facilities, and it must not be overlooked that this is part of their right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Constitution). For this reason—it is reiterated—the legislator has not deemed it necessary to require, in the case of a \"simple\" subdivision (fraccionamiento) with prior urban development, additional land endowments for reasons of social interest. The approval (visado) for simple subdivisions, due to its limited scope, is usually granted by an official (e.g., Municipal Engineer) different from the one entrusted with \"complex\" approvals (e.g., Municipal Council, urban planning commissions, etc.), the former lacking the competence to authorize a different type of approval; this, in the event that urban planning regulations make such a distinction. Now then, the subdivision (fraccionamiento) that is part of the urbanization process and that entails the habilitation of properties, for the first time, for urban purposes, must be provided with streets, green areas, and parks, as well as the necessary services for their use and enjoyment. In this second scenario, we are faced with a complex process of subdivision and urbanization (fraccionamiento y urbanización) that introduces limitations on private property by reason of urban planning (Article 22 of the Urban Planning Law), which the Constitutional Court has indicated are fully in accordance with the Law of the Constitution (Voto N° 5097-93 at 10:24 hrs on October 15, 1993). The residential or subdivision (fraccionamiento) project that we will call \"complex\" is provided for in numeral 40 of the Urban Planning Law, which, as relevant, provides:\n\n\"Every subdivider (fraccionador) of land (…) and every urbanizer (urbanizador) shall cede free of charge for public use both the areas destined for roadways and those corresponding to parks and community facilities; the amount to be set for the last two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, by means of establishing percentages of the total area to be subdivided or urbanized, which may fluctuate between five percent and twenty percent, according to the average size of the lots, the use intended for the land, and the regulations in this regard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the lands to be ceded for public roadways, parks, and community facilities shall not exceed forty-five percent of the total surface area of the land to be subdivided or urbanized. (…)\n\nThe urbanizer's (urbanizador) obligation to equip the subdivided parcels with access, green areas, parks, public roadways, obligates them to comply with the urban provisions that establish minimum standards regarding space, quality, quantity, and other requirements demanded by law and development regulations for those areas. The local government must promptly exercise its police power (poder de policía), guaranteeing to the residents of the canton that the works will be carried out in the manner indicated by urban planning regulations and under the conditions they stipulate. It suffices that a parceling requires works to enable access and provide various services to some of those properties, to maintain that a \"simple subdivision (fraccionamiento)\" does not exist, but rather a residential project that must, consequently, comply with all the stated requirements. Urban residential projects can only enable access to the properties through public roadways that must have the dimensions and requirements of the General Law of Public Roads and the Regulation for the National Control of Subdivisions and Urbanizations, in the absence—in this latter case—of specific provisions in local regulations. None of the municipal bodies has the competence to authorize a project in which access to the properties is provided by means of \"paved agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas adoquinadas)\", \"agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas)\", or \"simple easements (servidumbres)\", since these are figures characteristic of Private Law and not of the residential urban planning regime, which is governed by the rules and principles of Public Law.\" (Resolutions number 175-2009 and 176-2009, cited above.)\n\nIn accordance with which, the control that the local government is responsible for verifying is of special interest, in this case, by the deliberative body (Council), in the context of approving construction permits for urbanizations, since it must corroborate full compliance with legal requirements, namely the provision of public roadways, green and community areas, and especially—of relevance for the resolution of this matter—the habilitation and implementation, at the urbanizer's (urbanizador) expense, of public services, such as electricity, telephone, potable water, aqueducts, and sewer systems, this last one, in case the infrastructure for it exists. Thus, the failure of urban development projects to conform to the requirements established in the urban regulation obligates—per se—the rejection of the applications filed, in application of the principle of legality, which binds the entire state apparatus, of which the municipalities form a part.\n\nAnd notwithstanding that our current Political Constitution –of November seventh, nineteen forty-nine– is somewhat sparse in defining the proper and essential functions of the municipalities, the constitutional jurisprudence –specifically in rulings number 5097-93, 5303-93, 6706-93, 4205-96, and 2003-3656– has interpreted that, based on the provisions of its articles 169 and the first paragraph of article 170,<b><i> <u>primary authority regarding local urban planning belongs to the municipalities, to the exclusion of any other public entity</u></i></b>. In this regard, the Municipal Code, number 4574, of May fourth, nineteen seventy, –in force until nineteen ninety-eight– expressly recognized urban planning as a municipal competence, in its article 4. In accordance with the foregoing provision, and <b><i>as a derivative of the constitutional norms, articles 15 and 19 of the Urban Planning Law, number 4240, of November fifteenth, nineteen sixty-eight, are concordant</i></b>, as they textually provide:\n\n\"<b><i>Article 15.- </i></b><i>Pursuant to the precept of article 169 of the Political Constitution, <b>the competence and authority of the municipal governments to plan and control urban development, within the limits of their jurisdictional territory, is recognized</b>. Consequently, <b>each one of them shall provide what is appropriate to implement a regulatory plan (plan regulador), and the related urban development regulations,</b> in the areas where it must govern, without prejudice to extending all or some of its effects to other sectors, where qualified reasons prevail for establishing a specific control regime.</i>\" (The highlighting is not from the original.)\n\n\"<b><i>Article 19.-</i></b><i> <b>Each Municipality shall issue and promulgate the necessary procedural rules for the due observance of the regulatory plan (plan regulador) and for the protection of the interests of the health, safety, comfort, and well-being of the community</b>.</i>\" (The highlighting is not from the original.)\n\n<b>V.- ON MUNICIPAL COMPETENCE IN THE VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN PLANNING NORMS.- </b> Regarding the second area mentioned, it concerns the control exercised by the municipal Authorities over compliance with local urban planning regulations. In this sense, as this Tribunal has indicated in various pronouncements (among them, numbers 175-2009, at fifteen hours forty minutes, and 176-2009, at fifteen hours fifty minutes, both of January thirtieth, two thousand nine), \"the local governments must act in a timely manner in the <b>exercise of police power (poder de policía)</b>, using the powers that the legal system has granted them to achieve their purposes\" (the underlining is not from the original); which, in the matter of urban planning, is embodied in the control of urbanization and subdivision (fraccionamiento) processes, and which is concretely specified in article 1 of the Construction Law, as it literally provides:\n\n\"The Municipalities of the Republic are responsible for ensuring that cities and other towns meet the necessary conditions of safety, health, comfort, and beauty in their public thoroughfares, in the buildings and constructions erected on their lands, without prejudice to the powers that laws grant in these matters to other administrative bodies.\"\n\nFor its part, the \"<b><i>police power (poder de policía)</i></b>\" is the competence recognized to the Administration, so that, based on a law, it may regulate and provide regulations for an activity, in order to ensure <b><i>public order, public health, tranquility, and the safety of persons, as well as the moral, political, and economic organization of society</i></b>; an attribution by virtue of which the imposition of restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental rights is reasonable, as its justification is found precisely in the consideration that fundamental rights are limited by those of other persons, since they must coexist with each and every one of the other fundamental rights. Thereby, the measures that the State adopts for the purpose of protecting safety, health, and tranquility are of public social interest, which are manifested through the police power, understood as the regulatory authority over the enjoyment of rights and the fulfillment of constitutional duties. (In this regard, see rulings number 401-91, at fourteen hours on February twentieth and 619-91, at fourteen hours forty-five minutes on March twenty-second, both resolutions of nineteen ninety-one, and 2003-2864, at fifteen hours twenty minutes on April ninth, two thousand three, of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional).)\n\n<b>VI- ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBDIVISION (FRACCIONAMIENTO) AND URBANIZATION PROCESSES.- </b> Due to the significance derived from the legal implications entailed by subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization processes, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of both concepts. Thus,\n\n\"<b><i>Subdivision (Fraccionamiento)</i></b><i>, is the division of a plot of land with the purpose of introducing it into commerce, which presupposes, as each local government must verify when granting the corresponding approval (visado), that it conforms, in terms of size and characteristics, to the urban planning provisions in force, especially to the local regulatory plan for land use (Plan Regulador) –if one exists– as well as to the development regulations and other special public order laws. The subdivision (fraccionamiento) that the law calls <b>“simple” (simple), </b>does not include a process of urban enablement for the use and enjoyment of the parcels resulting from that subdivision (fraccionamiento), and this is so because the legislator assumes that, in these cases, the properties already have access ways and green areas resulting from a prior urban development. It is for this reason that article 40 of the Urban Planning Law provides:</i>\n\n\"<i>(…)Likewise, <b><u>simple subdivisions (fraccionamientos) of parcels in previously urbanized areas</u></b> are excepted from the obligation to cede areas for parks and community facilities…\" (the highlighting is not from the original). </i>\n\n<i>When a specific area is previously urbanized, the acquirers of the subdivided parcels have access to the properties, parks, and community facilities, and it must not be overlooked that this is part of their right to enjoy a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (article 50 of the Constitution). For this reason –it is reiterated– the legislator has not deemed it necessary to demand, in the case of a “simple” subdivision (fraccionamiento) with urban development, greater endowments of land for reasons of social interest. The approval (visado) for simple subdivisions (fraccionamientos), due to its little significance, is usually granted by an official (e.g., Municipal Engineer) different from the one entrusted with “complex” approvals (visados) (e.g., Municipal Council, urban planning commissions, etc.), the former lacking the competence to authorize a different approval (visado); that is in the event that the urban planning norms make such a distinction. Now then, <b><u>the subdivision (fraccionamiento) that is part of the urbanization process</u> </b>and that entails an enablement of the properties <b><u>for the first time, for urban purposes</u>,</b> must be provided with <b><u>streets, green areas, and parks</u></b>, as well as the <b><u>public services (servicios)</u></b> necessary for their use and enjoyment. In this second case, we are dealing with <u>a complex process of subdivision (fraccionamiento) and urbanization that introduces</u> limitations on private property for urban planning reasons (article 22 of the Urban Planning Law), which the Constitutional Tribunal has indicated are entirely in conformity with the Law of the Constitution (Voto N° 5097-93 at 10:24 hrs on October 15, 1993). The residential project or subdivision (fraccionamiento) which we will call “complex,” is provided for in numeral 40 of the Urban Planning Law which, as pertinent, provides:</i>\n\n\"<i><b>Every subdivider (fraccionador)</b> <b>of land</b> (…) and every <b>urbanizer (urbanizador)</b> shall cede free of charge for public use both the areas destined for roads and those corresponding to parks and community facilities; what is established for the latter two concepts shall be determined in the respective regulation, by fixing percentages of the total area to be subdivided or urbanized, which may fluctuate between five percent and twenty percent, according to the average size of the lots, the intended use of the land, and the relevant norms. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the sum of the lands to be ceded for public roads, parks, and community facilities shall not exceed forty-five percent of the total surface area of the land to be subdivided or urbanized. (…)</i>\n\n<i>The urbanizer’s (urbanizador) obligation to provide the subdivided parcels with access ways, green zones, parks, public roads, obliges them to comply with the urban provisions that establish minimum standards regarding space, quality, quantity, and other requirements demanded by law and the development regulations regarding those areas. The local government must exercise its police power in a timely manner, guaranteeing to the residents of the canton that the works will be carried out in the manner indicated by the urban planning norms and under the conditions those norms provide. <u>It suffices that a parceling requires works to enable access and provide diverse services to some of those properties, to maintain that <b>there is no</b> “simple subdivision (fraccionamiento),” but rather a residential project that must, consequently, fulfill all the indicated requirements.</u> Urban residential projects can only enable access to the properties through <b><u>public roads</u></b> that must have the dimensions and requirements of the General Public Roads Law and, the National Control Regulation for Subdivisions (Fraccionamientos) and Urbanizations (Reglamento para el Control Nacional de Fraccionamientos y Urbanizaciones), in the absence –in this last case– of concrete provisions in the local norms. None of the municipal bodies has the competence to authorize a project in which the enablements to the properties are made through <b>“cobblestone agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas adoquinadas)”</b>, <b>\"agricultural easements (servidumbres agrícolas)\" or “simple easements (simples servidumbres),” </b>since these are figures typical of Private Law and not of the residential urban planning regime which is governed by the norms and principles of Public Law.</i>\" (Resolutions number 175-2009 and 176-2009, cited above.)\n\nAccordingly, the control that the local government is responsible for verifying is of special interest, in this case <b><i>entrusted to the deliberative body (Council)</i></b>, when dealing with the approval of construction permits for urbanizations, since it must corroborate that it fully complies with the legal requirements, namely the endowment of public roads, green and community areas, and especially –of relevance for the resolution of this matter– the enablement and implementation, by the urbanizer (urbanizador), of public services (servicios públicos), such as electricity, telephone, potable water, aqueducts, and sewers, the latter, in the event that the infrastructure for it exists. Consequently, the failure to adapt urban development projects to the requirements established in the urban legal system obliges –<i>per se</i>– the rejection of the filed procedures, in application of the principle of legality, which subjects the entire state apparatus, of which the municipalities form a part.\""
}