{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-539408", "citation": "Res. 00018-2012 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Imposibilidad de operar una cementera en San Rafael de Alajuela por zonificación incompatible", "title_en": "Cement plant cannot operate in San Rafael de Alajuela due to incompatible zoning", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III, actuando como jerarca impropio municipal, anula la resolución del Alcalde de Alajuela que había otorgado un certificado de uso de suelo para patente a la empresa Comercializadora de Concreto y Asfalto Comcoas S.A. para operar una molienda de cemento en San Rafael de Ojo de Agua. El Tribunal determina que la empresa ocultó su verdadera intención de construir una cementera, limitándose inicialmente a solicitar un uso de suelo para una planta de agregados. A través de un análisis detallado de la normativa urbanística —incluyendo el Plan Regulador de Alajuela y el Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Áreas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana—, el Tribunal concluye que una cementera es una industria pesada no permitida en la Subzona Industrial Central de San Rafael, la cual solo admite actividades de Zona Tipo Dos, mientras que las cementeras requieren una Zona Tipo Tres (Ochomogo, Coris o Ciruelas). Se rechaza la defensa de falta de legitimación de la asociación apelante, reconociendo un interés legítimo basado en la protección del ambiente sano (artículo 50 constitucional) y en la normativa municipal. Al ser un análisis de legalidad objetiva, el Tribunal anula el acto impugnado por contravenir la zonificación aplicable, dejando sin efecto el uso de suelo otorgado.", "summary_en": "The Administrative Litigation Court, acting as a municipal improper hierarch, annulled the decision by the Mayor of Alajuela that had granted a land-use certificate for a business license to Comcoas S.A. to operate a cement grinding mill in San Rafael de Ojo de Agua. The Court determined that the company concealed its true intention to build a cement plant, initially only requesting land use for an aggregates facility. Through a detailed analysis of zoning regulations —including the Alajuela Regulating Plan and the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area—, the Court concluded that a cement plant is a heavy industry not permitted in the Central Industrial Subzone of San Rafael. This subzone only allows Type Two Zone activities, whereas cement plants require a Type Three Zone (Ochomogo, Coris, or Ciruelas). The standing challenge from the appealing association was rejected, recognizing a legitimate interest based on the right to a healthy environment (Article 50 of the Constitution) and municipal law. As an objective legality review, the Court annulled the appealed act for violating applicable zoning, voiding the granted land use.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección III", "date": "2012", "year": "2012", "topic_ids": [ "procedural-environmental" ], "primary_topic_id": "procedural-environmental", "es_concept_hints": [ "plan regulador", "uso del suelo", "jerarquía impropia", "zonificación parcial áreas industriales", "legitimación difusa", "artículo 50 Constitución", "acción popular", "Zona Tipo Dos / Tipo Tres" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 50", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 45", "law": "Constitución Política" }, { "article": "Art. 81", "law": "Código Municipal" }, { "article": "Art. 153", "law": "Código Municipal" }, { "article": "Art. 28", "law": "Ley de Planificación Urbana" }, { "article": "Art. 24", "law": "Ley de Planificación Urbana" }, { "article": "Art. 134", "law": "Plan Regulador Cantón Central Alajuela" }, { "article": "Arts. 1-2, 1-3 y Sección 3", "law": "Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Áreas Industriales en la GAM" } ], "keywords_es": [ "uso del suelo", "cementera", "zonificación", "Plan Regulador", "Alajuela", "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo", "jerarquía impropia", "nulidad", "licencia constructiva", "patente municipal", "legitimación", "ambiente sano", "industria pesada", "áreas industriales", "INVU" ], "keywords_en": [ "land use", "cement plant", "zoning", "Regulatory Plan", "Alajuela", "Administrative Litigation Court", "improper hierarchy", "nullity", "construction permit", "municipal license", "standing", "healthy environment", "heavy industry", "industrial areas", "INVU" ], "excerpt_es": "De lo descrito resulta evidente que el análisis de la reglamentación aplicable realizado por el Alcalde de Alajuela, en la resolución venida en alzada, es jurídica y técnicamente incorrecto, acarreando serios vicios en su contenido y en su fundamentación, que llegan a transgredir inclusive el fin mismo del uso del suelo expedido, en el tanto se infringe -de manera grosera- la ordenación territorial de San Rafael de Alajuela, declarando, erróneamente, la posibilidad de que opere una cementera en contraposición con el texto reglamentario de cita que tiene valor normativo de ley en sentido material. Por ende, los fundamentos de la defensa de la empresa, tendientes a que se apliquen los artículos 129 y 130 del Reglamento de Uso del Suelo del cantón de Alajuela, son técnicamente incorrectos, pues realizan una lectura sesgada del contenido íntegro de las normas indicadas, debiendo ser rechazados en este acto. \n\nAsí las cosas, habiéndose esclarecido entonces que no es posible que una empresa de ese tipo opere en San Rafael de Alajuela, pues el Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Áreas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana, aprobado por el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo en sesión de su Junta Directiva en el artículo 10 de la sesión ordinaria número 3623, del 6 de mayo de 1985, al que hace referencia expresamente el artículo 134 del Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de Alajuela, respecto de los usos condicionales de la Zona Industrial Central de San Rafael de Ojo de Agua, sólo permite tal actividad en Ochomogo, Coris y Ciruelas -o sea, alejada de núcleos urbanos muy poblados-. En la realidad, una industria de ese tipo fue levantada por la Nombre147 S.A. en San Rafael de Alajuela, específicamente en la finca con matrícula de folio real Placa17173, por lo que jurídicamente resulta inviable el otorgamiento del certificado de uso de suelo para la actividad de cementera.", "excerpt_en": "From the foregoing, it is clear that the analysis of applicable regulations by the Mayor of Alajuela in the appealed decision is legally and technically incorrect, carrying serious flaws in its content and reasoning, which even contravene the very purpose of the issued land use, grossly violating the territorial ordinance of San Rafael de Alajuela by erroneously declaring the possibility of operating a cement plant contrary to the cited regulatory text that has the normative value of material law. Therefore, the defense's arguments seeking application of Articles 129 and 130 of the Alajuela Land Use Regulation are technically incorrect, as they perform a biased reading of the full content of the indicated norms and must be rejected hereby.\n\nThus, it having been clarified that such a company cannot operate in San Rafael de Alajuela, because the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area, approved by the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism in Article 10 of the ordinary session number 3623 of May 6, 1985, to which Article 134 of the Zoning Regulation of the Alajuela Regulating Plan expressly refers regarding conditional uses of the Central Industrial Zone of San Rafael de Ojo de Agua, only permits such activity in Ochomogo, Coris, and Ciruelas—i.e., away from densely populated urban centers—, the construction of such an industry by Nombre147 S.A. in San Rafael de Alajuela, specifically on the property with real folio number Placa17173, renders the granting of a land-use certificate for cement plant activity legally unfeasible.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Annuled", "label_es": "Anulada", "summary_en": "The Court annulled the Mayor's resolution granting land use, concluding that a cement plant is incompatible with the site's zoning.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal anuló la resolución del Alcalde que otorgaba el uso de suelo, por concluir que una cementera es incompatible con la zonificación del lugar." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando IX", "quote_en": "… the municipal improper hierarchy is, par excellence, the appropriate administrative avenue to declare its annulment, as provided by Articles 173 of the Political Constitution and 156 of the Municipal Code…", "quote_es": "… la jerarquía impropia municipal sí es, por excelencia, la vía administrativa idónea para decretar su anulación, conforme lo disponen los artículos 173 de la Constitución Política y 156 del Código Municipal…" }, { "context": "Considerando XII", "quote_en": "… the described events lead only to the conclusion that the project was conceived from the beginning as a cement plant, but fraudulently processed before the Municipality of Alajuela as one of lesser impact.", "quote_es": "… los acontecimientos descritos no permiten más que arribar a la conclusión de que el proyecto, desde un inicio fue ideado como una cementera, pero tramitado fraudulentamente ante la Municipalidad de Alajuela como uno de menor impacto." }, { "context": "Considerando XIII", "quote_en": "From the indicated regulation, one can only conclude that under prevailing land use, for a cement plant to operate under the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area, it can only do so in a Type Three industrial zone, i.e., in Ochomogo, Coris, and Ciruelas.", "quote_es": "De la regulación indicada, no se puede más que concluir que conforme al uso del suelo imperante, para que una cementera pueda funcionar bajo la regulación contenida en el Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Áreas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana, únicamente lo puede hacer en la zona industrial tipo tres, o sea, en Ochomogo, Coris y Ciruelas." }, { "context": "Considerando VIII", "quote_en": "This observation is essential to recognize the broad standing that covers private individuals and to achieve the application of urbanistic norms which have the collateral purpose of protecting the environment and, connectedly, obtaining a favorable development and evolution of the human being under Article 50 of the Constitution, which establishes a true popular action for the protection of this fundamental right.", "quote_es": "Esta observación es esencial para reconocer la amplia legitimación que le cubre a los particulares y lograr la aplicación de las normas urbanísticas que tienen como finalidad colateral dar protección al ambiente y, de manera conexa, obtener un desarrollo y evolución favorable del ser humano en aplicación del numeral 50 constitucional que establece una verdadera acción popular para la tutela de este derecho fundamental." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-539408", "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": [], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "Exp. No. 10-00 3992 -1027-CA\n\n \n\nNo 18 -201 2\n\nSECCIÓN TERCERA DEL TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, Anexo A, Dirección01 , Goicoechea, a las nueve horas del veintisiete de enero del dos mil d oce.\n\nConoce este Tribunal, en su condición de jerarca impropio municipal, del recurso de apelación municipal per saltum promovido por Nombre2882, mayor, casado, con cédula de identidad número […], en su condición de Presidente de la A contra la resolución de las once horas del veintiséis de agosto del d os mil diez, de la Alcaldía Municipal de Alajuela. Figura como tercera interesada la empresa Comercializadora de Concreto y Asfalto Comcoas Sociedad Anónima , representada por Marco Méndez Fonseca, cédula número CED77552 . \n\nRedacta la Juez Solano Ulloa, y: \n\nCONSIDERANDO: \n\nI.- SOLICITUD DE ACUMULACIÓN. En memorial presentado el 19 de diciembre del 2011, el señor Nombre317, solicitó acumulación de este asunto con el tramitado en expediente 10-2267-1027-CA. Aprecia este Tribunal que existe una clara conexidad de causas, en tanto son idénticos los intervinientes y en ambas se concreta la revisión integral de todo el trámite municipal gestionado por la empresa Nombre147 S.A., a efectos de llegar a obtener la licencia constructiva de la planta industrial ubicada en el Tajo San Rafael y, finalmente, su patente de funcionamiento. De haberse conocido a tiempo, sin duda la acumulación hubiere sido procedente y, por economía procesal y a efecto de evitar resoluciones contradictorias, así hubiere sido ordenado. Lamentablemente, este expediente superó la fase de tramitación y pasó a estudio para su análisis por el fondo de esta Cámara el 03 de noviembre del 2011, según se verifica en la constancia visible a folio 844 vuelto, momento para el cual ya se encontraba votado el expediente 10-2267-1027-CA, mediante resolución No. 410-2011 de las 14:50 horas del 31 de octubre del 2011 . Es por ello que, a estas alturas, la acumulación resulta inútil y, por ende, improcedente, rechazándose entonces la gestión formulada.\n\nII.- HECHOS PROBADOS. Se tienen como hechos relevantes para resolver el objeto de esta causa, los siguientes: 1) En oficio No. 1244/PU-U/08 de las 8:37 horas del 31 de julio del 2008, el Departamento de Planificación Urbana confirió uso de suelo para \"construcción de planta de agregados para construcción en el inmueble a nombre de Nombre52081 ., cédula número […] en el Registro de la Propiedad al tomo (sic), folio (sic) , número (sic), asiento (sic) folio real 2143636-000 el cual se describe en el plano catastrado No. Placa16660 que se ubica en el distrito de SAN RAFAEL Dirección Exacta, San Rafael de Alajuela. De acuerdo con el mapa de zonificación DEL PLAN REGULADOR URBANO DEL CANTÓN CENTRAL DE LA PROVINCIA DE ALAJUELA, PUBLICADO EN GACETA No. 182 DEL 17 DE SETIEMBRE DEL 2004, el inmueble arriba indicado se ubica en la zona clasificada como: ZONA INDUSTRIAL CENTRAL\". Específicamente, este uso de suelo se ubica en el llamado Tajo San Rafael, concesionado a la E (certificado de uso de suelo a folio 105, referencia de la ubicación por la ex-Alcaldesa en oficio No. 793-AM-EX-2009 del 07 de octubre del 2009 a folio 185); 2) Con base en el Contrato de Servicios Profesionales No. Placa17074 del 29 de agosto del 2008, la empresa Nombre147 S.A., presentó ante el Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, planos para levantar un edificio administrativo, nave industrial, edificio de producto terminado, torre de molienda, torre de silos, obras eléctricas, obra mecánica área de secado y plantas de conjunto que incluyen caminos de acceso, patios de estacionamiento, caseta de guarda, subestación eléctrica y área de pesaje, con un área total de 25.000 mts2 (contrato a folios 108 a 113, informe No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 del 08 de diciembre del 2009, visible a folios 199 a 214, oficio DE-0147-10-01 del 11 de enero del 2010, del CFIA, a folios 740 a 743); 3) De los planos indicados, el citado colegio profesional únicamente tasó las obras de edificio administrativo y la nave industrial (o bodega de materia prima), con un área total de 3946mts2 y un valor estimado de ¢771.680.000,00. El resto del proyecto no fue tasado por no indicar detalles constructivos (ver informe No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 del 08 de diciembre del 2009, visible a folios 199 a 214, oficio DE-0147-10-01 del 11 de enero del 2010, del CFIA, a folios 740 a 743); 4) Los planos de las citadas obras tasadas por el colegio fueron presentados ante la Municipalidad de Alajuela por la D S.A., a efecto de obtener licencia constructiva para industria, con idéntica medida y valor. El permiso constructivo de ambas edificaciones fue aprobado mediante resolución No. 1090/SPU/08 del 2 de diciembre del 2008 del Departamento de Proceso de Planeamiento y Construcción de Infraestructura, autorizándose, por ende, únicamente la construcción de una nave industrial y edificio administrativo ( ver solicitud a folio 134, contrato a folio 111, permiso a folio 148); 5) Sobre la base del uso del suelo No. 1244/PU/U/08, el Area Rectora de Salud de Alajuela, expidió un \"PERMISO DE UBICACIÓN PARA MOLIENDA DE CEMENTO EN ZONA INDUSTRIAL CENTRAL, SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA\", con número ARSA-1023-08 del 12 de setiembre del 2008 (folio 128); 6) En un segundo plano presentado por la empresa ante el CFIA el 14 de setiembre del 2009, se planteaba un rediseño estructural de las obras correspondientes a edificio de producto terminado, torre de molienda, torre de silos y materia prima o nave industrial. De ellos, únicamente fueron tasados el edificio de producto terminado, la torre de molienda y la torre de silos, para un total de 2.325.38mts2 (ver informe No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 del 08 de diciembre del 2009, visible a folios 199 a 214, oficio DE-0147-10-01 del 11 de enero del 2010, del CFIA, a folios 740 a 743); 7) Según informó a Nombre3456 el ingeniero Emilio Garro Rojas, Regente Ambiental del Proyecto, en memorial de fecha 29 de setiembre de ese año, la empresa inició la edificación de todo un complejo en junio del 2009, el cual comprendía la construcción de instalaciones mecánicas e industriales de molienda de cemento tipo Portland y despacho de producto a granel y ensacado. Estas construcciones se empezaron sin los permisos constructivos, los cuales para esa fecha no se habían presentado para su licencia respectiva ante la Municipalidad (folio 177); 8) El Inspector Nombre147, del CFIA, previa visita al lugar, emitió el informe No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 del 08 de diciembre del 2009, en donde comunicó el levantamiento de todo el proyecto en su conjunto, que incluía: las obras que contaban con tasación del gremio y permiso municipal (No. 1090/SPU-108 del 2 de diciembre del 2008 para edificio administrativo y la nave industrial), las obras tasadas pero carentes de licencia constructiva (subestación eléctrica, torre de silos, torre de molienda y edificio de producto terminado), y las obras carentes tanto de tasado como de licencia (camino de acceso, patios, estacionamientos, caseta de guarda) (ver informe No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 del 08 de diciembre del 2009, visible a folios 199 a 214, oficio DE-0147-10-01 del 11 de enero del 2010, del CFIA, a folios 740 a 743; 9) El 05 de abril del 2010, el señor Nombre317, en su condición de representante de D S.A., gestionó ante la Municipalidad, dos permisos de construcción sin especificar qué obras comprendía, estimada una de ella en la suma de ¢39.104.00,oo y la otra en la suma de ¢1.087.195.200. (gestión a folios 383 y 384) 10) La licencia constructiva fue aprobada por la Alcaldía Municipal, en resolución de las 10:00 del 9 de junio del 2010, en la que ordenó al Sub Proceso de Planificación Urbana emitir la ampliación del permiso de construcción solicitado, con la finalidad de que se generara la carga tributaria correspondiente. Dicho permiso se expidió bajo el número MA-SPU-PA-0746-2010 del 24 de setiembre del 2010, para un área de construcción de 5819,38 mts2 adicionales, con un valor estimado de ¢488.041.645,30, para levantar las obras contenidas en el segundo plano tasado (torre de molienda, torre de silo, edificio de producto terminado y despacho y subestación eléctrica), (resolución a folios 512 a 519, permiso a folios 596 a 600); 11) Con trámite US-7415, la empresa Nombre147 S.A., solicitó certificado de uso de suelo para operación de molienda, empaque y comercialización de cemento, el cual resultó rechazado mediante resolución No. MA-PU-US-504-2010 de las 10:30 horas del 17 de mayo del 2010, del Ingeniero Nombre5836, Director del Proceso de Planeamiento y Construcción de Infraestructura de la Municipalidad de Alajuela, indicando que \"De acuerdo con el mapa de zonificación DEL PLAN REGULADOR DEL CANTON CENTRAL DE LA PROVINCIA DE ALAJUELA, PUBLICADO EN GACETA No. 182 DEL 17 DE SETIEMBRE DEL 2004, el inmueble arriba indicado se ubica en la zona clasificada como ZONA INDUSTRIAL CENTRAL.- En consecuencia, el uso pretendido resulta: RECHAZADO con la zonificación impuesta por esta municipalidad.- Asimismo se indica que dicha actividad NO CUMPLE con lo establecido en el artículo II inciso 44 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 34728-S del Ministerio de Salud en lo referente a Retiros y Zonas especiales\" (folio 802); 12) Inconforme con lo resuelto, el 11 de junio del 2010, el representante de la empresa Nombre147 S.A., interpuso recurso de apelación y nulidad concomitante, el cual resultó acogido en resolución de las 11:00 horas del 26 de agosto del 2010, del Alcalde de Alajuela a.i., Lic. Luis Alonso Gutiérrez Herrera, en el cual otorgó el uso de suelo para patente para la actividad de producción de cemento a partir de la molienda de materias primas, empaque y comercialización (folios 679 a 686); 13) En contra de la anterior resolución, el 10 de setiembre del 2010, el señor Nombre2882, en su condición de Presidente de la A sociación de D esarrollo I ntegral de S an R afael de O jo de A gua de A lajuela , interpuso recurso de apelación (folio 1); 14) El 17 de noviembre del 2010, la Asociación indicada presentó ante este Tribunal, apelación Per Saltum en razón de que su recurso no había sido elevado ante este órgano colegiado (folios 3 y 4).\n\nIII.- HECHO NO PROBADO. No demostró la empresa Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A., los siguientes hechos de relevancia: 1) Haber presentado ante la Municipalidad de Alajuela la totalidad del proyecto constructivo (los autos); 2) Que la industria de cemento sea considerada como liviana (los autos); 3) Que se haya impugnado el certificado de uso del suelo NO. 1244/PU-U/08 (los autos).\n\nIV.- CONTENIDO DEL ACTO IMPUGNADO. Para tener claridad sobre el objeto de esta apelación, a raíz de la complejidad de la resolución venida en alzada, se procede a realizar un resumen de su contenido, lo cual ha de facilitar la comprensión de lo que posteriormente se resuelve. El Alcalde a.i. de Alajuela, Lic. Luis Alonso Gutiérrez Herrera, mediante resolución de las 11:00 horas del 26 de agosto del 2010, acogió el recurso de apelación y nulidad concomitante interpuesto en contra del oficio MA-P-US-504-2010, de las 10:30 horas del 17 de mayo del 2010, del Director del Proceso de Planeamiento y Construcción de Infraestructura de la Municipalidad de Alajuela, en el que se había rechazado el uso del suelo. En ese acto, otorgó el uso de suelo en la finca de la Provincia de Alajuela, con matrícula de folio real No. Placa17172, gestionado por la empresa Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A., indicando que \"se otorga el uso de suelo para patente permitido para la actividad de producción de cemento a partir de la molienda de materias primas, empaque y comercialización\", sobre las base de cuatro aspectos esenciales: 1) La naturaleza de derecho subjetivo del certificado de uso del suelo contenido en el oficio No. 1244/PU-U/08 del 31 de julio del 2008, por el Departamento de Planificación Urbana, invocando la jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional contenida en las sentencias Nos. 01098-2003 de las 16:40 horas del 11 de febrero del 2003 y 4715-2006 de las 11:39 horas del 31 de marzo del 2006, según las cuales el uso del suelo genera una situación jurídica consolidada, por lo que desconocer sus efectos obliga a la Administración a seguir el procedimiento establecido en el artículo 308 y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en aplicación del principio de la intangibilidad de los actos propios. 2) La existencia de dos categorías de uso de suelo previstos en el Plan Regulador del cantón, sea para construcción o para el otorgamiento de la respectiva patente. 3) Con una redacción confusa, expone el Alcalde a.i. que el oficio No. 1244/PUI/U/08 del 31 de julio del 2008, del Departamento de Planificación Urbana, confirió un uso de suelo para construcción, estimando que en el asunto que revisa se trata de una gestión diferente, a saber, un uso de suelo para patente, por lo que no se le pueden exigir los requisitos de la anterior,referidos a obtener los permisos de construcción. Estima que lo resuelto en el oficio MA-PU-US-504-2010 desconoce la autorización de la actividad previamente conferida. 4) Con base en la consulta realizada al Subproceso de Planificación Urbana, en oficio No. MA-SPU-989-2010 del 24 de agosto del 2010, en aplicación de las normas de zonificación del Plan Regulador Urbano del cantón, Título XVII, Capítulo I, artículo 129, la propiedad en estudio se encuentra en la subzona industrial central y fuera de la zona de amortiguamiento, en la cual se permiten los usos complementarios a la industria, siendo que la actividad pretendida es de carácter industrial. 5) Que las exigencias de permisos constructivos y de cumplir con los requisitos del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34728-S del Ministerio de Salud, contenidas el oficio MA-P-US-504-2010, de las 10:30 horas del 17 de mayo del 2010, era carente de fundamentación, razón por la que consideró nulo el oficio indicado. \n\nV.- MOTIVOS DEL RECURSO. Aunado al abundante elenco fáctico que expone la parte apelante, en lo que atañe directamente a la impugnación del uso del suelo conferido por el Alcalde Municipal -que es en estricto el objeto de esta apelación-, en resumen, sostiene la organización recurrente lo siguiente: Que el uso del suelo conferido a la firma D S.A, mediante resolución de las 8:37 horas del 31 de julio del 2008, emitido por el Subproceso de Planificación Urbana de la Municipalidad de Alajuela, lo fue solamente para la \"construcción de planta de agregados para la construcción\". Manifiesta que las obras levantadas por la empresa Nombre147 S.A. lo fueron a efecto de poner en operación una cementera, la cual incluye edificio de producto terminado, torre de silos, torre de molienda, camino de acceso, patios, estacionamientos, caseta de guarda, subestación eléctrica, obras mecánicas, área de secado, obras exteriores eléctricas y el área de pesaje, edificaciones que además carecen de licencia municipal, lo cual había dado origen al Acta de Clausura de Construcción No. 241-2009 de las 11:35 horas del 09 de noviembre del 2009. Agrega la organización recurrente, que el uso de suelo solicitado para la actividad de la producción de cemento de materias primas, empaque y comercialización fue rechazada mediante el oficio No. MA-PU-US-504-2010 por el ingeniero Nombre5836, por no resultar conforme la actividad con el Plan Regulador vigente. A pesar de ello, en la resolución de las 11:00 horas del 26 de agosto del 2010 -venida en alzada-, el Alcalde acogió el recurso de apelación interpuesto en contra de esa actuación que había rechazado la constancia de uso del suelo para \"molienda de cemento\", otorgando un certificado de uso del suelo para una actividad cuya infraestructura se construyó sin las licencias legales que exige la Ley de Construcciones y con un uso de suelo autorizado distinto. Manifiesta la apelante que existe una incompatibilidad entre el uso del suelo otorgado y el Plan Regulador, toda vez que la fábrica de cemento está ubicada dentro de la Zona Industrial Central del area de San Rafael de Ojo de Agua de Alajuela, la cual está regulada en el Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Areas Industriales en la Gran Area Metropolitana por remisión expresa del artículo 134 del Plan Regulador del Cantón de Alajuela. Según dicha normativa, estima, en San Rafael de Alajuela únicamente se puede establecer industrias clasificadas como clase 2, y no una planta de producción de cemento, la cual requiere de una localización especial en zona clase 3, alejada de cualquier centro poblacional, que requiere además, el pronunciamiento previo del INVU y del Ministerio de Salud.\n\nVI.- POSICIÓN DE LA EMPRESA Nombre147 S.A. Sin obviar los extensos alegatos de defensa expuestos por la empresa Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A., considerados en su amplitud por este Tribunal, respecto del uso del suelo de la planta que tiene a su haber, indica lo siguiente: Que este asunto ha sido conocido por la Sala Constitucional con anterioridad, en las sentencia No. No. 2011-004428 del 1 de abril del 2011y 2011-13943 de las 11:36 horas del 14 de octubre del 2011, en que, respectivamente, desestimó dos recursos de amparo contra la instalación de la planta y tuvo como hecho no probado las irregularidades acusadas en el otorgamiento del permiso de construcción y en donde adicionalmente no tuvo comprobado, siquiera a nivel de duda razonable, \"que el proyecto de molienda sea un disfraz para una verdadera fábrica de cemento...\" En cuanto a la ubicación del proyecto, alega que tanto la Municipalidad de Alajuela como el Ministerio de Salud coinciden en que la zona donde opera la planta de Nombre147 es zona industrial, lo cual se verifica en el permiso expedido por el Ministerio de Salud y en el Uso del Suelo No. 1244/PU/U/08. Indica expresamente que \"la planta se está destinando para la fabricación de agregado para la construcción: cemento\". Esgrime que en todo caso, la actividad sí es conforme con el plan regulador pues éste establece, en el artículo 40 inciso f), que en zona urbana se puede desarrollar la actividad industrial, y que conforme lo establecen los artículos 129 y 130, se modificó el GAM, estableciéndose una Subzona Industrial Central en San Rafael, lo cual es reiterado en el Anexo 1, incluyendo que en las zonas de amortiguamiento también es posible ejercer actividades de índole comercial, como lo es la distribución. Acusa que la apelante carece de legitimación, puesto que el tema central es la falta de requisitos, siendo que el Código Municipal no otorga una legitimación tan amplia como para que intervenga un tercero que no es parte en una relación de petición y respuesta, y que no estamos en presencia de un tema de salud o medio ambiente, a efecto de ser legitimada por intereses difusos o colectivos. Agrega que no puede venir a invocar la nulidad de actos administrativos que ya otorgaron derechos subjetivos, por lo que no es la jerarquía impropia el procedimiento para decretar su anulación, y que, en aplicación del principio de que no hay nulidad sin daño, no existe prueba documental ni argumentación tendiente a demostrar los vicios en los permisos otorgados y que le generen un daño. \n\nVII.- ASPECTOS FUERA DE REVISIÓN EN ESTA INSTANCIA. Al margen del uso del suelo conferido, existe una serie de hechos invocados por los intervinientes que, si bien accesorios, no son útiles ni relevantes para resolver el objeto de esta alzada, tales como todo lo concerniente a la cancelación de credenciales de la ex-Alcaldesa de Alajuela, o las órdenes de cierre o clausura de la planta, e inclusive, los montos pagados por concepto de tasas municipales a raíz de los permisos constructivos conferidos. En todo caso, dentro del expediente No. 10-2267-1027-CA, que culminó con la resolución No. 410-2011 ya indicada, de este mismo Tribunal, se dispuso la nulidad de la resolución de las diez horas del nueve de junio del dos mil diez, dictada por el Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Alajuela , la cual se consideró nula por transgresión al bloque de legalidad, por aprobar la ampliación de la licencia constructiva y retasación de las obras ante un incumplimiento de los requisitos establecidos en el ordenamiento jurídico para este tipo de gestión y proyecto, así como las actuaciones accesorias de tal acto administrativo. Ello es importante pues las partes intervinientes tienden a replantear una vez más los antecedentes de las licencias constructivas y retasaciones, que, si bien relacionadas con este expediente, ya han sido analizados por esta Cámara en la resolución indicada. Así las cosas, la empresa invoca que la Sala Constitucional, en la sentencia No. 2011-13943 de las 11:36 horas del 14 de octubre del 2011 desestimó un recurso de amparo contra la instalación de la planta, en la cual tuvo como hecho no probado \"que haya habido irregularidades en el otorgamiento del permiso de construcción municipal al proyecto de industrialización Tajo Meco, que luego de dicho permiso la empresa haya excedido lo permitido, o que la Municipalidad de Alajuela haya permitido irregularidades en la construcción\". Este tema no es objeto de revisión en esta ocasión dentro de este expediente, pues este recurso se limita a la revisión objetiva de la legalidad del uso del suelo conferido, análisis que a la fecha no ha realizado nuestro alto Tribunal Constitucional en la sentencia No. 2011-13943 de las 11:36 horas del 14 de octubre del 2011, y por ello no puede alegarse la existencia de la cosa juzgada, con fundamento en los citados fallos.\n\nVIII.- SOBRE LA LEGITIMACIÓN DE LA PARTE APELANTE. En el presente asunto, se ventila la correcta aplicación de las normas de zonificación contenidas en el Plan Regulador del cantón de Alajuela para el caso específico del proyecto presentado por la empresa Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A. La A acusa que se ha levantado una cementera en transgresión a las normas urbanísticas, actividad que estima está prohibida en la reglamentación de zonificación aplicable. Sobre este particular, debe indicarse que si bien la implementación de los planes urbanísticos tiene una incidencia directa sobre el ejercicio de los derechos fundamentales de la propiedad privada y de la libertad de empresa, en tanto del contenido de sus regulaciones se infiere también el desarrollo de la industria y comercio (artículos 45 y 47 de la Constitución Política), también colige la consiguiente tutela de otro derecho fundamental, sea, la de un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado (artículo 50 de la Constitución Política); tal y como lo consideró la Sala Constitucional desde las sentencias número 5303-93 y 3656-2006. Esta observación es esencial para reconocer la amplia legitimación que le cubre a los particulares y lograr la aplicación de las normas urbanísticas que tienen como finalidad colateral dar protección al ambiente y, de manera conexa, obtener un desarrollo y evolución favorable del ser humano en aplicación del numeral 50 constitucional que establece una verdadera acción popular para la tutela de este derecho fundamental. Asimismo, conforme lo regulan la Constitución Política en su ordinal 173 y el Código Municipal en el artículo 153, en materia municipal existe una amplia legitimación pues se admite que cualquier persona con interés legítimo pueda accesar a los medios impugnaticios, por lo que, para el caso en concreto, no existe duda de que la A, sí ostenta de legitimación para venir en reclamación de tales intereses, por lo que la defensa de falta de legitimación debe ser rechazada. \n\nIX.- OBJETO DE ESTA JERARQUÍA IMPROPIA: REVISIÓN DE LA LEGALIDAD DEL CERTIFICADO DE USO DEL SUELO. La objeción que hace la empresa, en el sentido de que no puede venirse por la vía de la jerarquía impropia a invocar la nulidad de actos administrativos que ya otorgaron derechos subjetivos, no es compartida por este Tribunal. En sentido totalmente contrario a lo expresado, la jerarquía impropia municipal sí es, por excelencia, la vía administrativa idónea para decretar su anulación, conforme lo disponen los artículos 173 de la Constitución Política y 156 del Código Municipal (para los acuerdos del Concejo Municipal) y el artículo 162 del Código Municipal (respecto de las actuaciones formales del Alcalde). Debe enfatizar este Tribunal que conforme lo disponen los numerales de referencia y 181 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, este órgano se limita a la mera revisión de la legalidad objetiva del acto impugnado, conforme se expuso supra. Asimismo, debe indicarse que lo resuelto por el Alcalde en la resolución indicada, no ha adquirido firmeza en razón de su impugnación, por lo que no se ha consolidado nada en favor de la empresa, debiendo esperar hasta que exista una acto administrativo definitivo que le resuelva su gestión. En todo caso, esta Sección reconoce que el certificado de uso de suelo si bien es un acto declarativo que se limita a indicar el uso del suelo permitido, sí tiene un impacto sobre la esfera de intereses legítimos del administrado, en el tanto su conferimiento se convierte en una \"habilitación\" necesaria para dar continuidad a la preparación de proyectos urbanísticos, constructivos o comerciales de los munícipes y, obviamente, para aspirar a la obtención de una venidera licencia municipal, previa verificación de la existencia de los demás requisitos de ley. Nótese que tal es la fuerza del certificado de uso del suelo, que cuando este resulta \"no conforme\", tiene el impacto de impedir al administrado la consecución de los pasos subsiguientes a efectos de obtener cualquiera de dichos permisos, mismo que resulta impugnable mediante la escalerilla recursiva municipal, hasta su agotamiento en sede administrativa ante este Tribunal en jerarquía impropia. Sin lugar a dudas, su conferimiento toca ese núcleo esencial de los intereses legítimos de los administrados que se refleja en ese derecho de hacer uso y disfrute de su propiedad inmueble, con la suficiente fuerza para abrirles espacio para planificar el desarrollo de proyectos e inversiones. Las autoridades locales deben, entonces, asumir responsablemente las consecuencias del otorgamiento de esta clase de instrumentos, asegurándose, mediante los elementos de la técnica disponibles y con dominio pleno de la regulación territorial vigente, el otorgamiento de los certificados de uso del suelo en absoluta certeza y credibilidad de su contenido. Precisamente, en razón de su importancia e impacto a nivel local, la revisión del uso del suelo que lleva a cabo este Tribunal, se hace mediante una confrontación con la normativa urbana cantonal, a efecto de determinar si la operación de una industria del peso de una cementera, puede operar o no en una zona que se acusa no es apta para ello. Asimismo, el hecho de que se descarte la producción de un daño ambiental a nivel de la Sala Constitucional, no presupone que no existan violaciones al principio de legalidad, labor encomendada a esta jerarquía impropia por disposición constitucional y legal, tal y como se ha explicado, previa al control jurisdiccional en sede contencioso-administrativa. \n\nX.- DE LA REGULACIÓN URBANÍSTICA. La planificación urbana es una competencia esencialmente local, según lo disponen los numerales 169 constitucional y 15 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, la cual regula todo lo concerniente a los planes reguladores, los cuales son la normativa de ordenamiento urbano de aplicación obligatoria para cada cantón, con base en la autorización del artículo 45 de la Constitución Política, que permite la imposición de limitaciones en el uso de la propiedad urbanística. Estas limitaciones tienden a impedir el desarrollo desordenado e impactante de las comunidades y pretender garantizar la coexistencia de las necesidades humanas de convivencia junto con el deber de brindar protección al medio ambiente. En concordancia con ello, el ordinal 81 del Código Municipal, establece que las licencias municipales para el ejercicio de actividades lucrativas, sólo pueden ser denegadas \"cuando la actividad sea contraria a la ley, la moral o las buenas costumbres, cuando el establecimiento no haya llenado los requisitos legales y reglamentarios o cuando la actividad, en razón de su ubicación física, no esté permitida por las leyes o, en su defecto, por los reglamentos municipales vigentes\" (el subrayado es agregado). La parte final de esta norma remite a la vinculancia de las regulaciones urbanísticas y el sometimiento que deben los administrados a las normas que ellas imponen por ser de orden público, pues éstas integran el contenido del derecho de propiedad, en tanto establecen el ámbito autorizado o legítimo de su ejercicio, bajo el entendido de que no se produce un despojo de la propiedad privada ni la privación del atributo primario del dominio. Asimismo, el artículo 24 de la Ley de Planificación Urbana, dispone que en los reglamentos de zonificación se debe incluir la determinación de los usos de la tierra, lo relativo a la localización, altura y área de construcción de las edificaciones; la superficie y dimensiones de los lotes, lo cual tiene directa incidencia en la densidad de la tierra; el tamaño de los retiros, patios y demás espacios abiertos, y cobertura del lote por edificios y estructuras; entre otros. El artículo 28 de la misma Ley, señala que el aprovechamiento de la tierra requiere del certificado de uso a efectos de determinar su compatibilidad con la regulación urbanística: \n\n\"Artículo 28.- Prohíbese aprovechar o dedicar terrenos, edificios, estructuras, a cualquier uso que sea incompatible con la zonificación implantada. En adelante, los propietarios interesados deberán obtener un certificado municipal que acredite la conformidad de uso a los requerimientos de la zonificación. Los usos ya existentes no conformes, deberán hacerse constar también con certificado que exprese tal circunstancia.\n\nCada reglamento de zonificación fijará la fecha a partir de la cual dichos certificados serán obligatorios.\"\n\n \n\nXI.- SOBRE LA NORMATIVA URBANÍSTICA DEL CANTON DE ALAJUELA APLICADA AL CASO CONCRETO. Siguiendo la línea normativa expuesta anteriormente, el Plan Regulador Urbano del Cantón de Alajuela, publicado en La Gaceta No. 182 de 17 de setiembre del 2004, dispuso que tanto para los efectos de construcción como de patente, el certificado de uso del suelo es requisito previo para el otorgamiento de tales licencias, de la forma en que seguidamente se transcribe:\n\n\"Artículo 12.—Para los efectos de permisos de construcción, ampliación, remodelación, restauración, demolición o reconstrucción de edificios o urbanizaciones, el administrado, persona física o jurídica, privada o pública, debe obtener previamente un Certificado de Uso del Suelo en el que se haga constar el uso permitido en el inmueble que se desea aprovechar, alineamientos, frente mínimo, área mínima del lote, cobertura de construcción, así como condiciones dada la zona en que este se ubique...\" (resaltado agregado)\n\n\"Artículo 15.- Para el trámite de patentes también se exigirá la presentación del Certificado de Uso del Suelo correspondiente...\"\n\n \n\nConforme el texto resaltado de las normas transcritas, debe enfatizar este Tribunal, que el certificado de uso de suelo para efectos tanto constructivos como para ostentar patente, va aparejado, obvia y necesariamente, al uso que se pretenda dar a la edificación que se piensa levantar. Es por ello que el certificado de uso del suelo es uno sólo cuando se levanta primero la obra, y se exige para patente ante el supuesto de que se pretenda realizar una actividad lucrativa en una infraestructura ya existente. En el supuesto de que se levante una edificación, es obligación del administrado, en tanto es su deber someterse a la regulación urbana, anticipar que lo que aspira levantar para ejercer en ella una determinada actividad lucrativa -pues el proyecto es ideado como una sola unidad constructiva-, es permitida conforme la zonificación establecida. En el presente asunto, se verifica que en oficio No. 1244/PU-U/08 de las (:37 horas del 31 de julio del 2008, el Departamento de Planificación Urbana confirió a D S.A. el uso de suelo para \"construcción de planta de agregados para construcción\" en una finca que venía operando como tajo, donde se extraen arena y piedra necesarias para la construcción, lo cual resulta razonable según la actividad desarrollada y la pretendida. Sin embargo, del elenco de hechos probados, tiene por acreditado este Tribunal, que las verdaderas intenciones de la empresa eran la construcción y puesta en operación de una cementera, por las razones que se dirá en los siguientes Considerandos. \n\nXII.- SOBRE EL PROCEDIMIENTO IMPLEMENTADO. Continúa indicando el artículo 12 del Reglamento del Uso del Suelo del Cantón de Alajuela, que para proyectos superiores a 2500 mts 2 - como es el que está sometido a revisión-, además del certificado del uso del suelo, existe un procedimiento específico a efectos de obtener su aprobación, pues es necesario presentar la totalidad del proyecto y señalar las etapas constructivas. El texto se transcribe seguidamente: \n\n\"12.2. Requisitos para obtener un permiso de construcción en obras mayores a 30 metros cuadrados. El interesado debe llenar su solicitud, aportar 2 copias completas de los planos de construcción, una copia del plano catastrado con los alineamientos correspondientes, una copia de la póliza de riesgos. Se podrá autorizar permisos para edificaciones por etapas previamente numeradas en proyectos mayores a los 2500 m2 de construcción. El interesado deberá presentar el total del proyecto y señalar las respectivas etapas debidamente numeradas.\" (El subrayado es agregado)\n\nSin embargo, en el mes de julio del 2008, en el seno de la Municipalidad únicamente se conocía de la solicitud del uso del suelo para construcción de planta de agregados para la construcción, hecho que aparentaba ser razonable con los únicos planos que luego se le presentaron a efectos de obtener licencia constructiva, que eran a su vez, los únicos tasados por el Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, limitados a las obras de edificio administrativo y la nave industrial (o bodega de materia prima), con un área total de 3946mts2 y un valor estimado de ¢771.680.000,00. Nótese que para aquel momento, con el uso de suelo No. 1244/PU-U/08 del Departamento de Planificación Urbana, para planta de agregados para la construcción, más los planos presentados, se otorgó el permiso respectivo de ambas edificaciones mediante resolución No. 1090/SPU/08 del 2 de diciembre del 2008 del Departamento de Proceso de Planeamiento y Construcción de Infraestructura (folio 148), únicamente para tales obras que, se reitera, cubrían únicamente el edificio administrativo y nave industrial. No obstante lo anterior, la empresa tramitaba y obtuvo el \"PERMISO DE UBICACIÓN PARA MOLIENDA DE CEMENTO EN ZONA INDUSTRIAL CENTRAL, SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA\", con número ARSA-1023-08 del 12 de setiembre del 2008, expedido por el Area Rectora de Salud de Alajuela, en donde por primera vez se aprecia con exactitud las verdaderas intenciones de poner en operación una actividad lucrativa específica que se constituía como un proyecto superior a una mera planta de agregados para la construcción, pues sobre la base del uso del suelo existente, tramita y obtiene por parte del Ministerio de Salud, ahora sí, la aprobación de una molienda de cemento. Este hecho es esencial en la presente causa, pues casi simultáneamente se habían presentando los planos ante el Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, a efecto de levantar obras de gran envergadura, a saber: un edificio administrativo, nave industrial, edificio de producto terminado, torre de molienda, torre de silos, obras eléctricas, obra mecánica área de secado y plantas de conjunto que incluyen caminos de acceso, patios de estacionamiento, caseta de guarda, subestación eléctrica y área de pesaje, o sea, las instalaciones necesarias para levantar y poner en operación una cementera. Sin embargo, en irrespeto absoluto del artículo recién citado, que imponía \"presentar el total del proyecto y señalar las respectivas etapas debidamente numeradas\", en junio del 2009 se inició el levantamiento de toda la infraestructura de una cementera, cuyo uso de suelo nunca fue solicitado para tal fin, en la Municipalidad de Alajuela. Ello es aceptado por el propio informe del Regente Ambiental del Proyecto, ingeniero Nombre7575, en memorial de fecha 29 de setiembre de ese año, en donde reconocía la verdadera naturaleza de las obras: \"instalaciones mecánicas e industriales de molienda de cemento tipo Portland y despacho de producto a granel y ensacado\". No fue sino hasta el 14 de setiembre del 2009, que la empresa presentó un segundo plano ante el CFIA, en donde planteaba un rediseño estructural de las obras correspondientes a edificio de producto terminado, torre de molienda, torre de silos y materia prima o nave industria, obteniendo la tasación únicamente del edificio de producto terminado, la torre de molienda y la torre de silos, con un área total de 2.325.38 mts2 para luego obtener el permiso constructivo otorgado por el Alcalde en resolución de las 10:00 del 9 de junio del 2010, en la que ordenó al Sub Proceso de Planificación Urbana emitir la ampliación del permiso de construcción solicitado, cuando ya las obras estaban verdaderamente avanzadas. Inclusive, de manera ilegal se venían levantando las demás edificaciones cuyos planos permanecían carentes de la respectiva tasación del gremio profesional y, por ende, sin la correspondiente licencia municipal. Destaca este Tribunal que la única licencia conferida (1090/SPU/08 del 2 de diciembre del 2008), se otorgó a la luz del único uso de suelo existente, el cual se estima insuficiente para la operación o construcción de una cementera, pues era limitado a planta de agregados para la construcción, hecho que no analizó el Alcalde en ese momento en la resolución venida en alzada. Inclusive, aprecia esta Cámara un aspecto esencial que se deriva de la misma norma del Plan Regulador, a saber: que en el cantón de Alajuela, todo proyecto constructivo que supere los 2.500 metros cuadrados de superficie, debe ser presentado como una unidad ante las instancias municipales, en donde se deben analizar -dado su impacto- en su integralidad y completez, de modo que tal que las autoridades competentes verifiquen la legalidad del proyecto propuesto, a la luz del uso del suelo y de su posible construcción y entrada en operación futura. Los acontecimientos descritos no permiten más que arribar a la conclusión de que el proyecto, desde un inicio fue ideado como una cementera, pero tramitado fraudulentamente ante la Municipalidad de Alajuela como uno de menor impacto. Los procedimientos implementados por la empresa para levantar su proyecto se hicieron, definitivamente, al margen de las regulaciones urbanísticas respectivas citadas. Así pues, aún cuando la Sala Constitucional, en la sentencia No. 2011-004428 del 1 de abril del 2011, no tuvo por probado \"que el proyecto de molienda sea un disfraz para una verdadera fábrica de cemento...\", también fue clara al manifestarse en su último Considerando, en el sentido de que la revisión de la legalidad de los permisos no le correspondía por no ser materia de su competencia. De ello se concluye que, al ser este Tribunal es una vía que hace un estricto análisis de legalidad, nada obsta para que en esta ocasión sí se pueda tener por probada la existencia de la fábrica de cemento, pues en razón de las competencias de esta jerarquía impropia, se cuenta con amplias facultades para estudiar a profundidad y especificidad todas y cada una de las piezas del expediente administrativo a efectos probatorio y confrontarlas con el marco de legalidad, como en efecto se ha realizado. \n\nXIII.- SOBRE LA POSIBILIDAD DE OPERAR UNA CEMENTERA EN SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA. Bajo un parámetro del análisis de la realidad imperante, debe entenderse entonces, que la empresa Nombre147 S.A., construyó una cementera, con base en el único uso del suelo expedido por las autoridades locales, a saber, para \"planta de agregados para la construcción\". Fue ese primer uso del suelo, el que se utilizó como base para obtener su licencia constructiva y, luego, para conseguir el certificado de uso de suelo para patente para la actividad de producción de cemento a partir de la molienda de materias primas, empaque y comercialización. Al respecto, cabe considerar que es irregular solicitar otros certificados de uso de suelo distinto del necesario para la construcción de la obra, porque en sí mismo, está implícito que se levanta obra para que pueda funcionar. Exigir dos certificados de estos es exceso de trámite, pero si el uso del suelo no es conforme con la obra levantada, requieren justificarlo mediante otra actuación, que es cabalmente, la impugnada. Como ha quedado acreditado, su verdadero y específico giro comercial era el de operar una molienda de cemento, cosa que nunca se informó por los medios formales a las autoridades locales, lo que debió haber apreciado el Alcalde en su momento oportuno. Por el contrario, ese funcionario consideró que había un derecho adquirido sobre la base del primer certificado y, además, entendió que la normativa urbanística aplicable lo permite. Probablemente, las cosas hubieran tenido un resultado diferente, si desde un inicio, la empresa hubiera respetado los procedimientos de rigor ya citados, gestionando un uso de suelo para construir una cementera y presentando el proyecto en su totalidad. A criterio de esta Cámara, lo ocurrido fue una distracción de la información relevante de este proyecto, a efecto de obtener licencias parciales con base en las cuales pretendieron legitimar la construcción de un proyecto de mayor envergadura. Sobre este particular, cabe indicar que si los trámites hubieran sido respetados, el estudio de la regulación aplicable sólo hubiera permitido arribar a la conclusión de que en San Rafael de Alajuela, a pesar de ser una zona industrial, no es posible operar una cementera. A esta unívoca conclusión arriba este órgano colegiado, al estudiar con detenimiento el Reglamento de Uso de Suelo del Plan Regulador del cantón, Título XVII, pues más allá del artículo 40 invocado por la empresa (que describe las zonas urbana como aquellas en que se puede destinar la tierra a uso residencial, comercial, de servicios privados e institucionales y comunales, industrial, turística, de transporte y otras afines al proceso urbanístico ), los artículos aplicables que regulan el uso del suelo para el caso de interés, son el 129.1 y 130, que clasifican la zona de San Rafael como Subzona Industrial Central, en donde el uso del suelo es \"mixto en donde el uso predominante es el industrial, pero se permitirán uso recreativo, turístico, residencial y comercial\". De igual forma, el artículo 131 permite, como uso conforme, \"la industria liviana, no contaminante\", de donde no es posible concluir que una cementera pueda ser considerada como una industria liviana en tanto, del Reglamento de Procedimientos de la Nombre3456 se clasifica como una actividad que genera un moderado alto impacto en el ambiente. Por eso se debe determinar si resulta posible tenerlo como actividad permitida con uso condicional, siguiendo la normativa urbana aplicable. En lo que respecta a los \" usos condicionales \" , remite expresamente \"a los indicados en el Reglamento de Zonificación parcial de áreas industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana\" . En igual sentido y de importancia para esa causa, el artículo 134 del mencionado Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de Alajuela, dentro del mismo capítulo que regula los usos conformes de la subzona industrial -donde se encuentra San Rafael-, remite a la normativa contenida en el Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Áreas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana. Dispone dicho numeral: \n\n\"Artículo 134.—Usos conformes. Son los indicados en el Reglamento de Zonificación parcial de Áreas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana. De la lista del anexo Nº 1 el numeral 17. También se permiten los usos turísticos como los hoteles, centros recreativos, culturales y todos los demás usos permitidos en la zona de corredores turísticos, comerciales y de proyectos especiales, así como el uso residencial unifamiliar y multifamiliar.\"\n\n \n\nPor su parte, el remitido Reglamento de Zonificación P arcial de A reas I ndustriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana, aprobado por el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo en sesión de su Junta Directiva en el artículo 10 de la sesión ordinaria número 3623, del 6 de mayo de 1985 , clasifica a San Rafael de Ojo de Agua como una Zona tipo Dos (1-2), en donde se incluyen \"los establecimientos que tratan o elaboran materias primas\", mas no se encuentra dentro de sus treinta y seis Usos Permitidos, la posibilidad de que allí opere una cementera. Este tipo de actividad específica está regulada en el inciso 65) del Capitulo de Industrias tipo Tres (1-3), que las ubica únicamente en las localidades de Ochomogo, Coris y Ciruelas, por ser zonas que están \"relativamente alejadas de los núcleos urbanos muy poblados\", `por lo que permite actividades con un \"riesgo de molestias o contaminación mayor que las anteriores \". Existe una única permisibilidad de que en la Zona Tipo Dos -que contempla San Rafael de Ojo de Agua- , se permitan los usos de las zona tipo tres, \"siempre que se acredite que no producirán molestias mayores a las industrias indicadas en la lista precedente\" pero únicamente de las actividades determinadas en la primera lista, no de la segunda. Así, las industrias pesadas, tales como carboneras, quebradores de piedras, producción del alcohol, \"extracción de materiales, piedras, arenas y gravas\" -la actividad originaria de la empresa (inciso 20)- y \"fábricas de cemento\" (inciso 20), son seguidamente restringidas en la Sección 3 de Localizaciones Especiales, en donde se dispone que deben operar exclusivamente en la zona tipo 3, preferiblemente en áreas rurales, condicionadas a un previo estudio de cada caso y tomando las precauciones necesarias. Establece expresamente la norma que \"Las industrias indicadas en esta lista podrá ubicarse en una Z.1, tipo 3, siempre que demuestren que su proceso no producirá molestias, ruidos, vibraciones, gases, olores, desechos eliminables por agua: explosión en mayor grado del que normalmente genera esa zona\". De la regulación indicada, no se puede más que concluir que conforme al uso del suelo imperante, para que una cementera pueda funcionar bajo la regulación contenida en el Reglamento de Zonificación P arcial de A reas I ndustriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana , únicamente lo puede hacer en la zona industrial tipo tres, o sea, en Ochomogo, Coris y Ciruelas. De lo descrito resulta evidente que el análisis de la reglamentación aplicable realizado por el Alcalde de Alajuela, en la resolución venida en alzada, es jurídica y técnicamente incorrecto, acarreando serios vicios en su contenido y en su fundamentación, que llegan a transgredir inclusive el fin mismo del uso del suelo expedido, en el tanto se infringe -de manera grosera- la ordenación territorial de San Rafael de Alajuela, declarando, erróneamente, la posibilidad de que opere una cementera en contraposición con el texto reglamentario de cita que tiene valor normativo de ley en sentido material. Por ende, los fundamentos de la defensa de la empresa, tendientes a que se apliquen los artículos 129 y 130 del Reglamento de Uso del Suelo del cantón de Alajuela, son técnicamente incorrectos, pues realizan una lectura sesgada del contenido íntegro de las normas indicadas, debiendo ser rechazados en este acto. \n\nXIV.- COROLARIO.- El certificado de uso de suelo No. oficio No. 1244/PU-U/08 del 31 de julio del 2008, expedido por el Departamento de Planificación Urbana, se limitó a indicar que se permite para la \"construcción de planta de agregados para construcción en el inmueble a nombre de Nombre52081 ., cédula número CED78966 en el Registro de la Propiedad al tomo (sic), folio (sic) , número (sic), asiento (sic) folio real 2143636-000 el cual se describe en el plano catastrado No. Placa16660 que se ubica en el distrito de SAN RAFAEL Dirección Exacta, San Rafael de Alajuela. De acuerdo con el mapa de zonificación DEL PLAN REGULADOR URBANO DEL CANTÓN CENTRAL DE LA PROVINCIA DE ALAJUELA, PUBLICADO EN GACETA No. 182 DEL 17 DE SETIEMBRE DEL 2004, el inmueble arriba indicado se ubica en la zona clasificada como: ZONA INDUSTRIAL CENTRAL\". Este documento no es tan amplio como para declarar que se permite en esa zona, la explotación de una molienda de cemento. Dicho uso de suelo lo es exclusivamente para la actividad indicada, debiendo ser responsabilidad del empresario el acreditar ante las autoridades municipales, desde un principio, el verdadero uso que pretendía dar a la tierra. No es cierto que el contenido de ese primer uso del suelo abarque una planta industrial de cemento, cuya operación impone la implementación de maquinaria pesada y de mayor impacto ambiental. El análisis realizado por el Alcalde, a la hora de revisar el uso del suelo, equivoca el contenido de ese primer certificado, dándole uno inexistente y jurídicamente incorrecto, pues no ha conferido ningún derecho a favor de la Nombre147 S.A. a efecto de construir y operar una cementera, menos aún cuando se aprecia que se expidió a favor de otra persona jurídica (desarrollo e Inversiones Productivas DIP S.A.). Además, habiéndose esclarecido entonces que no es posible que una empresa de ese tipo opere en San Rafael de Alajuela, pues el Reglamento de Zonificación P arcial de A reas I ndustriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana, aprobado por el Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo en sesión de su Junta Directiva en el artículo 10 de la sesión ordinaria número 3623, del 6 de mayo de 1985, al que hace referencia expresamente el artículo 134 del Reglamento de Zonificación del Plan Regulador de Alajuela, respecto de los usos condicionales de la Zona Industrial Central de San Rafael de Ojo de Agua, sólo permite tal actividad en Ochomogo, Coris y Ciruelas -o sea, alejada de núcleos urbanos muy poblados-. En la realidad, una industria de ese tipo fue levantada por la Nombre147 S.A. en San Rafael de Alajuela, específicamente en la finca con matrícula de folio real Placa17173, por lo que jurídicamente resulta inviable el otorgamiento del certificado de uso de suelo para la actividad de cementera. Así las cosas, los agravios expresados en el recurso de apelación por parte de la A son de recibo, lo cual hace que la resolución del Alcalde de Alajuela, de las 11:00 horas del 26 de agosto del 2010, venida en alzada, sea absolutamente nula, lo cual se dispone en este acto. Por carecer de ulterior recurso, se da por agotada la vía administrativa. \n\n POR TANTO:\n\nSe rechaza la solicitud de acumulación de procedimientos. Se aula la resolución del Alcalde de Alajuela, de las 11:00 horas del 26 de agosto del 2010. Tome nota la Municipalidad, de lo considerado en esta resolución. Se da por agotada la vía administrativa.\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n Nombre66641\n\nNombre66641 \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n Evelyn Solano Ulloa Eduardo González Segura\n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nExp: 10-003992-1027-CA Apelación\n\nA", "body_en_text": "**Exp. No. 10-00 3992 -1027-CA**\n\n**No 18 -201 2**\n\n**THIRD SECTION OF THE CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Anexo A, Dirección01, Goicoechea, at nine o'clock on January twenty-seventh, two thousand twelve.**\n\nThis Tribunal, in its capacity as improper municipal hierarchical superior, hears the *per saltum* municipal appeal filed by Nombre2882, of legal age, married, with identity card number […], in his capacity as President of the A, against the resolution issued at eleven o'clock on August twenty-sixth, two thousand ten, by the Municipal Mayor's Office of Alajuela. The company Comercializadora de Concreto y Asfalto Comcoas Sociedad Anónima, represented by Marco Méndez Fonseca, identity card number CED77552, appears as an interested third party.\n\nJudge Solano Ulloa writes, and:\n\n**WHEREAS:**\n\n**I.- REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION.** In a brief filed on December 19, 2011, Mr. Nombre317 requested the consolidation of this matter with the one processed in case file 10-2267-1027-CA. This Tribunal considers that there is a clear connection of causes, as the intervening parties are identical and both involve the comprehensive review of the entire municipal procedure managed by the company Nombre147 S.A., aimed at obtaining the construction license for the industrial plant located in the Tajo San Rafael and, finally, its operating permit (patente de funcionamiento). Had this been known in time, consolidation would undoubtedly have been appropriate, and for reasons of procedural economy and to avoid contradictory rulings, it would have been ordered. Unfortunately, this case file surpassed the processing phase and entered study for analysis on the merits by this Chamber on November 3, 2011, as verified in the record visible on folio 844 verso, at which time case file 10-2267-1027-CA had already been voted on, through resolution No. 410-2011 at 14:50 hours on October 31, 2011. For this reason, at this stage, consolidation is useless and, therefore, inappropriate, and the filed petition is hereby rejected.\n\n**II.- PROVEN FACTS.** The following are considered relevant facts for resolving the subject matter of this case: 1) In official letter No. 1244/PU-U/08 at 8:37 hours on July 31, 2008, the Urban Planning Department granted land use (uso de suelo) for \"construction of a plant for construction aggregates on the property registered under the name of Nombre52081 ., identity card number […] in the Property Registry at volume (sic), folio (sic), number (sic), entry (sic) real folio 2143636-000 which is described in cadastral map No. Placa16660 located in the district of SAN RAFAEL Dirección Exacta, San Rafael de Alajuela. According to the zoning map of THE URBAN REGULATORY PLAN OF THE CENTRAL CANTON OF THE PROVINCE OF ALAJUELA, PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE No. 182 OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2004, the above-mentioned property is located in the zone classified as: CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE\". Specifically, this land use is located in the so-called Tajo San Rafael, concessioned to the E (land use certificate at folio 105, location reference by the former Mayor in official letter No. 793-AM-EX-2009 of October 7, 2009, at folio 185); 2) Based on the Professional Services Contract No. Placa17074 of August 29, 2008, the company Nombre147 S.A., filed with the Federated College of Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica, plans to erect an administrative building, industrial warehouse, finished product building, grinding tower, silo tower, electrical works, mechanical works for the drying area, and site plans including access roads, parking yards, guard house, electrical substation, and weighing area, with a total area of 25,000 mts2 (contract at folios 108 to 113, report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible at folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, at folios 740 to 743); 3) Of the indicated plans, the cited professional body only appraised the works for the administrative building and the industrial warehouse (or raw material warehouse), with a total area of 3946mts2 and an estimated value of ¢771,680,000.00. The rest of the project was not appraised for not indicating construction details (see report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible at folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, at folios 740 to 743); 4) The plans for the cited works appraised by the body were submitted to the Municipality of Alajuela by D S.A., in order to obtain a construction license (licencia constructiva) for industry, with identical measurement and value. The construction permit for both buildings was approved by resolution No. 1090/SPU/08 of December 2, 2008, from the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Construction Process, thus authorizing only the construction of an industrial warehouse and administrative building (see request at folio 134, contract at folio 111, permit at folio 148); 5) Based on the land use No. 1244/PU/U/08, the Governing Health Area of Alajuela issued a \"LOCATION PERMIT FOR CEMENT GRINDING IN THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE, SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA\", with number ARSA-1023-08 of September 12, 2008 (folio 128); 6) In a second plan submitted by the company before the CFIA on September 14, 2009, a structural redesign of the works corresponding to the finished product building, grinding tower, silo tower, and raw material or industrial warehouse was proposed. Of these, only the finished product building, the grinding tower, and the silo tower were appraised, for a total of 2,325.38mts2 (see report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible at folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, at folios 740 to 743); 7) As reported to Nombre3456 by engineer Emilio Garro Rojas, the Project's Environmental Superintendent, in a brief dated September 29 of that year, the company began the construction of an entire complex in June 2009, which included the construction of mechanical and industrial installations for grinding Portland-type cement and dispatching the product in bulk and bagged. These constructions were started without the construction permits, which by that date had not been submitted for their respective license to the Municipality (folio 177); 8) Inspector Nombre147, from the CFIA, after a site visit, issued report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, where he reported the erection of the entire project as a whole, which included: the works that had appraisal from the guild and a municipal permit (No. 1090/SPU-108 of December 2, 2008, for the administrative building and the industrial warehouse), the works appraised but lacking a construction license (electrical substation, silo tower, grinding tower, and finished product building), and the works lacking both appraisal and license (access road, yards, parking areas, guard house) (see report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible at folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, at folios 740 to 743; 9) On April 5, 2010, Mr. Nombre317, in his capacity as representative of D S.A., processed two construction permits before the Municipality without specifying which works they comprised, one estimated at the sum of ¢39,104.00 and the other at the sum of ¢1,087,195,200. (procedure at folios 383 and 384) 10) The construction license was approved by the Municipal Mayor's Office, in a resolution at 10:00 on June 9, 2010, in which it ordered the Urban Planning Sub-Process to issue the expansion of the requested construction permit, so that the corresponding tax burden would be generated. Said permit was issued under number MA-SPU-PA-0746-2010 of September 24, 2010, for an additional construction area of 5819.38 mts2, with an estimated value of ¢488,041,645.30, to erect the works contained in the second appraised plan (grinding tower, silo tower, finished product and dispatch building, and electrical substation), (resolution at folios 512 to 519, permit at folios 596 to 600); 11) Through procedure US-7415, the company Nombre147 S.A., requested a land use certificate for the operation of grinding, packaging, and marketing of cement, which was rejected by resolution No. MA-PU-US-504-2010 at 10:30 hours on May 17, 2010, issued by Engineer Nombre5836, Director of the Infrastructure Planning and Construction Process of the Municipality of Alajuela, stating that \"According to the zoning map of THE URBAN REGULATORY PLAN OF THE CENTRAL CANTON OF THE PROVINCE OF ALAJUELA, PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE No. 182 OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2004, the above-mentioned property is located in the zone classified as CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE.- Consequently, the intended use is: REJECTED with the zoning imposed by this municipality.- Likewise, it is indicated that said activity DOES NOT COMPLY with the provisions of Article II, subsection 44 of Executive Decree No. 34728-S of the Ministry of Health regarding Setbacks and Special Zones\" (folio 802); 12) Disagreeing with the decision, on June 11, 2010, the representative of the company Nombre147 S.A., filed a concomitant appeal (recurso de apelación y nulidad concomitante), which was granted in a resolution at 11:00 hours on August 26, 2010, by the Acting Mayor of Alajuela, Lic. Luis Alonso Gutiérrez Herrera, in which he granted land use for a permit (patente) for the activity of cement production from the grinding of raw materials, packaging, and marketing (folios 679 to 686); 13) Against the previous resolution, on September 10, 2010, Mr. Nombre2882, in his capacity as President of the Integral Development Association of San Rafael de Ojo de Agua de Alajuela, filed an appeal (recurso de apelación) (folio 1); 14) On November 17, 2010, the indicated Association filed a Per Saltum appeal before this Tribunal because its appeal had not been submitted to this collegiate body (folios 3 and 4).\n\n**III.- UNPROVEN FACT.** The company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A., did not demonstrate the following relevant facts: 1) Having submitted the entirety of the construction project to the Municipality of Alajuela (the case file); 2) That the cement industry is considered light (liviana) (the case file); 3) That land use certificate NO. 1244/PU/U/08 has been challenged (the case file).\n\n**IV.- CONTENT OF THE CHALLENGED ACT.** To have clarity on the subject matter of this appeal, due to the complexity of the resolution under appeal, a summary of its content is provided, which should facilitate the understanding of what is subsequently decided. The Acting Mayor of Alajuela, Lic. Luis Alonso Gutiérrez Herrera, by resolution at 11:00 hours on August 26, 2010, granted the concomitant appeal filed against official letter MA-P-US-504-2010, at 10:30 hours on May 17, 2010, from the Director of the Infrastructure Planning and Construction Process of the Municipality of Alajuela, which had rejected the land use. In that act, he granted land use on the property in the Province of Alajuela, with real folio registration number No. Placa17172, requested by the company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A., stating that \"land use for a permit is granted for the activity of cement production from the grinding of raw materials, packaging, and marketing,\" based on four essential aspects: 1) The nature of a vested right (derecho subjetivo) of the land use certificate contained in official letter No. 1244/PU-U/08 of July 31, 2008, by the Urban Planning Department, invoking the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber contained in rulings Nos. 01098-2003 at 16:40 hours on February 11, 2003, and 4715-2006 at 11:39 hours on March 31, 2006, according to which land use generates a consolidated legal situation, so disregarding its effects obliges the Administration to follow the procedure established in Article 308 and following of the General Law of Public Administration, in application of the principle of the intangibility of one's own acts. 2) The existence of two categories of land use provided for in the Canton's Regulatory Plan, namely for construction or for the granting of the respective permit. 3) With confusing wording, the Acting Mayor states that official letter No. 1244/PUI/U/08 of July 31, 2008, from the Urban Planning Department, granted a land use for construction, considering that the matter under review concerns a different procedure, namely, a land use for a permit, so the requirements of the former, referring to obtaining construction permits, cannot be demanded. He considers that the decision in official letter MA-PU-US-504-2010 disregards the previously granted authorization for the activity. 4) Based on the consultation made to the Urban Planning Sub-Process, in official letter No. MA-SPU-989-2010 of August 24, 2010, in application of the zoning regulations of the Urban Regulatory Plan of the canton, Title XVII, Chapter I, Article 129, the property under study is located in the central industrial subzone and outside the buffer zone (zona de amortiguamiento), in which complementary uses to industry are permitted, given that the intended activity is of an industrial nature. 5) That the demands for construction permits and compliance with the requirements of Executive Decree No. 34728-S of the Ministry of Health, contained in official letter MA-P-US-504-2010, at 10:30 hours on May 17, 2010, lacked substantiation, which is why he considered said official letter null.\n\n**V.- GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL.** In addition to the abundant factual list presented by the appellant, regarding what directly pertains to the challenge of the land use granted by the Municipal Mayor —which is strictly the subject matter of this appeal—, in summary, the appellant organization argues the following: That the land use granted to the firm D S.A., by resolution at 8:37 hours on July 31, 2008, issued by the Urban Planning Sub-Process of the Municipality of Alajuela, was only for the \"construction of a plant for construction aggregates\". It states that the works erected by the company Nombre147 S.A. were for the purpose of putting a cement plant into operation, which includes a finished product building, silo tower, grinding tower, access road, yards, parking areas, guard house, electrical substation, mechanical works, drying area, external electrical works, and the weighing area, buildings that also lack a municipal license, which had given rise to Construction Closure Record No. 241-2009 at 11:35 hours on November 9, 2009. The appellant organization adds that the land use requested for the activity of cement production from raw materials, packaging, and marketing was rejected by official letter No. MA-PU-US-504-2010 by engineer Nombre5836, because the activity was not in conformity with the current Regulatory Plan. Despite this, in the resolution at 11:00 hours on August 26, 2010 —appealed herein—, the Mayor granted the appeal filed against that action which had rejected the land use certification for \"cement grinding\", granting a land use certificate for an activity whose infrastructure was built without the legal licenses required by the Construction Law and with a different authorized land use. The appellant states that there is an incompatibility between the land use granted and the Regulatory Plan, since the cement factory is located within the Central Industrial Zone of the area of San Rafael de Ojo de Agua de Alajuela, which is regulated in the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area (Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Areas Industriales en la Gran Area Metropolitana) by express remission of Article 134 of the Regulatory Plan of the Canton of Alajuela. According to said regulations, it estimates, in San Rafael de Alajuela only industries classified as class 2 can be established, and not a cement production plant, which requires a special location in a class 3 zone, away from any population center, and which also requires prior pronouncement from the INVU and the Ministry of Health.\n\n**VI.- POSITION OF THE COMPANY Nombre147 S.A.** Without ignoring the extensive defense arguments presented by the company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A., considered in their entirety by this Tribunal, regarding the land use of the plant in its possession, it states the following: That this matter has been previously heard by the Constitutional Chamber, in rulings No. 2011-004428 of April 1, 2011, and 2011-13943 at 11:36 hours on October 14, 2011, in which, respectively, it dismissed two amparo appeals against the installation of the plant and considered as unproven the irregularities alleged in the granting of the construction permit and where, additionally, it did not find proven, even at the level of reasonable doubt, \"that the grinding project is a disguise for a true cement factory...\" Regarding the location of the project, it alleges that both the Municipality of Alajuela and the Ministry of Health agree that the area where the Nombre147 plant operates is an industrial zone, which is verified in the permit issued by the Ministry of Health and in Land Use No. 1244/PU/U/08. It expressly states that \"the plant is being used for the manufacture of construction aggregate: cement\". It argues that in any case, the activity is in conformity with the regulatory plan because it establishes, in Article 40 subsection f), that industrial activity can be developed in urban zones, and that as established in Articles 129 and 130, the GAM was modified, establishing a Central Industrial Subzone in San Rafael, which is reiterated in Annex 1 (Anexo 1), including that in buffer zones it is also possible to exercise activities of a commercial nature, such as distribution. It accuses the appellant of lacking standing (legitimación), since the central issue is the lack of requirements, given that the Municipal Code does not grant such broad standing as to allow the intervention of a third party that is not part of a petition-and-response relationship, and that we are not in the presence of a health or environmental issue, so as to be granted standing for diffuse or collective interests. It adds that it cannot seek to invoke the nullity of administrative acts that already granted vested rights, and therefore, improper hierarchy is not the procedure to decree their annulment, and that, in application of the principle that there is no nullity without damage, there is no documentary evidence or argumentation tending to demonstrate the defects in the permits granted that cause it damage.\n\n**VII.- ASPECTS NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW AT THIS INSTANCE.** Apart from the land use granted, there is a series of facts invoked by the intervening parties that, although accessory, are not useful or relevant for resolving the subject matter of this appeal, such as everything concerning the cancellation of credentials of the former Mayor of Alajuela, or the closure orders for the plant, and even, the amounts paid for municipal fees as a result of the construction permits granted. In any case, within case file No. 10-2267-1027-CA, which concluded with the aforementioned resolution No. 410-2011 from this same Tribunal, the nullity of the resolution at ten o'clock on June ninth, two thousand ten, issued by the Mayor of the Municipality of Alajuela, was ordered, which was considered null due to a violation of the legality framework (bloque de legalidad), for approving the expansion of the construction license and reappraisal of the works in the face of non-compliance with the requirements established in the legal system for this type of procedure and project, as well as the accessory actions of that administrative act. This is important because the intervening parties tend to restate once again the background of the construction licenses and reappraisals, which, although related to this case file, have already been analyzed by this Chamber in the indicated resolution. Thus, the company invokes that the Constitutional Chamber, in ruling No. 2011-13943 at 11:36 hours on October 14, 2011, dismissed an amparo appeal against the installation of the plant, in which it considered as unproven \"that there were irregularities in the granting of the municipal construction permit for the Tajo Meco industrialization project, that after said permit the company exceeded what was allowed, or that the Municipality of Alajuela allowed irregularities in the construction\". This issue is not subject to review on this occasion within this case file, as this appeal is limited to the objective review of the legality of the land use granted, an analysis that our high Constitutional Court has not conducted to date in ruling No. 2011-13943 at 11:36 hours on October 14, 2011, and therefore, the existence of res judicata cannot be alleged based on the cited rulings.\n\n**VIII.- ON THE STANDING OF THE APPELLANT.** In the present matter, the correct application of the zoning regulations contained in the Regulatory Plan of the canton of Alajuela is at issue for the specific case of the project presented by the company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A. The A accuses that a cement plant has been erected in violation of urban planning regulations, an activity it believes is prohibited under the applicable zoning regulations. On this point, it must be noted that although the implementation of urban plans directly impacts the exercise of the fundamental rights to private property and freedom of enterprise, insofar as the development of industry and commerce is also inferred from the content of their regulations (Articles 45 and 47 of the Political Constitution), it also implies the consequent protection of another fundamental right, namely, the right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution); as considered by the Constitutional Chamber since rulings number 5303-93 and 3656-2006. This observation is essential to recognize the broad standing that covers individuals to achieve the application of urban planning regulations that have the collateral purpose of protecting the environment and, in a related manner, obtaining favorable development and evolution for human beings in application of constitutional article 50, which establishes a true popular action for the protection of this fundamental right. Likewise, as regulated by the Political Constitution in its article 173 and the Municipal Code in Article 153, in municipal matters there is broad standing since it is admitted that any person with a legitimate interest may access the means of challenge, therefore, in the specific case, there is no doubt that the A does indeed have standing to come forward in claim of such interests, and the defense of lack of standing must be rejected.\n\n**IX.- SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS IMPROPER HIERARCHY REVIEW: REVIEW OF THE LEGALITY OF THE LAND USE CERTIFICATE.** The objection raised by the company, in the sense that one cannot use the improper hierarchy route to invoke the nullity of administrative acts that already granted vested rights, is not shared by this Tribunal. In a sense entirely contrary to what was expressed, improper municipal hierarchy is, par excellence, the appropriate administrative avenue to decree its annulment, as provided in Articles 173 of the Political Constitution and 156 of the Municipal Code (for Municipal Council agreements) and Article 162 of the Municipal Code (regarding the formal actions of the Mayor). This Tribunal must emphasize that as provided by the referenced articles and 181 of the General Law of Public Administration, this body is limited to a mere review of the objective legality of the challenged act, as stated supra. Likewise, it must be noted that the decision made by the Mayor in the indicated resolution has not become final due to its challenge, so nothing has been consolidated in favor of the company, and it must wait until there is a definitive administrative act that resolves its procedure. In any case, this Section recognizes that the land use certificate, while a declaratory act that merely indicates the permitted land use, does have an impact on the sphere of the legitimate interests of the administered party, insofar as its granting becomes a necessary \"enabling\" step to continue the preparation of urban, construction, or commercial projects for the citizens and, obviously, to aspire to obtain a future municipal license, subject to verification of the existence of the other legal requirements. It should be noted that such is the force of the land use certificate that when it is \"non-conforming,\" it has the impact of preventing the administered party from achieving the subsequent steps to obtain any of said permits, which is subject to challenge through the municipal appeals ladder, until its exhaustion in administrative venue before this Tribunal under improper hierarchy. Without a doubt, its issuance touches that essential core of the legitimate interests of the administered party reflected in the right to use and enjoy their real property, with sufficient force to open space for them to plan the development of projects and investments. Local authorities must, therefore, responsibly assume the consequences of granting this class of instruments, ensuring, through the available technical elements and with full command of the current territorial regulations, that land use certificates are issued with absolute certainty and credibility of their content. Precisely because of its importance and impact at the local level, the review of the land use carried out by this Tribunal is done through a comparison with the cantonal urban regulations, in order to determine whether the operation of an industry of the weight of a cement plant can or cannot operate in an area that is allegedly not suitable for it. Likewise, the fact that the existence of environmental damage is dismissed at the level of the Constitutional Chamber does not presuppose that there are no violations of the principle of legality, a task entrusted to this improper hierarchy by constitutional and legal provision, as has been explained, prior to jurisdictional control before the contentious-administrative court.\n\n**X.- ON URBAN REGULATIONS.** Urban planning is an essentially local competence, as provided by constitutional article 169 and Article 15 of the Urban Planning Law, which regulates everything concerning regulatory plans, which are the urban planning regulations mandatorily applicable to each canton, based on the authorization of Article 45 of the Political Constitution, which allows the imposition of limitations on the use of urban property. These limitations tend to prevent disorderly and impactful development of communities and aim to guarantee the coexistence of human needs for coexistence along with the duty to protect the environment. In accordance with this, Article 81 of the Municipal Code establishes that municipal licenses for the exercise of lucrative activities can only be denied \"when the activity is contrary to the law, morality, or good customs, when the establishment has not met the legal and regulatory requirements, or when the activity, due to its physical location, is not permitted by the laws or, failing that, by the current municipal regulations\" (underlining added). The final part of this rule refers to the binding nature of urban regulations and the subjection that the administered parties must have to the rules they impose because they are of public order, as these integrate the content of the right to property, insofar as they establish the authorized or legitimate scope of its exercise, under the understanding that there is no dispossession of private property nor deprivation of the primary attribute of dominion.\n\nLikewise, Article 24 of the Urban Planning Law provides that zoning regulations must include the determination of land uses, matters relating to the location, height, and construction area of buildings; the surface area and dimensions of lots, which has a direct impact on land density; the size of setbacks, yards, and other open spaces, and lot coverage by buildings and structures; among others. Article 28 of the same Law indicates that land use requires a use certificate for the purpose of determining its compatibility with urban regulations:\n\n\"Article 28.- It is prohibited to use or dedicate land, buildings, structures to any use that is incompatible with the implemented zoning. Henceforth, interested owners must obtain a municipal certificate accrediting the conformity of use with the zoning requirements. Existing non-conforming uses must also be recorded with a certificate expressing such circumstance.\n\nEach zoning regulation shall set the date from which said certificates shall be mandatory.\"\n\nXI.- ON THE URBAN PLANNING REGULATIONS OF THE CANTON OF ALAJUELA APPLIED TO THE SPECIFIC CASE. Following the regulatory line set forth above, the Urban Regulatory Plan of the Canton of Alajuela, published in La Gaceta No. 182 of September 17, 2004, provided that for both construction and business license (patente) purposes, the land-use certificate (certificado de uso del suelo) is a prerequisite for the granting of such licenses, in the manner transcribed below:\n\n\"Article 12.—For the purposes of permits for construction, expansion, remodeling, restoration, demolition, or reconstruction of buildings or developments (urbanizaciones), the interested party, whether a natural or legal person, private or public, must previously obtain a Land-Use Certificate (Certificado de Uso del Suelo) stating the permitted use on the property they wish to utilize, alignments, minimum frontage, minimum lot area, construction coverage, as well as conditions given the zone in which it is located...\" (emphasis added)\n\n\"Article 15.- For the processing of business licenses (patentes), the presentation of the corresponding Land-Use Certificate shall also be required...\"\n\nIn accordance with the highlighted text of the transcribed regulations, this Court must emphasize that the land-use certificate for both construction purposes and for holding a business license is necessarily and obviously tied to the use intended for the building to be erected. That is why the land-use certificate is a single document when the construction is erected first and is required for a business license under the assumption that a lucrative activity is intended to be carried out in an already existing infrastructure. Under the assumption that a building is being erected, it is the obligation of the interested party, insofar as it is their duty to submit to urban regulation, to anticipate that what they aspire to build in order to carry out a specific lucrative activity therein—since the project is conceived as a single constructive unit—is permitted according to the established zoning. In the present matter, it is verified that in official letter No. 1244/PU-U/08 at (:37 hours on July 31, 2008, the Department of Urban Planning granted D S.A. the land use for \"construction of an aggregates plant for construction\" on a property that had been operating as a quarry (tajo), where sand and stone necessary for construction are extracted, which is reasonable according to the activity carried out and the intended one. However, from the list of proven facts, this Court has accredited that the company's true intentions were the construction and start-up of a cement plant, for the reasons that will be stated in the following Considerandos.\n\nXII.- ON THE IMPLEMENTED PROCEDURE. Article 12 of the Land Use Regulation of the Canton of Alajuela continues by indicating that for projects exceeding 2500 m2—as is the one under review—in addition to the land-use certificate, there is a specific procedure for obtaining approval, as it is necessary to present the entire project and indicate the construction stages. The text is transcribed below:\n\n\"12.2. Requirements to obtain a construction permit for works larger than 30 square meters. The interested party must complete their application, provide 2 complete copies of the construction plans, one copy of the cadastral plan with the corresponding alignments, one copy of the risk insurance policy. Permits for buildings may be authorized in previously numbered stages for projects exceeding 2500 m2 of construction. The interested party must present the entire project and indicate the respective stages, duly numbered.\" (Underlining added)\n\nHowever, in July 2008, within the Municipality, only the request for land use for the construction of an aggregates plant for construction was known, a fact that appeared reasonable with the only plans later presented to it for the purpose of obtaining a construction license, which were, in turn, the only ones appraised by the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos), limited to the works of the administrative building and the industrial warehouse (or raw material storage), with a total area of 3946 m2 and an estimated value of ¢771,680,000.00. Note that at that time, with land use No. 1244/PU-U/08 from the Department of Urban Planning, for an aggregates plant for construction, plus the plans presented, the respective permit for both buildings was granted through resolution No. 1090/SPU/08 of December 2, 2008, from the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Construction Process (folio 148), only for such works which, it is reiterated, covered only the administrative building and industrial warehouse. Notwithstanding the above, the company processed and obtained the \"LOCATION PERMIT FOR CEMENT MILLING IN THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE, SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA\", with number ARSA-1023-08 of September 12, 2008, issued by the Governing Health Area of Alajuela (Area Rectora de Salud de Alajuela), where for the first time the true intentions to start up a specific lucrative activity that constituted a project superior to a mere aggregates plant for construction are accurately appreciated, since, based on the existing land use, it processed and obtained from the Ministry of Health, now yes, the approval of a cement milling operation. This fact is essential in the present case, because almost simultaneously, plans had been submitted to the Federated College of Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica for the purpose of erecting works of great magnitude, namely: an administrative building, industrial warehouse, finished product building, milling tower, silo tower, electrical works, mechanical works in the drying area, and site plans including access roads, parking lots, guardhouse, electrical substation, and weighing area, that is, the necessary facilities to erect and operate a cement plant. However, in absolute disrespect of the recently cited article, which required \"presenting the entire project and indicating the respective stages, duly numbered\", in June 2009, the construction of the entire infrastructure of a cement plant began, for which land use had never been requested for such purpose in the Municipality of Alajuela. This is accepted by the Environmental Regent of the Project's own report, engineer Nombre7575, in a brief dated September 29 of that year, where he recognized the true nature of the works: \"mechanical and industrial installations for Portland-type cement milling and bulk and bagged product dispatch\". It was not until September 14, 2009, that the company submitted a second plan to the CFIA, proposing a structural redesign of the works corresponding to the finished product building, milling tower, silo tower, and raw material or industrial warehouse, obtaining the appraisal only for the finished product building, the milling tower, and the silo tower, with a total area of 2,325.38 m2, to later obtain the construction permit granted by the Mayor in the resolution at 10:00 on June 9, 2010, in which he ordered the Urban Planning Sub-Process to issue the expansion of the requested construction permit, when the works were already truly advanced. Even illegally, the other buildings were being erected whose plans remained lacking the respective appraisal from the professional association and, therefore, without the corresponding municipal license. This Court highlights that the only granted license (1090/SPU/08 of December 2, 2008), was granted in light of the only existing land use, which is deemed insufficient for the operation or construction of a cement plant, as it was limited to an aggregates plant for construction, a fact that the Mayor did not analyze at that time in the resolution under appeal. Furthermore, this Chamber appreciates an essential aspect derived from the same provision of the Regulatory Plan, namely: that in the canton of Alajuela, any construction project exceeding 2,500 square meters in area must be presented as a single unit before municipal authorities, where it must be analyzed—given its impact—in its entirety and completeness, so that the competent authorities verify the legality of the proposed project, in light of land use and its possible construction and future start-up. The described events lead to no other conclusion than that the project was, from the outset, conceived as a cement plant, but fraudulently processed before the Municipality of Alajuela as one of lesser impact. The procedures implemented by the company to erect its project were, definitively, carried out outside the framework of the respective cited urban regulations. Thus, even though the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in judgment No. 2011-004428 of April 1, 2011, did not find it proven \"that the milling project is a disguise for a true cement factory...\", it was also clear in stating in its final Considerando that the review of the legality of the permits was not its responsibility as it was not a matter within its competence. From this, it is concluded that, since this Court is a venue that conducts a strict legality analysis, nothing prevents it from finding the existence of the cement factory proven on this occasion, because by reason of the powers of this improper hierarchy, it has broad faculties to study in depth and specificity each and every one of the pieces of the administrative file for evidentiary purposes and to confront them with the legality framework, as has indeed been done.\n\nXIII.- ON THE POSSIBILITY OF OPERATING A CEMENT PLANT IN SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA. Under a parameter of analysis of the prevailing reality, it must be understood, then, that the company Nombre147 S.A. built a cement plant based on the sole land use issued by local authorities, namely, for an \"aggregates plant for construction\". It was that first land use that was used as the basis to obtain its construction license and, subsequently, to obtain the land-use certificate for a business license for the activity of cement production from the milling of raw materials, packaging, and commercialization. In this regard, it must be considered that it is irregular to request other land-use certificates distinct from the one necessary for the construction of the work, because in itself, it is implicit that a work is erected so that it can operate. Requiring two such certificates is excessive procedure, but if the land use is not in accordance with the erected work, they need to justify it through another action, which is precisely the one under challenge. As has been accredited, its true and specific commercial line was to operate a cement milling operation, a fact that was never communicated through formal means to local authorities, which the Mayor should have appreciated at the appropriate time. On the contrary, that official considered that there was an acquired right based on the first certificate and, furthermore, understood that the applicable urban planning regulations permitted it. Probably, things would have had a different outcome if, from the beginning, the company had respected the strict procedures already cited, processing a land use to build a cement plant and presenting the project in its entirety. In the opinion of this Chamber, what occurred was a distraction of relevant information about this project, in order to obtain partial licenses based on which they sought to legitimize the construction of a larger-scale project. On this particular point, it should be noted that if the procedures had been respected, the study of the applicable regulation would only have allowed the conclusion to be reached that in San Rafael de Alajuela, despite being an industrial zone, it is not possible to operate a cement plant. This unequivocal conclusion is reached by this collegiate body upon carefully studying the Land Use Regulation of the Canton's Regulatory Plan, Title XVII, because beyond Article 40 invoked by the company (which describes urban zones as those in which land can be destined for residential, commercial, private and institutional and communal services, industrial, tourism, transportation use, and others related to the urban process), the applicable articles that regulate land use for the case of interest are 129.1 and 130, which classify the San Rafael zone as a Central Industrial Subzone, where land use is \"mixed, where the predominant use is industrial, but recreational, tourism, residential, and commercial use shall be permitted\". Likewise, Article 131 permits, as a conforming use, \"light, non-polluting industry\", from which it is not possible to conclude that a cement plant can be considered a light industry since, according to the Procedures Regulation of the Nombre3456, it is classified as an activity that generates a moderately high impact on the environment. Therefore, it must be determined whether it is possible to have it as a permitted activity with conditional use, following the applicable urban planning regulations. As regards \"conditional uses\", it expressly refers \"to those indicated in the Partial Zoning Regulation for industrial areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area (Reglamento de Zonificación parcial de áreas industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana)\". In the same vein and importantly for this case, Article 134 of the aforementioned Zoning Regulation of the Regulatory Plan of Alajuela, within the same chapter that regulates the conforming uses of the industrial subzone—where San Rafael is located—, refers to the regulations contained in the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area. Said number provides:\n\n\"Article 134.—Conforming uses. They are those indicated in the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area. From the list in Annex No. 1, number 17. Tourism uses such as hotels, recreational, cultural centers, and all other uses permitted in the zone of tourism corridors, commercial, and special projects are also permitted, as well as single-family and multi-family residential use.\"\n\nFor its part, the referred Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area, approved by the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo) in session of its Board of Directors in Article 10 of ordinary session number 3623, of May 6, 1985, classifies San Rafael de Ojo de Agua as a Type Two (1-2) Zone, where \"establishments that treat or process raw materials\" are included, but the possibility of a cement plant operating there is not found among its thirty-six Permitted Uses. This specific type of activity is regulated in subsection 65) of the Chapter on Type Three (1-3) Industries, which locates them only in the localities of Ochomogo, Coris, and Ciruelas, as they are zones that are \"relatively distant from highly populated urban centers\", thus allowing activities with a \"risk of nuisances or pollution greater than the previous ones\". There is a single possibility that in the Type Two Zone—which includes San Rafael de Ojo de Agua—the uses of the type three zone may be permitted, \"provided it is accredited that they will not produce greater nuisances than the industries indicated in the preceding list\", but only for the activities specified in the first list, not the second. Thus, heavy industries, such as charcoal plants, stone crushers, alcohol production, \"extraction of materials, stones, sands, and gravels\"—the company's original activity (subsection 20)— and \"cement factories\" (subsection 20), are subsequently restricted in Section 3 of Special Locations, where it is provided that they must operate exclusively in type 3 zones, preferably in rural areas, conditioned upon a prior case-by-case study and taking the necessary precautions. The regulation expressly establishes that \"The industries indicated in this list may be located in a Z.1, type 3, provided they demonstrate that their process will not produce nuisances, noises, vibrations, gases, odors, waste disposable by water, or explosion to a greater degree than that normally generated in that zone\". From the indicated regulation, one can only conclude that according to the prevailing land use, for a cement plant to operate under the regulation contained in the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area, it can only do so in the industrial zone type three, that is, in Ochomogo, Coris, and Ciruelas. From what has been described, it is evident that the analysis of the applicable regulations carried out by the Mayor of Alajuela, in the resolution under appeal, is legally and technically incorrect, carrying serious defects in its content and reasoning, which even transgress the very purpose of the issued land use, insofar as it grossly infringes the territorial planning of San Rafael de Alajuela, erroneously declaring the possibility of a cement plant operating in contravention of the cited regulatory text, which has normative value of law in a material sense. Therefore, the arguments of the company's defense, tending towards the application of Articles 129 and 130 of the Land Use Regulation of the canton of Alajuela, are technically incorrect, as they perform a biased reading of the full content of the indicated regulations, and must be rejected at this time.\n\nXIV.- COROLLARY.- The land-use certificate No. official letter No. 1244/PU-U/08 of July 31, 2008, issued by the Department of Urban Planning, limited itself to indicating that it is permitted for the \"construction of an aggregates plant for construction on the property in the name of Nombre52081., identity card number CED78966 in the Property Registry at volume (sic), folio (sic), number (sic), entry (sic) real folio 2143636-000 which is described in cadastral plan No. Placa16660 located in the district of SAN RAFAEL Exact Address, San Rafael de Alajuela. According to the zoning map of the URBAN REGULATORY PLAN OF THE CENTRAL CANTON OF THE PROVINCE OF ALAJUELA, PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE No. 182 OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2004, the above-indicated property is located in the zone classified as: CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE\". This document is not so broad as to declare that the operation of a cement milling is permitted in that zone. Said land use is exclusively for the indicated activity, and it must be the responsibility of the business owner to accredit before municipal authorities, from the beginning, the true use they intended to give to the land. It is not true that the content of that first land use encompasses an industrial cement plant, whose operation requires the implementation of heavy machinery and a greater environmental impact. The analysis carried out by the Mayor, when reviewing the land use, mistakes the content of that first certificate, giving it a nonexistent and legally incorrect one, as it has not conferred any right in favor of Nombre147 S.A. to build and operate a cement plant, even less so when it is observed that it was issued in favor of another legal entity (Desarrollo e Inversiones Productivas DIP S.A.). Furthermore, having been clarified then that it is not possible for a company of that type to operate in San Rafael de Alajuela, as the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area, approved by the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism in session of its Board of Directors in Article 10 of ordinary session number 3623, of May 6, 1985, to which Article 134 of the Zoning Regulation of the Regulatory Plan of Alajuela expressly refers regarding the conditional uses of the Central Industrial Zone of San Rafael de Ojo de Agua, only permits such activity in Ochomogo, Coris, and Ciruelas—that is, far from highly populated urban centers—. In reality, an industry of that type was erected by Nombre147 S.A. in San Rafael de Alajuela, specifically on the property registered under real folio number Placa17173, making the granting of the land-use certificate for the cement plant activity legally unviable. This being the case, the grievances expressed in the appeal by A are accepted, which renders the resolution of the Mayor of Alajuela, of 11:00 hours on August 26, 2010, under appeal, absolutely null and void, which is ordered at this time. For lack of further recourse, the administrative route is considered exhausted.\n\nPOR TANTO:\n\nThe request for the joinder of proceedings is rejected. The resolution of the Mayor of Alajuela, of 11:00 hours on August 26, 2010, IS ANNULLED. Let the Municipality take note of what is considered in this resolution. The administrative route is considered exhausted.\n\nNombre66641\n\nNombre66641\n\nEvelyn Solano Ulloa Eduardo González Segura\n\nExp: 10-003992-1027-CA Appeal\n\nA\n\nIt is for this reason that, at this stage, the joinder is futile and, therefore, inadmissible, and the motion filed is hereby rejected.\n\n**II.- PROVEN FACTS.** The following are deemed relevant facts for resolving the subject of this case: **1)** In official letter No. 1244/PU-U/08 at 8:37 a.m. on July 31, 2008, the Urban Planning Department granted land use for \"construction of a construction aggregate plant on the property registered in the name of Nombre52081 ., ID number […] in the Property Registry at volume (sic), page (sic), number (sic), entry (sic) real estate folio 2143636-000, which is described in cadastral map No. Placa16660 located in the district of SAN RAFAEL Exact Address, San Rafael de Alajuela. According to the zoning map of the URBAN REGULATORY PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CANTON OF THE PROVINCE OF ALAJUELA, PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE No. 182 OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2004, the property indicated above is located in the zone classified as: CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE.\" Specifically, this land use is located in the so-called Tajo San Rafael, granted under concession to E (land-use certificate on folio 105, location reference by the former Mayor in official letter No. 793-AM-EX-2009 of October 7, 2009 on folio 185); **2)** Based on Professional Services Contract No. Placa17074 of August 29, 2008, the company Nombre147 S.A. submitted to the Federated College of Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica plans to construct an administrative building, industrial warehouse, finished product building, grinding tower, silo tower, electrical works, mechanical works, drying area, and site plans including access roads, parking areas, guard booth, electrical substation, and weighing area, with a total area of 25,000 m2 (contract on folios 108 to 113, report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible on folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, on folios 740 to 743); **3)** Of the indicated plans, the cited professional association only assessed the administrative building and the industrial warehouse (or raw material warehouse), with a total area of 3,946 m2 and an estimated value of ¢771,680,000.00. The rest of the project was not assessed because it did not indicate construction details (see report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible on folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, on folios 740 to 743); **4)** The plans for the cited works assessed by the college were presented to the Municipality of Alajuela by D S.A., for the purpose of obtaining a construction license for industry, with identical measurements and value. The construction permit for both buildings was approved by resolution No. 1090/SPU/08 of December 2, 2008, from the Department of Planning Process and Infrastructure Construction, thereby authorizing only the construction of an industrial warehouse and administrative building (see application on folio 134, contract on folio 111, permit on folio 148); **5)** On the basis of land-use permit No. 1244/PU/U/08, the Alajuela Governing Health Area issued a \"LOCATION PERMIT FOR CEMENT GRINDING IN THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE, SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA\", with number ARSA-1023-08 of September 12, 2008 (folio 128); **6)** In a second set of plans presented by the company to the CFIA on September 14, 2009, a structural redesign of the works corresponding to the finished product building, grinding tower, silo tower, and raw material or industrial warehouse was proposed. Of these, only the finished product building, the grinding tower, and the silo tower were assessed, for a total of 2,325.38 m2 (see report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible on folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, on folios 740 to 743); **7)** As reported to Nombre3456 by engineer Emilio Garro Rojas, Environmental Supervisor of the Project, in a brief dated September 29 of that year, the company began constructing an entire complex in June 2009, which included the construction of mechanical and industrial installations for grinding Portland-type cement and dispatching bulk and bagged product. These constructions began without building permits, which at that date had not been submitted for their respective license before the Municipality (folio 177); **8)** Inspector Nombre147, of the CFIA, after a site visit, issued report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, in which he reported the construction of the entire project as a whole, which included: the works that had been assessed by the professional association and had a municipal permit (No. 1090/SPU-108 of December 2, 2008, for the administrative building and the industrial warehouse), the works that were assessed but lacked a construction license (electrical substation, silo tower, grinding tower, and finished product building), and the works lacking both assessment and a license (access road, areas, parking lots, guard booth) (see report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible on folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, on folios 740 to 743); **9)** On April 5, 2010, Mr. Nombre317, in his capacity as representative of D S.A., applied to the Municipality for two construction permits without specifying what works they comprised, one estimated at the sum of ¢39,104,000.00 and the other at the sum of ¢1,087,195,200.00. (application on folios 383 and 384); **10)** The construction license was approved by the Municipal Mayor's Office, through a resolution at 10:00 a.m. on June 9, 2010, which ordered the Urban Planning Sub-Process to issue the expansion of the requested construction permit, in order to generate the corresponding tax burden. Said permit was issued under number MA-SPU-PA-0746-2010 of September 24, 2010, for an additional construction area of 5,819.38 m2, with an estimated value of ¢488,041,645.30, to construct the works contained in the second assessed plan (grinding tower, silo tower, finished product and dispatch building, and electrical substation) (resolution on folios 512 to 519, permit on folios 596 to 600); **11)** Under procedure US-7415, the company Nombre147 S.A. requested a land-use certificate for the operation of grinding, packaging, and marketing of cement, which was rejected by resolution No. MA-PU-US-504-2010 at 10:30 a.m. on May 17, 2010, by Engineer Nombre5836, Director of the Planning Process and Infrastructure Construction of the Municipality of Alajuela, indicating that \"According to the zoning map of the URBAN REGULATORY PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CANTON OF THE PROVINCE OF ALAJUELA, PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE No. 182 OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2004, the property indicated above is located in the zone classified as CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE.- Consequently, the intended use is: REJECTED with the zoning imposed by this municipality.- It is also indicated that said activity DOES NOT COMPLY with the provisions of article II, subsection 44, of Executive Decree number 34728-S of the Ministry of Health regarding Setbacks and Special Zones\" (folio 802); **12)** Disagreeing with the decision, on June 11, 2010, the representative of the company Nombre147 S.A. filed an appeal and concomitant motion for annulment, which was upheld in a resolution at 11:00 a.m. on August 26, 2010, by the Acting Mayor of Alajuela, Lic. Luis Alonso Gutiérrez Herrera, in which he granted land use for a business license for the activity of cement production from grinding raw materials, packaging, and marketing (folios 679 to 686); **13)** Against the previous resolution, on September 10, 2010, Mr. Nombre2882, in his capacity as President of the Integral Development Association of San Rafael de Ojo de Agua de Alajuela, filed an appeal (folio 1); **14)** On November 17, 2010, the indicated Association filed a Per Saltum appeal before this Tribunal, on the grounds that its appeal had not been referred to this collegiate body (folios 3 and 4).\n\n**III.- UNPROVEN FACT.** The company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A. did not prove the following relevant facts: **1)** Having submitted the entirety of the construction project to the Municipality of Alajuela (the case file); **2)** That the cement industry is considered light industry (the case file); **3)** That the land-use certificate No. 1244/PU-U/08 had been challenged (the case file).\n\n**IV.- CONTENT OF THE CHALLENGED ACT.** In order to have clarity regarding the subject of this appeal, given the complexity of the resolution under review, a summary of its content is provided, which should facilitate understanding of what is subsequently resolved. The Acting Mayor of Alajuela, Lic. Luis Alonso Gutiérrez Herrera, by resolution at 11:00 a.m. on August 26, 2010, upheld the appeal and concomitant motion for annulment filed against official letter MA-P-US-504-2010, at 10:30 a.m. on May 17, 2010, from the Director of the Planning Process and Infrastructure Construction of the Municipality of Alajuela, in which the land use had been rejected. In that act, he granted land use on the property in the Province of Alajuela, with real estate folio registration number No. Placa17172, applied for by the company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A., indicating that \"land use for a business license is granted for the activity of cement production from grinding raw materials, packaging, and marketing,\" based on four essential aspects: **1)** The nature of a subjective right of the land-use certificate contained in official letter No. 1244/PU-U/08 of July 31, 2008, by the Urban Planning Department, invoking the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber contained in rulings Nos.\n\n01098-2003 of 4:40 p.m. on February 11, 2003 and 4715-2006 of 11:39 a.m. on March 31, 2006, according to which land use generates a consolidated legal situation, so ignoring its effects obliges the Administration to follow the procedure established in article 308 and following of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, in application of the principle of the intangibility of its own acts. **2)** The existence of two categories of land use (uso de suelo) provided for in the canton's Plan Regulador, whether for construction or for the granting of the respective license (patente). **3)** With confusing wording, the Acting Mayor states that official letter No. 1244/PUI/U/08 of July 31, 2008, from the Department of Urban Planning, conferred a land use for construction (uso de suelo para construcción), considering that the matter under review is a different procedure, namely, a land use for a license (uso de suelo para patente), and therefore the requirements of the former, referring to obtaining construction permits, cannot be demanded. He considers that the decision in official letter MA-PU-US-504-2010 disregards the previously granted authorization for the activity. **4)** Based on the consultation made to the Urban Planning Subprocess, in official letter No. MA-SPU-989-2010 of August 24, 2010, in application of the zoning regulations of the canton's Urban Plan Regulador, Title XVII, Chapter I, article 129, the property under study is located in the central industrial subzone and outside the buffer zone (zona de amortiguamiento), in which complementary uses to industry are permitted, given that the intended activity is industrial in nature. **5)** That the requirements for construction permits and for compliance with the requirements of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34728-S of the Ministry of Health, contained in official letter MA-P-US-504-2010, of 10:30 a.m. on May 17, 2010, lacked substantiation, which is why he considered said official letter null and void.\n\n**V.- GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL.** In addition to the abundant factual catalog presented by the appellant party, regarding what directly concerns the challenge of the land use (uso del suelo) granted by the Municipal Mayor—which is strictly the object of this appeal—in summary, the appellant organization argues the following: That the land use (uso del suelo) granted to the company D S.A., by resolution of 8:37 a.m. on July 31, 2008, issued by the Urban Planning Subprocess of the Municipality of Alajuela, was only for the \"*construction of an aggregates plant for construction*\". It states that the works erected by the company Nombre147 S.A. were for the purpose of putting a cement plant into operation, which includes a finished product building, silo tower, grinding tower, access road, yards, parking lots, guardhouse, electrical substation, mechanical works, drying area, exterior electrical works, and the weighing area, buildings that also lack a municipal license, which had given rise to Construction Closure Order (Acta de Clausura de Construcción) No. 241-2009 of 11:35 a.m. on November 9, 2009. The appellant organization adds that the land use (uso de suelo) requested for the activity of cement production from raw materials, packaging, and marketing was rejected through official letter No. MA-PU-US-504-2010 by engineer Nombre5836, because the activity was not in accordance with the current Plan Regulador. Despite this, in the resolution of 11:00 a.m. on August 26, 2010—which has been appealed—the Mayor granted the appeal filed against that action that had rejected the certification of land use (uso de suelo) for \"cement grinding,\" granting a certificate of land use (uso de suelo) for an activity whose infrastructure was built without the legal licenses required by the Ley de Construcciones and with a different authorized land use. The appellant states that there is an incompatibility between the land use (uso de suelo) granted and the Plan Regulador, since the cement factory is located within the Central Industrial Zone (Zona Industrial Central) of the San Rafael de Ojo de Agua de Alajuela area, which is regulated in the Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Areas Industriales in the Gran Area Metropolitana by express referral of article 134 of the Plan Regulador of the Canton of Alajuela. According to said regulations, it is considered that in San Rafael de Alajuela only industries classified as class 2 can be established, and not a cement production plant, which requires a special location in a class 3 zone, away from any population center, and which also requires the prior pronouncement of INVU and the Ministry of Health.\n\n**VI.- POSITION OF THE COMPANY Nombre147 S.A.** Without ignoring the extensive defense arguments presented by the company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A., considered in their entirety by this Court, regarding the land use (uso del suelo) of the plant it has in its possession, it indicates the following: That this matter has been previously heard by the Sala Constitucional, in rulings No. 2011-004428 of April 1, 2011 and 2011-13943 of 11:36 a.m. on October 14, 2011, in which, respectively, two amparo appeals against the plant's installation were dismissed and the accused irregularities in the granting of the construction permit were considered an unproven fact, and in which additionally it was not proven, even at a level of reasonable doubt, \"*that the grinding project is a disguise for a true cement factory...*\" Regarding the project's location, it alleges that both the Municipality of Alajuela and the Ministry of Health agree that the area where the Nombre147 plant operates is an industrial zone, which is verified in the permit issued by the Ministry of Health and in Uso del Suelo No. 1244/PU/U/08. It expressly indicates that \"*the plant is being destined for the manufacturing of aggregate for construction: cement*\". It argues that in any case, the activity is in accordance with the plan regulador since it establishes, in article 40 subsection f), that industrial activity can be developed in urban areas, and that as established in articles 129 and 130, the GAM was modified, establishing a Central Industrial Subzone (Subzona Industrial Central) in San Rafael, which is reiterated in Anexo 1, including that in buffer zones (zonas de amortiguamiento) it is also possible to carry out commercial activities, such as distribution. It accuses the appellant of lacking standing, since the central issue is the lack of requirements, and the Código Municipal does not grant such broad standing for a third party to intervene who is not a party in a petition and response relationship, and that we are not in the presence of a health or environmental issue, in order to be granted standing for diffuse or collective interests. It adds that it cannot come to invoke the nullity of administrative acts that have already granted subjective rights, so the improper hierarchy (jerarquía impropia) is not the procedure to decree their annulment, and that, in application of the principle that there is no nullity without damage, there is no documentary evidence or argumentation tending to demonstrate the defects in the permits granted and that they cause damage.\n\n**VII.- ASPECTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF REVIEW IN THIS INSTANCE.** Aside from the land use (uso del suelo) granted, there is a series of facts invoked by the intervenors that, although accessory, are not useful or relevant to resolve the object of this appeal, such as everything concerning the cancellation of credentials of the former Mayor of Alajuela, or the plant's closure or shutdown orders, and even the amounts paid for municipal taxes as a result of the construction permits granted. In any case, within case file No. 10-2267-1027-CA, which culminated with resolution No. 410-2011 already indicated, from this same Court, the nullity was ordered of the resolution of ten o'clock on June ninth, two thousand ten, issued by the Mayor of the Municipality of Alajuela, which was considered null and void due to violation of the legality block, for approving the extension of the construction license and re-assessment of the works given a failure to comply with the requirements established in the legal system for this type of procedure and project, as well as the accessory actions of said administrative act. This is important because the intervening parties tend to revisit once again the background of the construction licenses and re-assessments, which, although related to this case file, have already been analyzed by this Chamber in the indicated resolution. Thus, the company invokes that the Sala Constitucional, in ruling No. 2011-13943 of 11:36 a.m. on October 14, 2011, dismissed an amparo appeal against the installation of the plant, in which it considered as an unproven fact \"*that there were irregularities in the granting of the municipal construction permit for the Tajo Meco industrialization project, that after said permit the company exceeded what was permitted, or that the Municipality of Alajuela allowed irregularities in the construction*\". This matter is not subject to review on this occasion within this case file, since this appeal is limited to the objective review of the legality of the land use (uso del suelo) granted, an analysis that to date our high Constitutional Court has not performed in ruling No. 2011-13943 of 11:36 a.m. on October 14, 2011, and therefore the existence of res judicata (cosa juzgada) cannot be alleged, based on the cited judgments.\n\n**VIII.- ON THE STANDING OF THE APPELLANT PARTY.** In the present matter, the correct application of the zoning regulations contained in the Plan Regulador of the canton of Alajuela for the specific case of the project presented by the company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A. is being aired. The A accuses that a cement plant has been erected in violation of urban planning regulations, an activity it considers is prohibited in the applicable zoning regulation. On this particular, it must be indicated that although the implementation of urban plans has a direct impact on the exercise of the fundamental rights of private property and freedom of enterprise, insofar as the development of industry and commerce is also inferred from the content of its regulations (articles 45 and 47 of the Constitución Política), it also implies the consequent protection of another fundamental right, that is, a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (article 50 of the Constitución Política); just as the Sala Constitucional considered it since rulings number 5303-93 and 3656-2006. This observation is essential to recognize the broad standing that covers private individuals and to achieve the application of urban planning regulations that have the collateral purpose of protecting the environment and, in a connected manner, to obtain a favorable development and evolution of the human being in application of constitutional numeral 50 which establishes a true popular action for the protection of this fundamental right. Likewise, as regulated by the Constitución Política in its ordinal 173 and the Código Municipal in article 153, in municipal matters there is broad standing since it is admitted that any person with legitimate interest can access the means of challenge, therefore, for the specific case, there is no doubt that the A does have standing to come in claim of such interests, so the defense of lack of standing must be rejected.\n\n**IX.- OBJECT OF THIS IMPROPER HIERARCHY: REVIEW OF THE LEGALITY OF THE LAND USE CERTIFICATE (CERTIFICADO DE USO DEL SUELO).** The objection made by the company, in the sense that one cannot come by way of improper hierarchy (jerarquía impropia) to invoke the nullity of administrative acts that have already granted subjective rights, is not shared by this Court. In a sense totally opposite to what has been expressed, the municipal improper hierarchy (jerarquía impropia) is indeed, par excellence, the appropriate administrative channel to decree its annulment, as provided for in articles 173 of the Constitución Política and 156 of the Código Municipal (for the agreements of the Concejo Municipal) and article 162 of the Código Municipal (regarding the formal actions of the Mayor). This Court must emphasize that as provided for in the referenced numerals and 181 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, this body is limited to the mere review of the objective legality of the challenged act, as set forth supra. Likewise, it must be indicated that what was decided by the Mayor in the indicated resolution has not become final due to its challenge, so nothing has been consolidated in favor of the company, and it must wait until a definitive administrative act exists that resolves its procedure.\n\nIn any event, this Section recognizes that the land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo), although a declaratory act that merely indicates the permitted land use, does have an impact on the sphere of legitimate interests of the administered party, insofar as its issuance becomes a necessary \"authorization\" to continue with the preparation of urban development, construction, or commercial projects by the citizens and, obviously, to aspire to obtain a future municipal license, subject to prior verification of the existence of the other legal requirements. It should be noted that such is the force of the land-use certificate that when it is \"non-conforming,\" it has the impact of preventing the administered party from achieving the subsequent steps for the purpose of obtaining any of said permits, and it is subject to challenge through the municipal appeals process, until its exhaustion in the administrative venue before this Tribunal, in improper hierarchy. Without a doubt, its issuance touches that essential core of the legitimate interests of the administered parties, reflected in the right to use and enjoy their real property, with sufficient force to open space for them to plan the development of projects and investments. Local authorities must, then, responsibly assume the consequences of granting this type of instrument, ensuring, through the available technical elements and with full command of the territorial regulations in force, the granting of land-use certificates with absolute certainty and credibility of their content. Precisely, by reason of its importance and impact at the local level, the review of land use carried out by this Tribunal is done through a comparison with cantonal urban regulations, in order to determine whether the operation of an industry of the scale of a cement plant can or cannot operate in an area accused of not being suitable for it. Likewise, the fact that the production of environmental harm is ruled out at the level of the Constitutional Chamber does not presuppose that there are no violations of the principle of legality, a task entrusted to this improper hierarchy by constitutional and legal provision, as has been explained, prior to jurisdictional review in the contentious-administrative venue.\n\n**X.- ON URBAN REGULATION.** Urban planning is an essentially local competence, as provided by constitutional article 169 and article 15 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), which regulates everything concerning regulatory plans, which are the urban planning regulations of mandatory application for each canton, based on the authorization of article 45 of the Political Constitution, which allows the imposition of limitations on the use of urban property. These limitations tend to prevent disorderly and impactful development of communities and aim to guarantee the coexistence of human needs for cohabitation together with the duty to provide protection to the environment. In accordance with this, article 81 of the Municipal Code establishes that municipal licenses for the exercise of lucrative activities can only be denied \"*when the activity is contrary to the law, morality, or good customs, when the establishment has not met the legal and regulatory requirements or when the activity, by reason of its physical location, is not permitted by the laws or, failing that, by the current municipal regulations*\" (underlining added). The final part of this rule refers to the binding nature of urban regulations and the submission that the administered parties must have to the norms they impose because they are of public order, since these integrate the content of the property right, insofar as they establish the authorized or legitimate scope of its exercise, under the understanding that there is no deprivation of private property nor the privation of the primary attribute of ownership. Likewise, article 24 of the Urban Planning Law provides that the zoning regulations must include the determination of land uses, matters relating to the location, height, and building area of constructions; the surface area and dimensions of lots, which has a direct impact on land density; the size of setbacks, yards, and other open spaces, and lot coverage by buildings and structures; among others. Article 28 of the same Law indicates that the use of land requires the land-use certificate for the purpose of determining its compatibility with urban regulation:\n\n\"*Article 28.- It is prohibited to use or dedicate lands, buildings, structures, to any use that is incompatible with the implemented zoning. Henceforth, interested owners must obtain a municipal certificate that certifies the conformity of the use with the zoning requirements. Existing non-conforming uses must also be recorded with a certificate expressing such circumstance.*\n\n*Each zoning regulation shall set the date from which said certificates will be mandatory.*\"\n\n**XI.- ON THE URBAN REGULATIONS OF THE CANTON OF ALAJUELA APPLIED TO THE SPECIFIC CASE.** Following the regulatory line set forth above, the Urban Regulatory Plan of the Canton of Alajuela, published in La Gaceta No. 182 of September 17, 2004, provided that for both construction and business license purposes, the land-use certificate is a prerequisite for the granting of such licenses, as transcribed below:\n\n\"*Article 12.—For the purposes of construction, expansion, remodeling, restoration, demolition, or reconstruction permits for buildings or urbanizations, the administered party, whether a natural or legal person, private or public, must previously obtain a Land-Use Certificate in which the permitted use on the property to be utilized is recorded, along with alignments, minimum frontage, minimum lot area, building coverage, as well as conditions given the zone in which it is located...*\" (emphasis added)\n\n\"*Article 15.- For the processing of business licenses, the presentation of the corresponding Land-Use Certificate will also be required...*\"\n\nIn accordance with the highlighted text of the transcribed rules, this Tribunal must emphasize that the land-use certificate for both construction purposes and to hold a business license is necessarily and obviously coupled with the use intended for the building to be erected. That is why the land-use certificate is a single certificate when the construction work is erected first, and it is required for a business license in the event that a lucrative activity is intended to be carried out in an already existing infrastructure. In the event that a building is erected, it is the obligation of the administered party, as it is their duty to submit to urban regulation, to anticipate that what they aspire to build in order to exercise a specific lucrative activity therein—since the project is conceived as a single constructive unit—is permitted according to the established zoning. In the present matter, it is verified that in official letter No. 1244/PU-U/08 from 3:37 p.m. on July 31, 2008, the Urban Planning Department granted D S.A. the land use for \"*construction of a construction aggregates plant*\" on a property that had been operating as a quarry (tajo), where sand and stone necessary for construction are extracted, which is reasonable according to the activity developed and the intended one. However, from the list of proven facts, this Tribunal has accredited that the true intentions of the company were the construction and start-up of a cement plant, for the reasons that will be stated in the following Considering clauses.\n\n**XII.- ON THE IMPLEMENTED PROCEDURE.** Article 12 of the Land-Use Regulation of the Canton of Alajuela continues to indicate that for projects exceeding 2500 m2—as is the one under review—in addition to the land-use certificate, there is a specific procedure for the purpose of obtaining its approval, since it is necessary to present the entirety of the project and indicate the construction stages. The text is transcribed below:\n\n\"*12.2. Requirements to obtain a construction permit for works larger than 30 square meters. The interested party must complete their application, provide 2 complete copies of the construction plans, one copy of the cadastral plan with the corresponding alignments, one copy of the risk policy. Permits for buildings by stages previously numbered may be authorized for projects greater than 2500 m2 of construction. The interested party must present the total project and indicate the respective duly numbered stages.*\" (Underlining added)\n\nHowever, in the month of July 2008, within the Municipality, only the application for land use was known for the construction of a construction aggregates plant, a fact that appeared reasonable with the only plans that were later presented to it for the purpose of obtaining a construction license, which were, in turn, the only ones assessed by the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos), limited to the works of the *administrative building* and the *industrial warehouse* (or raw materials warehouse), with a total area of 3946 m2 and an estimated value of ¢771,680,000.00. It should be noted that at that moment, with land use No. 1244/PU-U/08 from the Urban Planning Department for a construction aggregates plant, plus the plans presented, the respective permit for both buildings was granted through resolution No. 1090/SPU/08 of December 2, 2008, from the Department of Planning Process and Infrastructure Construction (folio 148), only for such works that, it is reiterated, covered only the administrative building and industrial warehouse. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the company processed and obtained the \"LOCATION PERMIT FOR CEMENT GRINDING IN CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE, SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA,\" with number ARSA-1023-08 of September 12, 2008, issued by the Health Governing Area of Alajuela (Area Rectora de Salud de Alajuela), where for the first time the true intentions of putting into operation a specific lucrative activity that constituted a project superior to a mere construction aggregates plant are accurately appreciated, since, based on the existing land use, it processes and obtains from the Ministry of Health, now indeed, the approval of a *cement grinding* operation.\n\nThis fact is essential in the present case, because almost simultaneously the plans had been submitted to the Federated College of Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica) for the purpose of erecting large-scale works, namely: an administrative building, industrial warehouse, finished product building, grinding tower, silo tower, electrical works, mechanical works, drying area, and site plans that include access roads, parking lots, guardhouse, electrical substation, and weighing area—in other words, the facilities necessary to build and put into operation a cement plant. However, in absolute disregard of the article just cited, which required “presenting the entire project and indicating the respective duly numbered stages,” in June 2009 the construction began of the entire infrastructure of a cement plant, whose land use had never been requested for such purpose from the Municipality of Alajuela (Municipalidad de Alajuela). This is accepted by the Project’s Environmental Regent (Regente Ambiental), engineer Nombre7575, in a brief dated September 29 of that year, in which he acknowledged the true nature of the works: “mechanical and industrial installations for grinding Portland-type cement and dispatching the product in bulk and in bags.” It was not until September 14, 2009, that the company submitted a second set of plans to the CFIA, presenting a structural redesign of the works corresponding to the finished product building, grinding tower, silo tower, and raw material or industrial warehouse, obtaining the appraisal only for the finished product building, the grinding tower, and the silo tower, with a total area of 2,325.38 m², in order to subsequently obtain the construction permit granted by the Mayor in a resolution at 10:00 a.m. on June 9, 2010, in which he ordered the Urban Planning Sub-Process (Sub Proceso de Planificación Urbana) to issue the extension of the requested construction permit, when the works were already truly advanced. Moreover, the other buildings whose plans remained without the respective appraisal from the professional body and, therefore, without the corresponding municipal license, were being illegally erected. This Tribunal emphasizes that the sole license granted (1090/SPU/08 of December 2, 2008) was issued in light of the only existing land use, which is deemed insufficient for the operation or construction of a cement plant, as it was limited to a construction aggregates plant (planta de agregados para la construcción), a fact that the Mayor did not analyze at that time in the resolution under appeal. Furthermore, this Chamber notes an essential aspect derived from the same norm of the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador), namely: that in the canton of Alajuela, any construction project exceeding 2,500 square meters in area must be presented as a single unit to the municipal authorities, where it must be analyzed—given its impact—in its entirety and completeness, so that the competent authorities may verify the legality of the proposed project in light of its land use and its potential future construction and operation. The events described lead to no other conclusion than that the project was conceived from the outset as a cement plant, but was fraudulently processed before the Municipality of Alajuela as one of lesser impact. The procedures implemented by the company to erect its project were definitely carried out outside the respective urban planning regulations cited.\n\nTherefore, even though the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in ruling No. 2011-004428 of April 1, 2011, did not find it proven “that the grinding project is a disguise for a true cement factory...,” it was also clear in its final Recital (Considerando), stating that the review of the legality of the permits was not its responsibility as it was not a matter within its jurisdiction. From this it follows that, since this Tribunal is a venue that conducts a strict legality analysis, there is no impediment to finding the existence of the cement factory proven on this occasion, for by reason of the powers of this improper hierarchy, it has broad faculties to study in depth and specificity each and every piece of the administrative file for evidentiary purposes and to compare them with the legal framework, as has indeed been done.\n\n**XIII.- ON THE POSSIBILITY OF OPERATING A CEMENT PLANT IN SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA.** Under a parameter of analyzing the prevailing reality, it must therefore be understood that the company Nombre147 S.A. built a cement plant based on the sole land use issued by the local authorities, namely, for “construction aggregates plant.” It was this first land use that served as the basis for obtaining its construction license and, subsequently, for obtaining the land-use certificate for a business license (certificado de uso de suelo para patente) for the activity of cement production from the grinding of raw materials, packaging, and commercialization. In this regard, it should be noted that it is irregular to request other land-use certificates different from the one necessary for the construction of the work, because it is inherently implicit that a building is being erected so that it can operate. Requiring two such certificates is excessive red tape, but if the land use is not consistent with the erected work, they need to justify it through another action, which is precisely the one being challenged. As has been proven, its true and specific commercial activity was to operate a cement grinding plant, a fact that was never reported through formal means to the local authorities, which the Mayor should have appreciated at the appropriate time. On the contrary, that official considered that there was a vested right based on the first certificate and, furthermore, understood that the applicable urban planning regulations permitted it. Things would probably have had a different outcome if, from the beginning, the company had respected the established procedures already cited, by processing a land use to build a cement plant and presenting the project in its entirety. In the opinion of this Chamber, what occurred was a concealment of relevant information about this project, in order to obtain partial licenses on the basis of which they intended to legitimize the construction of a larger-scale project. On this point, it must be stated that if the procedures had been respected, a study of the applicable regulation would only have led to the conclusion that in San Rafael de Alajuela, despite being an industrial zone, it is not possible to operate a cement plant. This unanimous conclusion is reached by this collegiate body upon carefully studying the Land-Use Regulation of the Canton’s Regulatory Plan (Reglamento de Uso de Suelo del Plan Regulador), Title XVII, because beyond article 40 invoked by the company (which describes urban zones as those in which land can be destined for residential, commercial, private, institutional, communal, industrial, tourist, transport, and other uses related to the urban development process), the applicable articles regulating land use for the case at hand are 129.1 and 130, which classify the San Rafael zone as Central Industrial Subzone (Subzona Industrial Central), where the land use is “mixed, where the predominant use is industrial, but recreational, tourist, residential, and commercial uses shall be permitted.” Likewise, article 131 permits, as a conforming use, “light, non-polluting industry,” from which it is not possible to conclude that a cement plant can be considered a light industry, given that the Procedures Regulation of Nombre3456 classifies it as an activity that generates a moderately high environmental impact. It must therefore be determined whether it is possible to consider it as a permitted activity with conditional use, following the applicable urban planning regulations. Regarding “conditional uses” (usos condicionales), it expressly refers “to those indicated in the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area (Reglamento de Zonificación parcial de áreas industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana).” In the same vein and of importance to this case, article 134 of the aforementioned Zoning Regulation of the Regulatory Plan of Alajuela, within the same chapter regulating the conforming uses of the industrial subzone—where San Rafael is located—refers to the regulations contained in the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area. Said article provides:\n\n“Article 134.—Conforming Uses. They are those indicated in the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area. From the list in Anexo Nº 1, numeral 17. Tourist uses such as hotels, recreational and cultural centers, and all other uses permitted in the zone of tourist corridors, commercial corridors, and special projects are also permitted, as well as single-family and multi-family residential use.”\n\nFor its part, the referenced Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area, approved by the National Institute of Housing and Urbanism (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo, INVU) in a session of its Board of Directors in article 10 of ordinary session number 3623, of May 6, 1985, classifies San Rafael de Ojo de Agua as a Type Two Zone (Zona tipo Dos) (1-2), which includes “establishments that treat or process raw materials,” but the possibility of a cement plant operating there is not found among its thirty-six Permitted Uses. This type of specific activity is regulated in subsection 65) of the Chapter on Type Three Industries (1-3), which locates them solely in the localities of Ochomogo, Coris, and Ciruelas, because they are zones that are “relatively far from heavily populated urban centers,” and therefore permits activities with a “risk of nuisances or contamination greater than the preceding ones.” There is a single permissibility whereby in the Type Two Zone—which includes San Rafael de Ojo de Agua—the uses of the type three zone are permitted, “provided it is proven that they will not produce nuisances greater than the industries indicated in the preceding list,” but only for the activities determined in the first list, not the second. Thus, heavy industries, such as coal yards, stone crushers, alcohol production, “extraction of materials, stones, sands, and gravels”—the company's original activity (subsection 20)—and “cement factories” (subsection 20), are subsequently restricted in Section 3 on Special Locations, which provides that they must operate exclusively in the type 3 zone, preferably in rural areas, conditioned upon a prior case-by-case study and taking the necessary precautions. The regulation expressly establishes that “The industries indicated in this list may be located in a Z.1, type 3, provided they demonstrate that their process will not produce nuisances, noises, vibrations, gases, odors, water-dischargeable waste, or explosions to a greater degree than that normally generated in that zone.”\n\nFrom the indicated regulation, one can only conclude that, according to the prevailing land use (uso del suelo), for a cement plant to operate under the regulation contained in the Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Areas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana, it may only do so in the type three industrial zone, that is, in Ochomogo, Coris, and Ciruelas. From what has been described, it is evident that the analysis of the applicable regulations carried out by the Mayor of Alajuela, in the resolution under appeal, is legally and technically incorrect, entailing serious defects in its content and its reasoning, which even go so far as to violate the very purpose of the issued land use (uso del suelo), insofar as it grossly infringes upon the territorial planning (ordenación territorial) of San Rafael de Alajuela, erroneously declaring the possibility of a cement plant operating in contravention of the cited regulatory text, which has the normative value of law in the material sense. Therefore, the grounds of the company's defense, aimed at the application of articles 129 and 130 of the Reglamento de Uso del Suelo of the canton of Alajuela, are technically incorrect, as they perform a biased reading of the entire content of the indicated norms, and must be rejected in this act.\n\n**XIV.- COROLLARY.-** The land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) No. official letter No. 1244/PU-U/08 of July 31, 2008, issued by the Department of Urban Planning, was limited to indicating that it is permitted for the \"construction of a plant for construction aggregates on the property in the name of Nombre52081 ., identity card number CED78966 in the Property Registry at volume (sic), page (sic), number (sic), entry (sic) real property folio 2143636-000 which is described in the cadastral map No. Placa16660 located in the district of SAN RAFAEL Exact Address, San Rafael de Alajuela. According to the zoning map of the PLAN REGULADOR URBANO DEL CANTÓN CENTRAL DE LA PROVINCIA DE ALAJUELA, PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE No. 182 OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2004, the above-indicated property is located in the zone classified as: CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE\". This document is not so broad as to declare that the operation of a cement grinding mill is permitted in that zone. Said land use (uso de suelo) is exclusively for the indicated activity, and it is the responsibility of the entrepreneur to prove before the municipal authorities, from the outset, the true use they intended to give to the land. It is not true that the content of that first land use (uso del suelo) encompasses an industrial cement plant, whose operation requires the implementation of heavy machinery and of greater environmental impact. The analysis carried out by the Mayor, when reviewing the land use (uso del suelo), misinterprets the content of that first certificate, giving it a non-existent and legally incorrect one, since it has conferred no right in favor of Nombre147 S.A. for the purpose of constructing and operating a cement plant, even less so when it is noted that it was issued in favor of another legal entity (Desarrollo e Inversiones Productivas DIP S.A.). Furthermore, it having been clarified then that it is not possible for a company of that type to operate in San Rafael de Alajuela, since the Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Areas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana, approved by the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo in session of its Board of Directors in article 10 of ordinary session number 3623, of May 6, 1985, which is expressly referenced by article 134 of the Zoning Regulation of the Alajuela Regulatory Plan, regarding the conditional uses of the Central Industrial Zone of San Rafael de Ojo de Agua, only permits such activity in Ochomogo, Coris, and Ciruelas—that is, far from highly populated urban centers. In reality, an industry of this type was erected by Nombre147 S.A. in San Rafael de Alajuela, specifically on the farm with real property folio registration Placa17173, for which reason the granting of the land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) for the cement plant activity is legally unfeasible. As things stand, the grievances expressed in the appeal by the A are receivable, which renders the resolution of the Mayor of Alajuela, of 11:00 hours on August 26, 2010, under appeal, absolutely null, which is ordered in this act. As there is no further recourse, the administrative channel is deemed exhausted.\n\n**POR TANTO:**\n\nThe request for consolidation of proceedings is rejected. The resolution of the Mayor of Alajuela, of 11:00 hours on August 26, 2010, is annulled. Let the Municipality take note of what is considered in this resolution. The administrative channel is deemed exhausted.\n\n\n\n\n\nNombre66641\n\n**Nombre66641** \n\n\n\n\n\n\n**Evelyn Solano Ulloa** **Eduardo González Segura**\n\n\n\nExp: 10-003992-1027-CA Appeal\nA\n\n793-AM-EX-2009 of October 7, 2009, at folio 185); **2)** Based on the Professional Services Contract No. Placa17074 of August 29, 2008, the company Nombre147 S.A. submitted to the Federated College of Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica plans to erect an administrative building, an industrial warehouse, a finished product building, a grinding tower, a silo tower, electrical works, mechanical works, a drying area, and site plans that include access roads, parking areas, a guardhouse, an electrical substation, and a weighing area, with a total area of 25,000 m2 (contract at folios 108 to 113, report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible at folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, at folios 740 to 743); **3)** From the indicated plans, the aforementioned professional college only assessed the works for the administrative building and the industrial warehouse (or raw materials warehouse), with a total area of 3,946 m2 and an estimated value of ¢771,680,000.00. The rest of the project was not assessed because it did not indicate construction details (see report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible at folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, at folios 740 to 743); **4)** The plans for the aforementioned works assessed by the college were submitted to the Municipality of Alajuela by D S.A. for the purpose of obtaining a construction license for industry, with identical dimensions and value. The construction permit for both buildings was approved by resolution No. 1090/SPU/08 of December 2, 2008, from the Department of Planning and Infrastructure Construction Process, thereby authorizing only the construction of an industrial warehouse and an administrative building (see application at folio 134, contract at folio 111, permit at folio 148); **5)** Based on the land-use (uso del suelo) No. 1244/PU/U/08, the Alajuela Governing Health Area issued a \"LOCATION PERMIT FOR CEMENT GRINDING IN THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE, SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA\", with number ARSA-1023-08 of September 12, 2008 (folio 128); **6)** In a second plan submitted by the company to the CFIA on September 14, 2009, a structural redesign was proposed for the works corresponding to the finished product building, the grinding tower, the silo tower, and the raw materials or industrial warehouse. Of these, only the finished product building, the grinding tower, and the silo tower were assessed, for a total of 2,325.38 m2 (see report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible at folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, at folios 740 to 743); **7)** As reported to Nombre3456 by engineer Emilio Garro Rojas, the Project's Environmental Regent, in a memorial dated September 29 of that year, the company began the construction of an entire complex in June 2009, which included the construction of mechanical and industrial facilities for grinding Portland-type cement and dispatching bulk and bagged product. These constructions were begun without construction permits, which by that date had not been submitted for their respective license before the Municipality (folio 177); **8)** Inspector Nombre147 of the CFIA, following a site visit, issued report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, reporting that the entire project complex had been built, which included: the works that had assessment by the guild and municipal permit (No. 1090/SPU-108 of December 2, 2008 for the administrative building and the industrial warehouse), the works that were assessed but lacked a construction license (electrical substation, silo tower, grinding tower, and finished product building), and the works lacking both assessment and license (access road, patios, parking areas, guardhouse) (see report No. DRD-INSP-1089-2009 of December 8, 2009, visible at folios 199 to 214, official letter DE-0147-10-01 of January 11, 2010, from the CFIA, at folios 740 to 743); **9)** On April 5, 2010, Mr. Nombre317, in his capacity as representative of D S.A., applied to the Municipality for two construction permits without specifying which works they comprised, one of them estimated at the sum of ¢39,104.00 and the other at the sum of ¢1,087,195,200. (application at folios 383 and 384) **10)** The construction license was approved by the Municipal Mayor's Office, in a resolution at 10:00 a.m. on June 9, 2010, in which it ordered the Urban Planning Sub-Process to issue the extension of the requested construction permit, for the purpose of generating the corresponding tax burden. Said permit was issued under number MA-SPU-PA-0746-2010 of September 24, 2010, for an additional construction area of 5,819.38 m2, with an estimated value of ¢488,041,645.30, to erect the works contained in the second assessed plan (grinding tower, silo tower, finished product and dispatch building, and electrical substation), (resolution at folios 512 to 519, permit at folios 596 to 600); **11)** Through application US-7415, the company Nombre147 S.A. requested a land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) for grinding, packaging, and marketing operation of cement, which was rejected by resolution No. MA-PU-US-504-2010 at 10:30 a.m. on May 17, 2010, by Engineer Nombre5836, Director of the Planning and Infrastructure Construction Process of the Municipality of Alajuela, stating that \"According to the zoning map of the REGULATORY PLAN OF THE CENTRAL CANTON OF THE PROVINCE OF ALAJUELA, PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE No. 182 OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2004, the above-indicated property is located in the zone classified as CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE.- Consequently, the intended use is: REJECTED by the zoning imposed by this municipality.- Likewise, it is indicated that said activity DOES NOT COMPLY with the provisions of article II, subsection 44, of Executive Decree number 34728-S of the Ministry of Health regarding Setbacks and Special Zones\" (folio 802); **12)** Disagreeing with the decision, on June 11, 2010, the representative of the company Nombre147 S.A. filed a concomitant appeal and nullity action, which was upheld in a resolution at 11:00 a.m. on August 26, 2010, by the Acting Mayor of Alajuela, Lic. Luis Alonso Gutiérrez Herrera, in which it granted the land-use for a patent for the activity of cement production from raw material grinding, packaging, and marketing (folios 679 to 686); **13)** Against the previous resolution, on September 10, 2010, Mr. Nombre2882, in his capacity as President of the Integral Development Association of San Rafael de Ojo de Agua de Alajuela, filed an appeal (folio 1); **14)** On November 17, 2010, the indicated Association filed a Per Saltum appeal before this Court on the grounds that its appeal had not been referred to this collegiate body (folios 3 and 4).\n\n**III.- UNPROVEN FACT.** The company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A. did not demonstrate the following relevant facts: **1)** Having submitted the entire construction project to the Municipality of Alajuela (the case file); **2)** That the cement industry is considered light industry (the case file); 3) That the land-use certificate No. 1244/PU-U/08 was challenged (the case file).\n\n**IV.- CONTENT OF THE APPEALED ACT.** To provide clarity on the object of this appeal, given the complexity of the resolution under review, a summary of its content is provided, which should facilitate the understanding of what is subsequently decided. The Acting Mayor of Alajuela, Lic. Luis Alonso Gutiérrez Herrera, by resolution at 11:00 a.m. on August 26, 2010, upheld the concomitant appeal and nullity action filed against official letter MA-P-US-504-2010, at 10:30 a.m. on May 17, 2010, from the Director of the Planning and Infrastructure Construction Process of the Municipality of Alajuela, in which the land-use had been rejected. In that act, he granted the land-use on the property of the Province of Alajuela, with real folio registration number Placa17172, applied for by the company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A., stating that \"the permitted land-use for a patent is granted for the activity of cement production from raw material grinding, packaging, and marketing,\" based on four essential aspects: **1)** The nature as a vested right of the land-use certificate contained in official letter No. 1244/PU-U/08 of July 31, 2008, by the Urban Planning Department, invoking the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber contained in rulings Nos. 01098-2003 at 4:40 p.m. on February 11, 2003, and 4715-2006 at 11:39 a.m. on March 31, 2006, according to which land-use generates a consolidated legal situation, so that disregarding its effects obligates the Administration to follow the procedure established in article 308 and following of the General Law of Public Administration, applying the principle of the intangibility of own acts. **2)** The existence of two categories of land-use provided for in the Canton's Regulatory Plan, namely for construction or for the granting of the respective patent. **3)** In a confusing wording, the Acting Mayor explains that official letter No. 1244/PUI/U/08 of July 31, 2008, from the Urban Planning Department, granted a land-use for construction, considering that the matter under review involves a different application, namely, a land-use for a patent, and therefore it cannot be required to meet the requirements of the former, which relate to obtaining construction permits. He considers that the decision in official letter MA-PU-US-504-2010 disregards the previously granted activity authorization. **4)** Based on the consultation made to the Urban Planning Sub-Process, in official letter No.\n\nMA-SPU-989-2010 of August 24, 2010, in application of the zoning regulations of the Urban Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador Urbano) of the canton, Title XVII, Chapter I, Article 129, the property under study is located in the central industrial subzone and outside the buffer zone (zona de amortiguamiento), in which complementary uses to industry are permitted, given that the intended activity is industrial in nature. 5) That the requirements for construction permits and compliance with the requirements of Executive Decree No. 34728-S of the Ministry of Health, contained in communication MA-P-US-504-2010, of 10:30 a.m. on May 17, 2010, lacked proper grounding, which is why it deemed the indicated communication null and void.\n\n**V.- GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL.** In addition to the abundant factual list set forth by the appellant, regarding matters directly concerning the challenge to the land use (uso del suelo) granted by the Municipal Mayor—which is strictly the object of this appeal—in summary, the appealing organization argues the following: That the land use granted to the firm D S.A., through a resolution issued at 8:37 a.m. on July 31, 2008, by the Urban Planning Sub-process (Subproceso de Planificación Urbana) of the Municipality of Alajuela, was only for the \"*construction of an aggregates plant for construction*.\" It states that the works erected by the company Nombre147 S.A. were for the purpose of putting a cement plant into operation, which includes a finished product building, silo tower, grinding tower, access road, yards, parking areas, guardhouse, electrical substation, mechanical works, drying area, exterior electrical works, and the weighing area, buildings that also lack a municipal license, which had given rise to Construction Closure Order (Acta de Clausura de Construcción) No. 241-2009 of 11:35 a.m. on November 9, 2009. The appealing organization adds that the land use requested for the activity of cement production from raw materials, packaging, and commercialization was rejected through communication No. MA-PU-US-504-2010 by engineer Nombre5836, because the activity did not conform to the current Regulatory Plan. Despite this, in the resolution of 11:00 a.m. on August 26, 2010—submitted on appeal—, the Mayor granted the appeal filed against that action which had rejected the land use certificate (constancia de uso del suelo) for \"cement grinding,\" granting a land use certificate for an activity whose infrastructure was built without the legal licenses required by the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) and with a different authorized land use. The appellant states that there is an incompatibility between the land use granted and the Regulatory Plan, since the cement factory is located within the Central Industrial Zone of the San Rafael de Ojo de Agua de Alajuela area, which is regulated by the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area (Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Areas Industriales en la Gran Area Metropolitana) by express referral from Article 134 of the Regulatory Plan of the Canton of Alajuela. According to said regulations, it estimates, in San Rafael de Alajuela only industries classified as class 2 may be established, and not a cement production plant, which requires a special location in a class 3 zone, far from any population center, and which also requires the prior pronouncement of the INVU and the Ministry of Health.\n\n**VI.- POSITION OF THE COMPANY Nombre147 S.A.** Without ignoring the extensive defense arguments presented by the company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A., considered in their entirety by this Court, regarding the land use of the plant in its possession, it indicates the following: That this matter was previously known by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), in judgments No. 2011-004428 of April 1, 2011, and 2011-13943 of 11:36 a.m. on October 14, 2011, in which, respectively, it dismissed two amparo appeals (recursos de amparo) against the installation of the plant and held as an unproven fact the irregularities alleged in the granting of the construction permit and where additionally it did not find proven, even at the level of reasonable doubt, \"*that the grinding project is a disguise for a true cement factory...*\" Regarding the project's location, it alleges that both the Municipality of Alajuela and the Ministry of Health agree that the zone where the Nombre147 plant operates is an industrial zone, which is verified in the permit issued by the Ministry of Health and in Land Use No. 1244/PU/U/08. It expressly indicates that \"*the plant is intended for the manufacture of aggregate for construction: cement*.\" It argues that in any case, the activity does conform to the regulatory plan since it establishes, in Article 40, subsection f), that industrial activity can be developed in urban zones, and that as established by Articles 129 and 130, the GAM was modified, establishing a Central Industrial Subzone in San Rafael, which is reiterated in Annex 1 (Anexo 1), including that commercial activities, such as distribution, can also be carried out in buffer zones. It contends that the appellant lacks standing (legitimación), since the central issue is the lack of requirements, given that the Municipal Code (Código Municipal) does not grant such broad standing for a third party who is not a party in a petition-and-response relationship to intervene, and that we are not in the presence of a health or environmental matter for the purpose of being granted standing by diffuse or collective interests. It adds that it cannot come to invoke the nullity of administrative acts that already granted subjective rights, so improper hierarchy (jerarquía impropia) is not the procedure to decree their annulment, and that, in application of the principle that there is no nullity without damage, there is no documentary evidence or argumentation tending to demonstrate the defects in the permits granted and that generate damage to it.\n\n**VII.- ASPECTS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF REVIEW IN THIS INSTANCE.** Aside from the land use granted, there is a series of facts invoked by the interveners that, although accessory, are not useful or relevant to resolve the object of this appeal, such as everything concerning the cancellation of credentials of the ex-Mayor of Alajuela, or the orders for closure or clausura of the plant, and even the amounts paid for municipal taxes as a result of the construction permits granted. In any case, within file No. 10-2267-1027-CA, which concluded with resolution No. 410-2011 already indicated, from this same Court, the nullity was ordered of the resolution issued at ten o'clock in the morning on June ninth, two thousand ten, by the Mayor of the Municipality of Alajuela, which was considered null due to a transgression of the legality block, for approving the extension of the construction license and the reassessment of the works in the face of non-compliance with the requirements established in the legal system for this type of procedure and project, as well as the accessory actions of that administrative act. This is important because the intervening parties tend to once again restate the background of the construction licenses and reassessments, which, although related to this file, have already been analyzed by this Chamber in the indicated resolution. Thus, the company invokes that the Constitutional Chamber, in judgment No. 2011-13943 of 11:36 a.m. on October 14, 2011, dismissed an amparo appeal against the installation of the plant, in which it held as an unproven fact \"*that there were irregularities in the granting of the municipal construction permit for the Tajo Meco industrialization project, that after said permit the company exceeded what was permitted, or that the Municipality of Alajuela permitted irregularities in the construction*.\" This matter is not subject to review on this occasion within this file, since *this appeal is limited to the objective review of the legality of the land use granted, an analysis that our high Constitutional Court has not yet performed in judgment No. 2011-13943 of 11:36 a.m. on October 14, 2011*, and therefore the existence of res judicata (cosa juzgada) cannot be alleged, based on the cited rulings.\n\n**VIII.- ON THE STANDING OF THE APPELLANT.** In the present matter, the correct application of the zoning regulations contained in the Regulatory Plan (Plan Regulador) of the canton of Alajuela for the specific case of the project presented by the company Comercializadora de Nombre147 S.A. is being aired. The organization A contends that a cement plant has been erected in transgression of urban planning regulations, an activity it estimates is prohibited under the applicable zoning regulations. On this particular point, it must be indicated that although the implementation of urban plans has a direct impact on the exercise of the fundamental rights of private property and freedom of enterprise, insofar as the development of industry and commerce is also inferred from the content of its regulations (Articles 45 and 47 of the Political Constitution), it also infers the consequent protection of another fundamental right, namely, that of a healthy and ecologically balanced environment (Article 50 of the Political Constitution); as considered by the Constitutional Chamber since judgments number 5303-93 and 3656-2006. This observation is essential to recognize the broad standing that covers private individuals to achieve the application of urban planning regulations whose collateral purpose is to provide protection to the environment and, in a connected manner, obtain a development and favorable evolution of the human being in application of constitutional numeral 50, which establishes a true popular action for the protection of this fundamental right. Likewise, as regulated by the Political Constitution in its article 173 and the Municipal Code in Article 153, in municipal matters there is broad standing since it is admitted that any person with a legitimate interest may access the means of challenge, therefore, for the specific case, there is no doubt that the organization A does possess standing to come in claim of such interests, so the defense of lack of standing must be rejected.\n\n**IX.- OBJECT OF THIS IMPROPER HIERARCHY: REVIEW OF THE LEGALITY OF THE LAND USE CERTIFICATE.** The objection made by the company, to the effect that the route of improper hierarchy cannot be used to invoke the nullity of administrative acts that already granted subjective rights, is not shared by this Court. In a sense totally contrary to what was expressed, the municipal improper hierarchy is indeed, par excellence, the appropriate administrative route to decree its annulment, as provided in Articles 173 of the Political Constitution and 156 of the Municipal Code (for agreements of the Municipal Council) and Article 162 of the Municipal Code (regarding the formal actions of the Mayor). This Court must emphasize that as provided by the referenced numerals and 181 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), this body is limited to the mere review of the objective legality of the challenged act, as stated supra. Likewise, it must be indicated that what was resolved by the Mayor in the indicated resolution has not acquired firmness by reason of its challenge, therefore nothing has been consolidated in favor of the company, which must wait until there is a definitive administrative act that resolves its procedure.\n\nIn any case, this Section recognizes that the land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo), while a declaratory act limited to indicating the permitted land use, does have an impact on the sphere of legitimate interests of the administered party, insofar as its granting becomes a necessary \"authorization\" to continue with the preparation of urban development, construction, or commercial projects by the residents and, obviously, to aspire to obtain a future municipal license, subject to prior verification of the existence of the other legal requirements. It should be noted that such is the force of the land-use certificate that when it is \"non-conforming,\" it has the impact of preventing the administered party from achieving the subsequent steps to obtain any of said permits, which is challengeable through the municipal appeals ladder, until its exhaustion in administrative proceedings before this Tribunal in improper hierarchy. Without a doubt, its granting touches that essential core of the legitimate interests of administered parties reflected in the right to use and enjoy their real property, with sufficient force to open space for them to plan the development of projects and investments. Local authorities must, then, responsibly assume the consequences of granting this type of instrument, ensuring, through the available technical elements and with full command of the current territorial regulation, the granting of land-use certificates in absolute certainty and credibility of their content. Precisely, by reason of their importance and impact at the local level, the review of land use carried out by this Tribunal is done through a confrontation with the cantonal urban regulations, in order to determine whether the operation of an industry of the weight of a cement plant can or cannot operate in an area alleged to be unsuitable for it. Likewise, the fact that the production of environmental harm is ruled out at the Constitutional Chamber level does not presuppose that there are no violations of the principle of legality, a task entrusted to this improper hierarchy by constitutional and legal provision, as has been explained, prior to jurisdictional review in the contentious-administrative venue.\n\nX.- ON URBAN REGULATION. Urban planning is an essentially local competence, pursuant to constitutional article 169 and article 15 of the Urban Planning Law (Ley de Planificación Urbana), which regulates everything concerning regulatory plans, which are the urban planning regulations of mandatory application for each canton, based on the authorization of article 45 of the Political Constitution, which allows the imposition of limitations on the use of urban property. These limitations tend to prevent the disorderly and impactful development of communities and seek to guarantee the coexistence of human needs for community life together with the duty to provide protection to the environment. In accordance with this, article 81 of the Municipal Code establishes that municipal licenses for the exercise of for-profit activities may only be denied \"when the activity is contrary to the law, morality, or good customs, when the establishment has not fulfilled the legal and regulatory requirements or when the activity, by reason of its physical location, is not permitted by the laws or, failing that, by the current municipal regulations\" (emphasis added). The final part of this norm refers to the binding nature of urban regulations and the submission that administered parties must have to the rules they impose as being of public order, since these integrate the content of the property right, insofar as they establish the authorized or legitimate scope of its exercise, under the understanding that there is no dispossession of private property nor deprivation of the primary attribute of ownership. Likewise, article 24 of the Urban Planning Law provides that zoning regulations must include the determination of land uses; matters relating to the location, height, and building area of edifices; the surface area and dimensions of lots, which has direct incidence on land density; the size of setbacks, yards, and other open spaces, and lot coverage by buildings and structures; among others. Article 28 of the same Law indicates that the use of land requires a use certificate in order to determine its compatibility with urban regulation:\n\n\"Article 28.- It is prohibited to use or dedicate lands, buildings, structures to any use that is incompatible with the established zoning. Hereafter, interested owners must obtain a municipal certificate that certifies the conformity of the use to the zoning requirements. Existing non-conforming uses must also be recorded with a certificate expressing such circumstance.\n\nEach zoning regulation shall set the date from which said certificates will be mandatory.\"\n\nXI.- ON THE URBAN REGULATIONS OF THE CANTON OF ALAJUELA APPLIED TO THE SPECIFIC CASE. Following the regulatory line set forth above, the Urban Regulatory Plan of the Canton of Alajuela (Plan Regulador Urbano del Cantón de Alajuela), published in La Gaceta No. 182 of September 17, 2004, provided that for purposes of both construction and business license (patente), the land-use certificate is a prerequisite for the granting of such licenses, in the manner transcribed below:\n\n\"Article 12.—For the purposes of permits for construction, expansion, remodeling, restoration, demolition, or reconstruction of buildings or developments, the administered party, whether a natural or legal person, private or public, must previously obtain a Land-Use Certificate in which the permitted use of the property desired to be used, alignments, minimum frontage, minimum lot area, construction coverage, as well as conditions given the zone in which it is located are recorded...\" (emphasis added)\n\n\"Article 15.- For the business license (patentes) process, the presentation of the corresponding Land-Use Certificate shall also be required...\"\n\nIn accordance with the highlighted text of the transcribed norms, this Tribunal must emphasize that the land-use certificate for both construction and for holding a business license is coupled, obviously and necessarily, with the use intended for the building to be erected. It is for this reason that the land-use certificate is a single document when the construction is built first, and it is required for a business license in the event that a for-profit activity is intended to be carried out in an already existing infrastructure. In the event that a building is erected, it is the obligation of the administered party, insofar as it is their duty to submit to urban regulation, to anticipate that what they aspire to build in order to exercise a specific for-profit activity therein—since the project is conceived as a single constructive unit—is permitted according to the established zoning. In the present matter, it is verified that in official communication No. 1244/PU-U/08 at 3:37 p.m. on July 31, 2008, the Department of Urban Planning (Departamento de Planificación Urbana) granted to D S.A. the land use for \"construction of an aggregates for construction plant\" on a property that had been operating as a quarry (tajo), where sand and stone necessary for construction are extracted, which is reasonable according to the activity carried out and the intended one. However, from the list of proven facts, this Tribunal takes as accredited that the true intentions of the company were the construction and placing into operation of a cement plant, for the reasons that will be stated in the following Recitals.\n\nXII.- ON THE PROCEDURE IMPLEMENTED. Article 12 of the Cantonal Land-Use Regulation of Alajuela (Reglamento del Uso del Suelo del Cantón de Alajuela) continues to indicate that for projects exceeding 2500 m2—as is the one under review—, in addition to the land-use certificate, there is a specific procedure for obtaining its approval, as it is necessary to present the entirety of the project and indicate the construction stages. The text is transcribed below:\n\n\"12.2. Requirements to obtain a construction permit for works larger than 30 square meters. The interested party must fill out their application, provide 2 complete copies of the construction plans, a copy of the cadastral plan with the corresponding alignments, a copy of the risk policy. Permits may be authorized for buildings in previously numbered stages in projects larger than 2500 m2 of construction. The interested party must present the total project and indicate the respective duly numbered stages.\" (Emphasis added)\n\nHowever, in the month of July 2008, within the Municipality, only the application for land use for construction of an aggregates for construction plant was known, a fact that appeared reasonable with the only plans later presented to it for obtaining a construction license, which were in turn the only ones assessed by the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos), limited to the works for the administrative building and the industrial warehouse (or raw material warehouse), with a total area of 3946 m2 and an estimated value of ¢771,680,000.00. Note that at that time, with land use No. 1244/PU-U/08 from the Department of Urban Planning for an aggregates for construction plant, plus the presented plans, the respective permit for both buildings was granted through resolution No. 1090/SPU/08 of December 2, 2008, from the Department of Planning Process and Infrastructure Construction (Departamento de Proceso de Planeamiento y Construcción de Infraestructura) (folio 148), only for such works that, it is reiterated, covered solely the administrative building and industrial warehouse. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the company processed and obtained the \"LOCATION PERMIT FOR CEMENT GRINDING IN THE CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE, SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA,\" with number ARSA-1023-08 of September 12, 2008, issued by the Governing Health Area of Alajuela (Area Rectora de Salud de Alajuela), where for the first time the true intentions of placing into operation a specific for-profit activity that constituted a project greater than a mere aggregates for construction plant are accurately appreciated, since based on the existing land use, it processed and obtained from the Ministry of Health, now, the approval of a cement grinding plant (molienda de cemento).\n\nThis fact is essential in the present case, because almost simultaneously, plans had been submitted to the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica for the purpose of erecting large-scale works, namely: an administrative building, industrial warehouse, finished product building, grinding tower, silo tower, electrical works, mechanical works, drying area, and site plans that include access roads, parking lots, guard house, electrical substation, and weighing area; that is, the facilities necessary to erect and put into operation a cement plant. However, in absolute disregard of the article just cited, which required \"presenting the entire project and indicating the respective stages duly numbered,\" in June 2009, the construction of the entire infrastructure of a cement plant began, whose land use was never requested for that purpose from the Municipality of Alajuela. This is accepted by the Project's Environmental Regent's own report, engineer Nombre7575, in a brief dated September 29 of that year, in which he acknowledged the true nature of the works: \"mechanical and industrial facilities for grinding Portland-type cement and dispatch of bulk and bagged product.\" It was not until September 14, 2009, that the company submitted a second plan to the CFIA, in which it proposed a structural redesign of the works corresponding to the finished product building, grinding tower, silo tower, and raw material or industrial warehouse, obtaining valuation only for the finished product building, the grinding tower, and the silo tower, with a total area of 2,325.38 m2, in order to subsequently obtain the construction permit granted by the Mayor in a resolution at 10:00 a.m. on June 9, 2010, in which he ordered the Urban Planning Sub-Process to issue the expansion of the requested construction permit, when the works were already truly advanced. Even illegally, the other buildings whose plans remained without the respective valuation from the professional association and, therefore, without the corresponding municipal license, were being erected. This Court emphasizes that the only license granted (1090/SPU/08 of December 2, 2008), was granted in light of the sole existing land use, which is deemed insufficient for the operation or construction of a cement plant, as it was limited to an aggregates plant for construction, a fact that the Mayor did not analyze at that time in the resolution appealed. Moreover, this Chamber appreciates an essential aspect derived from the same Regulatory Plan regulation, namely: that in the canton of Alajuela, any construction project exceeding 2,500 square meters in area must be submitted as a unit before municipal authorities, where it must be analyzed—given its impact—in its entirety and completeness, so that the competent authorities verify the legality of the proposed project, in light of land use and its possible construction and future start-up. The events described lead to no other conclusion than that the project, from the outset, was conceived as a cement plant, but fraudulently processed before the Municipality of Alajuela as one of lesser impact. The procedures implemented by the company to erect its project were, definitively, conducted outside the margin of the respective cited urban planning regulations.\n\nThus, even though the Constitutional Chamber, in judgment No. 2011-004428 of April 1, 2011, did not find it proven \"that the grinding project is a disguise for a true cement factory...,\" it was also clear in stating in its last Considerando that the review of the legality of the permits did not correspond to it as it was not a matter within its competence. From this it is concluded that, since this Court is a venue that conducts a strict analysis of legality, there is no obstacle to considering the existence of the cement factory as proven on this occasion, because by reason of the competences of this improper hierarchy, it possesses broad powers to study in depth and specificity each and every piece of the administrative file for evidentiary purposes and to confront them with the legal framework, as has indeed been done.\n\n**XIII.- ON THE POSSIBILITY OF OPERATING A CEMENT PLANT IN SAN RAFAEL DE ALAJUELA.** Under a parameter of analyzing the prevailing reality, it must then be understood that the company Nombre147 S.A. built a cement plant, based on the sole land use issued by local authorities, namely, for \"aggregates plant for construction.\" It was that first land use that served as the basis to obtain its construction license and, later, to obtain the land-use certificate for a business license (certificado de uso de suelo para patente) for the activity of cement production from the grinding of raw materials, packaging, and commercialization. In this regard, it is worth considering that it is irregular to request other land-use certificates different from the one necessary for the construction of the work, because it is implicitly understood that the work is being erected so that it can operate. Requiring two such certificates is an excess of procedure, but if the land use is not consistent with the erected work, they need to justify it through another action, which is precisely the one challenged. As has been proven, its true and specific commercial line of business was to operate a cement grinding plant, something that was never reported through formal means to local authorities, which the Mayor should have appreciated at the appropriate time. On the contrary, that official considered that there was a vested right based on the first certificate and, further, understood that the applicable urban planning regulations permit it. Things probably would have had a different outcome if, from the beginning, the company had respected the established procedures already cited, processing a land use for constructing a cement plant and presenting the project in its entirety. In the opinion of this Chamber, what occurred was a distraction of relevant information regarding this project, in order to obtain partial licenses on the basis of which they intended to legitimize the construction of a larger-scale project. With respect to this particular point, it should be noted that if the procedures had been respected, the study of the applicable regulation would only have permitted reaching the conclusion that in San Rafael de Alajuela, despite being an industrial zone, it is not possible to operate a cement plant. This collegiate body reaches this unequivocal conclusion by carefully studying the Land Use Regulation of the canton's Regulatory Plan, Title XVII, because beyond Article 40 invoked by the company (which describes urban zones as those in which land can be destined for residential, commercial, private and institutional and communal services, industrial, tourism, transportation, and other uses related to the urban development process), the applicable articles that regulate land use for the case of interest are 129.1 and 130, which classify the San Rafael zone as Central Industrial Subzone, where the land use is \"mixed where the predominant use is industrial, but recreational, tourism, residential, and commercial uses will be permitted.\" Likewise, Article 131 permits, as conforming use, \"light, non-polluting industry,\" from which it is not possible to conclude that a cement plant can be considered a light industry since, according to the Procedures Regulation of Nombre3456, it is classified as an activity that generates a moderately high impact on the environment. Therefore, it must be determined whether it is possible to have it as a permitted activity with conditional use, following the applicable urban planning regulations. With respect to \"conditional uses,\" it expressly refers \"to those indicated in the Partial Zoning Regulation for Industrial Areas in the Greater Metropolitan Area.\" In the same vein and of importance for this case, Article 134 of the mentioned Zoning Regulation of the Regulatory Plan of Alajuela, within the same chapter that regulates the conforming uses of the industrial subzone—where San Rafael is located—refers to the regulations contained in the Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Áreas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana. Said article provides:\n\n\"Article 134.—Conforming uses. They are those indicated in the Reglamento de Zonificación parcial de Áreas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana. From the list of Anexo Nº 1, numeral 17. Tourism uses such as hotels, recreational and cultural centers, and all other uses permitted in the zone of tourism corridors, commercial and special projects, as well as single-family and multi-family residential use, are also permitted.\"\n\nFor its part, the referred Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Áreas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana, approved by the INVU in a session of its Board of Directors in Article 10 of ordinary session number 3623, of May 6, 1985, classifies San Rafael de Ojo de Agua as a type Two Zone (1-2), which includes \"establishments that process or elaborate raw materials,\" but the possibility of a cement plant operating therein is not found among its thirty-six Permitted Uses. This type of specific activity is regulated in subsection 65) of the Chapter on Type Three Industries (1-3), which locates them only in the localities of Ochomogo, Coris, and Ciruelas, because they are zones that are \"relatively far from highly populated urban centers,\" therefore allowing activities with a \"risk of nuisance or contamination greater than the previous ones.\" There is a single permissibility that in the Type Two Zone—which includes San Rafael de Ojo de Agua—type three zone uses are permitted, \"provided it is proven that they will not produce greater nuisances than the industries indicated in the preceding list,\" but only for the activities determined in the first list, not the second. Thus, heavy industries, such as coal yards, stone crushers, alcohol production, \"extraction of materials, stones, sands and gravels\"—the company's original activity (subsection 20)— and \"cement factories\" (subsection 20), are subsequently restricted in Section 3 on Special Locations, which provides that they must operate exclusively in type 3 zone, preferably in rural areas, conditioned upon a prior case-by-case study and taking the necessary precautions. The regulation expressly establishes that \"The industries indicated in this list may be located in a Z.1, type 3, provided they demonstrate that their process will not produce nuisances, noises, vibrations, gases, odors, water-eliminable waste, or explosion to a greater degree than that normally generated in that zone.\"\n\nFrom the aforementioned regulation, one can only conclude that, in accordance with the prevailing land use, for a cement plant to operate under the regulation contained in the Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Areas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana, it can only do so in the type three industrial zone, that is, in Ochomogo, Coris and Ciruelas. From what has been described, it is evident that the analysis of the applicable regulations carried out by the Mayor of Alajuela, in the resolution under appeal, is legally and technically incorrect, carrying serious defects in its content and in its reasoning, which even transgress the very purpose of the land use issued, insofar as it grossly infringes upon the territorial planning of San Rafael de Alajuela, erroneously declaring the possibility of a cement plant operating in contravention of the cited regulatory text, which has the normative value of law in a material sense. Therefore, the arguments of the company's defense, aimed at applying articles 129 and 130 of the Reglamento de Uso del Suelo of the canton of Alajuela, are technically incorrect, as they carry out a biased reading of the complete content of the indicated norms, and must be rejected in this act.\n\nXIV.- COROLLARY.- The land-use certificate (certificado de uso de suelo) No. official letter No. 1244/PU-U/08 of July 31, 2008, issued by the Department of Urban Planning, was limited to indicating that it is permitted for the \"construction of a plant for construction aggregates on the property in the name of Nombre52081 ., identity card number CED78966 in the Property Registry at volume (sic), folio (sic) , number (sic), entry (sic) real folio 2143636-000 which is described in the cadastral plan No. Placa16660 located in the district of SAN RAFAEL Exact Address, San Rafael de Alajuela. According to the zoning map of the PLAN REGULADOR URBANO DEL CANTÓN CENTRAL DE LA PROVINCIA DE ALAJUELA, PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE No. 182 OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2004, the property indicated above is located in the zone classified as: ZONA INDUSTRIAL CENTRAL\". This document is not so broad as to declare that the exploitation of a cement grinding plant is permitted in that zone. Said land use is exclusively for the indicated activity, and it must be the entrepreneur's responsibility to prove before the municipal authorities, from the beginning, the true use they intended to give the land. It is not true that the content of that first land use encompasses an industrial cement plant, whose operation requires the implementation of heavy machinery and of greater environmental impact. The analysis carried out by the Mayor, when reviewing the land use, misinterprets the content of that first certificate, giving it a non-existent and legally incorrect one, since it has not conferred any right in favor of Nombre147 S.A. to build and operate a cement plant, even less so when it is observed that it was issued in favor of another legal entity (Desarrollo e Inversiones Productivas DIP S.A.). Moreover, it having been clarified then that it is not possible for a company of that type to operate in San Rafael de Alajuela, because the Reglamento de Zonificación Parcial de Areas Industriales en la Gran Área Metropolitana, approved by the Instituto Nacional de Vivienda y Urbanismo in a session of its Board of Directors in article 10 of ordinary session number 3623, of May 6, 1985, which is expressly referenced by article 134 of the Zoning Regulations (Reglamento de Zonificación) of the Plan Regulador of Alajuela, regarding the conditional uses of the Zona Industrial Central of San Rafael de Ojo de Agua, only permits such activity in Ochomogo, Coris and Ciruelas —that is, away from highly populated urban centers—. In reality, an industry of that type was built by Nombre147 S.A. in San Rafael de Alajuela, specifically on the estate with real folio registration Placa17173, meaning that the granting of the land-use certificate for the cement plant activity is legally unviable. As things stand, the grievances expressed in the appeal by A are accepted, which means that the resolution of the Mayor of Alajuela, of 11:00 hours on August 26, 2010, under appeal, is absolutely null, which is so ordered in this act. As there are no further appeals, the administrative channel is deemed exhausted.\n\nPOR TANTO:\n\nThe request for consolidation of proceedings is rejected. The resolution of the Mayor of Alajuela, of 11:00 hours on August 26, 2010, is annulled. Let the Municipality take note of what is considered in this resolution. The administrative channel is deemed exhausted.\n\nNombre66641\n\nNombre66641 \n\nEvelyn Solano Ulloa Eduardo González Segura\n\nExp: 10-003992-1027-CA Appeal\nA" }