Age 2-20 Versus Bmifemale

FEVER ON THE DETAILED PLAN INVOLVED THE PROVINCE OF THE "PARK" THE Cesanelli!

By resolution n.207 of 20/05/2010, the Provincial Government of Ancona has made the following comments pursuant to Article 3 paragraph .30, the LR 34 / 92 on the implementation plan detailed public-sector initiatives "Cesanelli Park - 2009 under Articles adoption variant. 4:30 lr 34/92, that the City has sent the County:

"to cooperate and participate in defining project showed the need to comment on some aspects of the documentation provided by the analysis found.

view realize that this project is a variation to a pre - existing implementation plan, has highlighted the need to examine together the detailed plan approved by resolution of City Council # 70, 21/09/2000. The comparison of the two urban projects, that is, one approved and the time variation, there are two solutions planivolumetriche different, especially with regard to building sites and the different arrangement of the internal roads. The implementation plan has a total extension of over 10 hectares, a condition that places it among the cases included in Annex B2, paragraph 5, letter b) of RL 7 / 2004 "Regulations on the procedure of environmental impact assessment", which operates therefore subject VIA Therefore, given that the current master plan is approved before the entry into force of Law on EIA (LR 7 / 04) and therefore was not subject to Environmental Impact Assessment, it is necessary, prior to approval of This variant, to determine the nature thereof, the so as to assess the substantiality, by using, as a yardstick of the contents of paragraph 1.4 of the "General Guidelines for the implementation of Law on EIA (DGR 1600/2004). If a finding of substantiality variant would be to determine the condition of suspension of the intervention to EIA, with the eventual direct result of submission of the plan to the Strategic Environmental Assessment process in accordance with paragraph 1.3.1. letter a) Regional guidelines, approved by DGR 1400/2008. Therefore, the Province has requested the City to submit to the Province and the Region copy of the resolution approving the implementation plan to Article 5 of paragraph .30 lr 34/92. Interested citizens to comment to the Province and the Region, it seems appropriate to note also that the Constitutional Court with sentence no 340, 2009 said

's unconstitutionality of Article 58, paragraph 2, of Decree 25 June 2008, No 112, ratified with amendments by Law No 133 of 2008, as opposed to art. 117, third paragraph of the Constitution, in part which provided that "the decision of the City Council approving the plan of disposals and valuations variant is the general planning instrument. This is because the matter " territorial government " within the meaning of Article 117, third paragraph, last sentence of the Constitution, the state has only the power to establish the basic principles, the regions the power to enact the legislation in detail. Consequently, the state law can not negate the responsibility of the Province to examine the development plans and their variants substantial under regional legislation, in the case of the Marche and LR 34/92 - art.26.

With resolution of the City Council No. 11 of the Senigallia 17/2/2009 , had been initiated the process probably substantial variation, which is the province, in the sense that it was approved a plan for real estate development, under the above law, within the "Park", which among other things, resulted in a variation of urban planning, and has not been sent to the Province, a former LR 34/92 art.26, prescribed for the opinion.

The development has affected an area within the intended to "Cesanelli Park, where was coated in 15,470 square meters of communal area for gardens, acquired for the construction of the Park, a volume which, according to the detailed plan for the Park Cesanelli had to be localized.

With the subsequent variation to the detailed plan to the floor of the Park Cesanelli, approved by Board resolution No. 21 of 02.03.2010 , the sign changes have been implemented in the intended use, from green to housing, with the simplified procedure of the double ex art.30 lr 34/92 Board approval, and without sending the Province to examine ex art.26 lr 34/92. The variant is substantial, as it affects global and involves modifications to the intended use of areas, from public parks to private gardens, technical standards to implement the plan, the distribution of loads and the settlement of the standards included in the decree Ministerial 1444/1968.

The Constitutional Court's ruling took away the retroactive effect to the statutory provision that allowed the City to come to his time variant, without the advice of the former Province art.26, so the regularity of the property should be carefully evaluated, not only for the reasons given by the Province.

The retroactivity of the decision of the hearing can be found the opinions published in the regional sites listed below:

http://venetoius.myblog.it/media/01/00/343344427.pdf

http://www.regione.piemonte.it/autonomie/dwd/09_2010.pdf

It 'hard to get information about published resolutions, such as those cited above, involving a district like ours , or other parts of this country.

Yet we are dealing with public acts and live in the era of globalization of information.

not all.

.