Secondo la sentenza del TAR in seguito riportata, l'abitazione del custode nell'ambito di un insediamento produttivo non è soggetta al pagamento del contributo sul costo di costruzione come previsto per gli edifici residenziali, bensì solamente al pagamento degli oneri di urbanizzazione relativi the production target, as deemed to be a relevance.
ITALIAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
LAW
The appeal is well founded and must be upheld, for the reasons set out below.
1. The Board accepts the prospect of the appellant, which showed that the house - the area is very small compared to the entire property - not performs the main function of the living room but serves to allow a common control and constant supervision of warehouses used for the processing, storage, and storage of materials in front of a main destination, type of production the contribution should be calculated with the criteria associated with it.
2. In this regard the Board refers to the decision of the TAR Milano, sez. I - 24/07/2003 No 3639, which ruled that "... the allegation of misapplication of construction costs for the small part of a building intended to house the keeper is well founded, because the City could not take into account the pertinenziale it closely. The report pertinenziale, even if not expressly stated in the application, was obtained from the consistency of the property and the relationship between the various surfaces, but in any case would be subject to judicial investigation ".
The case is similar to that faced by the college administration did not object to the claim that limited extension of the building in relation to the productive structure. In this context, the fact that the keeper's house has its own autonomous and residential destination is not sufficient to determine the liability to the same contribution.
3. Non è neppure condivisibile l’astratta asserzione per cui l’abitazione del proprietario non sarebbe necessaria ai fini della gestione aziendale, quando la sua prossimità e connessione con l’attività e la sua attitudine ad ospitare una sola famiglia (cfr. tavola 5 prodotta in atti dalla ricorrente) conferma l’opinione opposta.
Ne consegue che, con riguardo al costo di costruzione, dovrà essere rimborsato il contributo, salvo l’importo correttamente corrisposto per la parte riferita alla destinazione artigianale.
Sulla somma così calcolata dovranno essere aggiunti gli interessi legali ex art. 2033 del codice marital status: they - as there is no evidence to exclude the good faith of the administration - is entitled to the date of the claim until payment (see TAR Lombardia Milano, sez. II - 24/03/2010 No 728, sec. II - 18 / 5 / 2010 No 1550).
I doubt controversial interpretation of the matter justify the compensation in full for the costs between the parties.
PQM
the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy - Section Two of Brescia, finally saying, ensures the right della ricorrente alla restituzione delle somme indebitamente corrisposte – comprensive di interessi legali – nel senso di cui in motivazione.
Spese compensate.
Ordina che la presente sentenza sia eseguita dall'autorità amministrativa.
La presente sentenza è depositata presso la Segreteria della Sezione che provvederà a darne comunicazione alle parti.
Così deciso in Brescia nella camera di consiglio del giorno 25 novembre 2010 con l'intervento dei magistrati:
Giorgio Calderoni, Presidente
Stefano Tenca, Primo Referendario, Estensore
Mara Bertagnolli, Primo Referendario
TAR Lombardia - Brescia
Judgement No. 4864 of December 17, 2010
ITALIAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
The Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy
a branch Brescia (Section Two)
gives the following Judgement
a branch Brescia (Section Two)
gives the following Judgement
on the use of general register number 589 of 1999, proposed by:
SP PB, represented and assisted by GF, IF, FF, with an address at ...
SP PB, represented and assisted by GF, IF, FF, with an address at ...
against
Cazzago City of San Martino, represented and defended by the lawyer. To MB, with an address at ...
for the detection of the erroneous
CALCULATION OF CHARGES DUE TO URBANIZATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION GRANT 6/11/1998 N. 125;
and order
ADMINISTRATION TO RETURN IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT PAID, IN ADDITION TO LEGAL INTEREST.
CALCULATION OF CHARGES DUE TO URBANIZATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION GRANT 6/11/1998 N. 125;
and order
ADMINISTRATION TO RETURN IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT PAID, IN ADDITION TO LEGAL INTEREST.
viewed the application and its annexes;
Since the entry of appearance in court of the municipality of San Martino Cazzago;
view of the briefs and all acts of the case;
Rapporteur in the public agenda November 25, 2010 Dr. Stefano Tenca heard the parties and the defenders as specified in the minutes;
held and considered the facts and law as follows.
Since the entry of appearance in court of the municipality of San Martino Cazzago;
view of the briefs and all acts of the case;
Rapporteur in the public agenda November 25, 2010 Dr. Stefano Tenca heard the parties and the defenders as specified in the minutes;
held and considered the facts and law as follows.
FACT
La ricorrente, all’epoca dei fatti, era proprietaria di un capannone ad uso artigianale in Via ..., che insisteva su un’area classificata dal P.R.G. come D “produttiva” (precisamente D1 industriale di completamento). Essa risultava normata tra l’altro dall’art. 28 delle N.T.A. del P.R.G., che consentiva la costruzione di alloggi per il titolare e/o per il custode fino ad un massimo di 200 mq. di calpestio.
Il 16/9/1998 la ditta S.P. presentava domanda di concessione edilizia per l’espansione dell’insediamento artigianale esistente ed in particolare per edificare a store, expand the lab and make the dwelling for the caretaker.
note dated 6/11/1998 administration made it known to the acceptance of the instance and issue the qualification, and at the same time sent the prospect of calculating the contribution due to construction, estimated at 57,117,876 lira ( € 29,498.92). This figure was made up of 36,468,486 lire (€ 18,834.40) as a contribution on the part of the building intended to house the keeper: the applicant claims that the quantum has been determined on the erroneous assumption of the applicability of the criteria laid down ' art. Lr 3 of 10/77, with an increase of 32,940,680 lire (€ 17,012.44) as a cost of construction, because the amount due was only 3,527,806 lire (€ 1,821.95 - see prospectus calculation doc. 11 recurrent).
note dated 16/11/1998, the applicant complained that the calculation of the contribution with respect to the keeper's house, because in his opinion the same was not a residential use. The administration, however, confirmed its position, so that the applicant performed, however, the required payment, but reserving the right to bring an action in court for the return dell’indebito.
Con gravame ritualmente notificato e tempestivamente depositato presso la Segreteria della Sezione la ricorrente si duole dell’erronea applicazione dell’art. 3 della L. 10/77 (in luogo del corretto art. 10), (1) e dell’omessa applicazione dell’art. 5 della L.r. 60/77, (2) poiché il Comune ha qualificato l’abitazione del custode come costruzione ad uso abitativo-residenziale, mentre il manufatto è accessorio all’attività artigianale svolta.
Si è costituito in giudizio il Comune di Cazzago San Martino, esponendo la propria ricostruzione degli events and calling for the rejection of the appeal.
the public hearing on 25.11.2010 the case was called for discussion and was acquired the statement of the counsel of the applicant about the permanence of the interest in the decision.
Il 16/9/1998 la ditta S.P. presentava domanda di concessione edilizia per l’espansione dell’insediamento artigianale esistente ed in particolare per edificare a store, expand the lab and make the dwelling for the caretaker.
note dated 6/11/1998 administration made it known to the acceptance of the instance and issue the qualification, and at the same time sent the prospect of calculating the contribution due to construction, estimated at 57,117,876 lira ( € 29,498.92). This figure was made up of 36,468,486 lire (€ 18,834.40) as a contribution on the part of the building intended to house the keeper: the applicant claims that the quantum has been determined on the erroneous assumption of the applicability of the criteria laid down ' art. Lr 3 of 10/77, with an increase of 32,940,680 lire (€ 17,012.44) as a cost of construction, because the amount due was only 3,527,806 lire (€ 1,821.95 - see prospectus calculation doc. 11 recurrent).
note dated 16/11/1998, the applicant complained that the calculation of the contribution with respect to the keeper's house, because in his opinion the same was not a residential use. The administration, however, confirmed its position, so that the applicant performed, however, the required payment, but reserving the right to bring an action in court for the return dell’indebito.
Con gravame ritualmente notificato e tempestivamente depositato presso la Segreteria della Sezione la ricorrente si duole dell’erronea applicazione dell’art. 3 della L. 10/77 (in luogo del corretto art. 10), (1) e dell’omessa applicazione dell’art. 5 della L.r. 60/77, (2) poiché il Comune ha qualificato l’abitazione del custode come costruzione ad uso abitativo-residenziale, mentre il manufatto è accessorio all’attività artigianale svolta.
Si è costituito in giudizio il Comune di Cazzago San Martino, esponendo la propria ricostruzione degli events and calling for the rejection of the appeal.
the public hearing on 25.11.2010 the case was called for discussion and was acquired the statement of the counsel of the applicant about the permanence of the interest in the decision.
LAW
The appeal is well founded and must be upheld, for the reasons set out below.
1. The Board accepts the prospect of the appellant, which showed that the house - the area is very small compared to the entire property - not performs the main function of the living room but serves to allow a common control and constant supervision of warehouses used for the processing, storage, and storage of materials in front of a main destination, type of production the contribution should be calculated with the criteria associated with it.
2. In this regard the Board refers to the decision of the TAR Milano, sez. I - 24/07/2003 No 3639, which ruled that "... the allegation of misapplication of construction costs for the small part of a building intended to house the keeper is well founded, because the City could not take into account the pertinenziale it closely. The report pertinenziale, even if not expressly stated in the application, was obtained from the consistency of the property and the relationship between the various surfaces, but in any case would be subject to judicial investigation ".
The case is similar to that faced by the college administration did not object to the claim that limited extension of the building in relation to the productive structure. In this context, the fact that the keeper's house has its own autonomous and residential destination is not sufficient to determine the liability to the same contribution.
3. Non è neppure condivisibile l’astratta asserzione per cui l’abitazione del proprietario non sarebbe necessaria ai fini della gestione aziendale, quando la sua prossimità e connessione con l’attività e la sua attitudine ad ospitare una sola famiglia (cfr. tavola 5 prodotta in atti dalla ricorrente) conferma l’opinione opposta.
Ne consegue che, con riguardo al costo di costruzione, dovrà essere rimborsato il contributo, salvo l’importo correttamente corrisposto per la parte riferita alla destinazione artigianale.
Sulla somma così calcolata dovranno essere aggiunti gli interessi legali ex art. 2033 del codice marital status: they - as there is no evidence to exclude the good faith of the administration - is entitled to the date of the claim until payment (see TAR Lombardia Milano, sez. II - 24/03/2010 No 728, sec. II - 18 / 5 / 2010 No 1550).
I doubt controversial interpretation of the matter justify the compensation in full for the costs between the parties.
PQM
the Regional Administrative Court of Lombardy - Section Two of Brescia, finally saying, ensures the right della ricorrente alla restituzione delle somme indebitamente corrisposte – comprensive di interessi legali – nel senso di cui in motivazione.
Spese compensate.
Ordina che la presente sentenza sia eseguita dall'autorità amministrativa.
La presente sentenza è depositata presso la Segreteria della Sezione che provvederà a darne comunicazione alle parti.
Così deciso in Brescia nella camera di consiglio del giorno 25 novembre 2010 con l'intervento dei magistrati:
Giorgio Calderoni, Presidente
Stefano Tenca, Primo Referendario, Estensore
Mara Bertagnolli, Primo Referendario
0 comments:
Post a Comment