[ad_1]
After a detailed examination of all the relevant circumstances, it was established that this building was erected on the seashore after its owner fulfilled all the requirements and conditions established by the legal acts and judicial obligations. Therefore, there is no legal basis for applying public protection measures in this case, the press release notes.
The Prosecutor’s Office also draws attention to the fact that this private property, in accordance with the applicable legal regulations, can only be used as a non-residential recreational (recreational) building. As a result, it is not possible to live in it, either permanently or temporarily. Ensuring control of the use of the building according to its purpose is the function of the Municipality of the City of Palanga.
Photo by Julius Kalinskas / 15min photo / A building similar to a residential house, named in the document as a shower
The circumstances related to the construction of this building were investigated for the second time by the Public Interest Protection Division of the Klaipėda Regional Prosecutor’s Office. The first investigation was initiated by the prosecution in 2019 in August, following public publications that raised doubts as to whether the construction of this building had been carried out in violation of legal requirements.
After evaluating the data obtained during the last investigation and not verifying violations of legal acts, the prosecutor’s decision refused to apply measures to protect the public interest. This sentence, approved last December, was reviewed by the Attorney General’s Office by a superior prosecutor and considered legal and reasonable.
The second investigation in the Public Interest Protection Division of the Klaipėda Regional Prosecutor’s Office began in July this year, when the mayor of Palanga submitted a request to the General Prosecutor’s Office. The request was based on statements made in the media that if it was shown that the foundations of the building under reconstruction were still in place before 2014. The issuance of the building permit was replaced by new foundation structures, it could be claim that the construction was carried out illegally.
Photo by Julius Kalinskas / 15min photo / A building similar to a residential house, named in the document as a shower
However, the investigation revealed that construction on this site began in 2007. in late October – November. A little later, in 2008, it was declared arbitrary and a lawsuit was filed to eliminate its effects. Four years later, in 2012, the court ordered the builder to eliminate the consequences of arbitrary construction by preparing design documentation and obtaining building permits. When these judicial requirements were met, the construction permit issued in 2014 for the reconstruction of the building legalized in 2007 the construction works began in October – November. Therefore, the construction works that were carried out after the construction permit issued in 2014 were not the beginning of new ones, but in 2007. October – November construction continued.
“The concept of reconstruction is also very important to assess this situation. According to the provisions of the relevant legal acts and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the reconstruction of a building is also possible if during its execution the structures of the old building they are totally or partially replaced by new ones. This is the situation, after evaluating all the documents and data relevant to the decision, and it was stated in the present case: the remains of the old foundations were replaced by new bearing structures in accordance with the solutions of the project when the works began in autumn 2007. Such action is in line with the essence of the reconstruction, ”said the Prosecutor’s Office in a statement.
The investigation also identified other circumstances that contradict public complaints about the progress of construction and the circumstances related to them.
The area where the building is located belongs to the Maritime Zone. In accordance with the Coastal Zone Law, both new construction and reconstruction of the building are possible here, categorical prohibitions do not apply. It is true that residential buildings are not allowed in this area.
To carry out the reconstruction of a building or the rest of it in that area, the owner must obtain a building permit issued by the municipality, but two essential conditions are required.
Photo by Julius Kalinskas / 15min photo / A building similar to a residential house, named in the document as a shower
The first – the Real Estate Property Registry must contain data that the building or the remaining part of it has been registered in this Registry in accordance with the established procedure and has never been removed from it before the start of construction.
During the investigation, it was established that both the court decisions taken in 1996-1999 and the position of the Klaipėda County Governor’s administration submitted to the courts stated that the old building was constructed in 1993-1994. It was demolished only to the ground. This means that the remaining old foundations were reasonably and correctly registered in the Land Registry. Thus, it was possible to rebuild these foundations, which, as already mentioned, began in 2007.
The second condition is that the owner of the building must have entered into a long-term lease for the state land on which the building is located. This agreement was signed for 99 years by the Klaipėda County Governor’s Administration with the owner of the building in 2005. In May.
The study also evaluated the position of the new building on the ground according to the distribution plans of the buildings on the ground prepared in 1992, 2008 and 2018. It was established that the new building with a construction area smaller than the constructed building, is it shifts further west, but part of the construction area (88 square meters) is within the boundaries of the old building. The building also does not violate the requirements for height, building density, intensity and other indicators.
“In the course of this investigation, we have repeatedly heard comments and even outrages that the new building is far from reminiscent of showers for beach visitors. However, this is an unfounded expectation. After this building was converted into private property in 1992, its fate is the exclusive business of its owner, of course, in compliance with all legal requirements. For the moment, we have to admit that the building fully complies with them, and what specific activities related to the service of the vacationers will take place in it, the owners will decide. The only restriction is that you cannot live in this building, “says Edita Rutkauskaitė, prosecutor of the Public Interest Protection Division of the Klaipėda Regional Prosecutor’s Office, which carried out the investigation.
The decision to refuse to apply public interest measures was entrusted to the Public Interest Division of the Attorney General’s Office.
[ad_2]
