The Visorių Valley community has achieved a victory on M.Lietuvio street: the case will be re-examined Business

15 minutes wrote that Mykolo Lietuvio street should connect Vilnius Western Bypass and Ukmergės str. with Molėtai pl. It was later alleged that the plans were being blocked by a group of residents who petitioned the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court for an order requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to reexamine the environmental impact assessment report.

The trial court rejected the community’s written complaint in 2018, but disagreed with the SACL ruling and overturned this decision in May this year, and returned the case to the trial court for re-examination.

“The panel of judges considers that due to the incorrect application of the rules of procedural law that regulate evidence and substantive law, the judicial decision cannot be recognized as legitimate and justified, it should be annulled, and the case is referred to the court of first instance for a new examination “, affirms the SACL.

Requires things to be called real names

Representative of “Visori Vis Valley Community”, partner of the professional association of lawyers “Triniti LT” Lawyer Deivis Valiulis 15 minutes He explained that, among many other arguments on which there was disagreement, the court ruled on the possibility of building a category B1 street (currently planned by the Vilnius City Municipality) with a possible speed of 70 km / h and traffic for all. freight vehicles. According to him, the environmental impact assessment did not anticipate heavy transport traffic and was based on the sole reason: the promise to build traffic signs that would restrict heavy vehicle traffic and vehicle speed.

“Such an assessment does not seem appropriate for the Visorių Valley community and they are constantly trying to convince representatives of the Vilnius City Municipality that if a road is planned, an assessment of how the road will affect the environment, including the right of people who live nearby.

Let’s call things by their real names. If a waste incineration plant is being built, it is mandatory to carry out an environmental impact assessment of the plant, not the furnace, despite the fact that the responsible people also promise to burn only firewood there. Although the promise to build the appropriate sign does not change the essence, it can be eliminated, and the factory, or in this particular case, the highway, will remain, ”explained the lawyer.

According to D. Valulis, who represents the interests of the “Visorių Valley Community” now and two years ago, he emphasized that residents do not seek to stop the municipality’s plans to build a street between the western detour and the Molėtai highway. Rather, the community supports the municipality’s efforts to build a new street, but people want their mandatory health requirements to be taken into account.

According to him, the Visorių Valley Community has proposed to the municipality to incline Mykolo Lietuvio Street in such a way that it has a minimal additional impact on the environment and protects the right of residents to live a healthy life. However, the municipality is said to have rejected such proposals and without any commitment offered to build a street along the residential area.

“I think this reluctance to listen to the other party’s arguments, to seek a compromise, may negatively affect the street construction plans important to Vilnius’ development,” says attorney D. Valiulis.

Municipality: residents knew where to build houses

Meanwhile, according to the Vilnius City Municipality Administration, a detailed plan and environmental impact assessment (EIA) was approved and redemption of the plots began. A technical project is also being prepared, which will take about two years.

“After that, the purchase of the contract will last one year.” Therefore, construction is planned to start in 3 years, “replied the municipality.

According to the capital authorities, the municipality had difficulties with the detailed plan and the EIA.

“Probably the biggest obstacle is the residents who consistently opposed this project. Still, it was strange, because when they bought the parcels and built the houses, they knew perfectly well that there would be a street of common importance.

We are glad that everything has finally been agreed and approved. The environmental impact has been evaluated and the necessary compensatory measures have been identified. The municipality of Vilnius continues to work hard and persistently to implement this priority project of the city as provided in the documents, ”the response reads. 15 minutes.

The prepared EIA is claimed to have been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. The project approved all procedures and was approved. It is not planned to prepare it again.

According to the municipality, the detailed plan decisions have been prepared in accordance with the decisions of the Vilnius City General Plan and the order signed by the administrator of the Vilnius City Municipality on May 12, 2014.

“If we take into account the aforementioned requests from residents, the forest would be cut down and street construction works would become more expensive and complicated,” explains the municipality.

According to Vilnius authorities, a special coating and other measures provided for in the EIA will be used to reduce noise and pollution. They must be implemented in the preparation of the technical design of the street.

The alternative is to cut 4.42 hectares of forest.

When asked how she assessed the lawsuit, Lina Gaidžiūnaitė, representative of the Environmental Protection Agency, replied that “in every state governed by the rule of law, litigation is a natural thing that marks freedom and democracy.”

“The Visori Vis Valley Community Community exercises its right to challenge the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency in court and the right to defend its interests as a community in the way it understands them.” 15 minutes In the answer provided.

However, according to L. Gaidžiūnaitė, the Environmental Protection Agency disagrees with this statement from the community.

“All environmental impact assessment procedures are carried out in accordance with the legal acts of the Republic of Lithuania. Currently, the litigation is not over. Until the judicial dispute is over, neither the Vilnius City Municipality nor the Environmental Protection Agency have an obligation, nor can they take further action regarding the environmental impact assessment, ”he explained.

Could it be possible to tilt the street so that it does not disturb residents? According to L. Gaidžiūnaitė, this must be decided by the client, in this case, the municipality of Vilnius city.

“The Environmental Protection Agency evaluates them and, if you have comments or suggestions, you can ask the client to consider other alternatives to the planned activity,” he said.

In this particular case, according to L. Gaidžiūnaitė, the documents in the EIA provide 2 alternatives: 1 route alternative (solutions and route prepared in a detailed plan) and 2 route alternatives (new route according to public request).

“The interested public requested a clarification of the technical parameters of the route of Alternative 2 considered in the EIA report, i. and. according to the prepared project proposals: move Mykolo Lietuvio street away from the residential area of ​​B. Krivicko street, moving the red lines of the streets 50 m to the north.

In the case of the implementation of the alternative of Route 2, the street would be built on the existing Mykolo Lietuvio street with gravel, where it can be further removed from residents at the expense of existing forest land, i. and. In total, it would be necessary to cut about 4.42 ha of forest. Existing forest land would also be reduced (of which approximately 3.79 ha are state forest areas). In the case of alternative route 1, 2.9 ha of forest would be cut, ”he said.

According to L. Gaidžiūnaitė, the first alternative would have a less negative impact on the forest ecosystem, the second would improve the quality of the living environment for residents of B. Krivickas Street. It is true that it is observed that the implementation of both alternatives does not contradict the requirements of the legislation.