May 17, 2024 10:29 am
The topic has been known for years and now there are those who are raising their voices to express their opposition to the developments. This is Tac Costruzioni srl of Perugia – legal representative Alberto Brocani -, one of the companies that recently moved to the TAR to contest the variant to the Prg during the Latini era. Then revoked by the Bandecchi administration. Well, what happened?
of Tac Costruzioni srl
Does the mayor know that the Municipality of Terni prefers to destroy hectares of greenery in the center so as not to remedy its urban planning errors, damaging the entire community?
JANUARY 2022, THE LATINI COUNCIL AND THE STAINO VARIANT
MAY 2022, APPEAL TO THE TAR FOR THE VARIANT: TAC COSTRUZIONI AND SMILE
The Brocani horticultural business has been present in the Umbria Region since 1894, the date on which the founder Antonio Brocani decided to open a sales point also in the Umbria Region. In 1956 the company developed with a new establishment in the city of Terni, in the ‘Vocabolo Staino’ area and in the 1970s it expanded with the commercial gardening activity. In 2002, the then owner Giampaolo Brocani, in order to expand the commercial activity, forwarded a request to the municipal administration representing the need to expand the current Garden with an important employment development.
THE PERENNIAL URBAN PLANNING ‘MARETTA’ FOR STAINO WORD
On 28 February 2002 the administration with municipal council resolution number 60, in taking note of the proposal put forward by the Brocani company, resolved ‘… that the proposed corporate restructuring plan of the Brocani company based in Staino be examined and evaluated in the scope of the editorial staff of Prg’. In 2004 the new Prg was adopted, which however due to a substantial error placed the volumes requested by Dr. Brocani in the green area ‘in nursery production’ in the area where the building to be expanded and redeveloped already existed.
JANUARY 2024, THE BANDECCHI COUNCIL REVOKES THE VARIANT
Observations were presented to the Prg and then rejected with the following reason: ‘… the request is in conflict with the plan objective of achieving the definitive completion of the Staino city park through the equalization mechanism…’. In reality, if the ‘real’ objective had really been the completion of the city park, the desire expressed in 2002 by the council to include the volumes in a centenary production nursery would have made no sense, while the intention of damage the business in the hypothetical and apparent advantage of the competition. After years of proposals that were never accepted, Brocani was forced to close a branch of the business ‘the gardening sales point’ due to the impossibility of renovating it as it had become obsolete over time.
2023, DISPOSAL PLAN: LO STAINO AWAY
In 2008 the urban planning situation of the Staino park/nursery was further aggravated by a variation to the adoption of the Prg, which introduced the provision of important road axes falling within the area of the production nursery grounds. Further confirmation that there was and is no interest on the part of the PA in the protection of the green areas and/or the so-called park… ‘citizen of Staino’… Brocani and his companies appeal to the TAR contesting, in addition to the damage already suffered, also the infeasibility of building programs due to the new road forecasts in the plan.
2019, THE SQUARE BETWEEN COUNCILORS OVER VOCABOLO STAINO
Unrealizable forecasts due to altimetric incompatibility and the underlying hydraulic constraints, which make the building program impossible. In 2014 and 2015, after years of consultation, two solutions were forwarded by the owners which appear to be appreciated by the administration, to the point of inducing the owners to renounce (as an act of trust) the appeal pending before the TAR; after the renunciation every proposal was rejected, so much so that the nursery and construction activities remained in an endless limbo. On 31 July 2015 with DGC 257 the PA formally confirmed… ‘the impracticability of the building programs by mandating the technical offices to draw up a specific variant…’. The variant, although prepared by the technical offices, never reached the city council.
On 31 January 2022, a variation was adopted by the PA only for the Staino areas owned by the Municipality, leaving the ‘Brocani’ areas confined in an eternal limbo. On 12 February 2024 the administration, with Dcc 20, revoked the variant for the Staino areas, deeming it unworkable, and confirming by tabulas the inconsistency and inadequacy of municipal urban planning. After 20 years, the Authority has not been able to remedy the mistake made in the Brocani areas, inhibiting the possibility for the property to implement a serious urban regeneration plan with the full satisfaction of the collective interests proposed by the subjects actuators.
In the past 20 years the organization has demanded and collected important taxes from the property due to the building rights of the areas, harassing the property with further requests for greater amounts originating from annual assessments of the taxable base up to reaching requests for the 2008 year and 2009 to taxable bases equal to approximately 1 million euros, with the apparent intention of accruing penalties and interests which notoriously constitute the true ‘Core Business of the revenues of
Common’.
On 29 January 2024, the ownership, discouraged by the evident impossibility of asserting its reasons in the tax field, reached an agreement for the
closure of the disputes of the last fifteen years by committing to pay further taxes and penalties in addition to what is always and annually honored, in the hope of also defining the urban planning error.
On 13 March 2024 in the meeting held at the municipal offices it was reiterated by the urban planning office (architect Bedini) in the presence of the political party the councilor for urban planning (engineer Iapadre) that building rights must be carried out in the area where it is currently the nursery is present, effectively confirming the Authority’s desire to destroy a century-old nursery due to the apparent inability of the urban planning offices and the political party to remedy the mistake made instead of giving life to a valid urban regeneration of an area already compromised by construction since 1956.
Share this article on
