Municipio Autonomo De Dorado v. Oficina De Gerencia Y Permisos
KLRA202400639
| Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue... | Jan 30, 2025Background
- Integrated Commercial Developers, LLC sought approval for a gas station on land zoned Industrial Liviano in Dorado, Puerto Rico, adjacent to property owned by Dorado Health Group, LLC (DHG).
- The Municipality of Dorado and DHG, both intervenors, challenged a favorable construction consultation issued by the Office of Gerencia de Permisos (OGPe), arguing procedural and substantive errors regarding zoning and project location.
- DHG was also planning a commercial-touristic project with a hospital component on nearby property, expressing concerns about regulatory distances between schools/hospitals and gas stations.
- The Administrative Review Division (DRA) confirmed the OGPe's approval, finding that the gas station use was ministerial and that the project met necessary distance requirements, as the relevant hospital/school project was not yet formally in process.
- Both intervenors sought judicial review, arguing improper application of zoning regulations (i.e., requirements for lotification, recommendations, and scenic route distance separations).
- The Appeals Panel affirmed the agency's actions, finding the OGPe's determinations reasonable, within regulatory guidelines, and supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lotification prior to construction consultation | Municipality: Lotification required before construction consultation under Regulation 2020. | Integrated/OGPe: Lotification only required for construction permit, not consultation. | Lotification not required at consultation stage. |
| Need for infrastructure recommendations prior to consultation | DHG: Recommendations should precede construction consultation. | Integrated/OGPe: Recommendations due before construction permit, not consultation. | Recommendations not compulsory at consultation stage. |
| Applicability of Scenic Route (Ruta Escénica) distance rules | DHG/Municipality: Project subject to stricter Scenic Route separation rules. | Integrated/OGPe: Site not in Scenic Route district, so rules don’t apply. | Scenic Route rules do not apply here. |
| Applicability of Section 8.8.1.6 (separation from schools/hospitals) | DHG: Section applies because proposed gas station near projected hospital/school. | Integrated/OGPe: Section only applies once construction plans for hospital/school are approved. | Section not triggered; only applies to approved projects, not pending consultations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caribbean Communications v. Pol. De P.R., 176 DPR 978 (P.R. 2009) (review of administrative agency actions based on reasonableness and evidence)
- JP, Plaza Santa Isabel v. Cordero Badillo, 177 DPR 177 (P.R. 2009) (deference to administrative agency expertise)
- Borschow Hosp. v. Jta. De Planificación, 177 DPR 545 (P.R. 2009) (administrative decision requires substantial evidence)
- Polanco v. Cacique Motors, 165 DPR 156 (P.R. 2005) (party must show evidence undermines agency determination)
- Olmo Nolasco v. Del Valle Torruella, 175 DPR 464 (P.R. 2009) (court reviews agency’s legal conclusions de novo)
- Rebollo v. Yiyi Motors, 161 DPR 69 (P.R. 2004) (court on equal footing with agency in weighing documentary evidence)