pgt not updated

[poina]

Hi.
I have a problem with the pgt in the sense that a land is passed from agricultural to factory but in the pgt tables is still marked as agricultural land, how do you behave in these cases?

 

[Meccbell]

from how I know it (15 years of administration...), usually cartography prevails over everything else, unless from the plan document and/or from the rules plan it can be seen with absolute certainty that that such land has a destination different from what appears on the maps.
However, it would be a very strange case, since it is the plan document, that the plan of the rules are not drafted by bringing back the mapping of the various lands affected by the various destinations.
The only possibility that I can think of is an error in any identification cards of zones of transformation or environmental protection, which expressly delegate these areas and which deal with the rest of the documentation.

However, if that is the hypothesis, it would be faced with a fairly complex situation to deal with, as the plan document is the "guide" to the writing of the cartography and the plan of the rules is the written norm that regulates the application of what is reported on the maps.
at this point any external observer, or perhaps particularly interested (example a owner) may always ask whether the intention of the extenders of the pgt and the political organ that approved it was that reported in the address documents or in the actuative ones.
is not a doubt of little account or a sophism from the first republic, since in the past in similar cases they have pasculated entire herds of lawyers.
In short, a nice casino, which would require a variant on the floor, resulting in activation of the safeguard clause (so in fact the land would remain agricultural, at least until the end of the procedure) and its double passage in the municipal council, with period of publication and examination of any observations.

If, on the other hand, the problem is given by an inconsistency all inside the cartography, such as retini and/or different colors on tables that represent the same plot, or dissonance between the retini on the table and the descriptions of the cartiglio, it is purely formal errors and as such (usually) of easy resolution, that however they are also corrected with a double passage in the municipal council, as mentioned above.

 

[poina]

I have to try to hear the common, as the observation was made in March 2010, so I have to wait for them to make the variant to the pgt?

 

[Meccbell]

a moment, maybe I didn't understand the context well.
from the question seemed that the problem was a discrepancy in the pgt documentation.

but the pgt is already in force, or approved definitively (double passage in municipal council, observations, etc.), or are we still in phase after the first adoption of the plan and waiting for the counterdeductions to the observations? (although since March 2010...).

In the first case, therefore, at this moment there will be the iter of a variant, which becomes operational only after the definitive approval, post observations, and the relative period of publication to the municipal register and the regional b.u.r.

In the second case, procedurally similar to the first, you will always be waiting for definitive approval, although, while not knowing the iter of the plan, it seems to me that if it is "in prom" now three years, when it arrives at the bottom it will be already time to start to remake it.

In any case, the safeguard clause will be in force and therefore, at the moment, the land remains agricultural.