President of the Republican Law Society Alexander Khaminsky: The scandal with the house of Maxim Galkin is nothing but the self-promotion of the Kirov human rights activist.
The media yesterday began to exaggerate
a question related to the disparity between the home of the famous showman Maxim Galkin e
his wife, Alla Pugacheva, the requirements of the normative acts regarding
the construction. According to the author of the appeal to the control and supervisory authorities –
Kirov's lawyer Yaroslav Mikhailov – the house, or rather, the castle of Galkin exceeds
limits set for number of floors (no more than three floors above ground) and height
(no more than 20 meters
from ground to ridge).
Actually, except as a PR action
"human rights activist" is difficult to call. Even if the house or other structure is not
meets the requirements, presents a statement of facts, verifies and involves
the responsibility can only neighbors, representatives of local authorities
car or attorney. Therefore, an astute lawyer asked to check the shares.
building supervision and registration bodies, and not Galkin himself. This is the first one
The second one. In reality there are no violations. Ya Mikhailov in
In this case, he is trying to "tie up" the updated urban planning rules
RF code for legal reports that arose long before the changes came into effect.
The fact is that the legal reports in the field of construction were regulated by a huge
number of laws, regulations, instructions and standards. They often
they contradicted each other, since there were no common and conceptual approaches
apparatus. The so-called "dacia amnesty" added fuel to the fire. she
simplified to the maximum the legalization of the already built houses, allowing not to use it
most of the documents available at that time.
Finally, simplify in its entirety
legal relationships in the construction sector, in 2004 it was adopted
Urban planning code. According to him, the legal documents issued since that time
it could be applied to the extent that they did not conflict with the Code itself.
We are talking about hundreds of codes, SNiP’ov, republicans and urban
construction standards. However, in the Code it was a legal case law e
often just "holes". Therefore, it was not determined what a "residential house" is,
"individual house", "single house", "residential object
construction ". In view of this, many of the limitations and requirements
ceased to apply. After all, when it comes to ownership, it is
the restriction is possible only by virtue of the law to which the appointed lawyer
The documents do not apply.
To remove the upcoming legal conflict in August 2018
The federal law n. 340-FZ has introduced a series of modifications to the GCK RF. In our
The most interesting case is paragraph 39 of the art. 1 code. Now the legislator has entered
defining a residential building and setting height and height limits. expert
the lawyer Mikhailov should have known that these rules may only be applicable to
And in conclusion on the possible consequences. I think
The appeal will not be supported by the authorities for the reasons that
I drove. But if you suddenly imagine that the controllers will find the reasons for it
transfer of the case to court, and the court suddenly decides in favor of Galkin, nothing
terrible will not happen. It is always possible to change the purpose of the building.
from residential to non-residential. And to organize you, for example, a guest house. or
separate the two-storey residential half and the second part, which,
in fact, it resembles a castle, designated as an object of fire safety. but
and this comes from the realm of fantasy. Residential building built and commissioned
Under current requirements, no one will ever touch.