The Arbitration Court of the Republic rejected the claim of the Kazan Executive Committee for the demolition of the superstructure in the Trofey restaurant of the Kazan developer, the head of the company Etalon Andrei Zakamsky. Legal disputes over the fate of the Kirovsky Foundation have been going on for several years. Twice the arbitrator supported the mayor’s office, deciding to dismantle the superstructure. However, the appeal overturned the decisions and sent the case for the unauthorized floor that had been erected for reconsideration. Experts were called in. Read more in the Realnoe Vremya material.
How the restaurant became four floors
The city authorities filed the first lawsuit against businessmen Andrey and Lyudmila Zakamsky in January 2021. In the application they asked the court to recognize the fenced floor above the Triumph restaurant building as an unauthorized construction and to require the businessmen to restore the building in its original form. The court then upheld the claim and the Zakamsky had to demolish the squatter within 60 days.
According to the executive committee, instead of reconstructing the building according to the permits, the businessmen turned the three-storey building of the exhibition space of the People’s University of Arts into a four-storey one.
The businessmen filed an appeal against the decision in favor of the executive committee in the Eleventh Arbitration Court. However, the court did not satisfy her and again recognized the increase in the height of the restaurant building as illegal and IP Zakamsky AA and IP Zakamskaya LN, according to the case file, assigned “the obligation to return the disputed property to its original condition in accordance with the commissioning of the object “. Only this time, the dissolution period was extended to 90 days from the date of entry into force of the court decision.
Having confidence in their right and taking advantage of the three-month time limit given by the court, the Zakamsky appealed against these court decisions. In August last year, the appeal overturned both previous court rulings and sent the case for a new trial.
“Do not endanger the life and health of citizens”
Experts were called in. They were instructed to answer five questions related to the safety of the add-on for the guests and the restaurant building itself: it could lead to a breach of its integrity, comply with urban planning, building codes and regulations and most importantly, what exactly is this building structure like? A detailed study of the safety of the superstructure and other construction aspects was carried out by the staff of the Stroyekspertiza forensic center Peter Zemlyansky and Almir Galiev.
The court examined the experts at the next hearing in late May this year. During the investigation, according to the case file, the experts found that after the opening of the property, the defendants placed metal columns of square pipes, metal beams of beam I coating were placed on them and the roof was lightly leveled with metal beams. At the same time, everything corresponds to the structures defined in the project documentation. In addition, the expertise shows that the height of the building from 14.2 meters due to the superstructure increased to almost 15 meters, more precisely by only 75 centimeters.
The document also states that “according to the results of a study of the existing regulatory definitions (” floor “,” terrace “,” canopy “), it was found that the actually functioning roof was turned into a terrace, over which there was a dome.” However , experts could not give a precise definition of this additive “due to the fact that the regulatory documentation does not contain a detailed constructive description of the floor, the answer to the question whether the truly integrated terrace with a full floor is a legal nature responsibility of expert manufacturer.
In addition, the examination report states that the area of the building has not changed, however, the exploited roof has been converted into a terrace area, above which a shelter is made. Experts also advised defendants Zakamsky to “install additional columns on one of the five-axis signs” to ensure the complete safety of the building. Due to the redistribution of loads, according to experts, the bearing capacity of the beams will be ensured and without their installation, the restaurant building with additional terrace “could pose a threat to the life and health of citizens”, Zemlyansky and Galiev. wrote in their conclusion.
In May, at a court hearing, one of the experts confirmed that the defendants had complied with their recommendations and placed additional columns on the mark indicated on the document. After that, “according to the results of the forensic examination, taking into account the expert assessment of the work performed by the accused to install additional columns, the work performed by the accused does not pose a threat to the life and health of citizens. “, States the court decision.
“Reject the claim”
The case file also contains an agreement on the development of design and assessment documentation for the reconstruction of the Triumph building, signed by Andrey Zakamsky with the Kazan Engineering Project LLC, as well as a positive conclusion of a non-governmental examination of these documents by Geostroyexpertpremium . According to them, it was planned to carry out reconstruction works on the installation in question in the form of an additional fourth floor with an area of 664.0 square meters. m, according to the court decision.
To agree to this proposal for reconstruction, Zakamsky addressed the Kazan executive committee. However, in April 2020, the plaintiff refused to approve, explaining the refusal due to the inconsistency of the submitted materials with the number of parking spaces within the boundaries of the site. Instead, the Accused was asked to submit an application to the Land Use and Development Committee to consider the issues “regarding the granting of a permit for the conditionally permitted type of use of the plot and the deviation from the limit parameters for parking spaces”.
In addition, the forensic examination concluded that “the work performed, regardless of the number of floors of the building (3 or 4 floors), complies with urban planning standards and rules regarding the permitted type of construction and the availability of parking spaces.”
Taking all this into account, the court concluded that “the materials of the case contain evidence for the safety of the object in question for the life and health of citizens, the reconstruction of the building was carried out by the defendants in accordance with building codes and regulations. the intended use of which allows the reconstruction of the reconstructed building in it. ” In addition, the decision states that the defendants took steps to obtain a permit for the reconstruction, but the plaintiff refused.
So again this time the court refused to satisfy the claims of the city authorities against the businessmen Zakamsky, giving the opportunity to the Kazan executive committee to appeal.
“We are happy that the dispute ended with a positive outcome”
Realnoe Vremya sent formal requests to all participants in the diet dispute. The Kazan mayor’s office said: “The Kazan executive committee has not received a formal decision from the court. Further actions will be determined after the examination of the document. “
In turn, the correspondent also asked the owners of the Trophy, for what purpose was the superstructure built over the restaurant, due to which a dispute broke out in court with the city authorities? IP LN Representative Zakamskoy, Deputy Director General for General Affairs Gulgena Galeeva said: The construction in question was completed in compliance with urban planning rules and regulations, which excludes any threat to the life and health of third parties.
“Of course, we are glad that the dispute ended with a positive outcome, despite the legal costs that arose in relation to the examination of the civil case and the time spent. However, we agree with the fact that the building blocks of the Kazan City Executive Committee acted in accordance with the existing Regulations on the process of locating, deciding and demolishing unauthorized buildings in the territory of the city of Kazan and we have no claims against them. write down.
IC “Etalon” is in the stage of bankruptcy.
According to open sources, SK Etalon LLC, owned by businessman Andrey Zakamsky, is charged in three civil cases. In addition, a criminal case was initiated for non-payment of taxes amounting to 25 million rubles. The debtor was Etalon LLC, of which Zakamsky was a director from November 2016 to October 2019. Now this company is in bankruptcy. The research of “Etalon” to carry out works for the improvement of the sidewalk on the road aroused interest for the research. Decembrists and the square on the street. Absaliamova. To carry out this work, Zakamsky then received an interest-free loan of 300 million rubles as part of Kazan’s preparations for the World Cup. According to Realnoe Vremya, the loans in installments of 10 to 59 million rubles were made by verbal agreement with the Ministry of Construction of the Republic of Tatarstan.
In the 3 years of existence of this construction company, the amount of state contracts, the executor of which is, has exceeded 1.5 billion rubles. The largest – for 1.1 billion rubles – for the construction of a ski slope and biathlon in the village of Mirny. This spring, a scandal broke out around this new building. According to experts, the route has many shortcomings, deficiencies and violations. The president of the regional biathlon federation Ildar Nugmanov spoke about them in the well-known federal sports newspaper. In an interview, he noted the low quality of the asphalt surface of the track, the unevenness of the reverse slope, which in some places completely fails and many other nuances that cause criticism. Responding to allegations made to him, the contractor of SK Etalon said that “the defects are, in fact, insignificant and mild in nature. “Everything is in tolerance.” So far, there is no official evidence for the acceptance of this item.