TSA annuls urban planning permits for the Everest Tower project in Piantini

Santo Domingo.– The Fourth Chamber of the Superior Administrative Court (TSA) accepted the contentious-administrative appeal filed by the National District City Council (ADN) and declared the nullity of the land use and no-objection certificates for the Everest Tower project, located in the Piantini sector of the National District.

The Court considered that the challenged administrative acts of the Torre Everest project deviated from the current regulations, and that the authorization of projects incompatible with the regulations on use, density, height, and setbacks constitutes an infringement of the public interest.

The construction of this tower has generated concern and opposition among local residents. The neighborhood association in the area has taken various steps to seek the suspension of the project due to its violations of building codes, and because they consider that a project of that magnitude, with multiple commercial components and more than 200 apartments, on an already highly congested street, would significantly affect mobility, the safety of the surroundings, and the quality of life of its inhabitants.

The TSA’s decision is contained in judgment no. 0030-1642-2026-SSEN-00280, issued on July 9, 2026, through which the court determined that the challenged urban planning authorizations were issued in contradiction with the parameters established in Municipal Resolution no. 94-98 and Ordinance no. 9/2019, which approves the Territorial Planning Plan of the National District.

You can also read: TSA orders Andeclip not to suspend health services while the conflict with DIDA is being heard

The ruling annuls the Certificate of No Objection to Preliminary Project no. ADN-DPU-2020-0466 (Resealed), dated August 14, 2020; the Certificate of Land Use and Building Setback and the Certificate of No Objection no. ADN-DPU-2021-1202, dated February 17, 2022; as well as certificates no. DPU-CC-2023-0040, dated April 27, 2023.

According to the evaluation carried out by the court, the renewals of the authorizations allowed for a substantial transformation of the originally approved project. The initial proposal contemplated a building with 64 apartments, while subsequent modifications authorized a commercial and service complex consisting of 238 condo-hotel suites, restaurants, offices, event halls, service areas, and a heliport.

The court established that this change significantly increased the occupancy intensity and urban burden of the property, reaching an approximate density of 3,763 inhabitants per hectare, far exceeding that permitted by the regulations applicable to the area.

The ruling also points out that the authorized project included 22 levels above ground, in addition to a mezzanine, partial levels intended for restaurants and services, and a helipad on the roof. This configuration exceeded the maximum height established for type A tertiary roads.

Regarding the setbacks, the Superior Administrative Court verified that some of the approved side and rear boundaries were less than the four-meter minimum required for buildings of that magnitude. According to the decision, these non-compliances affect essential aspects such as ventilation, lighting, safety, privacy, and the proper integration of the building into the urban environment.

Regarding the heliport, the ruling specified that a potential authorization from the Dominican Institute of Civil Aviation would only address operational air safety, but would not replace the urban compatibility assessment that falls under the municipal government.

The decision of the Superior Administrative Court coincides with the concerns that residents and the neighborhood association of the area have expressed throughout the process, who have warned about the impact that a building with this density, height, and diversity of commercial uses could cause in an immediate environment that is predominantly residential, and with already highly congested roads.

The Court concluded that the protection of the public interest in urban matters includes respect for land-use planning, mobility, environmental sustainability, legal certainty, and the quality of life of residents.