Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
House committee seeks records after questions raised over San Lorenzo gas station permits
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers on June 24 heard agency and industry witnesses about permits for a proposed San Lorenzo gas station, including claims of missing viability studies, lack of neighborhood notification and potential absence of required environmental permits; the committee ordered agencies to produce files within 15 days.
The House Commission on Economic Development on June 24 took up House Resolution 224 to investigate the permit history and regulatory compliance for a proposed gas station at PR‑183, kilometer 11.1 (intersection with PR‑916) in the Cerro Gordo neighborhood of San Lorenzo.
The Office of Permits (OGPe) and the Puerto Rico Planning Board provided the committee with a long administrative record that traces project steps back to an anteproyecto in 2004 and a consolidated construction permit issued Nov. 17, 2021. The Planning Board told the commission that it received a consolidated querella (complaint) in August 2023 and that inspectors found, at the time of their site visit, a vacant lot with vegetation and no evidence of construction. The association representing local gas‑station owners argued the current work and files show missing statutory steps and raised environmental and market‑competition concerns.
Ramón L. Ortiz, president of the Asociación de Detallistas de Gasolinas de Puerto Rico, told the committee that OSPE’s file shows no notification to nearby stations or evidence of the required viability study under Article 4(h) of Law 73 (June 23, 1978). “El otorgar regular de permisos de construcción para nuevas estaciones de gasolina desvirtúa el marco regulatorio y la confianza pública,” Ortiz said in his presentation to the committee. He said project documents show construction activity beginning Nov. 6, 2023 — 11 days before a permit expiration tied to an earlier approval — and that the proponent later changed ownership of the lot (sale to PP Holding LLC on Aug. 4, 2022).
The planning board’s written submission said it consolidated several querellas (complaints) under case 2023 SRQ 014290 and that inspectors observed no construction on the site at the time of inspection. Planning‑board staff explained their authority is shaped by Law 161 and that, in many instances, judicial remedies are required for revocation or demolition orders.
The association also flagged environmental permits: a 2003 letter from the environmental authority required a permit for a source of emissions, a construction‑phase fugitive dust permit, a solid‑waste permit and erosion/sediment controls before earthmoving. The association told the committee it found no evidence in OGPe’s electronic file of those environmental clearances and asserted that construction began without them.
Committee members pressed OGPe for original ARPE files from the 2004 anteproyecto and asked agencies to assemble and deliver records for the commission’s review. The committee asked for the materials within 15 working days; committee members said they would refer the matter to the Planning Board’s office of audit/querellas for an on‑site inspection if construction continued.
What happens next: the commission ordered agencies to provide copies of the administrative files and to respond to specific questions about notices, viability studies and environmental clearances. If the Planning Board’s audit or subsequent evidence shows missing required permits or irregularities, the board may pursue administrative audit steps and legal remedies; the committee also signaled it would pursue statutory review and could consider legislative fixes to clarify procedural gaps.
