A sprawling residential complex near Zlatni Piasatsi has become the epicenter of a major controversy, leaving property owners in a state of uncertainty as allegations of illegal construction mount. The site, developed by “KUB Corporation,” is now under intense public scrutiny, with former Varna mayor Ivan Portnich publicly accusing current leadership of failing to address the legitimacy of the project.
Political Allegations and Regulatory Questions
Ivan Portnich, currently an municipal councilor from GERB, stated that the construction reached its peak between 2024 and 2026, a period occurring after his term as mayor. Portnich claims that despite repeated inquiries posed to current mayor Blagomir Kotsev at municipal sessions, no official response has been provided regarding the status of the development.
The former mayor further alleged that attempts are currently being made to legalize the territory through a new detailed urban plan. According to Portnich, the responsibility for the site rests with the municipal mayor, and he characterized the current administration’s handling of the situation as an attempt to “close their eyes” to the reality of the construction.
In 2023, the municipal authority removed the powers of district mayors to issue “certificates of tolerance”—documents that acknowledge the existence of older structures but do not permit new construction—following specific cases that led to the dismissal of the chief architect at the time.
The Plight of Property Owners
While local authorities and political figures trade accusations, the property owners find themselves in a precarious position. Many residents report that they only learned of the illegal nature of the construction through media coverage. Security presence has become a daily reality, with police monitoring access to the complex.
Residents are now seeking explanations from multiple institutions, questioning how mortgage loans were approved by banks, how property sketches were issued by the cadastre, and how the municipality collected taxes on properties that are now deemed part of an illegal development. Currently, residents pay their utility bills directly to KUB Corporation, which then manages the payments for electricity and water.
This situation highlights a systemic breakdown in the property verification chain. When private citizens hold notarized deeds and secure bank financing for homes that are later officially labeled as “illegal,” it suggests a massive failure of due diligence across multiple sectors, including legal, financial, and administrative oversight. The resolution of this matter may set a significant precedent for how municipal authorities handle retrospective legalization versus enforcement of building codes.
What Happens Next?
A possible next step involves a scheduled meeting between the investors, KUB Corporation, and the property owners, intended to provide clarity on the status of the development. As institutional investigations continue, it is likely that the pressure on the municipal government to explain the approval process for the urban plan will increase. Legal analysts may expect that if the construction is definitively found to be illegal, the conflict between individual property rights and municipal planning laws could lead to protracted litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is responsible for the illegal construction according to the former mayor?
Ivan Portnich states that the law is clear and the responsibility for illegal construction lies solely with the mayor of the municipality.
How are residents currently managing their utility payments?
Residents report that they pay their utility bills directly to KUB Corporation, which subsequently covers the costs for water, electricity, and other services.
What is the current status of the construction in the eyes of the former mayor?
Portnich asserts that the construction is illegal and claims that the current municipal administration has taken steps to attempt to legalize the entire territory through a new detailed urban plan.
How should the rights of individual homeowners be balanced against the enforcement of municipal building standards in cases of widespread regulatory failure?
