The family of the acting chief architect of Kyiv is developing a forest

Acting chief architect of Kyiv Yuriy Tatsiy and his family are building in a forest outside Kyiv near the village of Katerynivka. On the plot obtained by the architect and his family, until recently there was a fire lookout tower of the local forestry office, since this land previously belonged to the municipal enterprise “Sviatoshynske Forest Park Management” and was forest fund land.

The forest in Katerynivka began to be parceled out to the official’s family after the “cosmic” mayor Chernovetsky came to power, because on paper the village is part of the Sviatoshynskyi district of the capital. In the fall of 2007, “Sviatoshynske Forest Park Management” abandoned several pieces of forestland in a single day. The Kyiv Regional Forestry Department approved a change of the land use designation: from forest to “for purposes not related to forestry.” And already in 2008 Kyiv City Council began allotting land to Mr. Tatsiy’s family. 10 sotkas of forest were received personally by Yuriy Tatsiy and his wife Iryna, owner of the capital hair salon “Rastrjopa” and a pet supply store. Another 10 went to the official’s father-in-law, Oleh Tarkhzhevskyi. A plot also went to Tatsiy’s grandfather Yuriy Zhukov; it is currently recorded under Ivan Hrechkivskyi, the son of the consul of Malta in Kyiv. And another 10 sotkas Yuriy Tatsiy bought from former judge of the Brovary City and District Court Oksana Pukhna as soon as that forest was allocated to her. The sixth plot, according to our information, is now being sought for private ownership by Tatsiy’s 80-year-old grandmother Halyna Zhukov.

There was even a fire lookout tower on the land the Tatsiy family received. It was moved behind the Tatsiy family’s fence only last year at the family’s expense. Neighbors say this cost the official up to 300 thousand hryvnias. The plots received by Tatsiy and his family stood undeveloped for 8 years. However, a few days after his appointment as acting chief architect, Tatsiy began construction — now a foundation for some outbuilding has been poured on the site and sewage is being installed.

In his 2014 declaration the official indicated that he owns 2 plots of 10 sotkas each, and that family members own only 1 plot of 10 sotkas.

According to Nashy Hroshi, Tatsiy’s relatives are also petitioning to receive plots in private ownership in the capital’s Zhuliany neighborhood. During Chernovetsky’s time dozens of families of capital law-enforcement officers obtained land there in questionable ways: judges, prosecutors, lawyers, policemen. A plot of almost 10 sotkas on Moskovska Street, 30, is sought to be registered in private ownership by the official’s grandmother Halyna Zhukov. Another 8 sotkas on Moskovska Street, 30g is being petitioned for by Tatsiy’s mother-in-law — Nataliya Tarkhzhevska.

During the 6 convocation of parliament, Yuriy Tatsiy was an assistant to MP Vadym Stolar, whom the media call the overseer of Kyiv. Together with Stolar’s assistant Oleksandr Kostiuk, Tatsiy owned the firm Budmehaservice LLC. A few months before Tatsiy became co-owner and director of the firm, it received for use 0, 91 hectares on Hostomel Square, 1 in Kyiv. That was almost a hectare of road at the exit from Kyiv near Akademmistechko. The road’s designated use was changed and transferred to Tatsiy’s firm for construction of a shopping and office center. As soon as Tatsiy became the firm’s owner, he began suing the city to get the road into private ownership. And, despite an appeal, the city could not win the case against the official. At the same time, according to recent data from the State Cadastre, since 2015 this road plot has been in communal ownership, and it is leased by Novus Ukraine LLC. The ultimate beneficiary is listed as Lithuanian businessman Tumenas Raimundas, who now co-owns Budmehaservice.

Tatsiy and Kostiuk also owned the firm “Architectural-Construction Alliance.” Shortly before Tatsiy appeared in that firm it received 16, 44 hectares for development above the Dnipro, for which the environmental prosecutor’s office later litigated for a long time without success.