Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2011 Volume 51 No. 3 LOUISIANA (12/22/10) —This case addressed the ability of a depart- ment director to delegate authority to an employee to approve permits. The BackgroundlFacts: In September 2008, AHEPA 133/Penelope 55, Inc. ( "AHEPA ") applied for a building permit with the city's Department of Safety and Permits (the "Department"). AHEPA sought the permit .for the construction of "Senior Independent Living Apartments (Multi -Fam- ily)". The permit was issued on May 19, 2009. Thereafter, AHEPA made a "minor modification" to the construction plans, which "affected the building footprint." Because the modifica- tion affected most of the related documents, AHEPA submitted "revised plans" for approval by the Department. The Department's Chief Plan Examiner approved the revised plans on July 20, 2009. AHEPA commenced work on the project in the first week of February 2010. On February 19, 2010, Robert Asaro, who owned property adja- cent to AHEPA's property, filed in court a petition for preliminary and permanent injunction. Asaro alleged that AHEPA's permit had expired. The city's zoning code provided that a building permit expired within six months after its issuance if construction had not commenced and no request for extension had been filed prior to such date. AHEPA maintained that the building permit had not expired. Paul May, Director of the Department, testified that the six -month period for AHEPA to commence construction started over on August 21, 2009 — when the Department released the letter authorizing the revised plans. AHEPA noted that because work commenced on the construction of the project in the first week of February 2010, six months had not elapsed between the issuance of the approval letter and the commencement of construction. Eventually, the trial court granted Asaro's petition for preliminary injunction. Among other things, it found that: the approval of the plan revisions was invalid because the Director of the Department did not personally sign the approval. The city's building code required the Di- rector's "written assent ... be obtained before [plan revisions] be made." The court "essentially found that the Building Code's requirement of the Director's written assent of the approval of plan revisions [could not] be delegated to other employees within his department." The August 21, 2009, approval of AHEPA's plan revisions issued from the Department's chief plan examiner, not the director. Having found the approval of the plan revisions was invalid, the court concluded that the time to com- mence construction had expired before AHEPA began construction. AHEPA appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Injunction vacated. © 2011 Thomson Reuters 9