Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2016

Home

April 25, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 8 Zoning Bulletin Although the Court of Appeals had found that the ZBA had failed to make specific findings of fact, the court did find that the evidence was sufficient to overcome that void and to stay within its "respective standards of review to determine whether the ZBA's decision [was] erroneous as a matter of law:" Rezoning —Property owners apply for a rezoning Parish denies rezoning based on opposition from area residents Citation: Shaw v. Parish, 2016 WL 756449 (La. App. 5 Cir., Feb. 24, 2016) LOUISIANA (02/24/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether a parish council's denial of a rezoning application based upon opposition from area residents was arbitrary and capricious and thus subject to reversal. The Background/Facts: Janet and Randall Shaw (the "Shaws") owned two adjacent properties in Jefferson Parish (the "Parish"). One property was zoned residential and was located on a residential avenue, the other, adjacent property, was zoned commercial ("C-2") and was located on a commercial boulevard. The Shaws applied for rezoning for both lots so that the currently zoned residential lot could serve as additional parking for the business located on the currently zoned commercial lot. The rezoning ap- plication requested a zoning change for bothlots to a light commercial ("C- 1") zoning designation. The Parish Planning Department recommended approval of the Shaws' rezoning application. The Planning Advisory Board then held a meeting on the application. At the meeting, the Shaws supported their application with the following facts: the currently zoned residential lot was surrounded by C-2 zoned properties; customers would be unable to access the proposed parking lot from the residential avenue; a 20-foot set -back of "green area" and landscaping would be present on the residential avenue in front of a proposed opaque fence that would screen the parking area from the nearby neighborhood. Opponents to the proposed zoning change, including members of a civic association and other neighbors voiced concerns that included: "commercial creep" into their residential neighborhood, and pub- lic safety concerns particularly with regard to activities in the parking lot given the lack of visibility behind the proposed opaque fence. Despite the opposition, the Planning Advisory Board recommended approval of the proposed zoning change to the Parish Council. At the Parish Council hearing on the rezoning request, the same concerns were again voiced from opponents of the proposed rezoning. Ultimately, the Parish Council denied the application for rezoning, noting an "over- 10 ©2016 Thomson Reuters