Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/2004

Home

Z.B. August 10, 2004 -- Page 5 a variance from engineenng except sewerage. Public hearings were held, and due to concerns about flooding, neighbors opposed the development. Despite the low elevation and the property's his- tory of flooding during heavy rainfalls, Unique's plan to subdivide did not include any drainage plans. Ultimately, the request for a variance was denied by the local planning commission, Unique sued, arguing the denial of its Ber~eron Street 'variance application was based on the planning commission's personal dislike of Unique and its owner, Chauvin. As evidence of ill will, Unique'submitted a tape of a 1994 planmng com- mission meeting at which the chairman, Hebert, became angry with Chauvin during a discussion regarding the absence of a sewer tap on a lot Hebert be- lieved Chauvin owned. Hebert said unless Chauvin "shut up," Hebert intended to come down from the podium and slap him. Unique also presented evidence indicating a member of the planning commission had been cited for eth/cs violations. DECISION: .Judgment in favor of the parish. There was no legally sufficient evidence showing the variance denial was due to personal animosity. At the time Unique's application was brought before the planning corn~ mission, Hebert was no longer a member. The fact that Hebert may have ex- hibited some anger toward Chauvin in 1994 did not reasonably support an inference that in 2000, any member of the planning commission voted to deny Unique's variance application because of personal vindictiveness toward Chauvin or Unique. Except for the one instance in 1994, the planning commAssion seemed to hold no animosity toward Unique. In .fact, the planning commission had ap- proved several Unique projects after the 1994 meeting, including applications for variances and subdivisions. Finally, there was no evidence Chauvin or Unique had any interest in the projects or propbsals at issue in the commission member's alleged violations. Consequently, there was no evidence commission members, for purely per- sonal reasons or because of an animus toward Umque or Chauvin, intended to treat Unique's Bergeron Street subdivision variance application differently than other similarly situated properties. xee ~d,~'o: Piotrowski v. Ci~, of Houston, 237 F. 3d 567 (2001). xee at.~'o: Village of Willowbroo~ ,2. Olech. 528 U.S. 562 (2000.). 2004 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 83