Ronald A. Goux VS St. Tammany Parish Government

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUn.. NO. 2013 CA 1387 RONALD A. GOUX Cl <y·/ VERSUS ST. TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT Judgment rendered ---· U T 2 4 2014 Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2013-10576 Honorable Martin E. Coady, Judge ****** JEREMY D. GOUX COVINGTON, LA AND PAULJ . MAYRONNE COVINGTON, LA ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS RONALD A. GOUX, QUATREG 2112, L.L.C. AND GIRT INDUSTRIES, L.L.C. ALEX J. PERAGINE COVINGTON, LA ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENORS-APPELLEES AURELIA MAREK, RICHARD MAREK, JAMES McNARY, MARY BIELMAN, GEORGE HARVEY, DEBORAH HARVEY, WILLIAM WEIL, DARLENE OLANO, RICHARD OLANO, JEFF LaCOUR, JACQUELYN LaCOUR, RONALD TWEEDEL, LINDA TWEEDEL, ANDREW MORAN, AND cmZENS FOR BALANCED DEVELOPMENT, A LOUISIANA NONPROFIT CORPORATION MICHAEL SEVANTE MANDEVILLE, LA ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE ST. TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT ****** PETTIGREW, J. This matter is before us on appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of the trial court, overruling their exception raisi ng the objectio of no right of action and denying plaintiffs' request for mandamus relief, with regard to an alleged mapping error on the St. Tammany Parish zoning map. For the followi ng reasons, we reverse, in part, the trial court judgment, and grant mandamus in favor of plaintiffs as discussed in more detail below. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2007, the St. Tammany Parish Council (','Council'') began a comprehensive rezoning of all unincorporated areas of St. Tam ~any Parish . . For this purpose, the Council established a Special Zoning Commission ("Zoning Commission") to make recommendations to the Council on all such properties. The Council held various public meetings in and around St. Tammany Parish to get input and hear requests from landowners and residents regarding zoning. At all times pertinent hereto, Ronald A. Goux owned approximately 36.6 acres of land in St. Tammany Parish, with said property being situated in the Southwest corner of the intersection of U.S. Interstate 12 and Louisiana Highway 21, with frontage along Brewster Road ("the 36.6 acres"). On December 15, 2008, Mr. Goux, through his counsel, issued a written request to St. Tammany Parish Government ("the Parish ") to have the 36.6 acres zoned HC-3. Attached to this letter was a survey map of M . Goux's property, including a legal description of said property.1 At the January 13, 2009 Zoning Commission meeting, Mr. Goux's counsel asserted that the 36.6 ·acres was bordered by U.S. Interstate 12 to the North; property, historically zoned C-2 Higtlway Commercial, to the East, Brewster Road to the South; and a church, proposed to be rezoned PF-1, to the West. He further argued that similarly situated large parcels of land on the Northwest, Northeast, and Southeast quadrants of the intersection of U.S. Interstate 12 and Louisiana Highway 21 had all 1 We note that Mr. Goux's property actually encompasses 36.641 acres as is indicated on the survey map and on all of the Parish maps introduced into the record. Nonetheless, for ease of reference, we refer to the property as "the 36.6 acres" throughout this opinion . 2 historically been zoned C-2 Highway Commercial and were proposed to be rezoned to HC3 as part of the Parish's comprehensive rezoning process. According to the record, the Zoning Commission recommended that the 36.6 acres be rezoned HC-3 pursuant to the comprehensive rezoning plan, subject to a portion of the 36.6 acres measuring 75' in depth from South to North running the entire length of the property, parallel to Brewster Road, from East to West, being rezoned A-3. This matter was then placed on the agenda for the Council's February meeting, but tabled. the ordinance to adopt the 2 However, recommendations of the Zoning Commission and comprehensively rezone the Southwest Study Area, which includes the 36.6 acres, was introduced as Ordinance Calendar No. 4029 on March 5, . 2009, and then reintroduced At the June 4, 2009 Council meeting, multiple times thereafter with amendments. numerous changes were made to the Southwest Study Zone map, including the rezoning 3 of the 75' strip of Mr. Goux's property that had previously been zoned A-3 to HC-3. This, presumably, resulted in the entirety of Mr. Goux's 36.6 acres being zoned HC-3. On September 3, 2009, Ordinance Calendar No. 4029, as amended, appeared on the Council's agenda. The ordinance was adopted by the Council and became Ordinance C.S. No. 09-2116. 4 The pertinent portions of Ordinance C.S. No. 09-2116 provided as follows: THE PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY HEREBY ORDAINS that the Unified Development Code, Volume 1 is hereby amended to include the Zoning Map recommended by the St. Tammany Parish Zoning Commission on February 10, 2009, as amended. (See Attached Map) The attached map being the Zoning Base Map for .the South West Study Area. . . . : 2 The parties stipulated that Exhibit 8, which was introduced as evidence. before the trial court, was the map that went along with the recommendation from the Zoning Commission to the Council on February 10, 2009. We have copied the pertinent portion of said map entitled "South West Study Area Zoning Commission Recommendations February 10, 2009" and attach same to this opinion as "Appendix A." 3 The parties stipulated that Exhibit 9, which was introduced as evidence before the trial court, was the map that went along with the proposed amendments by the Council to Ordinance Calendar No. 4029 on June 4, 2009. We have copied the pertinent portion of said map entitled "South West Study Area Recommendations as amended by Council June 4, 2009" and attach same to this opinion as "Appendix B." 4 The parties stipulated that Exhibit 10, which was introduced as evidence before the trial court, was the map that went along with the ordinance that was passed by the Council on September 3, 2009. We have copied the pertinent portion of said map entitled "South West Study Area Zoning Map as adopted by Council September 3, 2009" and attach same to this opinion as "Appendix C." 3 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED t hatr· upon the effective date of this ordinance, al! land uses withi n the area bounded by Highway 59 on the east, Lake Pontchartrain on the south, the Tangipahoa Parish Line on the west, and the Tchefuncta River to Highway 190 to Highway 36 on t he north shall be regulated in accordance wi'"h the Unified Development Code and th is map. REPEAL: All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Subsequent to the passage of the amended ordinance on September 3, 2009, Parish staff erred when translating the action taken by the Council to the Parish Zoning map. In particular, the westernmost 10 acres of Mr. Goux's property ("the 10 acres") was 5 erroneously identified on the Parish zoning map as being zoned CB-1. In 2012, Mr. Goux discovered this error by the Parish and brought it to the attention of Sidney Fontenot, the Director of Planning and Permits for the Parish, requesting that it be corrected. After investigating the matter, Mr. Fontenot acknowledged the error and indicated that he believed that in order to correct it, the matter would need to be presented to the Zoning Commission and ultimately the Council. Thereafter, the Parish placed a proposal on the Zoning Commission's agenda to have the 6 10 acres rezoned from CB-1 to HC-3. The Parish's rezoning proposal was first considered by the Zoning Commission at its November 7, 2012 meeting, at which time the matter was tabled. At its December 4, 2012 meeting, the Zoning Commission heard from counsel for Mr. Goux, as well as 5 We note that in the petition for writ of mandamus, t he allegation is that the Parish erroneously identified the 10 acres as being zoned PF-1 on the Parish zoning map. We can find no map in the record with the PF-1 designation. On the September 3, 2009 map, there is HC-3 zoning ·designated for an area consistent with the shape of the entire 36.6 acres of Mr. Goux's property. However, we note that the 10 acres in question fall outside the shaded area for HC-3 zoning and; instec:id, is oesignated with CB-1 zoning. The only other map introduced into evidence below was Exhibit 11, wh ich the parties stipulated was the current zoning map for the Parish as it appeared on March 12, 2013. Again, on th is March 12, 2013 map, the 10 acres is identified as being zoned CB-1. The pertinent portion of said map entitled "South West Study Area Current Zoning Map March 12, 2013" is attached hereto as "Appendix D." Nonetheless, regardless of the nature of the mapping error, we note the Parish has admitted to same in its answer to the petition for writ of mandamus. 6 Mr. Goux maintains below, and on appeal, that he never initiated a rezoning process, nor did he concur that the process chosen by the Parish was the appropriate process to correct the mapping error. Mr. Goux remains steadfast in his belief that since the June 4, 2009 Council meeting, the property was already zoned HC-3 and, therefore, did not need to be rezoned. Rather, Mr. Goux argues, this was simply a mapping error that could easily be corrected. 4 numerous residents who lived in neighborhoods around the Brewster Road area. Counsel for Mr. Goux argued that the entirety of the property had already been zoned HC-3 and that the map simply needed to be corrected. The residents all opposed the HC-3 zoning, arguing that the error in the map had misled the public :nto believing there would be a buffer between the HC-3 property and the numerous neighborhoods adjoining the property. The Zoning Commission's legal counsel, Terry Hand, advised the commission members that he had researched the matter and believed that the mapping error was a technical change that could be corrected by going through the process of putting it before the Zoning Commission and ultimately the Council ., Mr. Hand added further that he had found three prior cases in which the Zoning . Commission was presented with similar situations and had corrected the errors before it in each of those cases. Some of the commission members commented that they did not care about precedent, noting that citizens of the Parish had purchased property based on the assumption that there would be a buffer between the neighborhoods and the commercial acreage on Brewster Road. Other commission members indicated that the mapping error was made to the detriment of the people who live in the area of Brewster Road because they did not have the opportunity to have their voices heard. After considering the pleas from the public, and in direct opposition to its own legal counsel's advice, the Zoning Commission denied a motion to approve the change in zoning for the 10 acres from CB-1 to HC-3. Although constant in his position that the rezoning process instituted by the Parish was erroneous, d Mr. Goux appealed the Zoning Commission's . ec!sion to the Council to protect his rights. His appeal was set to be heard in · Janua'. ry 20i3, b.u t. was tabled by the Council upon advice by Mr. Goux that a mandamus action on the m~tter would be filed. On February 1, 2013, Mr. Goux, along with Quatreg 2112, LLC, and Girt Industries, LLC (collectively "Goux"), filed a petition for writ of mandamus, requesting that the trial court order the Parish to correct its mapping error so that the Parish zoning map accurately reflects the entire 36.6 acres, including the 10 acres, as being zoned HC-3, pursuant to Ordinance C.S. No. 09-2116. Goux further requested that the trial court direct the Parish to withdraw and dismiss its erroneous rezoning request relative to the 10 5 acres. On February 7, 2013, intervenors7' flied a petition, arguing that mandamus was an extraordinary remedy and that Goux had other remedies available. r The Parish filed an answer to Goux's pe it.ion for vy it of mandamus on February 8, 2013, admitting, among other th ings, that pursua .t to Oroinance C.S. No. 09-2 116, the entirety of the 36.6 acres had been zo nt~d HC-3 and that the 10 acres of Mr. Goux's property had been erroneously identified <?n the Parish zoning map because "Parish staff erred when performing its ministerial duty of translating the action taken by the Council." The Parish further admitted that it "instituted a pr.ocess by which the zoning for the 10 Acres would purportedly be 'changed' to HC-3 and as a result the matter was placed on the agenda for the [Zoning Commission]." On February 22, 2013, intervenors filed an answer, generally denying the allegations in Goux's petition for writ of mandamus. Intervenors also filed exceptions . raising the objections of no cause of action and prematurity. Goux responded, filing an exception raising the objection of no right of action against intervenors on March 1, 2Q13 '. , . The Parish answered the petition for intervention on March 7, 2013. The matter proceeded to hearing before the trial court on March 12, 2013. The trial court first considered Goux's exception raising the objection of no right of action as to the petition of intervention and concluded that the intervenors, as owners of nea by property, had a justiciable interest in the matter because of the possibility of a zoning change that could have a negative impact on them. Thus, the exception raising the objection of no right of action urged by Goux was denied. Next, the trial court heard argument on the remaining exceptions ·and the writ of mandamus. The parties argued their respective positions, entered into various stipulations on the record, and introduced a number of exhibits into evidence . . At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied the exception raising the objection of n cause of action fi led by intervenors and took the remaining matters under advisement. 7 Intervenors include several named individuals and a Louisiana non-profit corporation, all of whom own residential land nearby Mr. Goux's 36.6 acres. The trial court issued written reasons for j dgment on March 15, 2013, denying intervenors' exception ra ising t he objection of prematurity and denyi ng Goux's petition for writ of mandamus. The trial court found that the matter was not appropriate for a writ of mandamus because the action requested by Goux was that t he Parish modify the official zoning map "by modifying the present zoning of the ten acres as shown on the map to m." On March 27, 2013, the t rial d HC-3 without an ordinance approving th i~ mo. ificatic court signed a judgment in accordance ith its findings, It is from this judgment that Goux has appealed, arguing that the t rial court erred in,denying their petition for writ of 8 mandamus and in overruling their no right of qction exception. . . ' RULE TO SHOW CAUSE After Goux appealed, this court issueo. a ruie t o show cause order indicating the March 27, 2013 judgment appeared to lack appropriate decretal language disposing of and/or dismissing Goux's claims. On October 9r 2013, the trial court signed an amended judgment, which stated, in pertinent part: "IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that there be j udgment in favor of Intervenors, Aurelia ' Marek, et al, and against the Plaintiffs, Ronald A. Goux, et al, dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Wi7t of Mandamus filed by Plaintiffs ." The appellate record was supplemented with the amended j udgment. In a December 20, 2013 order signed by this court, the appeal was maintained; howeverr the fi nal determi nation as to whether the appeal was to be maintained was referred to his appellate panel for disposition, along with the merits of the appeal. The March 27, 2013 j udgment, asamended by the October 9, 2013 judgment, contains the appropriate decretal language fo ·be a valid final Judgment, i.e., it names the party in favor of whom the ru ling is ordered, t he' party against whom the rul ing is See Jenkins v. Recovery Technology ordered, and the relief that is granted. Investors, 2002-1788, pp. 3-4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 27/03), 858 So.2d 598, 600. 8 Because we find that Goux was entit led to the relief prayed for in the petition for writ of mandamus, the issue of whether intervenors had a right of action in Goux's mandamus action is moot, and we pretermit consideration of same. 7 Therefore, we declare the existence of a finai; appeaiable judgment, and maintain the appeal. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 2088; f2e'= Henkelmann v. Whiskey Island aj~o Preserve, LLCr 2011-0304, p. 3 (La. App t Cr. 6/ l / 12) (unpublished) . We now address the merits of Goux's appeal. DISCUSSION On appeal, Goux maintains .that mandamus is appropriate, as there is no element . . . 1 argues .. 'The time for discretionary action by Gow~ of discretion in the present case. the Parish has passed; the zoning process is behind Goux." Noting that the legislative intent for the entirety of Mr. Goux's property to be zoned HC-3 was passed by the Council, Goux asserts that Mr. Fontenot, as Director of Planning and Permits for the Parish, had no discretion as the Council. had spoken t hrough Ordinance C.S. No. 092116. Rather, Goux alleges, Mr. Fontenot had a ministerial duty, attached to his office 9 by Section 4-08(A)(3) of the St. Tammany Parish Home Rule Charter, to maintain and update the Parish zoning map in accordance with Ordi nance C.S. No. 09-2116, which the Parish admitted zoned the entirety of the 36.6 acres as HC-J. In response, intervenors argue that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy limited to ministerial acts and does not authorize a court to amend a legislative act. Intervenors direct our attention to Section 2-1l(A) of the St Tammany Parish Home Rule Charter, which was relied on by the trial court in its denial of Goux's petition for writ of mandamus. Intervenors argue that any change to the Parish zoning map would be a modification of 10 Thus, intervenors the map requiring an ordinance to be introduced by the Council. maintain, the trial court was correct in finding ' ¢ I that in order tO modify the official map or '. ¢ ' , ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ \ . ¢ zoning map, an ordinance must be introduced and there must be an affirmative vote by . ' . the Council with the opportunity for a public hearing. 9 Pu rsuant to Section 4-08(A)(3) of t he St. Tammany Pa;·ish Home Rule Charter, Mr. Fontenot's duty was as follows : 'The director of the department of piar.ning and permits shall direct and be responsible for: .. . [m]aintaining and updating the St. Tammany Parish Land Use Map." 10 Section 2-l l(A) of the St. Tammany Parish Home Ruie Charter provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "An act of the council having the force of law shall be by ordinance. An alt requiring an ordinance shall include but not be limited to those which : .. . ( 13) Adopt or modify the officia l map. .".. ( 16) Adopt or modify the zoning plan, maps and regulations. " 8 Mandamus is a summary proceed in~:l.-. vvh~cr~ ;s q~fioed as a writ that may, among other things, be used to direct a public officer i:o perform ministerial duties required by : ts. law. La. Code Civ. P. a1 378 1, 3861, and 38b3,. Ac~d~an Ambulance Service, Inc. .. ' ' v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 97 -2:119, p. I (Lei . App. 1 Cir. 11/6/98), 722 So.2d 317, 322, writ denied, 98-2995 (La. 1:2/9/98~, l 2.9 So2d 583. Mandamus may be issued in all cases where the law provides no relief by ordinary means or where the delay involved in obtaining ordinary relief may : ~~u se injustice. La. Code Civ. P. art. 3862. It is an extraordinary remedy, which m1.,J.st be used sparingly and only to compel action that is clearly provided by law. PeiiqutEducational Foundation, Inc. v. Louisiana State Bd. of Elementary and Secondary Educ., 2011-2067, pp. 5-6 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/22/12), 97 So.3d 440, 444. . :;.. Mandamus will.. not lie in matters In which discretion and evaiuation of evidence . ·:.·:·· . ' . must be exercised. The remedy of man9amus is not available to command performance of an act that contains any element of discretion, however slight. Sund v. St. Helena Parish School Bd., 2005-2473, · p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/5/06), 935 So.2d 219, 221, writ denied, 2006-1392 (La. 9/ 22/06), 937 So.2d 392. Further, mandamus is to be used only when there is a clear and specific legal right to be enforced or a duty that should be performed. It never issues in doubtful cases. City of Hammond v. Parish of Tangipahoa, 200'7-0574, p. 11 (l a. App. 1 Cir. 3/26/08), 985 So.2d 171, 181. A writ of mandamus may only issue to compel t he performance of a ministerial duty requ ired by law. Gibson & Assoc.ates, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Transp. & Development, 2010-1696, p. 20 (La . Ap~ l "dr. S/18/11 ), 68 So3d 1128, 1140. "Ministerial duties are duties in which no element of discretion is left to the publ ic officer. [It] is a simple, definite duty,· ar;sing u der conditions admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by law. If a public officer is vested with any element of discretion, mandamus will not lie," Hoag v. State, 2004-0857, p. 7 (La . 12/1/04), 889 So.2d 1019, 1024 (citations omitted). The appellate court will grant a writ of mandamus only when there is usurpation of judicial power or clear abuse of discretion. Wallace C. 9 . ¢ ' Drennan, Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of. New Orleans, . 2000-1146, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/3/01), 798 So.2d l l 6l, 11/ 1. We have t horoughly re~/ evved the recorq bt~fo re us. Of pa1ticuiar interest to this rnaps 1:. tra"" court is the t r"al courr's interpretatlrn . of ;r tf e f H parties at the hea~lng before tt1e tri a ~ ·rt on !Vfarch 12, 2013 .. lil its written reasons c ere stipulated to by the ·V for judgment, the trial .court made the foll .vving findings.·offa'ct and conclusions of law· . .. . . \ ¢ · ,, . . I. FINDINGS OF FACT: The property (10 acres) at issue is pan: of a larger 36.6 acre tract owned by the plaintiffs. On Dec~~ m bt; r 15{ 20 0~ , counsel for plaintiff;; issued a request to have the entfr~:· 3J~ . 6'. ac es r~-z;oned to HC-3 Highway Commercial District rather tha n · th~ . !rm:ialiy proposed · A-3 Suburban District. On January 13, 2009, (~oux's counsel appeared before the Special Zoning Commission for' the pa r·i ~h Jo .request .the re-zoning of the 36.6 acres to the HC-3 zoning classification. At this meeting, the zoning commission approved this recommendation, and it was placed on the e agenda for the parish council's corisld. ratjon at its February meeting but was tabled. The ordinance ("Ordinance No. 4029[']) was originally introduced to the council on March Sp 2009. .It was brought before the [council] at rnents being made to it. Four subsequent meetings, with .many amend_ maps were introduced during these meetings .and there is no reference on these maps that zone the 10 acres as Ht:·-3. At the September 3, 2009 council meeting, Ordinance No. 4 029 As Amended ·· (Ordinance No. 4029AA), was officially adopted by the St Tammany Pa ish Councii. 9 (Exhibit 5). The ordinance incl uded th-. zoni-1 map recommended by the zoning commission on Februai)'· 0, 2.009, as amended, said map being · · attached to the ordinance. This rnap ; hows tile 10 acres i question as zoned CB-1. In late 2012, Goux discovere·t :c:1ar. the westernmost 10 acres of the 36.6 acres was identified on the Pa"lsh zonlrig map as zoned CB-1 rather than HC-3. Counsel for plaintiffs r ade ttle Director of Planning and Permits for St. Tammany Parish aware of the alleged mapping error and requested that the map be changed to :lqqi.cate th.e 10 acres was zoned as i HC-3. It appears that counsel for plalnt.ffs and the parish were of the opinion that the entirety of the 36 . ~ acres was zoned. HC-3, however the official map did not delineate this. The Parish brought the matter before the parish's zoning commission ip D~ce m be r of 2012 . The zoning commission denied plaintiffs' zoning chailge request Plaintiffs appealed the zoning commission's denial of the zoning change request to the parish council, which appeal was set to be heard in January 2013 . The matter was tabied at the hearing, and this "Petition for a Writ of Mandamus" was fi led i this Court by plaintiffs on February 1, 2013 . As we have previously indicated, C01'.>1es of pert~ n e nt orni:ions of ail four maps have been attached to this opinion. 11 10 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; . .. .. :-· . . . . ·. . The Court notes that thE~ ~ 0 acres' in d ~ s'put~ were not designated the council by the zoning HC-3 on the zoning map recommendeLi commission dated February 10, . 2.009 or . on any subsequent map w introduced at the council hea.ri ngs · hich.ttie parties had opportunities to zoning map dated September 3; 2009 became the "official review. The map" when it was attached to the ordfriance ·appr()Ved on' that date by the St. Tammany Parish Council. As all pa~le~ agree, this map did not zone ·· · · the ten acres at issue as HC-3 . . / ¢ to at Plaintiffs are requesting . in th)s .;:ict1on U1 the parish modify the official map by modifying the present zoning of the: ten acres as shown on the map to HC-3 withot,Jt an ordin,c:H1ce approving this modification. i They point to Section 4-08(A)(3) of t he Hone Rule Charter wh.ch provides that the Director of Planning and ,Permits · shall be · responsible for i ¢maintaining and updating the St. Tammany Parish Land Use Map" to provide authority for their po5ition: : However, the Court find$ that any change to the zoning map that is attached to Ordinance 4049, As Amended, would be considered a rnodific~tion ,of the map and t herefore would be governed by the clear proviskms of 'sec..tion 2-11 of the Home Rule Charter. Pursuant to the provisip 1.s .. 'f the Holl)e Ruje Charter, ln order to modify the official map or' a zo ling ma p~ an ·ordinance must be introduced and there must be an a. )rmatrv.e vote , by the .:it. Tammany Parish Council with the opportunity for a pubtk nearing: Therefore, the Court finds ba.sed· o-n the above reasoning, that t his matter is not appropriate for a wnt of ma 1damus, as the requested action by the plaintiffs is not a ministehal dC but must be authorized by the members of the parish council t hrough a ordinance pursuant to section 2-11 of the Home Ru le Charter. Accordli gly, t he "Petition for Writ of Mandamus" is denied. [Emphasis ·n onglnaL] The trial court found that any change to t' e Parish zoning map wouid be considered a modification, requi ring the. lntrciduct'ifiri of .im ordinance and an affi rmative . . . \ .. .. ',·-. '; : ~- .' .... .. ' :. . : .. . . . :. . . . .. vote by the Counci l. While we agree t hat ·any zoning change wouldp in fact, require . . ' , . such action by the Council pursuantto Section Rule Charter, t his is not such a case. . 2-H Rather;·ln 'the ' of '. ' . the St. Tammany Parish Home instant case, the Parish admitted 1 in its answer to Goux s petition for wri o mandamus that pursuant to Ordinance CS. No. 09-2116, the 36.6 acres in its entirety wa5? loned HC-3 by the Councll and that "Parish staff erred when performing its ministerial duty of translating the action taken by the Council, pursuant to the Ordinance, to the Pari sh zoning map." Goux maintains 11 on appeal that unless the definitive boundary lines of Mr. Goux's property were known with absolute certainty, anyone viewing the September 3r 2009 Parish zoning map "could only reasonably conclude tt1e entire 36fi [a)cres was zoned HCJ, consistent with the duly passed Ordinance." We a~ree_. ~. !s pute The trial court notes that the 10 acres lr was not designated with HC-3 zoning on any of the Parish zoning maps intrqduced at .t he Council hearings. Whi le we agree a cursory review of the maps . may . ~aust=; _on~ . to . . .. . indiscriminateiy conclude that the . . 10 acres was never zoned HC-3, a complete review of the re.cord reveals otherwise. As previously discussed, the mapping error by the Pqrish began with the February 10, 2009 map and was, apparently, perpetuated over the years, varying only slightly in that the erroneous designation of the 10 acres Changed frornPF:-3.zoning to CB-1 zoning. The Parish admitted in pleadings that "the failure to accurately plot the western exc~ udi ng boundary of the 36.6 [a]cres, thereby error" on the part of Parish staff. The Pari$h . the 10 [a]cres, was an inadvertent fu ~he r . conceded that in connection with ' the Zoning Commission's comprehensive rezoning · plan, it was recommended to the H C:-~, Council that Mr. Goux's 36.6 acres be rezoned su oj ect to a portion of the 36.6 acres measuring 75' in depth from South to North running the entire length of the property, parallel to Brewster Road, from East to West, being zoned A-3 . It follows then that the February 10, 2009 map (Appendix A) reflects what t he parties believe to be a true representation of the zoning of Mr. Goux's property as per the Zoni ng Commission's recommendation as of that time. At first .glance, the February 10, 2009 map appears to show that as · p~r the-' Zotifr1g . Cor~frn.iSsidn·s ' ' . ¢ ¢ ' ¢ : · ., ;. ' , ¢ , '' ' ~. ;r bottom portion of Mr. Goux's property· · unning ' :. ¢' ¢ ¢ ¢ · ¢. I ' ,:~~c6mm.encjation, ¢' ' '' j . It only the ¢ th~ entire length of the property, e was designated with A-3 zoning, while, the r;najqrity ·of-: t~ . acreage was designated with . . ,_ ' .. . . : HC-3 zoning. However, upon closer examination, it is clear that the mapping error that is the focus of this appeal began on this February 10, 2009 . map, as Mr. Goux's property line to the west extends past the shaded area for the HC~3 zoning and into the shaded area that is zoned PF-3. 12 Likewise, when the Council am E~ nded Ordinance Calendar No, 4029 on June 4, 's 2009, and rezoned the 75' strip of Mr. C:", r< .vop:!rty that had previously been zoned A-3 to HC-3, the June 4, 2009 map (Appendix B) wa::) prepared to reflect this change. lr. This map clearly shows that the port!Gn of !V Goux's property; 1Nl1ich had been designated with A-3 zoning, was rezoned as HC-3. Again, at first giance, the June 4, 2009 map designates HC-3 zoning for what appears to be the entirety of Mr. Goux's property. However, the same incorrect PF-3 zoning for the 10 acres that appeared on the February 10, 2009 map (Appendix A) is again reflected on the June 4, 2009 map. Subsequently, Ordinance Calendar No. 4029, as .:amended, appeared on the Council's agenda on September 3, 2009, and w_as adopted by the Council as Ordinance C.S. No. 09-2116. The Parish admitted t,hat p1~ ~s~ant to . Ordinance C.S. No. 09-2116, the entirety of Mr. Goux's 36.6 acres of property was dLJIY zoned HC-3. Although the September 3, 2009 map (Appendix C) aP;pears to , designate HC-3 zoning for an area e consistent with the shape of the entire 36.6 acr. s of property owned by Mr. Goux, once again, we note that the 10 acres fail owtside tr,e $haqed area for HC·-3 zoning andr Moreover, the pertinent portions of the instead, is designated with CB-1 zoning. March 12, 2013 map (Appendix D), which is the Parish's current zoning map, appear identical to the September 3, 2009 map. As argued by Goux on appeal, the correction to the Parish zoning map sought in this case "is a simple, definite fix of an undisputed ministerial error in mapping." A writ of mandamus was appropriate in the instant case; as the simply a ministerial duty that . Mr, Fontenot ~v.: duties as Director of Planning a~d P~r~~i.ts 1024. s requfred to perform pursuant to his for the Parish. discretion in performing this "sfmple; . denri:lte~ admitted or proved to exist, and imposed by req uested action by Goux was dutY," wh,ich Mr. Fontenot had no arose "under conditions lawn Hoagr 2004-0857 at 7, 889 So.2d at The trial court abused its discret ion in denying Goux's petit ion for vvrit of mandamus. Thusr we reverse that portion of the October 9, 2013 judgment that dismissed, with prejudice, Goux's petition for Nrit of mandamus. We further order that a writ of mandamus issue ordering the Parish to withdraw the rezoning process 13 o previously commenced on the 10 acres and to c._ rrect the mapping error on the Parish zoning map to reflect the entirety of Mr, Goux's 36.6 acres, including the 10 acres, as .S. No. 09-2116. being zoned HC-3 pursuant to Ordinance DECREE For the above and foregoing re.asons1 v e rreverse the trial court's dismissal of It i_ fur' her ordered that writ of mandamus Goux's petition for writ of mandamus. issue, ordering that the Parish, within 30 days of the finality of this judgment, withdraw the rezoning process previously commenced or the 10 acres and correct the ministerial mapping error to reflect that the entir ety of Mr , Goux's 36.6 acres, including the 10 acres, is zoned HC-3, pursuant to Ordinance CS. No, 09-<?.116 . All costs associated with this appeal are assessed against intervenors. · APPEAL MAINTAINED; JUDGMENT REVERSED IN PART; MANDAMUS ISSUED. : ~ .. 14 . ; . l · , ·'· Appendix A South West Study Area Zoning Commission Recommendations February 10, 2009 EXHIBIT I ~ Appendix B South West Study Area Recommendations as amended by Council June 4, 2009 EXHIBIT j c/ I I e B il ~ i ': Ii ~ B ~~~~~~=====~o~w~R A-4 Appen dix C South West Study Area Zoning Map as adopted by Council September 3, 2009 EXHIBIT HC-3 CB-1 HC-3 \ - - - _ _ _ . : : ; ; _ _ _ _ , - - - 8REWs:rE R- ·_ _ _ , . . - - Appendix D South West Study Area Current Zoning Map March 12, 2013 EXHIBIT I r \ < . ~ ~ A-4 ~ ~ Cll-1 HC-3 I STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2013CA1387 RONALD A. GOUX VERSUS ST. TAMMANY PARISH GOVERNMENT ******************************************************** MCCLENDON, J., dissenting. I disagree with the majority that a writ of mandamus is appropriate in this case. This is not "a simple, definite fix of an undisputed ministerial error in mapping." To the contrary, the map that was drawn in error was subsequently adopted as part of an ordinance of the Parish Council. 1 As such, any change to the parish zoning map is a zoning change and a modification of the map requiring an ordinance. As acknowledged by the majority, Section 2-llA of the St. Tammany Parish Home Rule Charter provides, in pertinent part: An act of the council having the force of law shall be by ordinance. An act requiring an ordinance shall include but not be limited to those which: (13) Adopt or modify the official map. (16) Adopt or modify the zoning plan, maps and regulations. (Emphasis added.) The trial court correctly concluded that any change to the official zoning map, approved by the St. Tammany Parish Council and made part of Ordinance 4029, as amended, on September 3, 2009, would be considered a modification of the map, and, therefore, would be governed by the clear provisions of Section 2-11 of the Home Rule Charter. 1 The majority attempts to circumvent the clear The ordinance adopted the attached map as the official zoning map for the Parish and repealed all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict therewith. The ordinance made no reference to any specific boundaries or zoning other than what was shown on the attached map. mandate of the Home Rule Charter by referencing an "inadvertent error" on the part of the Parish staff. However, pursuant to the specific provisions of the Home Rule Charter, in order to modify the official map or the zoning map, an ordinance must be introduced and there must be an affirmative vote of the Council with the opportunity for a public hearing. This mandate is clear and unambiguous. As noted by the trial court: [T]he 10 acres in dispute were not designated HC-3 on the zoning map recommended to the council by the zoning commission dated February 10, 2009 or on any subsequent map introduced at the council hearings which the parties had opportunities to review. The zoning map dated September 3, 2009 became the "official map" when it was attached to the ordinance approved on that date by the St. Tammany Parish Council. As all parties agree, this map did not zone the ten acres at issue as HC-3. 2 Because a writ of mandamus is not the only available remedy to Mr. Goux and because a change to the current zoning map requires the passage of a parish ordinance, this matter is not appropriate for a writ of mandamus. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 2 Importantly, the public also relied on the maps introduced at the council hearings. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.