Our Lady of the Lake Roman Catholic Church v. City of Mandeville

• Decision Date: 03 February 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2013 CA 0837.,2013 CA 0837.
• Parties: OUR LADY OF the LAKE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, MANDEVILLE, Louisiana v. CITY OF MANDEVILLE, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

147 So.3d 186

OUR LADY OF the LAKE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, MANDEVILLE, Louisiana

v.CITY OF MANDEVILLE, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

No. 2013 CA 0837.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Feb. 3, 2014.

Joseph C. Chautin, III, Mark A. Balkin, Elise M. Stubbe, Mandeville, Louisiana, Howard E. Sinor, Jr., Nina Wessel English, Paul B. Simon, New Orleans, Louisiana, Chadwick W. Collings, Thomas Schneidau, Covington, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellant Our Lady of the Lake Roman Catholic Church, Mandeville, Louisiana.

Lloyd N. Shields, Shailendra U. Kulkarni, New Orleans, Louisiana, David E. Walker, Edward J. Deano, Jr., Mandeville, Louisiana, for Defendant/Appellee City of Mandeville, Planning and Zoning Commission.

Before PARRO, GUIDRY, and DRAKE, JJ.

Opinion

DRAKE, J.

The property owner, Our Lady of the Lake Roman Catholic Church, Mandeville, Louisiana (“OLL”), appeals a judgment affirming an action of the City of Mandeville Planning and Zoning Commission (“Zoning Board”), which denied OLL's application for a zoning permit. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

OLL owns property located in the City of Mandeville's (“City”) “Old Mandeville” business district. Currently, the OLL campus includes a sixty-year-old church building, school buildings, a multi-purpose facility, an athletic field, administrative and service auxiliary buildings, a rectory, and parking lots. Pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Land Use Regulation Ordinance (“CLURO”), the property owned by OLL is zoned “B–3 Old Mandeville Business District,” a mixed business and residential district that also includes institutional and governmental uses.¹ For the uses contemplated by OLL, which include religious assembly and educational facilities,² the B–3 district permits a “Z–Zoning permit use —[a] use permitted-conditionally in the [B–3] district with issuance of a zoning permit by the zoning board ...”.³

In 1999, following the submission and review of its site plan, OLL obtained a permit from the Zoning Board to construct two buildings on its campus: a multipurpose facility (Chotin Center) and a building to replace the existing library and classroom building (Parish Life Center).⁴ In the years following the additions of the buildings approved by that permit, OLL experienced expanded church membership and a high volume of attendance at its weekly services. To

accommodate churchgoers, OLL holds mass in the multi-purpose facility, as well as in the church. After studying the feasibility of expanding the existing church building, OLL decided to build a new, larger church building to accommodate its growth. In 2011, OLL completed design and construction plans for the new church. On June 30, 2011, OLL filed an application for a zoning permit⁵ with the City that sought to amend its previously-issued 1999 zoning permit by expanding, reconfiguring, and modifying the development site for construction of its new church building, additional parking lots, and school facilities.

After the filing of OLL's application, the City's Design Review Committee held a design review session on July 22, 2011. Thereafter, the more formal process of considering the application under the CLURO's site plan review process began. After advertising in accordance with law, the Zoning Board held public hearings on this permit application on July 26, August 9, September 7, and October 5, 2011.⁶ At the October 5, 2011 hearing, the Zoning Board denied OLL's zoning permit application and provided reasons for the denial orally at the meeting, as well as in a decision letter dated October 14, 2011. The Zoning Board based its denial of OLL's application on seventeen considerations. Further, after concluding that OLL had not been completely complying with the 1999 permit, the Zoning Board revised portions of the 1999 permit relative to building use to allow for the continued use of various buildings that were otherwise in violation of the 1999 permit provisions; however, the Zoning Board directed OLL's compliance with those provision of the 1999 permit relative to the loading and unloading of buses and students, and to parking.

Following the decision of the Zoning Board, OLL filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the district court, seeking an order declaring that the Zoning

Board's denial of its application for a zoning permit was null and granting the requested permit.⁷ The district court heard arguments on April 19, 2012, and took the matter under advisement. By judgment dated October 10, 2012, the district court affirmed the Zoning Board's denial of OLL's application for a zoning permit, but vacated and set aside the Zoning Board's order with regard to the imposition of new use restrictions and conditions on the 1999 zoning permit. In its written reasons for judgment, the district court held that OLL's site plan failed to meet the CLURO's minimum requirements relative to the number and location of parking spaces. OLL now appeals the judgment of the district court on judicial review of this administrative matter.⁸

STANDARD OF REVIEW

On judicial review of a decision by an administrative agency, an aggrieved party may seek review of same by appeal to the appropriate appellate court. On review of the district court's judgment, no deference is owed by the court of appeal to factual findings or legal conclusions of the district court, just as no deference is owed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to factual findings or legal conclusions of the court of appeal. Maraist v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation, 02–2677 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/26/04), 879 So.2d 815, 817. Thus, an appellate court sitting in review of an administrative agency reviews the findings and decision of the administrative agency and not the decision of the district court. Smith v. State, Department of Health and Hospitals, 39,368 (La.App. 2 Cir. 3/2/05), 895 So.2d 735, 739, writ denied, 05–1103 (La.6/17/05), 904 So.2d 701.

Our review of the district court's judgment is governed by Louisiana Revised Statutes 49:964(G), which provides:

The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(3) Made upon unlawful procedure;

(4) Affected by other error of law;

(5) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or

(6) Not supported and sustainable by a preponderance of evidence as determined by the reviewing court. In the application of this rule, the court shall make its own determination and conclusions of fact by a preponderance of evidence based upon its own evaluation of the record reviewed in its entirety upon judicial review. In the application of the rule, where the agency has the opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses by first-hand observation of demeanor on the witness stand and the reviewing court does not, due regard shall be given to the agency's determination of credibility issues.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

The first two assignments of error raised by OLL are related. First, OLL argues that the Zoning Board erred in following the requirements of the CLURO when it evaluated OLL's zoning permit application. OLL contends that the Zoning Board exceeded its limited jurisdiction in denying OLL's zoning permit, arguing that the Zoning Board's jurisdiction was strictly limited to a determination of whether OLL's proposal met the established, objective criteria of the CLURO for a use “permitted by-right.”⁹ Second, OLL avers the Zoning Board erred by evaluating OLL's zoning permit application using CLURO criteria for a conditional use or zoning variance, not a permitted use. OLL argues that the

Zoning Board arbitrarily and capriciously denied its application based on the personal opinions of board members and requirements not found in the CLURO. OLL also contends that the Zoning Board relied on the City's Comprehensive Plan and B–3 Area Plan, which are not law. In order to address these errors assigned by OLL, we must determine whether the Zoning Board followed the criteria set forth in the CLURO in evaluating and denying OLL's zoning permit application based on the zoning designation of the property and what uses are permitted therein by the CLURO.

Zoning is a general plan designed to foster improvement by confining certain classes of buildings and uses of property to certain localities. The purpose of zoning is to reduce or eliminate the adverse effects that one type of land use might have on another. Jenkins v. St. Tammany Parish Police Jury, 98–2627 (La.7/2/99), 736 So.2d 1287, 1290. Article VI, Section 17 of the Louisiana Constitution gives local governments broad powers to adopt regulations for land use, zoning, and historic preservation. It provides:

Subject to uniform procedures established by law, a local governmental subdivision may (1) adopt regulations for land use, zoning, and historic preservation, which authority is declared to be a public purpose; (2) create commissions and districts to implement those regulations; (3) review decisions of any such commission; and (4) adopt standards for use, construction, demolition, and modification of areas and structures. Existing constitutional authority for historic preservation commissions is retained.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:4721 also confers upon local governments the authority to enact zoning regulations. It states, in pertinent part:

For the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community, the governing authority of all municipalities may regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of structures, the percentage of lot that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the

...