St. Martin Parish Gov't v. Champagne
| Decision Date | 19 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | 19-499 |
| Citation | 304 So.3d 931 |
| Parties | ST. MARTIN PARISH GOVERNMENT v. Bryan CHAMPAGNE, et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Allan L. Durand, 235 La Rue France, Lafayette, LA 70508, (337) 237-8501, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: St. Martin Parish Government
Gregory J. Logan, The Logan Law Firm, Post Office Box 52704, Lafayette, LA 70505, (337) 406-9685, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Bryan Champagne Champagne's Cajun Swamp Tours, LLC The Wharf on Lake Martin, LLC
Michael O. Adley, Gibson Law Partners, LLC, Post Office Box 52124, Lafayette, LA 70505, (337) 761-6023, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES: Bryan Champagne Champagne's Cajun Swamp Tours, LLC The Wharf on Lake Martin, LLC
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Elizabeth A. Pickett, John E. Conery, Van H. Kyzar, and Candyce G. Perret, Judges.
St. Martin Parish Government ("Appellant") appeals the dismissal of its Petition for Injunctive Relief, with prejudice, in which it sought an injunction against The Wharf on Lake Martin, LLC; Champagne's Cajun Swamp Tours, LLC; and Bryan Champagne (collectively referred to as "Appellees") to: (1) prohibit commercial and/or retail ventures and activity at 1076 Rookery Road, Breaux Bridge, Louisiana, in violation of the W-2 zoning district, and (2) to remove all structures at that location which infringe on the set-back restrictions set forth in the parish zoning ordinance. Additionally, the trial court dismissed as moot Appellees’ reconventional demand for damages if Appellant was successful in obtaining an injunction. The trial court assessed costs of the proceedings to St. Martin Parish Government, but failed to specify the exact amount of court costs in accordance with the requirement of La.R.S. 13:5112. On appeal, Appellees have also filed two motions and incorporated memoranda to dismiss appeal for lack of jurisdiction and an Exception of No Right and Incorporated Memorandum. We deny Appellees’ motions to dismiss appeal as well as the exception of no right and affirm the trial court's judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
On April 29, 2016, Appellant filed a Petition for Injunctive Relief asserting that Appellees were in violation of the parish zoning ordinance. Specifically, that Appellees’ premises are located within a W-2 zoning designation, which does not permit commercial activity. Appellant asserted that Appellees’ commercial ventures include the sale of food and drinks, marketing of fishing paraphernalia, kayak and canoe rentals, and paid boat tours. Furthermore, Appellant's petition asserts that Appellees’ buildings violate the set-back mandates of the parish zoning ordinance.
Appellees filed an answer asserting that all building and activity was conducted after obtaining the necessary parish permits and raised the defenses of estoppel and Appellees’ vested rights and reliance on the permits. Additionally, Appellees filed an Amended and Restated Answer to Petition for Injunctive Relief and Reconventional Demand on August 31, 2018, which additionally alleged that the zoning ordinance was vague, ambiguous, and unconstitutional and also sought damages in the event that Appellant succeeded in obtaining the requested injunction. Regarding the ordinance, Appellees assert that the ordinance was "unconstitutional as it was haphazardly thrown together, is vague and ambiguous and incomplete insofar as referenced map, policies and procedures outlined in the Ordinance were never followed or performed." Furthermore, Appellees assert that the police jury failed to support the enactment of the ordinance with a vote of the people or an act of the legislature.
A trial on the merits was held on April 8, 2019. At trial, the parties stipulated to the following facts:
Additionally, the evidence submitted at trial included: the zoning ordinance with appendices, building permits, inspections, a March 3, 2016 cease and desist letter, St. Martin Parish E-911 Commission evidencing that Appellees secured an address, certification of occupancy, liquor/beer permit, the deposition of Guy Cormier (prior Parish President), and Appellant's responses to discovery. Further testifying at trial were Chester Cedars, current parish president and prior parish counsel; Becky Patin, St. Martin Parish Clerk of Court; Bryan Champagne; and Shani Dodge, who worked in the parish building permits section.
The trial testimony and evidence showed that Bryan Champagne went to the parish and obtained all permits and inspections the parish required of him prior to starting business at 1076 Rookery Lane, which he leased. Although Mr. Cedars testified that Appellees’ business is located at 1075 Rookery Road, differing from the permits, Mr. Champagne testified that the address was provided to him by 911 and at no time was he informed that he had the wrong address. When Mr. Champagne wished to add additional structures in 2013, he again obtained all permits required by the parish. Additionally, prior to obtaining the 2013 permits, Mr. Champagne testified that Mr. Cormier and Jacques Miguez, the Planning and Zoning Coordinator, came out to Appellees’ premises before approving the permits.
Chester Cedars testified that he believes the permits were the result of an administrative error. Mr. Cedars also explained that his understanding of the ordinance is that, unless stated otherwise, zoning designations set forth in the ordinance apply to both sides of the road and that a W-2 designation does not permit an exception to the zoning designation.
As for the zoning ordinance at issue, signed on August 26, 1996, the ordinance divides St. Martin Parish into sixteen types of districts, with W-2 referring to "Woodland/Flood Plain – recreation/residential district." The zoning ordinance states:
To continue reading
Request your trial