Stonegate Homeowners v. City of Baton Rouge, 2001 CA 2883.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
• Writing for the Court: Fitzsimmons
• Citation: 836 So.2d 440
• Parties: STONEGATE HOMEOWNERS CIVIC ASSOCIATION, et al. v. CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, et al.
• Docket Number: No. 2001 CA 2883.,2001 CA 2883.
• Decision Date: 20 December 2002

836 So.2d 440 STONEGATE HOMEOWNERS CIVIC ASSOCIATION, et al.
v.
CITY OF BATON ROUGE/PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, et al. No. 2001 CA 2883. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. December 20, 2002. Rehearing Denied February 19, 2003.

Appeal from the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 322,028, Curtis A. Calloway, J.

Page 441

Jeffrey S. Wittenbrink, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants Stonegate Homeowners Civic Association, et al.

James C. Percy, Baton Rouge, Counsel for Defendant/Appellee City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Before: FITZSIMMONS, GUIDRY, and PETTIGREW, J.J.

FITZSIMMONS, J.

Appellants, Stonegate Homeowners Civic Association, David Blount, James Chetta, Connie S. Chetta, Harold Leone, Martha B. Miller, Mary A. O'Keefe, Barbara Richert and Fred Townsend (Stonegate), appeal a grant of an involuntary dismissal by the trial court in favor of the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge (City/Parish). The trial court held that Stonegate had not met its burden to prove the existence of a dedication of the streets within the subdivision at issue. Following a review of the law and the facts, this court reverses and remands.

ZONING CLASSIFICATION DEBACLE

The tortured and ill-founded grant by City/Parish of a hybrid form of zoning development creates the confusion related to the dedication of the streets within the Stonegate Subdivision. As ratified by the City/Parish planning commission, the Stonegate Subdivision does not comply

Page 442

with the City/Parish's designated zoning classifications.

Stonegate Subdivision was originally presented for approval as a townhouse development. A townhouse development is required to conform to a distinctive set of zoning requirements established pursuant to Subdivision Regulations, Section XVI3, City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge¹. However, at the time of its approval, the planning commission ratified an alteration of the preliminary plat for the proposal from "townhouses" to "zero lot line" housing. The commission, thereafter, noted in its recorded vote of approval that "[s]treets, drainage and lot sizes are unchanged."

A review of the final plat for Stonegate Subdivision, approved by the Planning Director of the City/Parish Planning Commission, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana, reveals the following language, in pertinent part:

2. The right of way of streets shown hereon, if not previously dedicated is hereby dedicated to the perpetual use of the public. All areas shown as servitudes are granted to the public for other proper purpose for the general use of the public....

3. All street improvements shall be 22' wide and will be 6" concrete pavement on a compacted subgrade.

...

6. This proposed subdivision is located within the A2.5 (townhouse) zoning district of East Baton Rouge Parish.

The plat contains plans for passageways identified as "Stonegate Court" and "Bellglen Lane." There are also references to various "access drives" along the townhouse-type rows, which are not individually identified with names. These drives feed into Stonegate Court or Bellglen Lane, whose dedication City/Parish does not dispute. The "drives" form the only eastwest. roadways for vehicular travel from the houses across the subdivision to the nearest connecting street. The distance of the drives serving as roadways extends as far as nine hundred feet.

Stonegate claims that the plat's designated "access drives" are dedicated streets, subject to City/Parish maintenance. City/Parish avers that the access drives were never identified as "streets" in the final plat for which the City/Parish accepted maintenance. Instead, it purports that the roadways remained "drives" or "driveways," which were owned by the developer and not maintained by City/Parish. See Subdivision Regulations, Section XVI3. Town House Subdivision (d)(4).

James R. Clary, who was accepted as an expert in civil and consulting engineering, commented on the "inconsistencies" in the City/Parish approved plans for a singlefamily zero lot line development within the A2.5 (townhouse) zoning district. He noted the breach by the planning commission in its failure to comply with the directives of the A2.5 zoning, as well as the fact that a proper zoning classification did not appear to have ever been effected, either procedurally or substantively. The City/Parish now leans on its blurred application of the subdivision requirements to avoid...