Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 24, 2014; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
An appeal has been filed by plaintiffs against a trial court judgment that denied their objection regarding the right of action and rejected their request for mandamus relief concerning a mapping error on the St. Tammany Parish zoning map. The appellate court partially reverses the trial court's decision and grants mandamus relief to the plaintiffs.
In 2007, the St. Tammany Parish Council initiated a comprehensive rezoning of unincorporated areas, establishing a Special Zoning Commission for recommendations. Ronald A. Goux owned approximately 36.6 acres of land at a key intersection and requested on December 15, 2008, that his property be zoned HC-3, providing a survey and legal description. During a January 2009 Zoning Commission meeting, Goux's counsel argued for the rezoning based on historical precedents of surrounding properties.
The Zoning Commission recommended HC-3 zoning for Goux's property but included a stipulation that a 75-foot strip along Brewster Road be zoned A-3. This matter was tabled at a subsequent Council meeting but was later introduced as Ordinance Calendar No. 4029 with amendments. At a June 2009 meeting, the Council made significant changes to the zoning map, effectively rezoning the entire 36.6 acres to HC-3. The ordinance was adopted on September 3, 2009, amending the Unified Development Code and repealing any conflicting ordinances.
An error occurred after the amended ordinance was passed on September 3, 2009, when Parish staff misidentified the zoning of the westernmost 10 acres of Mr. Goux’s property as CB-1 on the Parish zoning map. Mr. Goux alerted the Director of Planning and Permits, Sidney Fontenot, of this mistake in 2012. Fontenot acknowledged the error but stated that correction required a review by the Zoning Commission and Council. A proposal to rezone the 10 acres from CB-1 to HC-3 was placed on the Zoning Commission’s agenda, but it was tabled during the November 7, 2012 meeting. At the December 4, 2012 meeting, Mr. Goux's counsel argued for a simple correction of the zoning map, while residents opposed the HC-3 designation, believing it misled the public about zoning buffers. Legal counsel for the Zoning Commission supported the correction based on precedent, but the commission denied the rezoning motion, citing public input and concerns over neighborhood impacts. Mr. Goux appealed the commission's decision to the Council, which tabled the appeal pending a potential mandamus action. Subsequently, on February 1, 2013, Mr. Goux and two LLCs filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking a court order to correct the zoning map and dismiss the erroneous rezoning request. On February 7, interveners contended that mandamus was inappropriate given other available remedies. The Parish responded on February 8, admitting the mapping error and acknowledging the correct zoning under Ordinance C.S. No. 09-2116.
The Parish acknowledged it initiated a process to change the zoning of a 10-acre parcel to HC-3, which was subsequently added to the Zoning Commission's agenda. On February 22, 2013, intervenors filed an answer denying Goux’s allegations in his petition for writ of mandamus, while also raising exceptions of no cause of action and prematurity. Goux responded with an exception claiming no right of action against the intervenors. The Parish answered the intervention on March 7, 2013, and a hearing occurred on March 12, 2013. During the hearing, the trial court ruled that the intervenors had a justiciable interest in the case due to potential negative impacts from the zoning change, thus denying Goux's objection of no right of action.
The court then heard arguments on other exceptions and Goux's writ petition, leading to the denial of the intervenors’ exception of no cause of action. On March 15, 2013, the trial court issued written reasons for its judgment, denying the intervenors’ objection of prematurity and Goux’s writ petition, stating that mandamus was inappropriate as it sought a zoning modification without an ordinance. A formal judgment was signed on March 27, 2013, prompting Goux to appeal.
After the appeal, the appellate court issued a rule to show cause regarding the judgment's language. Subsequently, on October 9, 2013, the trial court amended the judgment to dismiss Goux’s writ petition with prejudice in favor of the intervenors. The appellate court confirmed that the amended judgment contained valid decretal language, affirming it as a final judgment and maintaining the appeal.
On appeal, Goux argued that mandamus was appropriate due to the absence of discretion in the case, asserting that the zoning process was concluded and that the Parish’s planning director had no discretion after the Council's ordinance established the zoning intent for his property.
Goux claims that Mr. Fontenot has a ministerial duty under Section 4-08(A)(3) of the St. Tammany Parish Home Rule Charter to maintain and update the Parish zoning map per Ordinance C.S. No. 09-2116, which designates the entire 36.6 acres as HC-3. In contrast, intervenors argue that mandamus, as an extraordinary remedy limited to ministerial acts, cannot compel a court to amend a legislative act. They reference Section 2.11(A) of the Charter to support the trial court’s denial of Goux’s petition, asserting that changes to the zoning map require a council ordinance and a public hearing. Mandamus is defined as a writ directing a public officer to fulfill ministerial duties mandated by law, and it is generally not applicable when any discretion is involved. The appellate court may grant such a writ only in cases of clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.
The trial court found that the property in question is part of a larger 36.6-acre tract owned by the plaintiffs. A request for rezoning to HC-3 was made in December 2008, and a zoning commission approved it in January 2009, but it was subsequently tabled by the council. Ordinance No. 4029 was introduced on March 5, 2009, underwent multiple amendments, and at the September 3, 2009 meeting, the council adopted the ordinance, which included a zoning map that designated the 10 acres in question as CB-1, rather than HC-3.
In late 2012, Goux identified a discrepancy on the Parish zoning map where the westernmost 10 acres of a 36.6-acre property was incorrectly zoned CB-1 instead of HC-3, as believed by both Goux's counsel and the parish. After notifying the Director of Planning and Permits and requesting a correction, the parish zoning commission denied a request to amend the zoning designation. An appeal to the parish council was scheduled for January 2013 but was tabled, leading to the filing of a 'Petition for a Writ of Mandamus' by the plaintiffs on February 1, 2013.
The court concluded that the official zoning map, established by Ordinance 4029 on September 3, 2009, did not designate the disputed 10 acres as HC-3. The court emphasized that any modification to the zoning map requires an ordinance and a vote from the parish council, as stipulated in section 2-11 of the Home Rule Charter. Consequently, the court denied the request for a writ of mandamus, asserting that the desired action was not a simple ministerial task but rather needed formal approval.
However, the court noted that the parish had acknowledged in its response that the entire 36.6 acres was zoned HC-3 according to Ordinance C.S. No. 09-2116, and that a mistake occurred in translating this decision onto the zoning map. Goux argued that the zoning map's ambiguity led to a reasonable conclusion that the entire parcel was zoned HC-3, and the court agreed with this interpretation.
The trial court identified that the disputed 10 acres was not assigned HC-3 zoning on any of the Parish zoning maps presented during the Council hearings. Although a superficial review of these maps might suggest the 10 acres has never been zoned HC-3, a thorough examination indicates a mapping error originating from the February 10, 2009 map, which misdesignated the area first as PF-3 and later as CB-1. The Parish acknowledged this error, noting it resulted from an inadvertent mistake by staff in plotting the property boundaries.
The Zoning Commission had previously recommended that Mr. Goux's entire 36.6 acres be rezoned to HC-3, with a small portion remaining A-3. Despite the February 10, 2009 map suggesting that only part of Mr. Goux's property was designated HC-3, the actual zoning error persisted. The June 4, 2009 map attempted to reflect a rezoning of a 75-foot strip to HC-3 but still inaccurately showed the 10 acres as PF-3.
On September 3, 2009, Ordinance C.S. No. 09-2116 was adopted, which the Parish admitted designated Mr. Goux’s entire 36.6 acres as HC-3. However, the 10 acres continued to be incorrectly zoned as CB-1 on the maps produced thereafter, including the March 12, 2013 map. Mr. Goux argued that the correction sought was a straightforward rectification of an undisputed ministerial error. He contended that a writ of mandamus was warranted because the action required by the Director of Planning and Permits was a non-discretionary duty mandated by law. The trial court's dismissal of Goux’s petition for a writ of mandamus was deemed an abuse of discretion, leading to a reversal of that judgment.
A writ of mandamus is ordered to compel the Parish to withdraw the ongoing rezoning process for 10 acres and to correct a mapping error to designate all of Mr. Goux's 36.6 acres, including the 10 acres, as zoned HC-3 according to Ordinance C.S. No. 09-2116. The trial court’s dismissal of Goux’s petition is reversed. The Parish must complete these actions within 30 days of the judgment's finality, and all appeal costs are charged to intervenors. The opinion notes dissenting views, emphasizing that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy applicable only to purely ministerial acts and that alternative remedies exist for the plaintiff. Mr. Goux's property is confirmed to encompass 36.641 acres, as shown on various maps, with a stipulation that the 10 acres were incorrectly identified as PF-1 on the Parish zoning map. No such PF-1 map exists in the record; instead, the 10 acres are shown as CB-1 on both the September 3, 2009, and March 12, 2013, maps.
The map titled "South West Study Area Current Zoning Map March 12, 2013" is included as "Appendix D." The Parish has acknowledged a mapping error in its response to the petition for writ of mandamus. Mr. Goux asserts that he did not initiate a rezoning process and disagrees with the Parish's chosen method for addressing the mapping error. He believes the property has been zoned HC-3 since the June 4, 2009 Council meeting and argues that the issue is merely a mapping error that could be easily rectified. Several intervenors, including individuals and a non-profit corporation owning nearby residential land, are involved in the case. The court concludes that Goux is entitled to the relief sought in his petition, rendering the question of the intervenors' standing moot. Under Section 4-08(A)(3) of the St. Tammany Parish Home Rule Charter, the director of the department of planning and permits is responsible for maintaining and updating the Land Use Map. Additionally, Section 2-11(A) stipulates that any council action with legal force must be enacted by ordinance, which includes adopting or modifying the official map and zoning plans. Relevant excerpts from all four maps have been attached to the opinion.
