Vieux Carre Property Owners, Residents & Associates, Inc. v. the City of New Orleans, Through Its Board of Zoning Adjustments and Director of Department of Safety and Permits

VIEUX CARRE PROPERTY * NO. 2021-CA-0687
OWNERS, RESIDENTS &
ASSOCIATES, INC. *
COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS *
FOURTH CIRCUIT
THE CITY OF NEW *
ORLEANS, THROUGH ITS STATE OF LOUISIANA
BOARD OF ZONING *******
ADJUSTMENTS AND
DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT
OF SAFETY AND PERMITS

APPEAL FROM
CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH
NO. 2020-02429, DIVISION “J”
Honorable D. Nicole Sheppard,
******
Judge Daniel L. Dysart
******
(Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Pro
Tempore Judge Madeline Jasmine)

Andrew K. Jacoby
LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW JACOBY, LLC
2118 Pakenham Drive
Chalmette, LA 70043

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Shawn Lindsay
Daniel T. Smith
Churita H. Hansell
Donesia D. Turner
Sunni J. LeBeouf
CITY ATTORNEYS
1300 Perdido Street
Suite 5E03
New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

Robert J. Ellis, Jr.
R.J. ELLIS LAW FIRM
650 Poydras Street
Suite 2615
New Orleans, LA 70130

Salvador I. Bivalacqua
Will C. Griffin
GALANTE & BIVALACQUA LLC
650 Poydras Street
Suite 2615
New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR INTERVENOR/APPELLEE
CHARTERS CAFÉ, LLC/WILLIE’S CHICKEN SHACK

AFFIRMED
APRIL 6, 2022

DLD
RLB
MJ
This is an appeal by plaintiff-appellant, Vieux Carré Property Owners,

Residents & Associates, Inc. (“VCPORA”), of the district court’s August 18, 2021,

judgment denying a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Review the Ruling of the City

of New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments (“BZA”) and the Decision of

Director of Department of Safety and Permits to issue a “standard restaurant”

occupational license to Charters Café L.L.C., d/b/a Willie’s Chicken Shack

(“Willie’s”). For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 16, 2019, the Director of the Department of Safety and Permits

of Orleans Parish, Zachary Smith, issued an occupational license to Willie’s for the

property located at 601 Chartres Street in the French Quarter. VCPORA opposed

the Director’s decision on grounds that the business entity had been improperly

classified as a “standard restaurant” rather than a “fast-food” restaurant. Because

601 Chartres Street is zoned as VCC-2 under the Comprehensive Zoning

Ordinances (“CZO”) of Orleans Parish, standard restaurants are allowed to operate

1

at the location while fast-food restaurants are impermissible. On February 10,

2020, the BZA held a public hearing on VCPORA’s appeal of Director Smith’s

decision. After consideration of the facts and arguments of all parties, the BZA

determined that the approval standard for appeals had not been met and

accordingly denied VCPORA’s appeal and upheld Director Smith’s decision to

issue the standard restaurant license. On March 11, 2020, VCPORA filed a

Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Review the Ruling of the City of New Orleans

Board of Zoning Adjustments and the Decision of Director of Department of

Safety and Permits in the district court, seeking the reversal of the BZA’s ruling as

well as the revocation of Willie’s occupational license. By judgment dated August

18, 2021, the district court ruled in favor of the City (BZA) and Intervenor

(Willie’s), denying VCPORA’s Petition and dismissing the matter with prejudice.

VCPORA timely filed an appeal of this judgment, contending that the district court

erred in denying the Petition for Judicial Review.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

District courts have original jurisdiction to review decisions of an

administrative body, such as the BZA. Dupuis v. City of New Orleans through

Zoning Bd. of Zoning Adjustments, 2017-0052, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/2/17); 224

So.3d 1046, 1048. See also, e.g., Gertler v. City of New Orleans, 346 So.2d 228,

233 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1977); River Oaks–Hyman Pl. H. Civ. A. v. City of New

Orleans, 281 So.2d 293 (La. App. 4 Cir., 1973)(“when a district court reviews a

decision of an administrative body, it is exercising ‘exclusive original

jurisdiction’”) (citations omitted). The Courts of Appeal, then, exercise appellate

jurisdiction over district court decisions concerning the review of decisions of

zoning boards. Dupuis, 17-0052, p. 3, 224 So.3d at 1049. Thus, “[a] reviewing

2

[appellate] court does not consider whether the district court manifestly erred in its

findings, but whether the zoning board acted arbitrarily, capriciously or with any

calculated or prejudicial lack of discretion.” King v. Caddo Par. Com’n, 97-1873,

pp. 14-15 (La. 10/20/98), 719 So.2d 410, 418.

Because zoning laws and decisions fall within the ambit of a municipality’s

legislative powers, the decisions of zoning boards are presumed to be valid by

reviewing appellate courts. See, Vieux Carré Prop. Owners v. City of New

Orleans, 14-0825, pp. 5-6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/15/15), 216 So.3d 873, 877, writ

denied sub nom., 15-1147 (La. 9/18/15), 178 So.3d 149 (Citations omitted).

However, this presumption of validity is rebuttable; and a party aggrieved by a

decision of the BZA is entitled to judicial review through a writ of certiorari. Id.

14-0825, p. 6, 216 So.3d at 877. “The purpose of certiorari review…of decisions

of boards and quasi-judicial tribunals is to ‘determine whether jurisdiction has been

exceeded, or to decide if the evidence establishes a legal and substantial basis for

the Board’s decision.’” Esplanade Ridge Civic Ass'n v. City of New Orleans, 13-

1062, p. 3 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/12/14); 136 So.3d 166, 169, quoting Elysian Fields,

Inc. v. St. Martin, 600 So.2d 69 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1992).

The presumption is sufficiently rebutted if the reviewing court determines

that the evidence fails to establish a legal and substantial basis for the decision or

that the BZA has exceeded its jurisdiction and acted in an arbitrary and capricious

manner. Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). For purposes of review of a

zoning decision, “[t]he terms ‘arbitrary and capricious’ mean willful and

unreasoning action, absent consideration and in disregard of the facts and

circumstances of the case.” Toups v. City of Shreveport, 10-1559, p. 3, (La.

3/15/11); 60 So.3d 1215, 2017 (citation omitted). “It is only when an action of a

3

zoning commission is found on judicial review to be palpably unreasonable,

arbitrary, [or] an abuse of discretion…that such action will be disturbed.” City of

Baton Rouge/Par. Of E. Baton Rouge v. Myers, 13-2011, p. 6 (La. 5/7/14); 145

So.3d 320, 327-28 (citation omitted). “However, when there is room for two

opinions, an action is not arbitrary or capricious when exercised honestly and upon

due consideration, even though it may be believed an erroneous conclusion has

been reached.” Toups, 10-1559, pp. 3-4, 60 So.3d at 1217 (citation omitted).

“On appeal, ‘[t]he aggrieved party bears the burden of showing that the BZA

decision is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly erroneous in light of substantial

evidence in the record.’” Dupuis, 17-0052, p. 5, 224 So.3d at 1049 (quoting Vieux

Carré Prop. Owners, 14–0825, p. 7, 216 So.3d at 877).

DISCUSSION

Appellant assigns four errors. First, Appellant argues that the BZA and

Director Smith erred by issuing a license before taking the “legally mandated hard-

look” at the evidence. Secondly, Appellant alleges that the BZA and Director

Smith erred by issuing a license in violation of the “holding bar” ordinance. Third,

Appellant argues that the BZA and Director Smith erred by issuing Willie’s a

license because Appellee does not meet the criteria of “full table service” or “wait

staff” as required under the definition of a “standard restaurant.” Lastly, Appellant

alleges that the BZA and Director Smith erred by issuing a license because of a

public policy issue.

Assignments one and three are addressed concomitantly as both hinge upon

the alleged misclassification of the property. This Court agrees with the trial court

in that the Director Smith’s decision to classify the property as a “standard

restaurant” and issue the license was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The BZA’s

4

decision to uphold Director Smith’s classification and licensure likewise failed to

meet the arbitrary and capricious standard. After considering the facts presented at

the BZA hearing, the BZA presented a well-reasoned argument in favor of

upholding Director Smith’s decision. At the hearing, the BZA focused on the

ambiguity in the language of the controlling ordinances and the strong possibility

for one entity to meet the classification criteria for multiple types of businesses.

Under the circumstances, this Court finds that the BZA’s actions do not meet the

threshold to be considered arbitrary and capricious.

This Court further points out that the prevailing jurisprudence states that

“when there is room for two opinions, an action is not arbitrary or capricious when

exercised honestly and upon due consideration, even though it may be believed an

erroneous conclusion has been reached.” Toups, 10-1559, pp. 3-4, 60 So.3d at

1217. Here, the language of the ordinances used to determine the property

classifications may be considered vague. Properties often demonstrate overlapping

criteria which may cause opposing parties to believe that conflicting classifications

are warranted. This is apparent, here. However, this Court affords a presumption

of validity to the decisions of a BZA and will not overturn those decision absent an

abuse of discretion. See, Vieux Carré Prop. Owners, 14-0825, p. 6, 216 So.3d at

877, (Citations omitted); See also, Myers, 13-2011, p. 6; 145 So.3d at 327-28. As

we find no abuse of discretion, we decline to disturb the trial court’s ruling.

This Court also notes that the proper avenue for interpreting and amending

vague and ambiguous legislative language is through legislative action. The

proper legislative arm of government (here, the Orleans Parish Council) should be

tasked with clarifying the statutory/ordinance language and setting concise

parameters for classifying various property usages.

5

Appellant’s second assignment of error – that the BZA and Director Smith

erred by issuing a license in violation of the “holding bar” ordinance – is not

properly on review before this Court. “A review of the record indicates that this

argument is being raised for the first time on appeal. Appellate courts generally

find it inappropriate to consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal that was

not plead, urged, or addressed in the court below.” Graubarth v. French Mkt.

Corp., 07-0416, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/24/07); 970 So.2d 660, 664 (citation

omitted). Hence, this court pretermits Appellant’s second assignment of error.

Lastly, Appellant’s fourth assignment of error is without merit. A review of

related statutory law and jurisprudence show no indication that Appellee’s

establishment is against public policy, as Appellant seems to allege. In fact,

because Willie’s is classified as a “standard restaurant”, it is expressly allowed to

exist in VCC-2 zoned-areas such as the area in question. There is no violation of

law that is inherent to the alleged public policy issue, then. Here, the zoning laws

in their current state, however vague and arbitrary they may be, allow for Willie’s

to be properly classified as a standard restaurant and for that establishment to exist

in its current location.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s August 18, 2021, ruling

denying Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to Review the Ruling of the

City of New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments and the Decision of Director of

Department of Safety and Permits to issue a “standard restaurant” occupational

license to Willie’s Chicken Shack.

AFFIRMED

6