It’s been a while since I wrote of planning and zoning issues, but recent events cry out for discussion and explanation. I’m referring to the recent denial of a zoning permit that had been requested by a developer who hoped to build a Holiday Inn Express on Lovers Lane in Mandeville. For those unfamiliar with the area, this is proximate to Benedict’s Restaurant and Reception Hall, within the triangle of land that contains Fontainebleau and The Shadows subdivisions. Of particular interest was the process followed by the Mandeville Planning Commission in arriving at this decision, as well as the apparent lack of understanding of such by many of the citizens with a particular interest in the outcome.
As a former Planning and Zoning Commissioner, I have long felt that one of the obligations of a commissioner is to educate the public about what is being done and why. Of course, a commissioner’s primary obligation is to apply the laws of the municipality (or parish) fairly and impartially, while respecting the property rights of all parties (developers AND homeowners) and while acting in the best interests of the community, where such discretion is legally permitted. The commissioners are appointed volunteers, and in Mandeville their terms are not coterminous with the City Council’s or Mayor’s. In addition, they are all “at large,” meaning that they do not represent a particular area of the city or owe allegiance to a particular councilmember. Appeals from the Planning and Zoning Commissions’ rulings are filed with the 22nd Judicial District Court, not the City Council, further removing political influence from the process. These are significant distinctions from the St. Tammany Parish Planning and Zoning Commissions, as they are intended to remove politics from the process and are typically successful at accomplishing this.
The case in question involves a piece of property that was zoned (C-2 Highway Commercial) in St. Tammany Parish until annexed by Ordinance 08-13 of the City Council in 2008. Records indicate that this ordinance was adopted in a public meeting that was noticed to the citizenry as required by law. Further, this was a voluntary, negotiated annexation, in which the property owner received consideration in the form of entitlement to city utilities and services. In return, the property owner agreed to have the property re-zoned as a Planned Commercial District, with specific limitations on land use and site development. Included in these limitations was the requirement of a zoning permit for certain uses, including use as a hotel or motel. It is important to note that use as a hotel or motel is a legal right of this property owner, subject to the approval of the Zoning Commission of a zoning permit for the specific project submitted. In other words the Zoning Commission has no legal authority to prevent a hotel or motel on this property, although it does have the right (and the obligation) to exercise its discretion in requiring that certain standards are met by such hotel or motel. The owner of the property has a corresponding right to decide whether or not the project is economically viable if such requirements are met.
Section 4.3.2.3. of Mandeville’s Comprehensive Land Use Regulation Ordinance (CLURO) includes the requirement that, before approval of a zoning permit, the Zoning Commission must make “findings” that “the proposed use and site development… will be compatible with existing conforming or permitted uses on adjacent sites…” Because the public meetings with regard to this zoning permit are the beginning of a legal process, it is incumbent upon the Zoning Commission to procedurally satisfy the letter of the law in the permitting process, although discretion is granted in determining whether compatibility exists. Historically, if the Zoning Commission makes such findings and bases its conclusion of compatibility or incompatibility upon such, the court will be loath to overturn its decision.
Perhaps exacerbating the subjectivity of the commission’s charge is the requirement that the project be “compatible” with existing uses on adjacent sites, which Merriam-Webster defines as “capable of existing together in harmony.” Whereas “harmony” presumes accord or agreement among parties, the subjective opinions of each relevant party must be considered; harmony is only achieved when everyone agrees that it has been. Given the foregoing, the Zoning Commission’s responsibility is to determine whether professions of incompatibility were sincere and reasonable; if they were determined to be so, they then had to be reduced to “findings” which would support the denial of the zoning permit. This was the sometimes excruciating process that was followed at the recent meeting, which resulted in denial of a zoning permit for the Holiday Inn Express on Lovers Lane.
In my business lifetime, I have adopted a maxim which holds that one should never force a public official to think in public. While this is somewhat tongue in cheek, I do believe that it is important to make every effort to educate public officials as far as possible in advance of requiring that they make a decision. No one likes to be surprised or put on the spot to make a decision that one is unprepared to make. As a corollary and counterpoint to this, however, it is incumbent on the citizenry to inform themselves of the planning and zoning process and to respect the legal requirements of the process as well as the commissioners performing this typically thankless service. In the recent zoning permit hearing, this respect was not evident in some of those present, which was unfortunate. Whereas those who had taken the time to understand the process spoke only when recognized and refrained from emotional displays, improper outbursts from supporters on both sides actually worked to damage the credibility of their arguments. This would seem self-evident, but apparently is not so; when you insult and vilify the decision maker, you do nothing to enhance your argument.
Nevertheless, the zoning permit was denied, leaving the property owner to decide whether to appeal to the 22nd Judicial Court, or in the alternative, to seek neighborhood input in modifying his development plans, and to then reapply for a zoning permit. If the latter happens, it will be because each side has learned more about the logistics and legal requirements of the zoning permit process. The result should be a better project.