Case Name: Jeffrey DESHOTEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CALCASIEU PARISH POLICE JURY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-11-20
Citations: 323 So. 2d 155
Docket Number: No. 5154
Parties: Jeffrey DESHOTEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CALCASIEU PARISH POLICE JURY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HOOD, CULPEPPER, MILLER, DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 323
Pages: 155–160

Head Matter:
Jeffrey DESHOTEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CALCASIEU PARISH POLICE JURY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 5154.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Nov. 20, 1975.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1975.
Writ Refused Feb. 6, 1976.
Joseph W. Greenwald, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lake Charles, for defendant-appellant.
McHale & Bufkin by Louis D. Bufkin, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before HOOD, CULPEPPER, MILLER, DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ.

Opinion:
MILLER, Judge.
Defendant Calcasieu Parish Police Jury appeals the judgment ordering it to issue a beer and liquor permit to plaintiff Jeffrey Deshotel. We affirm.
Deshotel owns property near Westlake in Calcasieu Parish. On January 8, 1975 Deshotel asked the Parish chief planning officer if there were zoning or legal impediments to building and operating a bar and lounge on his property. He was informed no impediment existed but a neighboring resident had inquired to determine the procedure to have the area zoned agricultural. Deshotel was told the agricultural classification, if adopted, would prevent establishment of the bar and lounge business.
On that day Deshotel applied for a beer and liquor permit to operate the business on his property and made the required deposit. Construction of the building was commenced. It was completed about February 1st and on February 4, 1975 the Louisiana Health and Human Resources Administration declared it fit for its intended use as a lounge and bar.
On February 5, 1975, the Police Jury met in regular session. The usual order of business was changed to take up zoning applications before permit applications. The agricultural classification was adopted and at the same meeting, Deshotel's permit was denied for the reason he was in an area zoned agricultural.
Deshotel contends his permit should have been issued despite the jury's reclassification of his property; that his business was a preexisting nonconforming use and therefore excepted from the amendment to the zoning ordinance.
The amended zoning ordinance was the sole basis for refusing to issue the permit. The jury concedes the license must be issued if the amended zoning ordinance did not prohibit Deshotel's business.
The jury contends the nonconforming use is not established in fact, since no sales of beer or liquor occurred. It argues operation of a bar and lounge is illegal absent a permit, and therefore Deshotel had not established a nonconforming use. We distinguish Comeaux v. Jefferson Parish, 164 So.2d 123 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1964) where unlawful use was not recognized. The court was there concerned with a violation of an ordinance then in effect. We also distinguish Boyd v. Donelon, 193 So.2d 291 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1967) where the nonconforming use was not established because the partially erected structures violated terms of the permit under which they were built.
Since this property was unclassified Deshotel needed no construction permit. Constructing the building violated no law or regulation. Although he could not legally operate the bar and lounge without a beer and liquor permit, he could legally build a bar and lounge, and he did.
The trial court held Deshotel's construction of the building brought him within this exception allowed by Art. VII of the ordinance :
§ 2. Construction approved prior to ordinance.
Nothing herein contained shall require any change in plans, construction, or designated use of a building for which a building permit has heretofore issued and the construction of which shall have been diligently prosecuted within three (3) months of the date of such permit and the groundstory framework of which including the second tier of beams, shall have been complete within six (6) months of the date of the permit, and which building shall be completed according to such plans as filed within one (1) year from the date of this chapter.
Since the zoning ordinance requires no building permit in Deshotel's unclassified area, construction which does not violate other laws or regulations is permitted. Had a permit been required as of January 1975, the Parish would have been required to issue a building permit to Deshotel. Wrongful withholding of a building permit would not prevent Deshotel from establishing a nonconforming use. City of Shreveport v. Dickason, 160 La. 563, 107 So. 427 (1926). Construction cannot be retroactively made illegal by an ordinance. And construction cannot be made retroactively illegal because Deshotel failed to obtain a permit which was not required.
The final issue concerns the jury's allegation that Deshotel lacked "good faith." This is bottomed on information Deshotel obtained when he applied for the permit. He learned a neighboring resident had inquired about changing the zoning classification in that area.
Some states ascribe no importance to knowledge on the part of the parties and recognize there may be a race, within the bounds of law, to establish a use or adverse classification. Corcoran v. Village of Bennington, 128 Vt. 482, 266 A.2d 457 (1970). Pretermitting this issue, Desho-tel's knowledge was insufficient to label his acts as having been made in bad faith. He was made aware of a citizen inquiry, not a contemplated action or hearing by the public body. His estimate of the seriousness of that inquiry must be evaluated in light of his knowledge of the property in question and its suitability for agricultural classification. It was six or seven miles to the nearest area which had been zoned as a classified area by the Parish. The parties moving to zone the area were attempting to prevent the sale of alcoholic liquor and beverages in their neighborhood. They selected 17.7 acres which included Deshotel's entire 7 acre tract, but excluded some of the moving parties property. Their petition to zone the area "agricultural" was signed by owners of 50.3% of the 17.7 acre tract and almost all of Deshotel's neighboring property was currently under commercial use. Tr. 73-7. Deshotel was not in bad faith. There is no manifest error in the trial court determination Desho-tel was entitled to rely on the existing conditions and ordinance when he undertook construction and applied for his permit.
Since lawful construction was commenced and completed before passage of the zoning amendment, a nonconforming use had been established.
The jury's reliance on the violation of the zoning ordinance was improper. Therefore their refusal to issue the permit was unsupported. There is no manifest error in the trial court's grant of the writ of mandamus.
The trial court judgment is affirmed at appellant's cost.
Affirmed.
HOOD, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
CULPEPPER, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by HOOD, J.