Case Name: STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; DeGaulle Investments, LLC; and Claudia S. Haupt v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS and Its Department of Safety and Permits; DeGAULLE INVESTMENTS, LLC v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1996-05-29
Citations: 676 So. 2d 149
Docket Number: Nos. 95-CA-1757, 95-CA-1758
Parties: STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; DeGaulle Investments, LLC; and Claudia S. Haupt v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS and Its Department of Safety and Permits. DeGAULLE INVESTMENTS, LLC v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
Judges: Before SCHOTT, C.J., and PLOTKIN and WALTZER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 676
Pages: 149–160

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; DeGaulle Investments, LLC; and Claudia S. Haupt v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS and Its Department of Safety and Permits. DeGAULLE INVESTMENTS, LLC v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS.
Nos. 95-CA-1757, 95-CA-1758.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
May 29, 1996.
Rehearing Denied July 26, 1996.
Charles P. Ciaccio, New Orleans, for Plaintiffs-Appellants DeGaulle Investments, LLC and Claudia S. Haupt.
Avis Marie Russell, City Attorney, Deborah L. Wdson, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Evelyn F. Pugh, Deputy City Attorney, New Orleans, for Defendants-Appedees The City of New Orleans and Its Department of Safety and Permits.
Before SCHOTT, C.J., and PLOTKIN and WALTZER, JJ.

Opinion:
hWALTZER, Judge.
Plaintiffs-appeUants, DeGaude Investments, LLC (hereinafter "DGI) and its primary shareholder Claudia S. Haupt appeal from a May 22,1995 judgment of the district trial court dismissing their petition. The trial court provided the following written reasons for judgment:
The decisions of the Board of Zoning Adjustments are afforded a presumption of validity. Gertler v. City of New Orleans, 346 So.2d 228 (La.App. 4th Cir.1977). The City Councd here sat in a quasi-judicial capacity when it reviewed Degaude Investments' application for a conditional use permit following the City Planning Commission's vote of 3-3 which resulted in a no action vote. Petitioners bear the burden of proving that the Councd's action was arbitrary and capricious.
Once the conditional use process is re-prised, the reviewing authority can look at the total impact of the development. In other words, since the budding exceeded 10,000 square feet, its owner obtain (sic) was bound (sic) a conditional use permit to operate its business. Once kicked into the conditional use scenario, the budding's use and its overall impact on the neighboring area can be considered., (sic)
The zoning regulations promulgated for the Urban Corridor Overlay District contemplate an application for a conditional use permit before construction has begun. The regulations do not directly address the situation at hand in which the budding seeking the conditional use permit is already in use and such permit is required because the buddings (sic) actual size exceeds that stated by the developer on its original application submitted to the Department of Safety and Permits before construction of the welfare office.
The Planning Commission vote had resulted in a tie, (sic) there was no recommendation sent up to the City Council. The City Council held a public hearing on the DeGaulle application on September 23, 1994. Because the building had been already constructed, the Councd was faced with the difficult task of weighing the interests of the community against those of the state and the ^developer. It considered the pros and cons at a public hearing at which all interested parties were heard.
I conclude that denial of the conditional use permit was not arbitrary and capricious.
Plaintiff-appellants raise four assignments of error, which are easily grouped as follows:
1. Whether the trial court erred in finding that the New Orleans City Council was not arbitrary and capricious in denying issuance of the conditional use permit?
2. Whether the terms of the zoning ordinance are arbitrary and capricious?
3. Whether the Council's denial of a conditional use permit was an unconstitutional deprivation of due process, a violation of equal protection, or an unlawful taking of property?
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On August 5, 1993 DGI signed a contract with the State indicating that the building would be a minimum of 11,672 square feet. On November 4, 1993, DGI applied for a permit with the City of New Orleans indicate ing that the building would be 9,615 square feet. Because Claudia S. Haupt is a principal in both DGI and in the construction company that built the building, it cannot be said that DGI was not aware of the differences. Because the permit and plans submitted indicated that the building was less than 10,000 square feet, no conditional use permit and no public hearing before the Council was required. After the building was built, it was revealed that the building was almost 13,000 square feet and that a conditional use permit and a public hearing should have been required. Much litigation ensued including several filings in this court which have not been published, namely 94-C-1097, 94-C-1139, and 94-CA-1346.
As a result of the litigation, DeGaulle Investments filed an application for a conditional use. The City Planning Commission voted 3 for and 3 against the conditional use application. In accordance with its regulations, the Commission Isdid not recommend that the conditional use be granted or denied, but as a result of the deadlock returned a recommendation of no action. As required by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of New Orleans Art. 15 Sec. 1.5, the matter was forwarded to the City Council for further action after a public hearing. The hearing was held on September 23, 1994, and the Council voted to deny the conditional use permit. The Council's denial was appealed to the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, which affirmed the action of the Council by its judgment of May 22, 1995 the reasons for which are quoted above. DGI appealed to this court.
II. STANDARD OF APPELLATE REVIEW
On appeal this court is bound by the following standards of review: A prima facie presumption of validity attaches to the acts of the Board. Buuck v. Board of Zoning Adjustments, 537 So.2d 244 (La.App. 4 Cir.1988). Even if the appellate court disagrees with a holding of the Board of Zoning Adjustments, the court is nevertheless obliged to sustain the Board's conclusion unless the evidence in its entirety so strongly preponderates against the Board's decision that it compels the Court to find an abuse of discretion on the part of the Board. Coliseum Square Ass'n v. Bd. of Zoning, 374 So.2d 177, 179 (La.App. 4 Cir.1979). In the absence of a clear abuse of discretion, the courts have no authority to substitute their conclusions for those of the Board. Coliseum Square, supra.
III. ARBITRARY & CAPRICIOUS
A. THE STATUTE AS APPLIED
DGI's building located at 2703 General DeGaulle Boulevard in Algiers was constructed within the DeGaulle Urban Corridor District. Zoning regulations for the DeGaulle Urban Corridor District are located at Article 5 Section 33 et seq. |4of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of New Orleans. Article 5 Sec. 33.1 states that one of the criteria is visual aesthetics of design. Art. 5 Sec. 33.6 discusses permitted conditional uses:
The purpose of the Conditional Use provisions is to provide for certain uses which because of their special characteristics require individual consideration under a site plan review procedure of the impact of these uses . Where allowed as a permitted use in the underlying zoning district, the following shall be conditional uses:
a. Cocktail lounges and bars.
b. Fast food and drive-in restaurants.
e. Any new development occupying more than 10,000 square feet of floor area or more than one acre of site area. [Emphasis added],
A conditional use permit is required to operate the building because it is almost 13,000 square feet . At the public hearing held on September 23, 1994 before the New Orleans City Council, neighbors complained that the new structure did not comply with the design features of the DeGaulle Urban Corridor District.
The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance contemplates that application for conditional use will be made before the non-conforming use begins. In the instant ease, application was not made until after the non-conforming use was in operation. Unlike other nonconforming uses in the area which were remedied by additional conditions, the essence of the non-conforming use, square footage, is something that cannot be changed because the building is already built.
There is no requirement that the Council must grant a conditional use where the non-conforming use is something that cannot be changed; the decision is within the vast discretion of the Council. See: Buuck, supra.
| sIn Buuck, supra, Mr. Buuck built three garages. He built the second and third garages without ever applying for any permits. He applied for permits when he built the first garage, but understated the size of the garage ultimately built on the permit. When challenged by the Department of Safety and Permits, Mr. Buuck applied for a zoning variance which was denied and Mr. Buuck was ordered to close his garages. Thus where the non-conforming use was something which could not be changed, this Court held that the Council properly denied the permit.
In the instant case, the City Planning Commission staff made several proposals which they suggested could help to camouflage the situation, such as installation of trees and a fence. The Council concluded, however, that these suggestions were insufficient in remedying the root problem, namely that the building is too big.
We find that the record supports the Council's decision not to grant a conditional use, and thus, the trial judge correctly found that the Council's decision was not arbitrary or capricious.
B. THE STATUTE AS WRITTEN
Just as there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the actions of the reviewing body, so there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the zoning ordinance as written and the burden of proving the contrary rests upon the party asserting its invalidity or nullity. Meyers v. City of Baton Rouge, 185 So.2d 278, 283 (La.App. 1 Cir.1966). In the instant case, plaintiffs presented no evidence on the statute as written. The crux of their contention is the statute as applied. In any event, plaintiffs failed to carry their burden of proof to overcome the presumption. Our review of the statute as written, likewise, indicates no invalidity therein. This argument is without merit.
IJV. DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION AND UNLAWFUL TAKING
DGI argues that it has not been granted due process, or equal protection and that the Council's denial of the conditional use permit constitutes an unlawful taking. On the issue of due process, we note that DGI does not argue that it has not been accorded procedural due process and admitted itself at the Council hearing that it had engaged in all of the procedural steps, i.e. application, review by the Planning Commission staff, hearing before the City Planning Commission and hearing before the City Council. Rather DGI argues that the Council did not approach DGI's application with an open mind. This argument is meritless. The Council listened to all parties, allowed everyone an opportunity to speak, and allowed DGI to file evidence into the record at the Council hearing. While the Council may not have been pleased with some of DGI's past actions, the Council gave DGI every opportunity to present its case. The due process argument is without merit.
DGI further argues that it was denied equal protection because conditional uses had been granted to the following applicants in the past:
1. Star Casino
2. Cypress Plaza Shopping Center on General DeGaulle
3. General DeGol, Inc.
4. L. Zuppardo Realty
5. Wagner & Truax, Co.
The Star Casino was not located in the DeGaulle Corridor, was a boat not a building, and dealt with levee issues not involved in the instant case. We find the Star Casino case inapplicable.
The Cypress Plaza Shopping Center permit dealt with a request to permit a phased renovation of a previously approved conditional use. In the instant case, Rthere was no previously approved conditional use and it is not a renovation, but an original construction.
In all of the other cases, the buildings involved were less than 10,000 square feet and had problems which could be remedied.
In General DeGol, Inc. the building was 5,000 square feet. The Planning Commission was able to suggest parking plan changes which could be and were made. In the instant case, the parking plan is not the problem.
In L. Zuppardo Realty, the fast-food building was 1,942 square feet.
In Wagner & Truax Co., Inc. a vacant real estate office of approximately 2800 square feet was granted a conditional use to be renovated and used as a Veterinary Clinic.
DGI's equal protection claim is without merit.
Lastly, we address the issue raised of unlawful taking. A regulatory taking occurs when the regulation destroys a major portion of the property value. Annison v. Hoover, 517 So.2d 420 (La.App. 1 Cir.1988) writ denied 519 So.2d 148 (1988). An unconstitutional taking of private property does not result merely because the owner is unable to develop it to its maximum economic potential. Robertson v. Jefferson Parish, 465 So.2d 787, 791 (La.App. 5 Cir.1985) and the cases cited therein. A zoning action which deprives an owner of all practical use of his property without expropriation and compensation is unconstitutional. Robertson, swpra. In the instant case, DGI's land and the parking lot thereon still have value and if the budding is ordered demolished, DGI will be able to erect a new structure which either is granted a conditional use prior to construction or is less than 10,000 square feet. DGI could also attempt to renovate the building to Igremove the offending extra square footage. In any case, the zoning action does not deprive the owner of "all practical use" of its property.
For the reasons discussed, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
PLOTKIN, J., dissents.
. Karen Hilton of the City Planning Commission indicated that the building is 12,980 square feet. Barbara Fondis of the Algiers Council of Neighborhood Presidents indicated that the building was 12,735 square feet.