120 So. 3d 862
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Macaluso Realty’s two‑family home in Lakeview lost nonconforming status after a 2010 deadline under the Lakeview zoning ordinance.
- Macaluso obtained an emergency permit in 2006 and later supplemental permits in 2010 and 2011 to complete Katrina repairs.
- The 2011 second supplemental permit was revoked by the Director of SAF Permits, and the BZA reinstated the permit after review.
- Plaintiffs, adjacent property owners, challenged the BZA decision in district court via writ of certiorari and appeal, arguing illegality of the BZA action.
- The City filed an exception of no right of action, contending plaintiffs lacked aggrievement or standing to seek judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Plaintiffs have standing as aggrieved parties? | Plaintiffs are aggrieved neighbors under RS 33:4727(E)(1) and CZO §14.11. | Plaintiffs failed to show specific legal harm or economic interest. | Plaintiffs have standing to seek review. |
| Is Hotel Royal/Yokom controlling on aggrievement in BZA review cases? | Those cases support aggrievement without requiring current specific harm. | Those cases require harm showing for injunctions and are distinguishable. | Distinguishable; not controlling for BZA review here. |
| Does Carrollton/Riverbend govern aggrievement for BZA review of a permit reinstatement? | Neighbors may seek review without showing pure economic harm. | Carrollton/Riverbend is distinguishable; requires harm showing. | Carrollton/Riverbend supports aggrievement for BZA review under RS 33:4727(E)(1) and CZO §14.11. |
| May plaintiffs challenge the BZA decision to reinstate a supplemental permit as a zoning action? | The BZA decision to reinstate a two‑family use effectively creates a zoning variance—aggrievement applies. | No direct economic injury proven; no standing. | Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the BZA decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hotel Royal v. City of New Orleans, 55 So.3d 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (neighborhood complaints must show present or probable harm for standing; injunction focus)
- Yokum v. Nicholas S. Karno, II, Inc., 66 So.3d 1240 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2011) (standing requires actual harm within listening area; not shown)
- Joubert v. City of New Orleans Office of Safety & Permits, 30 So.3d 186 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (neighbors may seek review underRS 33:4727(E)(1))