Arguments Against the Zoning Request for
Short Street High-Rise
1. The staff recommendation contained in the City Planning Commission
Report is a "de facto" denial. The fact that several sections
of the City of New Orleans' Master Plan, Land Use Plan and other policy
planning tools are in direct contradiction to this proposal demonstrates
that this is NOT in accordance with these standards and should clearly
be denied. The City Planning Commission should consider the staff report
a denial and recommend a denial to the City Council.
2. Regarding the alternate "project" which the staff has suggested
in the staff report: We oppose this "project" on the basic issue
that this new project is not "on the table" for consideration.
This alternate plan was not part of the application process. Standing
to request a change in zoning is vested with the owner of the property.
Furthermore, if the property owner or any other group (with appropriate
legal authority) would like to present an alternate proposal in a legal
and formal application, the process must start over with a new application
with all substantive and procedural due process issues considered.
3. "Contract zoning" is illegal. Zoning (or the request to
change zoning) is not a bargain between two parties. The City Planning
Commission nor the City Council cannot bargain over the "health,
safety and welfare" of our community. Consideration of alternate
projects, including negotiations with staff, neighbors, appointed officials
or elected officials, is the framework of a contract. A bi-lateral approach
to the planning process (demonstrated by the "back and forth"
exchange of proposals evident in this case) is specifically prohibited
and is illegal.
4. The proposed change in the zoning on Short Street consists of multiple
and significant changes to the zoning laws of the community. It asks to
change the zoning map and the application of a new zoning classification.
The standard for either part of this request is the "change or mistake"
rule. Briefly, the rule states that one must find a significant change
in the circumstances of the neighborhood or a mistake or flaw in the original
zoning to legally justify a modification. A zoning classification change
from RD2 to RM3 is not justified under the "change or mistake"
rule. No change in the neighborhood has occurred in almost 100 years and
clearly there was no mistake in the original RD2 zoning.
5. Finally, the serious legal issue of "spot zoning" must be
considered as applied to this zoning change request. The rule of spot
zoning of "treating one property differently from the surrounding
properties" is demonstrated in this case. The fundamental issues
in a spot zone situation are "equal protection" and "fair
treatment." In planning terms the standard is "consistency with
the plan and the character of the neighborhood." This proposed zoning
change for seven lots on a very small triangular parcel of land, resulting
from the right of way for Leake Avenue, violates all of these standards.
This parcel is not a whole block and does not meet the minimal size criteria
required for exemption from the so-called "spot zone" standard.
If fact it is less than a third of the original block, created when the
levee was built several decades ago. This request for a change in zoning
is clearly a "spot zone" and thus must be summarily denied.
Stephen D. Villavaso, AICP, J.D.
Land Use/Zoning Law Expert
Villavaso & Associates, LLC
February 1, 2004
For more information on
Land Use Law and Zoning Law
Comments or questions to: