LA Appeals Court Hold that the Parish’s Decision to Deny a Re-Subdivision was Unreasonable, Arbitrary and Capricious

This post was authored by John Speciale, Touro University Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center

This action arises based on a claim made by Plaintiffs (Timothy and Jewell Falcon) where the Jefferson Parish Council (Defendants) denied the Plaintiff’s re-subdivision application. The Plaintiff’s owned property located on Willow Lawn Street in Marrero in Jefferson Parish. Plaintiffs sought to resubdivide their one tract of land into a residential development known as “Falcon Estates Subdivision,” to be comprised of 20 lots for single-family homes. Defendants denied the Plaintiff’s application due to traffic concerns expressed by persons living on Willow Lawn Drive (the street in which the proposed entrance is on) and in the surrounding area.

The Defendants held three public hearings on the matter between June 2021 and August 2021, where the Plaintiff’s supported their application and some members of the community made statements in opposition to the application. At the August 2021 hearing, the Defendants denied the application. As a result, on September 20, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a petition to appeal Defendants’ decision as well as for injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants’ decision to deny their application for resubdivision was arbitrary and capricious.

A trial on the matter was held on July 19, 2022, where the court found that the Defendants denial of plaintiffs’ application for resubdivision was arbitrary and capricious. The court explained that “[T]his Court must decide whether Jefferson Parish [sic] denial of [the] Falcon’s [sic] application as [sic] arbitrary and capricious. In order to render the decision arbitrary and capricious, the decision must bear so little relationship to public safety, health, or general welfare.” On August 10, 2022 the trial court signed a judgment vacating the denial of plaintiffs’ application for resubdivision and approving plaintiffs’ application, to which the Defendants appealed.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision finding that the denial of the Plaintiffs’ application was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious. The court stated that it agreed with the trial court’s well-reasoned finding that the Defendants’ decision to deny the Plaintiffs’ application for resubdivision did not meet the heightened burden imposed on Defendants. Here, the application did not involve a rezoning request and was unopposed by all of the Defendants’ Departments. Additionally, traffic and speed were preexisting concerns and there was no evidence the Plaintiffs proposed twenty (20) additional lots would substantially exacerbate or alter those conditions. The court further stated that “the Council’s [Defendants’] decision to deny the Falcons’ [Plaintiffs’] application for resubdivision bears so little relationship to public safety, health, or general welfare as to render it unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious.” Ultimately, there was no evidence in the record that would support the conclusion that approval of the Plaintiffs’ resubdivision would exacerbate the traffic conditions in their neighborhood. 

Falcon v. Par. of Jefferson, 367 So. 3d 857 (La. App. 5 Cir., 2023)