Parish yields on casino variance

A casino operator who was denied a variance to reopen a truck stop casino on Mills Avenue has succeeded in contesting the refusal.
Last year, following the recommendation of the Zoning Review Board, the Parish refused the request by Breaux Bridge Land Investment LLC to reopen a casino truck stop at 1898 Mills Ave. The casino previously operating at the location was closed by the parish due to mismanagement and the “deplorable” condition of the building.
The denial was based on the proximity of “prohibited properties” within one mile of the casino’s location. Parish zoning forbids the operation of more than three video poker machines within a mile of schools, churches and residences. The applicant intended to operate 80 machines.
In August of last year, the applicant appealed the decision in 16th Judicial District Court, requesting a writ of mandamus. Under those writs, an appellant petitions the court to force a governing body to perform the functions that are required by law.
They maintained that the question was “ministerial” rather than “discretionary” and the parish was required to issue a zoning letter to the state gaming commission regardless of the suitability of the request under parish zoning. Judge Curtis Segur affirmed the parish’s right to apply its zoning ordinances in considering such requests.
After that, the applicant hired a noted gaming attorney from Baton Rouge who took a different tack. The new suit threatened the parish with a suit maintaining “inverse condemnation.” That suit sought monetary damages on the theory that the value of the property was diminished by the actions of the parish.
Last Tuesday, the parish council entered executive (secret) session to discuss the pending litigation. When they returned to regular order, legal advisor Chester Cedars said he was somewhat distressed to give the council the recommendation to accept a proposed settlement and grant the variance. “I don’t like making this recommendation at all,” he commented.
Cedars reiterated his opinion that the parish was on firm legal ground with regard to the inverse condemnation claim. He disputed allegations made by the plaintiff that the parish had acted arbitrarily and was “picking winners and losers.”
However, he said the risk was too great. For one thing, the parish does not have insurance that would cover a decision against it. Interestingly, the insurance policy specifically excludes awards granted under claims of inverse condemnation.
“We are in a position that we have to choose our battles wisely,” Cedars said. “We could lose a jury decision even if we are right and there is a lot of taxpayer money on the line,” adding that, even if the parish is successful, there would be substantial legal fees incurred.
After the council accepted Cedars’ recommendation, attorney Steve Oats spoke briefly. Oats represents neighboring casino operators who opposed the variance. He said the council should not have given in under the threat of this litigation.
“This council was enforcing a valid ordinance under the authority granted by the constitution. The parish is being bullied into submission with a case that is weak and invalid,” he said. “The gaming industry has a pattern of using the inverse condemnation to circumvent zoning laws all over the state.”
There are conditions imposed on the operator under the agreement, limiting the casino to 50 poker machines; and the former operator, who is still part-owner, must not be involved in the operation of the new venture. In addition, all litigation must be dropped and all legal fees to date must be paid by the applicant.