NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
LRK, L.L.C.SUIT NUMBER:_________________
VERSUS
THE CITY OF ST. GEORGE, CHRIS RIALS, AND NORMAN BROWNING
DIVISION:_________________
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES
The petition of LRK, L.L.C. (“LRK”), a Louisiana limited liability company, with respect represents:
1.
Madedefendantshereinare:(a)theCityofSt.George,aputativeLouisianamunicipalentity (“St. George”), (b) Chris Rials, in his capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Petition to Incorporate St. George(“Rials”),and(c)NormanBrowning,inhiscapacityasChairmanofthePetitiontoIncorporate St.George(“Browning”)(collectively,“Defendants”).
2.
LRK owns the following described property situated in East Baton Rouge Parish on Pecue LaneatitsintersectionwithInterstate10(the“LRKTract”),towit:
A portion of the Leon R. Kleinpeter, Sr. Estate, being a 26.7325 acre parcel of land knownasParcel9-3ofLot9,a12.7944acreparceloflandknownasParcel8-2ofLot 8,anda19.1839acreparceloflandknownasParcel8-3ofLot8,beingportionsof theLeonR.Kleinpeter,Sr.Estate,asshownonamapmadebyCarlL.Mistric,entitled "MapShowingSurveyofaPortionofTheLeonR.Kleinpeter,Sr.Estatecontaininga total of 356.1796 acres, being Lots J, 4, 8 & 9 of the Old Hiram Mansur Estate, and 29.4149acresoftheOldBucksmithTractbeingcalledLot"X",locatedinSection49, T8S-R2E,GreensburgLandDistrict, EastBatonRougeParish,Louisiana.
THE HISTORY OF THE LRK TRACT
3.
LRK, its predecessor, LRK, a Partnership in Commendam and the ancestors of the current members of LRK, have been the owners of the LRK Tract for over 100 years, predating both the adoption of the home rule charter for East Baton Rouge Parish in 1948 and the most recent incorporationeffortsofSt.George.
4.
TheParishofEastBatonRougefirstadoptedacomprehensivezoningordinancein1950.
5.
AtthetimeoftheadoptionofthefirstcomprehensivezoningordinancebytheCityofBaton Rouge-ParishofEastBatonRouge,theLRKTractwasclassifiedas“Rural”,thezoningclassification allottedtomost,ifnotall,ofthepropertyintheunincorporatedareasofEastBatonRougeParish.
6.
FromtheadoptionofthefirstcomprehensivezoningordinancebytheCityofBatonRougeParishofEastBatonRougein1950,untilAugust17,1994,theLRKTractwasclassifiedas“Rural” zoning.
7.
Duringtheperiod1950-1994,theLRKTractcouldhavebeendevelopedandusedforalmost unlimitedpurposes. Bywayofexample,thecomprehensivezoningordinanceineffectforEastBaton RougeParishonJuly1,1990,permittedalloftheusesallowedinDistrictsA-1throughC-2,inthe Ruraldistrict,withtheexceptionofthoseusesinvolvingsalesoronpremiseconsumptionofalcohol, andindustrialusesdefinedintheM-1andM-2classifications.
8.
In 1990, in Act No. 699, the Louisiana Legislature mandated that parish and municipal planning commissions “make and adopt a master plan for the physical development of the unincorporated territoryofaparish”,andthatmunicipalplanningcommissions“makeandadoptamasterplanfor thephysicaldevelopmentofthemunicipality.”
9.
La.R.S.33:107provides:Purposesinview
Inthepreparationofsuchplan,aparishplanningcommissionshallmakecarefuland comprehensive surveys and studies of present conditions and future growth of the parish,withdueregardtoitsrelationtoneighboringterritoryandtotherelationof unincorporatedterritoryintheparishtoincorporatedterritorytherein.
Inthepreparationofsuchplanamunicipalplanningcommissionshallmakecareful andcomprehensivesurveysandstudiesofpresentconditionsandfuturegrowthof themunicipalityanditsenvirons.
A plan shall be made with the general purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the parish or municipality, as thecasemaybe,anditsenvironswhichwill,inaccordancewithpresentandfuture needs, best promote health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development; including,amongotherthings,adequateprovisionfortraffic,thepromotionofsafety fromfireandotherdangers,adequateprovisionforlightandair,thepromotionofthe healthful and convenient distribution of population, the promotion of good civic designandarrangement,wiseandefficientexpenditureofpublicfunds,theadequate provision of public utilities and other public requirements, and in the case of a municipalplanningcommission,vehicularparking.
In keeping with the dictates of the Legislature, the East Baton Rouge Parish Planning Commission made a comprehensive study of the current land uses and conditions in East Baton RougeParishandprojectedthefuturegrowthoftheparishin1991-92.
11.
ThatstudyresultedinthedevelopmentandadoptionoftheHorizonPlanin1992. 12.
IntheHorizonPlan,theLRKTractwasincludedwithintheDistrict16“SouthConceptPlan”. TheHorizonPlanidentifiedtheLRKTractasa“Commercial”propertyandtheintersectionofPecue Lane and Interstate 10 as a “Community Activity Center, as shown on the map, below from the HorizonPlan.
13.
Inthespringof1994,inordertoinsurethattheusesandzoningclassificationfortheLRK Tract matched the Horizon Plan, LRK’s predecessor prior to merger, LRK, A Partnership in Commendam, submitted an “A4-Application for Rural Horizon Plan Amendment/Rezoning” to the CityofBatonRouge–ParishofEastBatonRougePlanningCommission,requestingrezoningofthe LRKTractfromRuraltoC-2HeavyCommercial.
14.
ThePlanningCommissionStaff,afterreviewoftheLRKapplication,recommended: TograntC2asrequestedtoallowdevelopmentconsistentwithlandusepatternsin theareaandwiththeHorizonPlan.
15.
OnAugust17,1994,theEastBatonRougeParishMetropolitanCouncil,byOrdinance9994, approvedtherezoningoftheLRKTracttoC-2HeavyCommercial,lessandexceptthefirst100feet onthewestsidewhichwaszonedC-1,aclassificationstatuswhichhascontinuedtobeassignedto theLRKTractfromthatdatethroughthepresentdate.
16.
The comprehensive zoning ordinance for the City of Baton Rouge – Parish of East Baton Rouge,ineffectonthedateoftheAugust17,1994rezoningoftheLRKTract,providedthefollowing forC2HeavyCommercialDistrict:
17.
In1999,theEastBatonRougeMetropolitanCounciladoptedthe Unified Development Code (the“UDC”)
18.
IntheUDC,theC-2classificationbecameconsideredaninactivezoningdistrict. Aninactive zoningdistrictwillnotbeassignedtoatractoflandprospectively,althoughalltractsoflandthen
classifiedasC-2remainedassuch,andpermittedallusesaspreviouslysetforthforC-2zoning.
19.
§9.2.11oftheUDCspecificallyrecognizesthatinactivezoningdistrictsarestilloperableasit provides:
Section 9.2.11 Principal Uses in Inactive Districts
The principal uses allowed in inactive zoning districts are identified in Table 9.J, PrincipalUsesAllowedinInactiveZoningDistricts.
20.
In an ongoing effort to follow the dictates of the Legislature, the East Baton Rouge Parish PlanningCommissionmadeanothercomprehensivestudyofthecurrentlandusesandconditionsin EastBatonRougeParishandprojectedthefuturegrowthoftheparishin2010-11.
21.
That2010-11studyresultedinthedevelopmentandadoptionoftheFutureLandUsePlanin September,2011.
22.
The Future Land Use Plan identified the LRK Tract as a “Mixed Use Arterial” property, as shownonthemap,belowfromtheFutureLandUsePlan:
THE ST. GEORGE PROCESS
23.
La.R.S.33:3(D)provides:
D. If a majority of electors voting in the special election vote for incorporation, a chairpersonforthepetitionshallpublishtheresultsoftheelectiononceintheofficial journal of the parish in which the area is located. However, if the area is located in morethanoneparish,theresultsoftheelectionshallbepublishedonceintheofficial journalsofeachoftheparishesinwhichtheareaislocated.Thenoticeoftheresults oftheelectionshallalsostatethenameofthemunicipality,thatthemunicipalitywill be legally incorporated thirty days from the date of the publication unless a legal action contesting the incorporation is filed within the thirty-day period, and that notice of such action must be served on the chairperson within the thirtyday period. (Emphasissupplied).
24.
APetitionforIncorporationoftheCityofSt.GeorgewasfiledonMarch2,2018.
25.
Norman Browning and Chris Rials are the statutorily designated Chairman, and ViceChairman, respectively, for the Petition to Incorporate St. George, and are named as defendants hereininthosecapacities.
26.
The petition was signed by more than 25% of the electors residing in the proposed incorporationarea,ascertifiedbytheregistrarofvoters.
27.
A special election was held on October 12, 2019, and the incorporation of St. George was approvedby54%ofthevoters.
28.
Thetotalvoteinthespecialelectionwas32,393,ofwhich17,422votedforincorporationand 14,871votedagainstincorporation–a2,551votedifferential.
29.
Notably,inthespecialelection,thevotersinMetropolitanCouncilDistricts3,8and11, which were included in the proposed municipal limits of St. George, voted against the proposed incorporation,byatotalof5,466opposed(52.28%)vs.4,881infavor(47.17%).
30.
Within 30 days of the filing of the notice of the results of the election, several parties, including, but not limited to, then Mayor Sharon Weston Broome, filed a legal action in the 19th JudicialDistrictCourt,contestingtheincorporationandhadnoticesuchfilingservedonchairperson, NormanBrowningwithinthethirty-dayperiod.
31.
ThefilingofthelawsuitcontestingtheincorporationofSt.GeorgepreventedtheCityofSt. George from becoming legally incorporated pursuant to La.R.S. 33:3(D) and La.R.S. 33:3(E) which provides:
E. If a chairperson has not received notice within the prescribed period, the area proposed to be incorporated shall become a municipal corporation at the expiration of the prescribed period andshallhavethemunicipalnamesetforthin thepetition.Achairpersonforthepetitionshallfilethefollowingdocumentsinthe officeofthesecretaryofstate:acopyofthepetition,acertifiedcopyoftheresultsof theelection,andacopyofthenoticeornoticesannouncingtheresultsoftheelection and stating the date on which the municipality would become legally incorporated barring the institution of legal action within the time specified in R.S. 33:3(D). (Emphasissupplied)
32.
The challenge to the incorporation of St. George was tried over eight days commencing on May2,2022.
33.
OnMay31,2022,thetrialcourtissuedextensivewrittenreasonsforjudgment,findingthat theincorporationwasunreasonableandwouldadverselyaffecttheCityofBatonRouge.
34.
La.R.S.33:4providesinpart:
E.(1) If the district court determines that the provisions of this Subpart have been complied with,thatthemunicipalityhasthecapacitytoprovidetheproposed public services within a reasonable period of time, and that the incorporation is reasonable, the district court shall enter an order declaring the date the municipality shall become incorporated. The order shall set forth the name and theboundariesofthemunicipality.Unlessthisorderisvacatedbyatimelysuspensive appeal,acopyoftheordershallbefiledintheofficeofthesecretaryofstate.
(2)(a) If the district court determines that the provisions of this Subpart have not been complied with,thattheproposedmunicipalitywillnotbeabletoprovide thepublicservicesproposedinthepetitionwithinareasonableperiodoftime,orthat theincorporationisunreasonable, the district court shall enter an order denying the incorporation. (Emphasissupplied).
35.
Thetrial court originallysignedajudgment inconformitywithitsrulingonMay31,2022, but an amended final judgment was signed on June 13, 2022. The judgment, denying the incorporationhadtheeffectofadenialofincorporationandthus,theprovisionsof§4(E)(1)thatthe district court enter an order declaring the date the municipality became incorporated was not effective.
36.
The Chairman and Vice-Chairman, among others, appealed the judgment of the trial court denyingtheincorporationoftheCityofSt.Georgetothe1st CircuitCourtofAppeal.
37.
The1st Circuitaffirmedtherulingofthetrialcourt. See Broome, et al v. Rials, et al, No.2022 CA1203(La.App.1Cir.7/14/23),375So.3d428.
38.
The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and other proponents appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court,whichgrantedsupervisorywrits.
39.
TheLouisianaSupremeCourtreversedthedecisionsofthetrialcourtandthe1st Circuit. See Broome, et al v. Rials, et al, 2023-01108(La.4/26/24),383So.3d578.
40.
Notably,thedecisionoftheLouisianaSupremeCourtdidnot enter an order declaring the date the municipality shall become incorporated pursuantto§4(E)(1),nordidtheCourtremand thecasetothe19th JudicialDistrictCourtforfurtherproceedingsororders. Specifically,theruling oftheLouisianaSupremeCourtwas:
Wereversethelowercourts’denialofincorporationandrenderjudgmentinfavorof Proponents.
REVERSED AND RENDERED. 383So.3d578,p.595.
41.
The matter should have correctly been remanded to the 19th Judicial District Court for the trial court to enter an order declaring the date the municipality shall become incorporated pursuantto§4(E)(1).
42.
To date, the 19th Judicial District Court has not entered “an order declaring the date [St. George] shall become incorporated” nor has any Court of Louisiana, authorized to make such a declarationunderLa.R.S.33:4,enteredsuchanorder.
43.
The Louisiana Legislature, in adopting La. R.S. 33:4, obviously considered the practical applicationof§4.Disputesandresultinglitigationcancontinueformonths,ifnotyears,asoccurred with the St. George incorporation effort. The uncertainty as to the precise effective date of incorporationwithoutestablishmentbythedistrictcourtimpactsthecollectionofmillionsofdollars in taxes, and further impacts private property rights related to owners of property within the proposedincorporationarea,suchasdevelopmentrights,planning,andzoning.
44.
The rational, reasonable and clearly understandable requirement of La.R.S.33:4(E) and its purposecannotandshouldnotbeignored.
45.
Duetoalackofalawfulorder,declaringthedatethatSt.Georgeshallbecomeincorporated, theproposedCityofSt.Georgedoesnotcurrentlylegallyexist.
46.
The property rights of all of the people within the St. George incorporation area, including LRK, must be protected and this Court should hold that no Court has established the precise, dependable,reliabledateofincorporation.
47.
InActs2020,No.361,theLouisianaLegislatureprovidedinpart: § 33:3079. St. George Transition District; sales tax
A.InfurtheranceofthepurposesofthisPart,and only in the event the city of St. George is incorporated, the St. George Transition District is hereby created as a special taxing district whoseboundariesarecoterminouswiththemunicipality,and itshallbeabodypoliticandcorporateandapoliticalsubdivisionofthestatewithall ofthepowersofapoliticalsubdivisionandwithsuchfurtherpowersandfunctions asaresetforthinthisSection.Itisherebydeterminedthatthecreationofthedistrict andthecarryingoutofitspublicpurposeisinallrespectsapublicandgovernmental purposefortheimprovementofthehealth,safety,welfare,comfort,andsecurityof thepeopleofthemunicipality,andthatsuchpurposesarepublicpurposes,andthat the district will be performing an essential governmental function and meeting a publicobligationintheexerciseofthepowersconferreduponitbythisSection.
48.
Absentanorderfromthe19th JudicialDistrictCourtdeclaringthedatethatSt.Georgeshall becomeincorporated,theSt.GeorgeTransitionDistrictdidnotlegallycomeintoexistence.
49.
ItisnotwithinthepurviewofafewrepresentativesoftheCityofBatonRouge-EastBaton RougeParishgovernmentsandtheproposedCityofSt.Georgetounilaterallydecidethattheydonot wish to contest the effective date of the incorporation to the detriment of thousands of property ownerswhodidnotsupportSt.George.
50.
TheSt.GeorgeTransitionDistrictandtheputativeCityofSt.George,havecontinuouslytaken ultra vires actionssincethedateoftheLouisianaSupremeCourtdecision,includingbutnotlimited to:(a)levyingandcollectingtaxeswithoutvalidmunicipalauthority;(b)adoptingandattemptingto enforcezoningordinances;(c)enteringintocontractsonbehalfofanon-existentmunicipality;and (d)exercisinggovernmentalpowersreservedtovalidlyincorporatedmunicipalitiesunderLouisiana
-9-
law. All such actions exceed the legal authority granted by the Louisiana Revised Statutes and are invalid,null,andvoid.
51.
LRKfurtheralleges,inthealternative,thatifthisCourtdeterminesthatSt.Georgeisavalidly incorporated municipality, St. George has nonetheless violated LRK’s constitutional and statutory rightsthroughthearbitrary,capricious,anddiscriminatoryzoningactionsdescribedherein.
THE PUTATIVE CITY OF ST. GEORGE ADOPTS THE UDC
52.
OnJuly23,2024,theputativeCityofSt.GeorgeadoptedtheCityofBatonRouge–Parishof EastBatonRouge Unified Development Code, in toto, astheofficialcomprehensivezoningordinance oftheCityofSt.George.
53.
The putative City of St. George has not completed careful and comprehensive surveys and studiesofpresentconditionsandfuturegrowthoftheareaencompassedbytheputativeCityofSt. Georgeanditsenvirons.
54.
At present, the putative City of St. George is in the midst of holding public meetings in a processthatputativeCityofSt.Georgeleadershopewillresultinthedevelopmentandadoptionof “TheSt.George2050ComprehensivePlan.”
55.
OntheofficialwebsiteoftheputativeCityofSt.George,thefollowinginformationappears regardingthe“St.George2050ComprehensivePlan”:
Project Timeline
TheSt.GeorgeComprehensivePlanwillbedevelopedthroughafive-phaseprocess, eachofferingopportunitiesforcommunityengagement.
Inthefirstphase,communityfeedbackwillbecollectedtoestablishtheplan'svision, goals, and metrics. The second phase will involve analyzing existing conditions to understandthecity'spotentialandsharingfindingswiththecommunity.Inthethird phase,thecommunitywillselectapreferreddirectionfromasetofalternatives.The fourthphasewilloutlinearoadmapforimplementingthischosendirection.Finally, in the fifth phase, the plan will be presented to boards and commissions for their feedbackandapproval.Thisentireprocessisexpectedtotakeplaceoverthenext12 months.
56.
The official website of the putative City of St. George further informs the public of the followingtimeline:
57.
TheputativeCityofSt.GeorgehasnotdevelopedacomprehensiveplanasrequiredbyLa. R.S. 33:101 et seq. Specifically, St. George has failed to adopt a plan “with the general purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development” of the municipalityanditsenvironsthatpromotes“health,safety,morals,order,convenience,prosperity, andgeneralwelfare.”La.R.S.33:107.
58.
IftherepresentationsmadebytheputativeCityofSt.Georgeonitswebsiteareaccurate,the putativeCityofSt.Georgeiscurrentlyinthe“UnderstandingthePossibilities”phaseofitsprocess.
59.
A development of import to any plan for St. George and its environs, is the fact that on February 20, 2026, the long awaited Pecue Lane interchange on Interstate 10 was opened to the public.
60.
ThePecueLaneinterchangenowprovidesoneofthetwoonlymajorinterchangeswithinthe putative City of St. George, which provides vehicular access to and from the nationwide interstate highwaysystem.
61.
PecueLaneisnowafour-lanemajortrafficarteryfromHighlandRoadtoJeffersonHighway, anoccurrencethatispostanycomprehensivestudies,includingthosemadebytheEastBatonRouge PlanningCommissionthatincludedtheareabeforeitcomprisedtheputativeCityofSt.George.
62.
Notably, the LRK Tract is situated on this major artery contiguous to the Interstate 10 interchange,asindicatedinthediagrambelow.
63.
InviolationoftheplanningprocessoutlinedinLa.R.S.33:101 et seq.,andwhiletheputative CityofSt.Georgeisstillintheearlystagesofdevelopingitscomprehensiveplan,theCouncilforthe putativeCityofSt.GeorgeonJanuary13,2026,introducedaproposedOrdinancetoAmendTitle7 oftheUnifiedDevelopment CodeadoptedonJuly23,2024,toestablishnew basezoningdistricts, which was on the agenda for consideration at the February 24, 2026 meeting of the council (the “ZoningOrdinance”).
64.
RatherthandeterminingacomprehensiveplanforSt.George,implementingzoningchanges tosupportdevelopmentunderacomprehensiveplanasintendedbytheLegislature,officialsofthe putative City of St. George have stated that “the new zoning map [is] aimed at laying a clear foundationforthemasterplan.
65.
AccordingtotheMayoroftheputativeCityofSt.George,thepurposeoftheZoningOrdinance wastosimplifyzoningdistrictstomakeiteasierfordevelopersandresidentstounderstandwhat theycanandcannotdoonparcelsofproperty.
66.
In the elimination of numerous zoning districts, the effect of the Zoning Ordinance is to
downzonemanytractsofimmovableproperty,including,butnotlimitedtotheLRKTract,situated within the proposed municipal boundaries of St. George en masse, without affording a reasonable opportunity for all members of the public, including but not limited to LRK, to make effective commentandprovideinputthereon.
67.
LRKshowsthatasissetforthabove,theLRKTractiscurrentlyzoned“C2HeavyCommercial” aninactivedistrictundertheUDC,adoptedbytheputativeCityofSt.GeorgeonJuly23,2024.
68.
The following item was placed on the agenda for the putative City of St. George Planning CommissionMeetingofFebruary2,2026:
a.T-26-0001&Z-26-0001ZoningDistricts:AmendTitle7UnifiedDevelopment Code to establish new base zoning districts, update allowed uses and dimensionalstandards,andreorganizesomesections;Rezoneallpropertyin thecitytothenewbasezoningdistricts;andprovideforrelatedmatters.The ProposedZoningMapisavailableonthePlanning&Zoningwebpageunder theMappingsection.
69.
The official minutes for the putative City of St. George Planning Commission Meeting of February2,2026reflectthefollowingactiontranspired:
a.T-26-0001&Z-26-0001ZoningDistricts:AmendTitle7UnifiedDevelopment Code to establish new base zoning districts, update allowed uses and dimensionalstandards,andreorganizesomesections;Rezoneallpropertyin thecitytothenewbasezoningdistricts;andprovideforrelatedmatters.
Melissa Guilbeau proposedchangesto thetext amendmentsandthezoning map,presentedtotheCommissioninahandoutdatedFebruary2,2026.
ChairAguillardnotedtheproposedzoningmapisavailableonthePlanning andZoningwebsite.
Melissa Guilbeau explained that no revisions had been made to the map on the website and that the online map would be revised if the commission approvestherevisionsshownonthehandoutgiventotheCommissionersat themeeting.
ChairAguillardopenedthepublichearing.
Monty McNutt asked for a brief explanation of the proposed change. Chair Aguillard directed him to the website or staff for details, stating that the hearingwasnotaquestion-and-answersession.
Michael McDowell noted that the map was only posted online today and expressed concern about rural and suburban overlay boundaries in the proposedordinance.
Chair Aguillard asked staff when the map was published. Melissa Guilbeau clarified it had been publicly available since Wednesday, January 28, 2026 thoughaloginissueoccurredearlierinthedaybuthasbeenresolved.Chair Aguillardclosedthepublichearing.
Motion to recommend approval with proposed changes dated February 2,
2026:TravisThornton;secondedbyLaurieMarienAllinfavor,motionpassed andT-26-0001&Z-26-0001wererecommendedforapprovalwithproposed changes.
70.
The proposed zoning map, referred to by the Chairman of the putative City of St. George PlanningCommissionandpostedontheSt.Georgewebsite,reflectsanintentoftheputativeCityof St.George,todownzonetheLRKTractto“MX3”asreflectedbelow:
71.
TheagendafortheputativeCityofSt.GeorgeCouncilmeetingforFebruary24,2026listed thefollowingitem:
(3) ToAmendTitle7,UnifiedDevelopmentCode,toEstablishNewBaseZoning Districts, Update Allowed Uses and Dimensional Standards and Reorganize Some Sections; Rezone all Property in the City to the New Base Zoning DistrictsandtoprovideforrelatedmattersZoningCommissionvote:
Motiontorecommendapprovalwiththeamendmentsprovidedbystaffina handoutatthemeetingbyTravisThornton;secondedbyLaurieMarien.YEAS – Travis Thornton, Laurie Marien, Jason McAllister, Bobby McKey, Billy Aguillard. NAYS - 0. Motion passed and T-26-0001 & Z-26-0001 were recommendedforapprovalwithamendments.
72.
At the February 24, 2026 meeting of the putative City of St. George Council, the Council deferredconsiderationoftheproposedamendmentstotheUnifiedDevelopmentCodeasfollows:
(3) MotiontodeferbyEdmonds,seconded byHimmel todefer amendment to Title 7, Unified Development Code,to establish new basezoning districts, update allowed uses and dimensional standards and reorganize some sections;Rezoneallpropertyinthecitytothenewbasezoningdistrictsand toprovideforrelatedmattersuntilApril2026.
Zoning Commission vote: Motion to recommend approval with the amendments provided by staff in a handout at the meeting by Travis Thornton;secondedbyLaurieMarien.YEAS
- TravisThornton,LaurieMarien,JasonMcAllister,BobbyMcKey,Billy Aguillard.NAYS
- 0.MotionpassedandT-26-0001&Z-26-0001wererecommendedfor approvalwithamendments.
Publiccomment wasopenedwiththefollowingspeakers:BryantDixon
AYES:Cook,Dellucci,Edmonds,Himmel,Murrell,TalbotNAYS:None
ABSENT:Monachello
73.
Afterthatdeferral,onMarch13,2026,theputativeCityofSt.Georgemadethefollowingpost totheSt.George,LouisianaFacebookpage:
St.Georgeiscurrentlyworkingonupdatestothecity’szoningframework,whichis an important step in how we plan for growth, protect neighborhoods, and guide developmentacrossthecity.
Because St. George is a new municipality, this process allows us to review existing land uses and tailor zoning regulations so they better reflect how our community functionstoday.
These updates will help ensure that zoning supports residents, businesses, infrastructureplanning,andlong-termgrowth.
ProposedzoningupdatesareexpectedtogobeforetheCityCouncilforconsideration onApril28.
Overthenextfewweeks,we’llsharemoreinformationaboutwhatthisprocessmeans andhowitbenefitsSt.Georgeresidentsandbusinesses.
-15-
74.
PriortotheputativeCityofSt.GeorgeCouncilmeetingofFebruary24,2026,BryantDixon, Planning & Development Director for the putative City of St. George, and his staff created a “Base Zoning Districts, Current (45) and Proposed (16)” matrix or table that was attached to the Staff ReportpostedontheofficialSt.Georgewebsite. Thematrixwas distributedtoresidentsandused inpresentationsbyDixonandstafftoexplaintheproposedamendmentstotheUnifiedDevelopment Code.
75.
Thatmatrixreflectedthefollowingfortheconversionofmixed-usezones,includingC2Heavy Commercial:
76.
IftheputativeCityofSt.GeorgeutilizedthematrixpreparedbyitsPlanning&Development DirectorandhisstaffinitsproposedamendmentstotheUnifiedDevelopmentCode,thiswouldhave required a proposal that the LRK Tract be reclassified as MX-4. As indicated above, the proposed amendmentsseektoreclassifytheLRKTractasMX-3.
77.
Areviewofthecompleteproposedzoningmapreflectsthat,excludingtheLRKTract,there were87othertractsoflandsituatedwithintheboundariesoftheputativeCityofSt.George,which are/werezonedC2HeavyCommercial.
78.
Afurtherreviewofthecompleteproposedzoningmapreflectsthatofthose87othertracts oflandzonedC2HeavyCommercial,theputativeCityofSt.Georgeproposedthat79ofsuchtracts bereclassifiedasMX-4andonly2ofsuchtractswereproposedtobereclassifiedasMX-3. Neither ofthosepropertiesarelocatedataregionalinterstatehighwayaccesspoint.
79.
AreclassificationoftheLRKTracttoMX-4wouldeliminateorrestrict6existinguserights enjoyedbytheLRKTractwithitsC2HeavyCommercialzoning.
80.
AreclassificationoftheLRKTracttoMX-3wouldeliminateorrestrict24existinguserights enjoyedbytheLRKTractwithitsC2HeavyCommercialzoning.
81.
Notably,C2HeavyCommercialzoningpermitsa45footbuildingheight,plusoneadditional footofbuildingheightforeachfootthatabuildingissetbackfromyardrequirements.Further,there isnomaximumfloorarearatio(“FAR”)requiredintheC2HeavyCommercialzone.
82.
BoththeproposedMX-3andMX-4zoningclassesmandateFARcapsandmaximumbuilding heightlimits(MX-4@75’andMX-3@45’).
83.
Inadditiontoutilizingthematrixtomakemisrepresentationstothepublic,theputativeCity ofSt.GeorgePlanning&DevelopmentDirector,BryantDixon,hasmisrepresentedtoresidentsofthe putative City of St. George that The City of Baton Rouge – Parish of East Baton Rouge made downgrades to the C2 Heavy Commercial classification so that it compares more closely to the proposedMX-3zone,thantheMX-4zone–anincorrectstatement.
84.
The putative City of St. George Planning & Development Director, Bryant Dixon, and the Chairman of its Planning Commission have stated that St. George never adopted the C2 Heavy CommercialzonecontainedintheEBRUDCbecauseC2wasinactiveor“dead”.
85.
ThosestatementsarediametricallyopposedtotheprovisionscontainedintheputativeCity ofSt.GeorgeUnifiedDevelopmentCodeadoptedonJuly23,2024asupdatedthroughFebruary25, 2025asfollows:
§7:8:1 Districts Are Established
StatementsbySt.GeorgerepresentativesthattheC2HeavyCommercialzoneisdeadinEast BatonRougeParisharefalse–areferencetothecurrentzoningmapoftheCityofBatonRouge–ParishofEastBatonRougereflecthundredsofparcelsoflanddesignatedas“C2,including,butnot limitedtothoseparcelsshowontheportionofsaidmapbelow,locatedinsideof1-2milesoftheLRK Tract:
AttheApril28,2026meetingoftheputativeCityofSt.GeorgeCouncil,theminutesorthe Councilreflectthefollowing:
Motion byCouncil MemberMurrell,secondedby Council MemberHimmel tomove thisordinancetoitem5ontheagenda.ToAmendTitle7,UnifiedDevelopmentCode, to Establish New Base Zoning Districts, Update Allowed Uses and Dimensional StandardsandReorganizeSomeSections;RezoneallPropertyintheCitytotheNew BaseZoningDistrictsandtoprovideforrelatedmatters
Zoning Commission vote: Motion to recommend approval with the amendments
providedbystaffinahandoutatthemeetingbyTravisThornton;secondedbyLaurie Marien.YEAS–TravisThornton,LaurieMarien,JasonMcAllister,BobbyMcKey,Billy Aguillard.NAYS-0.MotionpassedandT-26-0001&Z-26-0001wererecommended forapprovalwithamendments.
Public comment was opened with the following speakers: Bryant Dixon, Al Thibodeaux, Dottie Territo, Joe Territo, Steve Losby, Cam Morton, Terri Broussard, MontyMcNutt,BillyAguillard,MichaelMcDowell.
Motion by Council Member Murrell, seconded by Council Member Monachello to makeamendmentsbeforeapproval.
MotionbyCouncilMemberMurrell,toapproveasamended.Nosecond.
MotionbyCouncilMemberEdmonds,secondedbyCouncilMemberTalbottoapprove asubstitutemotiontodefermatterfor2weeks.
AYES: Cook,Edmonds,Himmel,Monachello,Talbot NAYS: Dellucci,Murrell ABSENT:
88.
AtranscriptofwhatoccurredattheApril28th meeting,afteranextensivediscussionofthe LRKTractisattachedheretoas“ExhibitLRK#1”
89.
TheactiontakenbytheputativeCityofSt.GeorgeCouncilonApril28,2026pertainingtothe LRKTractisambiguousandfailstoconstituteavalidexerciseofzoningauthority.
90.
TheputativeCityofSt.Georgeapparentlytakestheofficialpositionthattheactiontakenby theCouncilonApril28th regardingtheadoptionofamendmentstotheUnifiedDevelopmentCode hadnoapplicationtotheLRKTract,asthezoningmapontheSt.Georgewebsitewasupdatedafter April28toreflectthattheLRKTracthasnozoningclassificationasindicatedbelow:
91.
Actually, what transpired on April 28 pertaining to the LRK Tract is that the C2 Heavy CommercialclassificationoftheLRKTract(andC1forthefirst100feet)wascontinuedandisapart oftheSt.GeorgeUnifiedDevelopmentCode.
92.
SinceApril28,2026,theputativeCityofSt.GeorgePlanning&DevelopmentDirector,Bryant Dixon, the Chairman of its Planning Commission, staff members and some Council members have been actively involved in meetings and discussions with residents which have now apparently focusedonthedevelopmentofazoningoverlaydistricttoencompasstheLRKTract.
93.
OnMay6,2026,Cityofficials,includingPlanningDirectorBryantDixon,attendedameeting oftheWoodridgePropertyOwnersAssociation("WoodridgePOA").Atthatmeeting,Dixonstatedon therecordthatC-2would"normally"converttoMX-4asthe"oneforoneswitch,"butthatLRKTract hadbeentreateddifferentlybecausetheCityconsideredit"overlyzoned." 94.
This statement constitutes a direct admission that the putative City of St. George made a deliberate and selective decision to apply a more restrictive classification to the LRK Tract than it appliedtocomparableC-2properties—adecisionbasednotonneutralplanningcriteria,butona subjectivevaluationjudgmentaboutwhatLRK“should”havebeenzoned.
95.
Atthesamemeeting,DixonpresentedacomparisoncharttotheWoodridgeresidentsthat depicted C-2 as being "essentially" 45 feet in height and comparable to MX-3, while omitting C-2's adopted additional height allowance under the EBR UDC adopted by St. George UDC, Ch. 11, Sec. 11.1.3(B)(2),andtheabsenceofanyFARcapunderC-2.
96.
ThispresentationbyDixonmateriallyunderstatedLRK'sexistingentitlementsandprovided theWoodridgeresidents—andpotentiallytheCity'sgoverningbody—withaninaccuratebasisfor evaluatingtheproposeddownzoning.
97.
OnFriday,June5,2026,MaggieSmithoftheSt.GeorgePlanning&DevelopmentDepartment sentoutthefollowingemail:
From: Maggie Smith <maggie.smith@stgeorgela.gov>
Date:Fri,Jun5,2026at12:29 PM
Subject:PecueOverlayWorkshop-Reminder
To: DearStakeholdersandCommunityMembers,
TheCityofSt.Georgeisbeginningaplanningandpublicengagementprocessregarding futuredevelopmentofthePecueLaneinterchangearea.
Aspartofthiseffort,theCityisexploringapotentialzoningoverlaydistricttohelpguide futuregrowth,landusecompatibility,trafficcirculation,buffering,andoveralldevelopment qualitywithinthearea.
Weinviteyoutoattendapublicworkshoptoshareinputanddiscussopportunities, concerns,andprioritiesforthefutureofthecorridor.
MeetingInformation
Date:Thursday,June11,2026
Time:5:30–7:30P.M.
Location:JonesCreekRegionalBranchLibrary,6222JonesCreekRd
Weappreciateyourparticipationandlookforwardtohearingyourinput.
Sincerely,
Planning&ZoningDepartment
Planning and Zoning Department
Address: 11207ProverbsAve,St.George, LA70816
Phone: (225)228-3200
Email: planning@StGeorgeLA.gov Web: StGeorgeLA.gov
98.
Thiseffortrepresentsjustonemoreexampleofthedisorganized,haphazardapproachofthe putativeCityofSt.Georgetoplanningandzoning–insteadoffollowingtheschemesetforthinTitle 33byfirstcompletingandadoptingacomprehensiveplan.
99.
TheputativeCityofSt.GeorgehasnowpostedanagendafortheCouncilmeetingtobeheld onTuesday,June9,2026whichcontainsthefollowingitem:
(1)ZoningCommissionCaseNo.Z-26-0001Amendment-ToRezoneTractX,Lots LRKLLC-1,LRKLLC-2,LRKLLC-3,LRKLLC-4,9-A,9-Band9-Coftheofthe Leon R Kleinpeter property from C-2, C-1 and R to the New Base Zoning Districtandtoprovideforrelatedmatters.
AcopyoftheproposedordinancepostedontheSt.Georgewebsiteinconnectionwiththisagenda itemisattachedheretoas“ExhibitLRK#2”.
100.
TheputativeCityofSt.Georgehasfailedtofollowthenoticerequirementscontainedinits UnifiedDevelopmentCodeinorderforarezoningoftheLRKTracttobeconsidered,and,accordingly, isprecludedfromconsideringtheactionregardingtheLRKTractatitsJune9,2026Councilmeeting.
101.
Pretermittingalloftheirregularitiessetforthabove,untilsuchtimeasSt.Georgehasbeen declaredtohavebegunitsexistenceviaadeclarationfromthe19th JudicialDistrictCourtstatingthe date that St. George “shall become incorporated,” St. George is a non-existing entity, and therefore theputativeCityofSt.Georgehasnostandingtoattempttoregulatethezoningordevelopmentof theLRKTract.
102.
LRKshowsthattheputativeCityofSt.George,inadoptingnewZoningOrdinanceshouldhave employedbestzoningpractices,including,butnotlimitedto,thosepracticesmandatedbyLouisiana Revised Statutes, which includes the completion and adoption of a comprehensive plan for the developmentofSt.George.
COUNT I — ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACTION: VIOLATION OF LA. R.S. 33:4721 ET SEQ.
103.
LRK incorporatesbyreferenceallprecedingparagraphsasiffullysetforthherein.
104.
UnderLouisianalaw,municipalzoningdecisionsmustberationallyrelatedtoalegitimate governmental interest and must not be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. La. R.S. 33:4721 et seq.; see also Palermo Land Co. v. Planning Comm’n of Calcasieu Parish,561So.2d482(La. 1990).
105.
A zoning reclassification that lacks a rational, articulable basis in evidence — or that is inconsistent with the municipality's own stated planning framework — does not satisfy this standard.
106.
TheputativeCityofSt.George’sproposedMX-3classificationoftheLRKTractisarbitraryand capriciousforthefollowingindependentandcumulativereasons:
a.It contradicts the putative City of St. George's own publicly distributed Conversion Chart,whichdesignatesC-2asconvertingtoMX-4,notMX-3;
b.It singles out the LRK Tract for a materially more restrictive classification than virtuallyeveryotherC-2propertyintheCityofSt.George,withnolegitimate,neutral planningbasisforthedisparatetreatment;
c.TheputativeCityofSt.George'sstatedrationale—thatLRKwas"overlyzoned"—is a vague, subjective, and legally insufficient basis for a downzoning that eliminates almost one third of vested use rights and imposes significant new dimensional restrictions;and
d.The classification was advanced to the governing body and the public using an
-22-
incomplete and materially misleading comparison of C-2 rights — specifically one that omitted C-2's adopted additional height flexibility and the absence of any FAR capunderC-2,amongothers.
COUNT II — EQUAL PROTECTION: UNLAWFUL SINGLING OUT
107.
LRKincorporatesbyreferenceallprecedingparagraphsasiffullysetforthherein. 108.
The Louisiana and United States Constitutions guarantee that similarly situated property ownersshallbetreatedequallyunderthelaw.U.S.Const.Amend.XIV,§1;La.Const.Art.I,§3. 109.
A municipality may not impose materially harsher zoning restrictions on one property owner'slandwhencomparablepropertiesaretreatedmorefavorably,absentarationalbasisforthe distinction.
110.
Of approximately 90 existing C-2 polygons in the putative City of St. George, the overwhelming majority were proposed to receive, and apparently received on April 28, 2026, the MX-4classificationconsistentwiththeputativeCityofSt.George'sownConversionChart. 111.
The LRK Tract — the largest C-2 assemblage at issue — is proposed to receive MX-3, a materially more restrictive classification, without any rational, neutral planning basis for the differentialtreatment.
112.
The putative City of St. George officials' own admission that LRK was designated MX-3 because it was deemed "overly zoned" is not a legitimate governmental basis for singling out one propertyforamoreseveredownzoningthanitscomparablysituatedC-2neighbors. 113.
TheputativeCityofSt.Georgeisconstitutionallyprohibitedfromsinglingoutoneproperty ownerformateriallymoreburdensomezoningrestrictionsthansimilarlysituatedpropertyowners withoutarationalbasisforthedistinction.
COUNT III — UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING / INVERSE CONDEMNATION: LA. CONST. ART. I, § 4
114.
LRK incorporatesbyreferenceallprecedingparagraphsasiffullysetforthherein.
ArticleI,Section4(B)(1)oftheLouisianaConstitutionprovides:“Propertyshallnotbetaken or damaged by the state or its political subdivisions except for public purposes and with just compensationpaidtotheowner....”La.Const.Art.I,§4(B)(1).
116.
A regulatory action that deprives a property owner of all or substantially all economically viable use of the property, or that significantly interferes with distinct investment-backed expectations while failing to substantially advance a legitimate public purpose, may constitute a compensabletaking. See Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York,438U.S.104(1978); State, Dep’t of Transp. & Dev. v. Chambers Inv. Co.,595So.2d598(La.1992).
117.
TheproposedMX-3reclassificationeliminates24of74vesteduserights,imposesahard45footheightcapeliminatingtheC-2heightbonus,andintroducesbothaFARcapof2.5andan80% imperviouscoveragelimit—noneofwhichcurrentlyapplytotheLRKTract.
118.
Theserestrictions,takentogether,substantiallyimpairLRK'sabilitytodeveloptheLRKTract inamannerconsistentwithitslocationataregionalinterstateinterchangeandrepresentatakingof asignificantportionofitspropertyvalueanddevelopmentrights.
119.
To the extent final adoption of the MX-3 designation constitutes a regulatory taking, LRK reservestherighttoseekjustcompensationanddamagesinadditiontothereliefsoughtherein.LRK hasbeendamagedbytheactionsofofficers,employeesand/orrepresentativesoftheputativeCity ofSt.GeorgeandiftheputativeCityofSt.GeorgecontinuesitseffortstodownzonetheLRKTract, LRKisentitledtobecompensatedforthediminishedvalueoftheLRKTractasaresultoftheactions oftheputativeCityofSt.George.
120.
LRKshowsthatithasreasonableinvestment-backedexpectationsinthedevelopmentofthe LRKTractconsistentwithitsC-2HeavyCommercialzoningclassification,whichhasbeeninplace sinceAugust17,1994—overthirtyyears.Duringthisperiod,LRKanditspredecessorshaveheld thepropertywiththereasonableexpectationofdevelopingitforcommercialusesconsistentwithits zoninganditsstrategiclocationatamajorinterstateinterchange.TheproposedMX-3reclassification significantly interferes with these long-standing expectations without substantially advancing any legitimatepublicpurposethatcouldnotbeachievedthroughlessrestrictivemeans.
-24115.
121.
LRKfurthershowsthattheproposeddownzoningwillresultinasubstantialdiminutionin thevalueoftheLRKTract.Theeliminationof24of74permitteduses,theimpositionofahard45foot height cap (eliminating the C-2 height bonus), and the introduction of FAR and impervious coveragelimitationswillmateriallyreducethedevelopmentpotentialandmarketvalueoftheLRK Tract.
COUNT IV — PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
122.
LRKincorporatesbyreferenceallprecedingparagraphsasiffullysetforthherein.
123.
LRK has a constitutionally and legally protected property interest in its vested C-2 zoning entitlements.La.Const.Art.I,§2; see Summerell v. Phillips,282So.2d450(La.1973).
124.
Any governmental action that substantially impairs those entitlements must comport with proceduraldueprocess—includingafairhearingbeforeaneutraldecision-maker,andadecision groundedinaccurateinformation.
125.
Here,theputativeCityofSt.George'sprocesswastaintedbythepresentationofmaterially inaccurateinformationaboutC-2'sexistingdevelopmentrightstothegoverningbodyandthepublic.
126.
The comparison chart presented by City of St. George planning staff at the May 6, 2026 WoodridgePOAmeetingomittedkeyC-2rightsanddepictedC-2asessentiallyequivalenttoMX-3.
EBR'sownplanningdirectorhascontradictedthischaracterizationinwriting.Adecisionmadeon thebasisofsuchinaccurateinformationcannotsatisfytherequirementsofproceduraldueprocess.
127.
LRKhasalegallyprotectedpropertyinterestinthecontinueduseanddevelopmentofthe LRKTractconsistentwithitsexistingC-2zoningclassification,whichLRKhasheldforoverthirty years.
128.
LRKreservestherighttoamendthisPetitiontoaddclaimsorpartiesasmaybewarranted byfurtherdevelopmentsintheputativeCityofSt.George’sactionsregardingtheLRKTract.
129.
LRKreservestherighttoseekrecoveryofreasonableattorney’sfeesandcostsincurredin thislitigationtotheextentpermittedbylaw.
130.
Anygovernmentalactionthatsubstantiallyimpairsthosedevelopmentrightsmustcomport with procedural due process — including adequate notice of the proposed action, a meaningful opportunitytobeheardbeforeaneutraldecision-maker,andsufficienttimetoreviewandrespond totheproposedchanges.
131.
Here, the putative City of St. George’s process was procedurally deficient in that: (a) the proposedzoningmapwasnotmadepubliclyavailableuntilJanuary28,2026,onlyfivedaysbefore theFebruary2,2026PlanningCommissionmeeting;(b)loginissuespreventedpublicaccesstothe map on the day of the Planning Commission meeting; (c) revisions to the proposed map were presentedtoCommissionersatthemeetingitself,withoutpriorpublicnotice;and(d)thepublicwas deniedameaningfulopportunitytoreviewandcommentontheproposedchangesaffectingtheLRK Tract.
132.
Additionally, the comparison chart presented by City planning staff at the May 6, 2026 WoodridgePOAmeetingomittedkeyC-2rightsanddepictedC-2asessentiallyequivalenttoMX-3. The presentation of materially inaccurate information to the public and the governing body undermines the legitimacy of the decision-making process and supports LRK’s claim that the proposeddownzoningisarbitraryandcapricious.
COUNT IV-A — VIOLATION OF LA. R.S. 33:101 ET SEQ. (FAILURE TO ADOPT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN)
133.
LRKincorporatesbyreferenceallprecedingparagraphsasiffullysetforthherein.
134.
Louisiana law requires that a municipality adopt a comprehensive plan before enacting zoning ordinances. La. R.S. 33:107; La. R.S. 33:109. A zoning ordinance adopted without a comprehensiveplanisinvalid.
135.
The putative City of St. George has not completed or adopted a comprehensive plan as requiredbyLa.R.S.33:101etseq.AccordingtoSt.George’sownofficialwebsite,the“St.George2050
ComprehensivePlan”isstillintheearly“UnderstandingthePossibilities”phaseandisnotexpected tobecompletedforatleast12months.
136.
Despitetheabsenceofacomprehensiveplan,theputativeCityofSt.Georgehasproceeded toadoptandamendzoningordinances,includingtheZoningOrdinancethatpurportstoreclassify theLRKTractfromC-2HeavyCommercialtoMX-3.
137.
BecausetheputativeCityofSt.Georgehasnotadoptedacomprehensiveplanasrequiredby law,theZoningOrdinanceandallzoningactionstakenbytheputativeCityofSt.George,including theproposedreclassificationoftheLRKTract,areinvalid,null,andvoid.
COUNT V — DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(LA. C.C.P. ART. 1871 ET SEQ.)
138.
LRKincorporatesbyreferenceallprecedingparagraphsasiffullysetforthherein.
139.
LRKseeksdeclaratoryreliefpursuanttoLa.C.C.P.Art.1871etseq.Ajusticiablecontroversy exists between the parties regarding (a) the legal existence of St. George as a validly incorporated municipality,(b)thevalidityofthezoningactionstakenbytheputativeCityofSt. George,and(c) LRK’svestedpropertyrightsinitsC-2HeavyCommercialzoningclassification. WHEREFORE, LRK, L.L.C. prays that the Defendants be served with a certified copy of this petitionandbecitedtoappearandanswerthesame,andafteralllegaldelayshaveexpiredanddue proceedings have been had, that there be judgment herein in favor of LRK, LLC and against Defendantsasfollows:
A.DeclaringthatSt.Georgehasnotbegunitslegalexistenceasamunicipalitybecause nocourthasenteredanorderdeclaringthedateofincorporationasrequiredbyLa. R.S.33:4(E)(1);or,inthealternative,declaringthedateonwhichSt.Georgebecame incorporated;
B. DeclaringthatanyactionstakenbySt.George,theSt.GeorgeTransitionDistrict,or any officers, employees, or agents thereof prior to the lawful commencement of St. George’sexistenceasamunicipalityarenullandvoid;
C. Declaring that St. George must recognize and maintain the C-2 Heavy Commercial zoningclassificationoftheLRKTractasestablishedbytheEastBatonRougeParish MetropolitanCouncilonAugust17,1994,andtheC-1classificationonthefirst100 feetadjacenttoPecueLane;
D. Declaringthatanyordinance,resolution,orotheractionbySt.Georgethatpurports toreclassifytheLRKTracttoamorerestrictivezoningclassificationthanC-2Heavy Commercialisarbitrary,capricious,unconstitutional,andunenforceable;
E. Awarding LRK, L.L.C. all damages sustained as a result of Defendants’ actions, including but not limited to diminution in property value, lost development opportunities, delay damages, and costs incurred in defending its property rights, togetherwithlegalinterestthereonfromthedateofjudicialdemanduntilpaid;
G. Awarding LRK, L.L.C. reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of court to the extent permittedbylaw;
H. Awardingsuchotherandfurtherreliefaslaw,equity,andthenatureofthecasemay permit.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY ATTORNEYS:
KLEINPETER & KLEINPETER, L.L.C.
BY:
R. LOREN KLEINPETER (#07447) 8708JeffersonHighwaySuiteB BatonRouge,Louisiana 70809
Telephone: (225)926-5093
Facsimile:(225)926-5318
Email: loren@kleinpeter-law.com
ATTORNEYS FOR LRK, L.L.C.
INFORMATION FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, PLEASE SERVE:
THE CITY OF ST. GEORGE throughMayorDustinYates St.GeorgeCityHall 11207ProverbsAvenue St.George,Louisiana70816
Chris Rials, Vice-Chairman of the Petition to IncorporateSt.George,athisresidence: 18010CascadesAvenue BatonRouge,Louisiana 70810
Norman Browning,ChairmanofthePetition toIncorporateSt.George,athisresidence: 15955ConfederateAvenue BatonRouge,Louisiana 70817
LRK, LLC
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE
STATE OF LOUISIANA
NUMBER: VERSUS
DIVISION:
THE CITY OF ST. GEORGE, CHRIS RIALS, AND NORMAN BROWNING
REQUEST FOR NOTICE
TO: CLERKOFCOURTforthe19th JudicialDistrictCourtfortheParishofEastBatonRouge,State ofLouisiana;
The undersigned hereby requests that in accordance with the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, Article 1572, 1913 and 1914, that you provide written notice of the date of trial in the above entitled matter as well as notice of hearings (whether on the merits or otherwise), orders, judgmentsandinterlocutorydecrees,andanyandallformalstepstakenbyanyofthepartiesherein orbythetrialcourt.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY ATTORNEYS:
KLEINPETER & KLEINPETER, L.L.C.
By:_________________________________________
R. LOREN KLEINPETER
(#7447)
8708JeffersonHighwaySuiteB BatonRouge,Louisiana70809
Telephone:(225)926-5093
Facsimile:(225)926-5318
Email: loren@kleinpeter-law.com
AttorneysforPlaintiffs