STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
03-377
LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT
VERSUS
KEVIN FITCH AND BAYOU LAND INVESTMENT, INC.
**********
APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 983048 HONORABLE THOMAS R. DUPLANTIER, DISTRICT JUDGE
MARC T. AMY JUDGE
Court composed of John D. Saunders, Marc T. Amy, and Glenn B. Gremillion, Judges.
AFFIRMED.
John Alfred Mouton, III Post Office Box 3244 Lafayette, LA 70502 (337) 233-1199 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government
Kaliste Joseph Saloom, III Saloom & Saloom Post Office Drawer 2999 Lafayette, LA 70502-2999 (337) 234-0111 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Kevin Fitch Bayou Land Investment, Inc. AMY, Judge.
The Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government brought this enforcement
action against the defendant property owners asserting violations of an ordinance
related to the operation of salvage yards. In particular, the City complained that the
defendants failed to comply with the enclosure requirements relevant to this type of
business. The trial court found in favor of the City, ordering enforcement. The
defendants appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
Defendants, Bayou Land Investments, Inc. and its owner, Kevin Fitch,
purchased a tract of land in the City of Lafayette in 1993. The property abuts
Ambassador Caffery Parkway. The defendants operate an auto salvage yard on that
property. Prior to purchase, use of that portion of property zoned for light industry
as an auto salvage yard was approved by the zoning board of the City. The record
indicates that, by March 1995, the City, through the Director of Zoning and
Development, notified Mr. Fitch that his business was in violation of zoning
requirements due to the use of the residentially zoned portion of the property for
salvage operations. Furthermore, he was ordered to remove junked vehicles not
contained in the area zoned for light industrial use. Mr. Fitch was also ordered to
comply with City fencing requirements. Subsequently, in May 1995, Mr. Fitch
sought approval of the City, through Environment Quality Manager Bette Vidrine,
to erect a fence using a specific type of fabric. The City approved the proposal,
notifying Mr. Fitch by letter dated March 3, 1995.1 An internal memo indicates that
1 The letter states:
The City is granting its approval to your proposed fence, consisting of: an eight-foot high grid as you have already erected on parts of Des Jacques Road, covered by a double thickness of Nico-Shade Fabric, Style 43419, with specifications as on the attached spec sheet. This fence is to surround the property owned by Bayouland Mr. Fitch informed the City that he was proceeding with the work. According to Ms.
Vidrine, however, the approved cloth was not used for the fence. She explained that,
despite Mr. Fitch’s efforts, there has never been a sight-proof fence on the property
and that she knew of several prosecutions regarding the fence.
This case, which commenced with the City of Lafayette filing a Petition for
Injunctive Relief and For Abatement of a Nuisance in June 1998, involves, in part,
the question of whether the defendants complied with the fencing requirements
attendant to auto salvage businesses. The City alleges that the defendants have
consistently failed to meet those requirements. The City presented evidence
indicating this failure is not only ongoing, but is of a longstanding nature. The
defendants contend that they should be subject to the City Ordinance existing at the
time their business commenced and not to more stringent fencing requirements
subsequently enacted. The issue of which ordinance was to be enforced became an
issue in the instant litigation.
At the time of the purchase, the City Code of Ordinances, adopted in 1965, was
in effect. A portion of that ordinance related to salvage yards. In particular, Chapter
14¼ was entitled “Junked Property.” Section 14 ¼-12, which is entitled “Enclosure
required,” provided at that time as follows:
No person, firm, or corporation shall store or offer for sale any iron and steel junk, rags or wreckage of motor-driven vehicles or automobiles or trucks, including parts and accessories thereof, and no person, firm, or corporation shall wreck or dismantle said items for commercial purposes on any open lot or parcel of ground that is not properly enclosed on all boundary lines with a substantial fence not less
Investments on Des Jacques Road being utilized as a salvage yard.
I am enclosing a copy of Mr. Don Fuselier’s memo of April 10, 1995, approving same.
You are expected to proceed with construction of this fence immediately
2 than seven (7) feet nor more than ten (10) feet high and properly screening said enclosed area from public view. Such areas or parcels of land, or premises, shall be enclosed with a solid, nontransparent wall or fence, excepting for entrances and exits. Chain-link fencing is permissible if appropriate slates are inserted into the wire mesh to make the fencing nontransparent. The fence or wall shall not contain any poster or advertising of any kind excepting one sign of the owner, lessee, operator, or licensee of said premises on each street frontage not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet in size. Said seven (7) feet minimum height requirement for fences shall not apply to those storage facilities which are in compliance with section 24-106. (Ord. No. 0- 1484, § 1, 4-19-77)
Section 14¼-5 of the Code provided that the City could file a petition for abatement
in the City Court of Lafayette.
The 1965 Ordinance was repealed and rescinded in 1997, with the Lafayette
City-Parish Council adopting Ordinance 0-363-97, which again contained an
enclosure requirement at Article IV, Section 14¼ -15. The provision contained a
more stringent fencing requirement, providing:
No person, firm, or corporation shall store or offer for sale any recyclable items, paper, iron or steel junk, rags or wreckage of motor- driven vehicles or automobiles or trucks, including parts and accessories thereof, and no person, firm, or corporation shall wreck or dismantle said items for commercial purpose on any open lot or parcel of ground that is not properly enclosed on all boundary lines, except where prohibited by any law or regulation, which enclosure shall be by a substantial fence not less than seven (7) feet nor more than ten (10) feet high and properly screening said enclosed area from public view. In such instances where a law or regulation prohibits the complete enclosure on all boundary lines, there shall be substantial compliance by making as much enclosure as possible of the lot or parcel of ground, except as prohibited by any law or regulation. Any decision as to whether or not the enclosure substantially complies shall be made by the Director of Public Works and/or his designee. The fence shall be uniform in color and in height with all material, including posts and fencing, being of uniform height, color and construction. Said fence shall be wind resistant and able to withstand fifty (50) mile per hour winds, constructed of a solid rigid material, and completely non- transparent and of uniform color. The uniform color shall be any shade of beige, brown, black, dark green or gray. The color shall be approved by the Director of Public Works or his designee prior to installation of the enclosure. Such areas or parcels of land, or premises, shall be
3 enclosed with the aforedescribed solid, non-transparent wall or fence. The fence or wall shall not contain any poster or advertising of any kind excepting one sign of the owner, lessee, operator, or licensee of said premises on each street frontage not exceeding one hundred (100) square feet in size. Said seven-foot minimum height requirement for fences shall not apply to those storage facilities which are in compliance with Section 24-107 of the City of Lafayette Code of Ordinances or any successor provisions in the City-Parish Code of Ordinances.
Section 14 ¼ - 23 provided for a one-year phase-in period.2 Article V, Section 14 ¼ -
26 provided for violations of the chapter to be punishable as a misdemeanor by fine
or a period of imprisonment. It noted that “[e]ach day of violation shall constitute a
separate offense.” Section 14 ¼ - 27 instructed that: “The prosecution of any such
misdemeanor shall be tried in any Court of competent jurisdiction.”
Subsequently, in 1998, by Ordinance 0-107-98, the Lafayette City-Parish
Council amended the 1997 enclosure provision, further strengthening the wind
resistence required of the nontransparent material described in the ordinance.
Following the 1998 amendment, Section 14¼-15 required:
No person, firm, or corporation shall store or offer for sale, commercially and/or for profit, any recyclable items, paper, iron and steel junk, rags or wreckage of motor-driven vehicles or automobiles or trucks, including parts and accessories thereof, and no person, firm, or corporation shall wreck or dismantle said items for commercial and/or for profit purposes on any open lot or parcel of ground that is not properly enclosed on all boundary lines, except where prohibited by law or regulation, which enclosure shall be by a substantial fence not less than seven (7) feet nor more than ten (10) feet high and properly screening said enclosed area from public view. In such instances where a law or regulation prohibits the complete enclosure on all boundary lines, there shall be substantial compliance by making as much
2 Section 14¼ - 23, states:
The requirements set forth in Article IV - Enclosures, including but not limited to the necessity for a substantial fence set forth in Sec. 14¼ - 15 shall not become effective until one (1) year after the effective date of this Ordinance. During such period of time, the Director of Public Works or his designee shall inform all parties to be affected by the requirements of this Ordinance and this one (1) year period shall enable and allow such parties a sufficient time to comply with the provisions of Article IV - Enclosures and the required fencing.
4 enclosure as possible of the lot or parcel of ground, except as prohibited by any law or regulation. Any decision as to whether or not the enclosure substantially complies shall be made by the Director of Public Works and/or his designee. The fence shall be uniform in color and in height with all material, including posts and fencing, being of uniform height, color and construction. Said fence shall be wind resistant and able to withstand one-hundred (100) mile per hour winds, constructed of a solid rigid material, and completely non-transparent and of uniform color. The uniform color shall be any shade of beige, brown, black, dark green or gray. The color shall be approved by the Director of Public Works or his designee prior to installation of the enclosures. Such areas or parcels of land, or premises, shall be enclosed with the aforesaid solid, non-transparent wall or fence. The fence or wall shall not contain any poster or advertising of any kind excepting one sign of the owner, lessee, operator, or licensee of said premises on each street frontage not exceeding one-hundred (100) square feet in size. Said seven (7) foot minimum height requirement for fences shall not apply to those storage facilities which are in compliance with Section 24-107 of the City of Lafayette Code of Ordinances or any successor provisions in the City- Parish Code of Ordinances.
The City complained in its petition that, despite prior prosecution, the
defendant failed to comply with the ordinance requiring sight-proof fencing and that
he was storing junked vehicles on that portion of the property zoned as R-2. Further,
the City asserted that the defendant improperly stored vehicles outside of the existing
fence and permitted ingress and egress of the facility by individuals who would jump
the curb rather than enter through a designated entrance. The City alleged that:
“Such activity not only violates the Site Proof Fence Ordinance, but constitutes a
nuisance subject to abatement through injunctive relief.” The City continued, stating:
The entire operation of Defendants constitutes nuisance in that it is operated in a manner which is offensive to the natural sensibilities of any reasonable person. Petitioner is entitled to a judgment enjoining Defendants from continuing any further junked car dismantling or salvage operations and commanding Defendants to cease and desist all such operations unless and until Defendants are willing to conduct operations in compliance with the provisions of the City of Lafayette Zoning Ordinance and other provisions of the City of Lafayette Code of Ordinance.
5 In May 1999, the City filed a supplemental petition, informing the court that the City
Ordinance had been amended and that all those facilities affected by the ordinance
were provided with a one-year period for compliance. The City stated that the
defendants were provided notice of the statute and the one-year period, but that there
had been no compliance with the sight-proof fencing requirement. The City alleged
that: “In view of the fact that Defendants never complied with the requirements of
the previously existing si[ght] proof fence ordinance, they can hardly be heard to
allege that they should somehow have their facility grandfathered and not subject to
the requirements of the new si[ght] proof fence ordinance.”
The matter was heard in September 2002. The trial court heard from City
officials regarding their course of dealing with the Fitch property and the alleged
failures to comply with the ordinance. The City also presented owners of property
near that of Mr. Fitch, who explained their course of dealing with the alleged
violations.
Following the hearing, the trial court orally ordered that the R-2 zoned property
be cleared of junked vehicles within ninety days. Failure to do so would result in the
assessment of a $100 per vehicle, per day fine. Those vehicles located outside the
existing fence were ordered cleared within ten days. Failure to clear those vehicles
would also result in a fine. The gate on Ambassador Caffery was ordered sealed and
no access permitted onto Ambassador Caffery.
Post-trial briefs were ordered on the issues raised by the defendants, namely,
whether: the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the enforcement of the
ordinance; the action had prescribed; the defendants had to comply with the 1965,
1997, or 1998 version of the Ordinance; the material used by the defendant met the
6 requirements of the applicable ordinance; and the fence required by the ordinance was
to be located on the line of the R-2 property or the I-1 property.
Following the briefing period, the trial court rendered written reasons and
concluded that subject matter jurisdiction existed due to the wording of the 1997
Ordinance, that the matter had not prescribed, and that the suit sought enforcement
of the 1998 Ordinance. Finally, the trial court concluded that the fence as it exists is
located on the line of the R-2 portion of the defendants property and that its location
substantially complied with the ordinance. The issue of whether the material used by
the defendant satisfied the requirements of the 1998 Ordinance was bifurcated.
Following a subsequent, February 2003 hearing, the trial court concluded that the
material used did not satisfy the Ordinance.
The defendants appeal, asserting the following issues in their brief to this court:
1. Whether the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear all or part of this matter.
2. The application of prescription to the instant ordinance at issue.
3. The retroactivity and applicability of the amended ordinances to the instant matter (i.e., which amended version of the instant ordinance applies).
4. Whether the materials used by Defendants meets ordinance requirements.
Discussion
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
The defendants assert that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
hear the matter. They contend that it is the 1965 version of the Ordinance which is
applicable. Section 14 ¼ - 5 of the 1965 Ordinance states that if a “notice to abate
has not been complied with, the city may file a petition for abatement in the city court
7 of Lafayette to have the offending junked items declared a public nuisance and to
order their abatement.” The City contends that subject matter jurisdiction over the
matter was vested to the district court through the wording of the 1997 Ordinance.
The trial court found as follows with regard to subject matter jurisdiction:
This Court finds itself to be a “court of competent jurisdiction” in compliance with the requirements of the 1997 and 1998 versions of the Lafayette City-Parish Code of Ordinances. In December 1997, when the City-Parish Council Amended the Ordinance, the first proviso stated:
ORDINANCE NO. 0-363-97 AN ORDINANCE OF THE LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH COUNCIL RESCINDING AND REPEALING THE EXISTING CHAPTER 14- ¼ (JUNKED PROPERTY) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA, AND RESCINDING AND REPEALING THE EXISTING CHAPTERS 12.5 (JUNKED PROPERTY) AND 15 (NUISANCES) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA, AND ESTABLISHING REVISED REGULATIONS CONCERNING, NUISANCES, JUNKED ITEMS, AND ENCLOSURES
Thus, both the old city ordinances and parish ordinances were repealed and the consolidated government came into effect, establishing jurisdiction of this matter in any “court of competent jurisdiction.” Because this Court has jurisdiction over the entire Parish of Lafayette, it follows, that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter involving property located in this parish.
The defendants are correct in their assertion that the 1965 Ordinance vested
jurisdiction for enforcement of that Ordinance in Lafayette City Court. However, as
noted by the trial court, the 1997 Ordinance repealed the prior version along with the
specific assignment of jurisdiction to the City Court of Lafayette.3 Further, the 1997
3 The subject matter jurisdiction of the City Court of Lafayette is defined by La.Code Civ.P. art. 4843 which provides, in part:
A. Except as otherwise provided for in this Article, the civil jurisdiction of a city court is concurrent with the district court in cases where the amount in dispute, or the value of the property involved, does not exceed ten thousand dollars.
B. The civil jurisdiction of a city court in which the population of the territorial jurisdiction is greater than fifty thousand is concurrent with the district court in cases or proceedings instituted by the state, a parish, a municipality, or other political subdivision of the state or injunctive relief or other civil relief for the
8 Ordinance refers to the filing of a petition for abatement in a “Court of competent
jurisdiction[.]” See La.Const. art. 5, § 16.4 Again, the 1965 Ordinance was repealed
prior to the filing of the instant matter. As the trial court stated, because the district
court “has jurisdiction over the entire Parish of Lafayette, it follows, that this Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter involving property located in this
Parish.” The proceedings reveal that the complaints relate to, not only past behavior
that may have been violative of an Ordinance over which the city court had
jurisdiction, but to ongoing, allegedly daily violations now controlled by the more
recent ordinance.
Furthermore, the defendants reference Lowenburg v. Entergy New Orleans,
Inc., 99-1270 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/17/00), 763 So.2d 751, writ denied, 00-1577 (La.
8/31/00), 766 So.2d 1279, for the proposition that enforcement of municipal
ordinances and zoning regulations that reserve enforcement to a court of limited
cessation or abatement of any acts or practices which may violate a parish or municipal ordinance or state law. In such case, the court has jurisdiction regardless of the amount in dispute or the value of the property involved.
....
G. In the City Court of Lafayette, the civil jurisdiction is concurrent with the district court in cases where the amount in dispute, or the value of the property involved, does not exceed fifteen thousand dollars. 4 Entitled “District Courts; Jurisdiction,” La.Const. art. 5, § 16 provides:
Section 16. (A) Original Jurisdiction. (1) Except as otherwise authorized by this constitution or except as heretofore or hereafter provided by law for administrative agency determinations in worker’s compensation matters, a district court shall have original jurisdiction of all civil and criminal matters. (2) It shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of felony cases and of cases involving title to immovable property, except as provided in (3) below; the right to office or other public position; civil or political right; probate and succession matters; except for administrative agency determination provided for in (1) above, the state, a political corporation, or political subdivisions, or a succession, as a defendant; and the appointment of receivers or liquidators for corporations or partnerships. (3) The legislature may provide by law that a family court has jurisdiction of cases involving title to movable and immovable property when those cases relate to the partition of community property and the settlement of claims arising from matrimonial regimes when such action arises as a result of divorce or annulment of marriage.
9 jurisdiction leaves a district court with only appellate review of the lower court’s
determination. However, the case before the fourth circuit in Lowenburg is unlike
that in the present case. In Lowenburg, the district court was found to lack subject
matter jurisdiction over the issue presented as the Home Rule Charter of the City of
New Orleans vested original jurisdiction over issues involving the regulation of
utility rates to the City Council. Because the matter before the court was found to
involve regulation of utilities, the district court was found to be without jurisdiction.
In the present case, however, we have no indication of any such designation of
original jurisdiction in the City Court of Lafayette. Rather, references are to
concurrent jurisdiction and, in fact, the 1965 Ordinance designating City Court was
repealed by the subsequent Ordinance. We find no error in the trial court’s
determination regarding subject matter jurisdiction.
Prescription
The defendants contend that the trial court erred in failing to find that the
action for abatement had not prescribed. They contend that by operation of liberative
prescription, the instant cause of action has prescribed. They point to La.R.S. 9:56255
5 La.R.S. 9:5625, entitled “Violation of zoning restriction, building restriction, or subdivision regulation” presently provides:
A. (1) All actions civil or criminal, created by statute, ordinance, or otherwise, except those actions created for the purpose of amortization of nonconforming signs and billboards enacted in conformity with the provisions of R.S. 33:4722, which may be brought by parishes, municipalities, or their instrumentalities or by any person, firm, or corporation to require enforcement of and compliance with any zoning restriction, building restriction, or subdivision regulation, imposed by any parish, municipality, or an instrumentality thereof, and based upon the violation by any person, firm, or corporation of such restriction or regulation, must be brought within five years from the first act constituting the commission of the violation.
(2) Where a violation has existed for a period of two years prior to August 1, 1956, except those actions created for the purpose of amortization of nonconforming signs and billboards enacted in conformity with the provisions of R.S. 33:4722, the action must be brought within one year from and after August 1, 1956.
10 for the proposition that enforcement of the longstanding condition of the fence has
prescribed. Referencing the statute, the defendants assert that any cause of action
prescribed before the enactment of the 1997 statute as evidence indicates that the City
was aware of the condition of the fence by 1994, but did not file suit until 1998.
In denying the exception of prescription, the trial court found:
This Court finds that this action is not prescribed. Defendants have repeatedly and continuously assured both the City and Lafayette City - Parish Consolidated Government that they would comply with the requirements of the ordinances. Negotiations started in 1995 as to the type of fence to be constructed, and although construction began as early as 1995, the fence has never been fully completed from a standpoint of total enclosure or sight proof requirements as per the ordinance. Pictures taken of the yard at the time of trial show that portions of the fence are still not secured leaving the yard in full public view. Due to the continuing nature of the violations, this Court hereby denies the exception of prescription.
It is correct that the evidence reveals the City’s longstanding knowledge of the
condition of the fence. The record contains citizen complaints, indication of criminal
prosecutions, and substantial evidence of the City’s continued negotiations with Mr.
Fitch regarding compliance with the Ordinances. Although there is evidence of
knowledge of past violations, the suit alleges ongoing, daily violations. While the
early conduct from 1994 and 1995 may be relevant to the factual background of the
City’s case, the current violations are the City’s focus. The question of whether a
(3) With reference to violations of use regulations all such actions, civil or criminal, except those actions created for the purpose of amortization of nonconforming signs and billboards in conformity with the provisions of R.S. 33:4722, must be brought within five years from the date the parish, municipality, and the properly authorized instrumentality or agency thereof if such agency has been designated, first had been actually notified in writing of such violation.
(4) Except as relates to nonconforming signs and billboards, any prescription heretofore accrued by the passage of two years shall not be interrupted, disturbed, or lost by operation of the provisions of this Section.
(Emphasis added.)
11 petition could be maintained for early violations is not before the court. Rather, the
record supports the view that the City is alleging ongoing, daily infractions under the
current ordinance. In short, the defendants cannot be grandfathered into a regulation
that did not exist at the time they allege the City was ignoring their violation. The
present ordinance requires a specific, wind resistant type of material. The defendants’
contention that they should benefit from a grandfather clause due to violations of an
older ordinance that did not contain a requirement this stringent is without merit.
Retroactivity
The defendants next contend that the City’s practice of passing ever more
onerous Ordinances after business was begun in 1993, has deprived them of due
process rights. They contend that “the only applicable zoning restrictions and
ordinance applicable to the instant litigation, the violation of which is categorically
denied, are those which were in effect at the time Appellee issued to Appellants their
business license and up to two years thence, that is the City of Lafayette, Ordinance
effective May 15, 1965 to November 20, 1997.”
The defendants point to La.Civ.Code art. 6, which provides: “In the absence
of contrary legislative expression, substantive laws apply prospectively only.
Procedural and interpretative laws apply both prospectively and retroactively, unless
there is a legislative expression to the contrary.” In Walls v. American Optical Corp.,
98-455, p. 5-6 (La. 9/8/99), 740 So.2d 1262, 1267, the Louisiana Supreme Court
considered whether a statute had retroactive application, inquiring as to whether the
statute “either (1) evaluates the conditions of the legality of a past act, or (2) modifies
or suppresses the effects of a right already acquired.” The supreme court found that
if neither of the consequences were produced, the statute operates prospectively, and
12 bars a cause of action that arose after the statute’s effective date. Id. Quoting United
States Supreme Court jurisprudence, the supreme court further explained: “A statute
does not operate ‘retrospectively’ merely because it is applied in a case arising from
conduct antedating the statute’s enactment, or upsets expectations based in prior law.
Rather the court must ask whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences
to events completed before its enactment.” Id. at 1266, quoting Landgraf v. USI Film
Products, 511 U.S. 244, 269-70, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1499 (1994)(citations
omitted)(footnote omitted).
Addressing the issue of retroactivity, the trial court found:
Defendants argue that any attempt to apply the amended ordinances to them is an attempt to retroactively apply the law. However, this Court is impressed by the plaintiff’s argument that defendants are not being prosecuted for having violated the 1998 ordinance provisions prior to 1998. Rather, they are being pursued for failing to construct a fence in compliance with the new ordinance after the phase-in period elapsed and that all persons in the junk storage business were given the same phase-in period and are subject to the same fence requirements.
This Court finds defendants to be subject to the requirements of the 1998 Ordinance and hereby orders the parties to set for hearing a determination as to whether the materials used by defendants in constructing the fence comply with those requirements.
This view is supported by the record.
Although the City presented evidence regarding failure to comply with the
1965 Ordinance, that in effect at the time the defendants commenced business, and
failure to comply with a variance approved by the City, the enforcement action relates
to ongoing, daily violations. While the defendants’ past conduct may be relevant to
the trier of fact, it is clear that the City is alleging ongoing violations and seeking
remedy under the current ordinance.
13 Compliance
Returning to the argument that the 1965 Ordinance is the provision applicable
to their business, the defendants assert in their brief “that the evidence and testimony
adduced at trial proves that Appellants have installed around the totality of their
premises a substantial, safe, sight proof fence, albeit not to the arbitrary and
subjective liking of Appellee’s interpretation of its ordinance, which ever one it is
now seeking to enforce.” They contend that they have “continuously maintained,
albeit with regular maintenance” a fence made of treated telephone poles, high
strength wire and dark, opaque material.
Following presentation of the evidence regarding the suitability of the material
used by the defendants, the trial court found that it did not comply with the statute,
that it lacks adequate UV protection for long-term durability and offers insufficient
wind resistance for compliance with the statute. The trial court briefly recounted the
history of the March 1995 letter ordering the defendant to comply with the fencing
requirement and further explained:
Mr. Fitch then began negotiations with the City for the construction of a fence and requested approval of a black fabric to be used as covering on the fence. This fabric was approved by the City; however, Mr. Fitch used a different but similar fabric to complete the fence. According to a memo prepared by the City of Lafayette, Mr. Fitch had purchased all the grid work by May 30, 1995 and had begun construction of the fence. Mr. Fitch testified at trial that construction and maintenance of the fence has been ongoing and continuous since that time. Despite these efforts, the sight proof fence has not been properly maintained and there are many areas left uncovered by the black material, exposing the yard to full public view.
The record fully supports these factual findings. Testimony presented indicates that
the fabric used by the defendants was, not only, different from that which was
approved by the City prior to the 1997 Ordinance, but that when installed, it was
14 inadequate. Testimony indicates that the fabric would often become unattached and
would blow from the fencing frame. The owner of property adjacent to that of the
defendants explained that he had filed inquiries with the City regarding the state of
the fence. He also stated that there has not been a time when a sight-proof fence
surrounded the entirety of the facility. The testimony in the record supports the view
that this condition existed at the time of trial. The trial court’s factual findings in this
regard are not manifestly erroneous.
Post-Trial Proceedings
In their final assignment of error, the defendants question the trial court’s
determination to bifurcate the issues and hold an additional hearing following the
September 2002 trial. It was at the subsequent trial that the trial court heard evidence
related to the issue of whether the material used by the defendants was adequate
under the ordinance. The defendants argue that this opportunity provided the City
with an additional opportunity to prove its case.
The defendants’ objection regarding the opening of evidence was presented to
the trial court at the time of the February 2003 hearing. The trial court explained that
it had bifurcated the issue of the suitability of the material stating:
And bifurcated the issue of whether the material - - because in my ruling the issue initially, while we didn’t have an issue with regard to the material at the first trial, was because we were to determine which ordinance it was. So how could we have had a trial or evidence with regards to material that we didn’t know which material was to apply? Will [sic], I think that’s what I said at the first hearing, that I would not allow that testimony to come until I made that decision.
This explanation by the trial court is reflected in the proceedings at the September
2002 trial after which the trial court ordered briefs regarding the exceptions raised by
the defendants and the issue of which Ordinance was at issue. The trial court’s
15 determination to not accept evidence regarding the sufficiency of the material was
dependant on that initial determination. Furthermore, with regard to the defendants’
assertion that the trial court should have granted a directed verdict in their favor after
the original hearing, that argument is without merit given the consistency of the
City’s witnesses’ testimony regarding the state of the fence around the property. This
assignment lacks merit.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the trial court is affirmed. All costs
of these proceedings are assigned to the defendants, Kevin Fitch and Bayou Land
Investments, Inc.