- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Rouzan TND zoning pulled
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:29 pm
So what does this mean?
From the Business Report:
"
Spinosa to ask First Circuit for rehearing in Rouzan ruling
Developer Tommy Spinosa plans to ask the First Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing in his case over the validity of Rouzan's zoning as a traditional neighborhood development. A three-judge panel last week nullified Rouzan's zoning as a TND on the grounds that the developer did not have full ownership and control over all the property within the boundaries of the TND when the Metro Council rezoned it in 2008. "We intend to request a rehearing," says Rouzan Marketing Director Kelly Vastine. "Planning commission matters are being discussed with various parties involved and are yet to be determined." If the appellate court denies Spinosa's request for a rehearing, the developer will have to go back before the planning commission to have the property rezoned as either a TND or a planned unit development—either of which would likely reopen a can of worms with Southdowns area residents, who fought the rezoning of the property in 2008." —Stephanie Riegel
From the Business Report:
"
Spinosa to ask First Circuit for rehearing in Rouzan ruling
Developer Tommy Spinosa plans to ask the First Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing in his case over the validity of Rouzan's zoning as a traditional neighborhood development. A three-judge panel last week nullified Rouzan's zoning as a TND on the grounds that the developer did not have full ownership and control over all the property within the boundaries of the TND when the Metro Council rezoned it in 2008. "We intend to request a rehearing," says Rouzan Marketing Director Kelly Vastine. "Planning commission matters are being discussed with various parties involved and are yet to be determined." If the appellate court denies Spinosa's request for a rehearing, the developer will have to go back before the planning commission to have the property rezoned as either a TND or a planned unit development—either of which would likely reopen a can of worms with Southdowns area residents, who fought the rezoning of the property in 2008." —Stephanie Riegel
6
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:30 pm to Supermoto Tiger
I live a block away. I am not against Rouzan or for it!
But I totally
reading that!
But I totally
reading that!Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:46 pm to Supermoto Tiger
It means a victory for all those unfortunate enough to live in BR and commute in the perkins/college area.
I remember my second senior year at LSU and fighting the development in 2007/2008.
It was a complete shitshow, and the Council Meetings were a joke and a farce. It was one of those eye-opening experiences about government, and put me on the fast track to develop a healthy distrust of government.
I remember my second senior year at LSU and fighting the development in 2007/2008.
It was a complete shitshow, and the Council Meetings were a joke and a farce. It was one of those eye-opening experiences about government, and put me on the fast track to develop a healthy distrust of government.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:50 pm to CherryGarciaMan
It amazes me that people are still willing to do business with Spinosa or Spinosa-related companies and projects.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 1:54 pm to CherryGarciaMan
The Council and Planning Commission grant a TND zoning to the developer. Then, after several years, take it away??? Seems like that will open up a can of law suits towards City Govt???
Until this zoning issue gets settled, you can't pull a permit for a house or close on a home out there. Am I understanding this correctly?
Until this zoning issue gets settled, you can't pull a permit for a house or close on a home out there. Am I understanding this correctly?
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:00 pm to Supermoto Tiger
There has been lots of houses built and sold in there already.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:00 pm to Supermoto Tiger
CPC had zero to do with pulling the zoning. Spinosa got sued by others and that was the outcome.
This is a result of him acting like an a-hole to two people who own property directly in the center of his development. He went in with a "screw you guys" attitude from the get-go and didn't expect them to put up a fight. Well, they did and now he is the one who is in trouble.
This is a result of him acting like an a-hole to two people who own property directly in the center of his development. He went in with a "screw you guys" attitude from the get-go and didn't expect them to put up a fight. Well, they did and now he is the one who is in trouble.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:02 pm to LuckySo-n-So
If you get money for nothing at the front end of a project why would you not be on board? It is the suckers who plan on their payoff coming at the back end who amaze me.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:04 pm to Drop4Loss
What's REALLY interesting about the current homes is that they in no way conform with the zoning requirements (post court decision) because of how close together they are. Regardless of what happens here, those guys are (I hear) going to all be forced to go back to the Commission and request variances. I am curious to see if anyone else is going to break ground until this drags out in court.
MOST LIKELY OUTCOME IMO, is Tommy is going to break down and pay off those two guys in the middle to go away. I am sure they are going to make him pay dearly if they are willing to leave at all. He really crapped on at least one of the guys and I wouldn't be surprised to see that dude stick in place come hell or high water.
MOST LIKELY OUTCOME IMO, is Tommy is going to break down and pay off those two guys in the middle to go away. I am sure they are going to make him pay dearly if they are willing to leave at all. He really crapped on at least one of the guys and I wouldn't be surprised to see that dude stick in place come hell or high water.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:06 pm to Supermoto Tiger
this is a bullshite move by the surrounding home owners and politicians. You can't grant shite in writing then rescind it years later. Prepare for massive lawsuits.
This post was edited on 3/11/14 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:06 pm to jbgleason
BTW, all of this from a guy (Spinosa) who is deliquent on his personal property taxes in EBR for his primary residence. How exactly is a guy delinquent on his personal taxes doing bang-up business with the City/Parish?
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:09 pm to jbgleason
quote:
MOST LIKELY OUTCOME IMO, is Tommy is going to break down and pay off those two guys in the middle to go away. I am sure they are going to make him pay dearly if they are willing to leave at all. He really crapped on at least one of the guys and I wouldn't be surprised to see that dude stick in place come hell or high water
that dude was never leaving. they gave him so many offers and he acted like a dick every time. He wants his little haven back there off the beaten path.
quote:
What's REALLY interesting about the current homes is that they in no way conform with the zoning requirements (post court decision) because of how close together they are. Regardless of what happens here, those guys are (I hear) going to all be forced to go back to the Commission and request variances. I am curious to see if anyone else is going to break ground until this drags out in court.
I can't see that happening considering every home owner could then take the city to court for breach of contract as the homes were sold under certain pretenses. This is just the homeowners putting a big frick you to spinosa
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:12 pm to Supermoto Tiger
quote:If the CPC claims it granted the zoning based on misrepresentations by Spinoza, then they can force Spinoza to prove there were no misrepresentations in his original application. And that will be pretty difficult given the determination in the recently decided lawsuit.
The Council and Planning Commission grant a TND zoning to the developer. Then, after several years, take it away??? Seems like that will open up a can of law suits towards City Govt???
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:17 pm to Poodlebrain
+1 to this. I don't think you are going to see the CPC defending Spinosa at this point. It's going to be every man for himself and let the finger pointing begin. They will say Spinosa lied, he will say he is right and the court is wrong and the guys living in the middle are going to say "pay me."
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:19 pm to jbgleason
quote:
I am curious to see if anyone else is going to break ground until this drags out in court.
That's my point...I'm being told that you can't break ground on a home since this ruling because city parish stopped issuing permits until it gets settled.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:20 pm to CherryGarciaMan
quote:
It was a complete shitshow, and the Council Meetings were a joke and a farce. It was one of those eye-opening experiences about government, and put me on the fast track to develop a healthy distrust of government.
This, and the metro councilman who told his constituents that he was going to fight against this type of development was actually a Spinosa plant. We had the same issue with Green Trails at Shenandoah; by the time word got out about the project, it was too late to do anything.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:21 pm to Geauxld Finger
quote:
this is a bullshite move by the surrounding home owners and politicians. You can't grant shite in writing then rescind it years later. Prepare for massive lawsuits.
That's what I'm thinking too!
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:22 pm to Supermoto Tiger
And let me drop this here... The Library Board is still considering purchasing (for a horribly inflated price) the property that Spinosa owns on Perkins near Pollard. If they buy land from a guy who is sideways with the CPC and behind on taxes I will flip a lid.
That should initiate an automatic federal investigation of who he is paying.
That should initiate an automatic federal investigation of who he is paying.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:23 pm to Supermoto Tiger
quote:
The Council and Planning Commission grant a TND zoning to the developer. Then, after several years, take it away??? Seems like that will open up a can of law suits towards City Govt???
The court, not the counci, took away the zoning. The council rubberstamped the project without having all of the fact or, at least, the facts as Tommy Spinosa presented them.
Posted on 3/11/14 at 2:33 pm to Geauxld Finger
I've never seen this happen before.
That was a nice plot in a desirable part of town. It's a shame that it will be in limbo.
That was a nice plot in a desirable part of town. It's a shame that it will be in limbo.
Page 1 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News