05/22/2025
Appellate Court Rules Parish Failed To Follow Land
Use Ordinance In Granting Land Use Application
By David Reynaud, Editor
A five judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal recently issued a split (3-2) decision that ruled St. James Parish (Planning Commission & Parish Council) did not properly followed its Land Use ordinance when it approved Koch Methanol’s Land Use permit application to install and connect an ethane pipeline to an existing pipeline owned by a third party and located in an area designated as wetlands.
A majority of Koch’s pipeline is located in an area designated for industrial use, but a 1,000 ft. section, and where the pipe actually connects to the existing pipeline, is in an area designated as wetlands. Also, the pipe has been installed and has been in operation since June of 2024.
The St. James Planning Commission based its decision to grant Koch’s permit application, and declare the pipeline an allowable use in a wetland area, on the fact that the pipeline Koch tapped into was already in wetlands.
A month after the Planning Commission granted approval, the Appellants, which include Beverly Alexander, RISE St. James, Inclusive Louisiana, and Mount Triumph Baptist Church by and through their members, appealed to the Parish Council.
In their appeal, Appellants argued, among other things, since the Land Use Plan does not specifically state pipe lines are an “allowable use” in wetlands, and because the Planning Commission did not follow the more stringent (Tier 3) procedure in place for “non-allowable uses”, Koch’s permit application should be voided.
A Tier 1 permit application would be a standard application - building a house in a residential area. A Tier 2 covers areas over 3 acres and developments that require air or water permits. Tier 3 deals with non-conforming permits. A recent example would be locating a solar farm in Vacherie (a residential area). Also, Tier 3 requires a much more stringent review.
In the end the Parish Council, after holding a Public Hearing where both Koch and the Appellants made statements, rejected the appeal and agreed that this was an “allowable use” and did not trigger the more stringent review because the pipeline was already in wetlands.
The Appellants then sought Judicial review in the 23rd Judicial District Court, and Judge Cody Martin, after conducting a hearing, ruled the Council was right in denying the appeal and that the Parish was proper in rejecting the “Tier 3” review because a higher level of review would lead to “absurd results”.
Following Judge Martin’s ruling, the Appellants filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit and the 3-2 ruling (two judges dissenting) reversed Judge Martin ruling and sends the case back to his court for further review.
In the majority opinion, the Judges (Judge Susan M. Chehardy, Judge Fredericka Homberg Wicker and Judge Marc E. Johnson), write: "We find the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and the Parish Council’s denial of Petitioner/Appellants’ appeal to be in violation of La. R.S. 49:964 (G)(1) and (3). The Parish failed to follow its own ordinance, which mandated that the proposed Project’s application be evaluated per the standard of Tier 3 review.
Because the proposed new pipeline section traverses the Wetlands, the Parish Council must approve the proposed new use pursuant to the Land Use Plan.
We find that the plain language of Ordinance Section 82-25 of the Land Use Plan generally prohibits construction in the Wetlands, but that certain exceptions may be permitted once the Parish Planning Commission has conducted Tier 3 level review of the process and has recommended approval to the Parish Council.
Because Tier 3 review should have been, but was not, used to analyze Koch Methanol’s land use application, we reverse the decision of the Parish Council denying Appellants’ appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
In the dissenting opinion written by Judge John J. Molaison and joined by Judge Stephen J. Windhorst, Judge Molaison writes: "I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion for the following reasons. It is significant that the main pipeline Koch seeks to connect has been previously approved by St. James Parish and has existed in the same proximity as other approved wetland pipelines for a long time, which pre-dates the plaintiff’s current lawsuit.
While the potential environmental impact of the extension is not squarely before the Court in this appeal, I note that the record contains no evidence that much larger pipelines, for example, have created adverse effects on the same area of wetlands.
Moreover, despite properly advertising the proposed pipeline extension and allowing opponents to voice objections and concerns, the appellants admit that they did not object to Koch’s land use application on an environmental or any other basis at the Planning Commission proceedings.
The St. James Parish Land Use Plan, Section 82-25(c) of the Parish Code of Ordinances, is clear that “unique situations requiring a location in the water” are “allowable uses” in wetlands. I find that the definition of an “allowable use” is on point and squarely addresses one of the main issues on appeal. I see no ambiguity in this language and would affirm the Council’s interpretation of Section 82-25(c), as its decision has not led to an absurd result under the facts presented and is not clearly wrong.
Here, tapping into the existing ethane pipeline falls within the very definition of a unique situation, as the only logical way to physically approach the pipeline is through the wetland. Although the appellants argue there has been an inconsistent interpretation of Section 82-25(c), no evidence supporting this claim was presented to the trial court. Accordingly, there is no basis for reaching such a conclusion on appeal.
For the reasons provided in the trial court’s June 18, 2024 reasons forjudgment, I find that Koch Methanol’s proposed pipeline extension falls squarely in the category of “unique situations requiring a location in the water,” as provided in “Wetland” provision of the St. James Parish Land Use Ordinance.
I would affirm the trial court’s ruling and reject the appellants’ assertion that the proposed project’s application should be evaluated under a Tier 3 standard."
What happens next is unknown at this time. One option is for Koch to apply for a writ with the Louisiana Supreme Court, which if granted would further review the case and the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.
In a final note, the News Examiner-Enterprise had the opportunity to review an aerial photograph of the site where the pipeline was installed and the photo shows little to no disturbance to the land and/or wetlands area.
One Final Note: This article is published in this week's edition and I had a loyal reader suggestI publish this article on Facebook to help inform the public who may not subscribe to the newspaper.
To stay informed on important happenings ongoing in St. James Parish, and to follow our elected officials and the decisions they make that affect us all, subscribe to the News Examiner-Enterprise. Only $30.29 (In Parish) and $40.74 (out of Parish) a year. Call us at 225-869-5784 to subscribe or visit or website: stjamesparishtoday.com.
Print subscribers can also sign up to receive our Electronic Edition of the paper at no extra charge. Each week's edition is emailed directly to you.
If readers would like the E-Edition only, a yearly subscription is only $25.07.
Thank You,
David Reynaud
