Covington Board of Adjustment hears appeal alleging procedural errors in hospital parking-garage approvals; orders planner-appellant meeting

Neighbors and community appellants told the City of Covington Board of Adjustment on May 19 that administrative and procedural errors at earlier hearings left the record for a proposed multi-story hospital parking garage incomplete and improperly noticed.

Speakers including Candace Watkins and Carolyn Chasse asked the board to declare prior actions by planning staff and the zoning commission invalid, saying the February zoning-commission hearing and the subsequent city council consideration were based on incomplete application materials, inadequate notice and deficient traffic analyses. Watkins told the board the appeal cited administrative errors under sections 1.802, 1.804, 3.703, 3.705, 4.602, 4.605, 5.1003 and 5.1004 of the City of Covington code.

City planning consultant Alex Carter (working for Desire Line) and city staff told the board that the council had already reviewed the zoning commission’s conditional-use decision at its March 11 meeting, applying conditions including a right-turn lane at Tyler and 11th, signal modifications as needed by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), and additional signage at Polk and 11th. Carter and staff advised that the Board of Adjustment’s jurisdiction is limited to alleged errors by an administrative official (the planning director) and does not permit the board to overturn the council or re-litigate matters the council addressed.

Appellants raised several specific complaints about the record and process. They said the application accepted by staff lacked required components for a conditional-use permit and the special provisions for parking garages; that the public notice omitted required appeals language; and that the traffic analysis did not comply with the code’s requirements (complainants said the code requires multi‑hour peak-period counts while the study presented shorter sampling periods). Appellant Matt Hardy and others contended the traffic study did not follow section 4.6 specifications (including multi-hour peak counts and a transportation management plan) and that no independent peer review was obtained as allowed by the code.

Representing the hospital, attorney Jeff Shane of Jones Fussell and hospital consultants said the hospital had repeatedly engaged staff while preparing its application, that the zoning commission and city council both reviewed and approved the proposals (the council acted on the conditional use March 11), and that the hospital filed an amended and restated application on May 12 to address concerns. Shane said the amended filing includes a traffic impact analysis based on a scope approved by the city engineer and that the hospital is willing to hold a community workshop with Planning and Zoning prior to future hearings.

After lengthy public comment, the board — with some members recused and the alternate seated — moved to require the planning director to meet with the appellants to review and clarify the site-plan notations that are within the director’s authority. The board set a deadline of 10 business days for that meeting. Roll call on that motion recorded: Miss Butler — yes; Miss Williams — yes; Mister Lucas — yes; Mister Jenkins (alternate) — yes. The motion carried.

Why it matters: The dispute centers on whether city staff accepted and advertised a complete application for a five‑story L‑shaped parking garage proposed by the hospital on Square 110 (bounded by South Tyler Street, West 11th Avenue, South Harrison Street and West 12th Avenue). Appellants argue that incomplete materials and deficient traffic analysis denied neighbors meaningful participation; the hospital and staff say the council already reviewed the conditional use and the hospital has filed supplemental materials to address issues.

Discussion vs. decision: Appellants sought a finding that administrative errors void earlier approvals; staff and the hospital said the Board of Adjustment lacks authority to nullify council action. The board’s formal action was limited: it ordered a planner-appellant meeting to clarify site-plan notations within the planning director’s authority. The board did not reverse prior approvals, nor did it vacate any permits.

Next steps: The planning director will meet with appellants within 10 business days to review and clarify notations related to scale, signage, landscaping and similar items identified in the staff report. The hospital’s amended and restated application will proceed through Planning and Zoning; the board noted that litigation is the standard remedy for broader challenges to council action if appellants wish to pursue that route.