The Harahan City Council voted to approve a building-permit application for 1604 Hickory Avenue — a property on a substandard 50-foot-wide lot — but the approval was conditional: the council directed the owner to submit plans that match the as-built improvements and otherwise comply with city code before the city will finalize the permit.

The item produced extended public comment and council debate. Neighbors and planning opponents raised multiple objections: they said the property’s plans in the file differed from the structure built on the lot, asserted signatures on the permit application were not valid and said the building appears designed and used like a warehouse, which they said is incompatible with the C-1 zoning on the block.

A neighborhood resident alleged the permit application’s signatures were forged and said inspections and a flood-elevation certificate were not included in the file. The property owner’s counsel and other supporters said plan review had been completed by an external plan reviewer (identified in the file) and that inspections had occurred; they said the outstanding matter was the council’s formal approval of a substandard lot. Building-official staff told the council they do not see a setback violation from the as-built footprint and said the structure’s rear setback exceeds the 20-foot requirement.

Council deliberations focused on three questions: the validity of the permit paperwork, whether the as-built structure meets the city’s setback and building standards, and whether the structure’s use should be limited or clarified (residents argued the plans show overhead doors and the label “warehouse,” while city staff said occupancy and licensing determine use at the time of occupancy). Council members amended the ordinance language to change a deferral into an approval conditioned on the owner submitting plans “compliant with the building code.” Those amended terms were approved by a recorded vote of 4–1.

Why it matters: The decision resolves a contested development on a narrow lot but leaves the final permit dependent on corrected, code-compliant plans and additional administrative checks; neighbors who oppose the project argued the council should delay action while litigation proceeds and while permit-signature questions are resolved.