Blanchardville: Lafayette’s Downtown Whiplash at 444 Jefferson

In August, Downtown Development Authority CEO Kevin Blanchard emailed developer Cliff Guidry to thank him for revising his plans for 444 Jefferson Street—the former home of the Handy Stop grocery store—and for working with DDA staff to make the project more pedestrian-friendly.

“The changes that I see here (the introduction of the screens—that’s what I am assuming those features are—and the mural) are a good step in the right direction,” Blanchard wrote on August 8, 2025.

“We will work with you to find a solution that supports both the practical needs of the development and the broader goals of a vibrant, walkable downtown.”

That email—warm, collaborative, and forward-looking—gave every indication that the DDA and the developer were aligned. Guidry’s updated design added artistic panels, a colorful mural, and seating along the sidewalk, directly responding to Blanchard’s suggestions for enhancing the pedestrian experience.

Shock Out of the Blue

So it came as a shock when the Downtown Development Authority Board, chaired by Jaci Russo, called a special meeting for November 5 with one closed-door agenda item:

“Executive session to discuss potential litigation strategy regarding a variance granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment in Case No. 2025-23-BOZ re: 444 Jefferson Street.”

That variance—approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) on October 9—allowed minor technical deviations for walkway width, glazing, and lot coverage, all common in adaptive-reuse projects downtown. None of the changes were hidden; they were discussed publicly and approved in accordance with Lafayette’s existing zoning procedures.

Now DDA Plans to Sue?

The DDA’s abrupt pivot toward potential litigation just months after its own CEO endorsed the design raises serious questions about what changed. Neither the developer nor his design team was notified in advance of the meeting call. Developer Cliff Guidry confirmed with us that he had received no indication, by phone or email, from DDA of any change in direction since Blanchard’s positive feedback.

Generally speaking, if there were genuine concerns with the proposed redevelopment of 444 Jefferson, someone could have simply picked up the phone. Instead, a special meeting was called (without contacting the applicant) to authorize litigation. The backward order, total lack of communication, and “sue first” approach suggest there’s more at play than a technical dispute over “inactive frontage” or “reduced glazing percentage.” Those are routine design adjustments that could be resolved in a short conversation or, at most, in a follow-up design meeting.

Meanwhile, the building he proposed has earned praise from many downtown observers. Renderings show a four-story brick-and-glass structure that retains Jefferson Street’s urban rhythm while adding much-needed housing and ground-level art elements. It’s precisely the kind of infill project that DDA has claimed to encourage for years.

Does Downtown Want Development or Not?

If the DDA proceeds with litigation, it will be a rare and costly instance of one LCG public body suing another over a duly issued zoning variance. It would also place the agency at odds with its own leadership’s written position and with the larger goal of attracting new investment downtown.

For now, stakeholders and citizens will have to wait for Wednesday morning’s special meeting to learn whether the DDA intends to follow through—or whether cooler heads will remember what Blanchard wrote just three months ago:

“Thank you again for your efforts. We look forward to collaborating further and finding the best way forward for the project.”

###