[0:00] Seager, Borrello, Robert, Truxillo.

[0:04] Hello.

[15:00] My client and her husband own that individually, and to make this even, and as part of a sale that will be upcoming to add to the property owner's property, which is the top. And again, I don't have it in front of me, but I believe that's A2.

[15:25] But as you look at the survey, it's the, it's the

[15:29] long piece at the top that fronts on Highway 25.

[15:36] And that survey that you have, which was my copy, it's 26.

[15:42] The previous survey was dated in June and it did not do what we were trying to accomplish.

[15:48] That's why it was passed.

[15:57] And also-

[15:58] There were this a minute, yeah, so we can clear this up, yeah.

[16:01] Sure.

[16:02] Also, when you look at that survey, they're not always that clear, but

[16:06] But there is a 35 foot servitude of drive or passage across the middle of the property which allows the all three properties to have access to highway 25.

[16:20] I see.

[16:41] Sure, I'm going to get that.

[16:43] Thank

[16:47] you.

[16:49] I'm going to get it like that.

[16:53] Staff,

[16:58] sir, you have anything else to add?

[16:59] No, that's it.

[17:00] Thank you very much.

[17:43] Okay,

[17:46] we'll bring it back to the Commission, Robert.

[17:51] Thank you for the update, I appreciate it.

[17:53] I just have a quick question for staff.

[17:55] Yeah, in light of the new information, so this is just a lot line revision.

[18:01] This is really not creating a new parcel, yeah.

[18:06] Not subject to any waivers previously on the last request.

[18:09] We don't have any waivers, there's nothing.

[18:11] Everything is conforming, that's what I say, okay.

[18:16] It's a much better configuration, getting rid of that box out of parcel A, which is now

[18:22] Not a two, but shown as B2 on ours.

[18:26] So I'm fine with it.

[18:27] I'd like to make a motion to approve.

[18:28] Motion to approve, Commissioner Robert, Commissioner Truxillo.

[18:32] Yeah, I agree, a second.

[18:34] Okay, we have a motion in a second.

[18:37] No further discussion, please vote.

[18:45] Motion to approve, carries.

[18:48] Number five.

[18:49] I have number five.

[18:56] 2026, 4748, MSP.

[18:58] minor subdivision of lots M1 and M2 and some lot M1A,

[19:04] owner and representative,

[19:06] Ellison Holdings, LLC, Wayne Crental,

[19:10] Surveyer, Kelly McEwan, Associate's Inc,

[19:13] Parish Counselor District Representative,

[19:15] the Honorable Rick Smith,

[19:16] General Location of Property is located

[19:18] on the east side of LA Highway 21,

[19:21] South of Brady Island Lane,

[19:23] Madisonville, Louisiana Ward 1 District 1.

[19:26] Staff.

[19:27] The minus subdivision requires a public hearing due to, as you can see, in table 1, the petition lot, M1 and M2 have been through the minus subdivision process thus requiring approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the request shall be subject to item number 1.

[19:44] Okay, anyone in the audience would you speak in favor?

[19:49] Anyone opposed?

[19:51] Bring it back to the Commission, Commission Rubar.

[19:55] I have a, is the applicant here, I believe this is McDaniel Dermatology, the office for McDaniel Dermatology, is it not?

[20:02] Okay, my poor husband had to go there a few weeks ago.

[20:05] They're great.

[20:06] Feel bad for him.

[20:07] Do you mind?

[20:09] What?

[20:09] I mean, we all have some damage in Louisiana.

[20:11] Anyway, staff, my question is, so we're consolidating these parcels, correct?

[20:16] In fact, the parcel, prior parcel M2, is for the pond.

[20:24] What is the intent of combining these?

[20:27] Are we aware and is that going to change because of zoning and what the uses of this property?

[20:32] I'm a little concerned that we're going to open up a can of warms with more development on this lot, where the pond is, because it doesn't look like it's-

[20:42] The purpose is to accommodate some parking if I'm not mistaking in a rear, but you also to meet all the drainage requirements on one parcel.

[20:53] It has all the same zoning right now, so this is the purpose of it.

[20:58] It's not going to create any issues with the pond and it's going to stay away from the pond as required.

[21:04] Okay, that was my main concern.

[21:06] Thank you so much, Ellen.

[21:07] I'd like to make a motion to approve.

[21:08] Motion to approve, Commissioner O'Bare, Commissioner Seeger.

[21:12] Second.

[21:13] We have a motion in a second.

[21:15] No further discussion, please vote.

[21:23] Motion to approve carries.

[21:27] I had a number six, 2026, 4751, minus subdivision of lots.

[21:35] A1 and A1A, A1B, A1C, and A1D.

[21:41] owner, representative, Mark and Casey, LLC, Mark Hoss,

[21:46] surveyor John G. Cummings and Associates,

[21:49] Paris Council District Representative, Honorable Sherr-Tanner.

[21:52] General location of property is located on the south side of L.A.,

[21:56] hot 435, and on the north east side of Sneed Drive of Beta Springs,

[22:01] Louisiana, Ward 6 District 6.

[22:04] Staff?

[22:06] The applicant is requesting to subdivide the existing parcel A into parcel A1A,

[22:11] A1B, A1C, and A1D.

[22:13] The minor subdivision requires a public hearing due to, as you can see,

[22:17] in table one, the petition parcel A1 has been through the minor subdivision process,

[22:21] thus requiring approval from the planning commission.

[22:24] Anyone in the audience who's to speak in favor?

[22:27] Is the petitioner here?

[22:29] Do you have anything to add?

[22:31] Okay.

[22:33] Anyone opposed?

[22:35] Okay, bring it back to the commission, the commissioner Robert.

[22:39] This is right next to where I live, my subdivision, I don't have a problem with this.

[22:45] It's the acreage is still far and above the base zoning district of S1.

[22:53] And Mr. Mark has assured me that he has no intentions of pulling down the 100 year old barn that's on that property.

[22:59] Really excited to see that stay.

[23:01] So I would make a motion to approve.

[23:02] Motion to approve, Commissioner Robert, Commissioner Martino.

[23:05] Yeah, I agree, the lot sizes would be very large compared to others, and not as small as they could be.

[23:17] Everything looks complete, I'll make a second.

[23:20] We have a motion in a second, no further discussion.

[23:24] Please vote.

[23:30] Motion to approve, carries.

[23:32] Item number 7, 2026, 4753, MSP.

[23:36] minus subdivision of 1.928 acres and to loss J1 and J2 on the representative, Joseph Meir, and Kristen Goldady.

[23:49] Surveyer Randall W. Brown and Associates, Parish Council representative, Cheryl Tanner,

[23:56] General Location of Property is located on the southeast corner of San Maun Street and LA 51 coming to Louisiana.

[24:07] in Ward 10 District 6.

[24:10] Staff?

[24:11] The applicant is requesting to subdivide 1.928 acres into Lodz J1 and J2.

[24:18] The minus subdivision requires a public hearing due to Lodz J2 does not meet the minimum lots as of 1 acre required under the L1 large, large, large residential district, thus requiring a waiver from the planning commission.

[24:29] This possibly may be the first time that the Planning and Zoning Commission will address this request here, and this is the reason why I included Section 800-2.2D1, unmet minimum lock requirements, and if you focus on pretty much the last sentence, is that the Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to waive a lot area up to 10% of reduction in a lot area.

[24:54] So basically this is what the owner is requesting.

[24:57] If you take a look at the survey, you know, the property is not exactly two acres, it's 1.928.

[25:04] So the request is to create a 1 acre parcel, where there's an existing residence and

[25:09] to also create a 0.0928 acre parcel.

[25:14] And that's the objective of the request is to reduce by less than 10 percent.

[25:20] Okay, anyone in the audience wishes to speak in favor?

[25:24] Is the petitioner here?

[25:26] Yeah, I'm here.

[25:27] Do you have anything to add?

[25:28] Okay.

[25:29] Anyone opposed?

[25:31] Bring it back to the commission, Commissioner Truxillo.

[25:34] Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with this.

[25:37] It's in the limits, I make a motion to approve with the waiver.

[25:42] With the waiver.

[25:43] Motion to approve with the waiver, Commissioner Truxillo, Commissioner Robert.

[25:46] there.

[25:47] I'd like to second Commissioner Truxilla's motion with the waiver.

[25:51] Okay, we have a motion and a second.

[25:53] So you know further discussion, please vote.

[26:01] Motion to approve with waiver carries.

[26:04] Item number 8, 2026, 4755 MSB.

[26:09] Miner subdivisions of parcels A1A and 1A1A1B into A1A2.

[26:17] A-A-2, owner and representative, seed breed, 59 investments, LLC, and in 59 ventures, LLC.

[26:28] Surveyer, low engineers, Paris Council District representative, the Honorable author, law flim.

[26:34] General location, the property is located in the southeast corner of L.A.

[26:38] 59, and stringed road, Manneville, Louisiana, Wardford District 11.

[26:43] Staff.

[26:44] The minor subdivision requires a public hearing due to, as you can see,

[26:48] in table one, the petition parcels A1A and 1A1A1B have been through the minor subdivision process.

[26:55] That's requiring approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

[26:59] And it should be subject to items one and two.

[27:02] Okay, Mr. Soche, do you have anything to add?

[27:07] Okay.

[27:08] Anyone in the audience who are speaking favor, anyone opposed?

[27:12] I don't have any speaker cards, I'll bring it back to the commission.

[27:18] Did you, did you, did you create a speaker card?

[27:21] Okay, that's okay, just turn, come on, turn in when you're done.

[27:24] Just state your name and your address for me.

[27:26] Lesslie, don't hear you, 2, 2, 1, 8, 3, Ruco, heel.

[27:30] My question is, this is combined, does this change the zoning?

[27:36] It does not.

[27:37] It does not change the zoning.

[27:39] No, ma'am.

[27:40] Okay.

[27:40] Okay. And do we have, like, any idea?

[27:43] You have to speak to us, I apologize.

[27:45] You have to speak to us.

[27:46] Do we have any idea what we plan to build here?

[27:48] I think we've been at this podium many a time.

[27:51] We have, and we do not have a plan in front of us that we're not voting on any kind of plan

[27:56] just to put you at ease.

[27:58] There's no plan or development in front of us.

[28:00] This is just combining the two lot parcels into one.

[28:04] And would he be opposed of offering up, saying what he plans to build there?

[28:11] That's his discretion, or if somebody wants to ask him, they can do that.

[28:17] I would request that somebody asks them, that would be beneficial to the community.

[28:22] That a problem.

[28:23] You have any other questions?

[28:23] Thank you, no.

[28:24] Thank you.

[28:25] Anyone else in the audience who wants to speak, Mr. Soche, you have three minutes?

[28:41] Yes.

[28:41] That's good questions, and I'd like to address it.

[28:45] I've owned this property, my partner's an eye for over 15 years,

[28:48] it's taken a lot longer to develop than we thought.

[28:51] We have had options on the property to the north, which is being combined with this for years.

[28:57] Instead of continuing to have those options to buy that property,

[29:01] it's become evident to me over the years that highway 59 needs major improvements.

[29:07] My company's originally still owned 7.77 acres.

[29:11] The adjoining property owner owned 25 acres.

[29:15] I had sewer, they did not have sewer.

[29:18] So I got together with them and I said, look, why don't we plan this right?

[29:23] I have deep relationships with the DOTD and we are working on major regional improvements to Shrain Road and Highway 59.

[29:31] Again, it made no sense for me to do that for seven acres of land.

[29:35] It makes a lot of sense for me to do it on 33 acres of land.

[29:40] This property also all drains in one direction to the creek.

[29:44] So basically I got with the landowner next door and said, listen, instead of just continuing

[29:48] to do these options, we have these development challenges, these basic challenges.

[29:53] Why don't we work together?

[30:00] We're ready to just properly line and move forward stronger and in a consent. Ma'am, you have three minutes if you have any other comments?

[30:09] No, I mean, so you didn't address my question. Okay. Thank you very much. That'll end the public discussion. We'll bring it back to the Commission, Commissioner Robert.

[30:18] I just want to say he actually did. I know it doesn't seem that way. So whenever we look at sewer utility lines, crossing property lines, there were rules and regulations that have to be followed around that.

[30:30] But by removing the property line in the middle, they're allowed to basically have on the same property without having to worry about setbacks from those property lines for utilities.

[30:40] So it just makes it a more cohesive parcel for whatever he's planning on doing with the OT regardless of what that is.

[30:48] And it, so yeah, I don't have a problem with this simply because, again, less density, I'd like to make a motion to approve.

[30:58] Motion to approve, Commissioner Robert, Commissioner Truxillo.

[31:01] Second.

[31:03] Motion to second, and Mr. Jose, I look forward to seeing what that traffic plan looks like.

[31:10] No further discussion, please vote.

[31:19] Motion to approve, carries.

[31:21] Number nine, 2026, 4759, MSP minus subdivision of two acres into parts of the A and B.

[31:29] Oner representative, panel, construction LLC,

[31:33] surveyor land surveying, LLC,

[31:36] Paris Council District representative,

[31:37] Narnable Rick Smith,

[31:39] general location of property is located

[31:40] in the southeast corner of Brewster Road

[31:43] in Ethan Lane, Madisonville, Louisiana,

[31:46] Ward 1 District 1.

[31:48] Staff?

[31:49] The applicant is requesting to subdivide

[31:50] two acres and two parcels A and B.

[31:53] The minor subdivision requires the public hearing

[31:55] due to parcel B is proposed to be accessed

[31:58] from a 44 existing private drive identified as Ethan Lane, thus requiring approval from the Planning Commission.

[32:04] And also requesting a waiver of the construction requirements for the existing 40-foot private servitude to parcel lead thus requiring approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

[32:14] If you notice, this is a two-acre parcel of Lane.

[32:17] One parcel proposed to be created, parcel A, which will have an access, a driveway on Brewster Road.

[32:23] The other one will have an access on Ethan Lane.

[32:26] I mean, the owner of this property panel construction was able to contact the property owners along Ethan Lane and have the servitude of access amended to be able to use Ethan Lane.

[32:40] The advantage of that is, you know, basically, we'll have one driveway on Brewster Road instead of having two.

[32:46] And this is the reason why he's coming in front of you to request also a waiver.

[32:51] This road is currently being used.

[32:54] It's constructed to the standards, so that's the reason for the waiver.

[32:59] Thank you.

[33:01] I have one card on this, Mr. Kenneth Hughes.

[33:12] Is the applicant, is the petitioner here?

[33:14] I apologize.

[33:14] I didn't, sir.

[33:16] I apologize.

[33:16] If you could just have a seat for me.

[33:18] I realize you were against you have anything to add, sir.

[33:22] Okay, thank you, sorry.

[33:26] Protocol.

[33:26] call. My name is Kenneth Hughes. I live at 631, winded me a chase. I live in

[33:32] probably the nicest subdivision that's on Brewster. I've been living there for

[33:36] 13 years. Brewster doesn't even look less density in that area right now. As

[33:42] y'all know, it's a dangerous road to drive on every day in Brewster. The

[33:46] shoulders are falling off on both sides. We have many accidents, many problems at

[33:52] the four-way stop sign.

[33:54] We can't leave from Brewster, you get on a 1085,

[33:57] but I'm was getting killed.

[33:59] The traffic in that corner, which is blonde,

[34:01] both ways, it's driving 55 miles an hour with trucks now.

[34:05] If people are sitting there waiting for a chance

[34:07] to get out, and it's just a dangerous area right now.

[34:11] Besides the fact that the property has been there

[34:14] for 14 or 15 years in just horrible condition.

[34:19] It was poorly maintained, it was a trailer.

[34:21] It's probably the only property on Bruce that has a trailer on it.

[34:25] Our old house trailer, it finally took it off, it looks a lot cleaner now.

[34:29] It's more presentable just being vacant, but I know somebody isn't probably built a house on it.

[34:35] But the majority of the homes in that area on the right side are two and three acre property, some of them are four and five.

[34:41] My neighborhood, we probably have an average of 1.6 of 2.2 acres in our subdivision.

[34:48] We are right across that property.

[34:51] We've been using, we cross it every day, there's a rock road that they want to divide it and put a second lot behind it.

[34:59] I think it should remain as one property, a two acre property, a benefit to the neighborhood, reducing it to two lots.

[35:09] And I would like to either deny the request or postpone it to my subdivision.

[35:14] Homes Association can check into this more and I'm certain they want to comment on it

[35:19] I did an informal survey on the phone today before I came in and everybody I talked to wasn't sure what was going on

[35:26] But they all said they didn't want any changes at that location

[35:30] Thank you. Thank you

[35:33] Sorry, you have a rebuttal time if you wish to make any comments

[35:37] three minutes

[35:38] You have any have any comments or not? Okay. Thank you

[35:45] That'll be the end of public comment or right back to the Commission and Commission Martino.

[35:51] With this corridor starting there, I think I would disagree that you didn't specifically

[36:00] say Brewster is neglected, but I do want to make a point to commend our public works,

[36:10] engineering and some other departments for almost daily work up and down

[36:15] Brewster because it is a corridor that's being heavily traveled but also

[36:23] there's more interest in developments. And I would say with access that's

[36:32] being requested, it would minimize the eye sore, or I think you noted for over a decade

[36:40] has been left untouched.

[36:45] The one acre, or I'm sorry, two one acre parcel requests that this could lead to, in my

[36:53] opinion, is not very dense as far as for what would likely be, actually as a petitioner,

[37:01] I do have a question.

[37:03] This will be potentially to one site.

[37:10] So once access, my question would be once access was granted and this division for two

[37:21] one acre parcels, this would end up being two home sites, correct?

[37:24] Yes, sir.

[37:25] Okay.

[37:25] Okay, so, and that was it, I just wanted to clarify just to make sure you've got a chance

[37:31] to talk.

[37:32] Yes, sir.

[37:33] That being said, with some of the surrounding developments, this is in line, I make

[37:39] a motion to approve with the waiver.

[37:42] With the waiver as well as the comments from staff.

[37:46] Okay, motion to approve with the waiver, Commissioner Martino, Commissioner Truccella.

[37:51] No, no, no.

[37:55] Sir, the time for public comment is over.

[37:58] I'm sorry, I gave you the time.

[38:02] It's a one acre parcel that's all that we're talking about today.

[38:04] Commissioner Truxillo.

[38:05] Yes, I have no issue with this.

[38:07] My second.

[38:09] Motion and a second.

[38:11] Commissioner Rober.

[38:12] I just want to clear something up.

[38:15] I have no issue with anything, but I just want to explain.

[38:19] So the only reason that we are even hearing this request tonight is on a very minor technicality and that is

[38:25] The waiver because it's being accessed from a 40-foot private drive

[38:30] Were these two parcels side-by-side on Bruce a road?

[38:34] This would not have come in front of us. This would have gone through administrative approval with the parish planning and development office and

[38:40] None of us would have ever heard about it. The 40-foot existing private drive that looks like it's pretty well maintained

[38:46] I mean, does the only reason that this commission is hearing it?

[38:51] So I just wanted to make sure you understand that.

[39:00] Okay, I see no further discussion.

[39:02] We have a motion in a second, please vote.

[39:11] Motion to approve with waivers, carries.

[39:14] Item number 10, 2026, 4744, MRP.

[39:19] Rehearsed the vision of lots 29 and 30 into lots 29A.

[39:24] Covington Industrial Park Phase 2, owner of their representative,

[39:29] Favre investments, LLC, Paris Council District Representative,

[39:33] the Honorable Larry Rowling, General Location of Property is located on the

[39:38] southeast corner of Fabrication Row, and Welders Row,

[39:41] Covington Louisiana Ward 3 District 2.

[39:45] Staff?

[39:45] The Resub Division requires a public hearing due to, as stated,

[39:49] inter-restrictive covenants of the approved flat,

[39:51] That no large shall be further resubdivided without approval from the planning commission.

[39:57] Sir, you look anxious, come on up.

[39:59] No, I'm not.

[40:01] The state's your name for me?

[40:03] Matthew Morgan, 71344 Riverside Drive, Covington, Louisiana.

[40:08] I do not have any additional comments for just putting two lots together to build a building.

[40:14] Okay, thank you.

[40:15] Anyone else in the audience who are speaking favor?

[40:19] Anyone opposed?

[40:19] First, bring it back to you, the Commission, Commissioner Sieger.

[40:24] Move to approve.

[40:26] Motion to approve, Commissioner Sieger.

[40:28] Commissioner Mcmillan.

[40:30] Second.

[40:31] Commissioner Milligan, sorry.

[40:33] We have a motion in a second.

[40:35] No further discussion, please vote.

[40:45] Motion to approve, carries.

[40:47] Thank you.

[40:49] Item number 11, 2026, 4756,

[40:52] 6th, MRP, Resubdivision of Loss 399 and 400 into Loss 399 A, Money Hill Plantation, Phase 7A, owner and representative, Joseph and Tiffany Caldara.

[41:07] But the Paris Council District Representative, Honorable Cheryl Tanner, General Location of Properties located on the northeast corner of Camp Hill Court,

[41:15] He can't appeal drive on the west side of Foxtrot Drive.

[41:19] Abita Springs, Louisiana, Ward 6 District 6.

[41:23] Staff.

[41:24] The Resub Division requires a public hearing due to a stated

[41:27] interstitial governance of the approved flat.

[41:29] No large shall be further.

[41:30] Resub divided without approval from the planning and zoning commission.

[41:35] Is anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor?

[41:40] Yes, sir.

[41:47] Make it in the state lot?

[41:49] Yes, sir.

[41:50] Joe Calderon is running and I'm just combining two lots.

[41:55] Sounds good, thank you.

[41:57] Thank you, sir.

[41:57] Anyone in the audience who is to speak against, bring it back to the commission, Commissioner Seager.

[42:05] Move to approve.

[42:06] Motion to approve, Commissioner Seager, Commissioner Robert.

[42:09] Second.

[42:11] Motion in a second, please vote.

[42:19] Thank you all for being patient with us.

[42:21] Motion to approve carries.

[42:22] Item number 12 under Concepts Subdivision Approval, 2025-4205TP.

[42:31] B2C Creek Subdivision Parts 1, Developer Owner, B2C Creek Preserve, LLC,

[42:38] Engineers, Surveyors, Kalimicune Associates, Inc.

[42:41] Parish Council District, Representative, Honorable Kathy Siden,

[42:44] General Location of Properties located on the northwest side of LA, highway 1085 south of the state.

[42:52] May 12th, Madisonville, Louisiana, Ward 1 District 4, post-pone at the July 14 planning and zoning staff meeting.

[43:01] Yes, sir.

[43:03] This case was previously post-pone at the May 13th, 2025 meeting, indefinitely post-poned at the June 10th, 2025 meeting, and again post-poned at the July 14th, 2026 meeting.

[43:12] Concept plans and documentation have been reviewed by this office, and an inspection was made at the site on July 23rd, 2026.

[43:19] Concept approval shall be subject to the blow informational items and comments numbers 1 through 6 be completed and addressed.

[43:26] Thank you.

[43:28] Mr. Boreau.

[43:32] So just to clarify for the audience, we're going to do seven minutes each side forward against.

[43:38] Mr. Boreau, seven minutes.

[43:39] Thank you.

[43:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Paul Morone, on behalf of the petitioner.

[43:50] As you may recall back in April of last year,

[43:53] We came to you as a zoning commission and asked that you amend the PUD for beta co-creak.

[43:59] As a result of the approval of that amendment, the particular parcel that is subject to our request this evening was approved for 35 residential lots in this precise location.

[44:10] It may have last year we asked for concept plan approval based on that put amendment, but at that time we were asked by a number of constituent groups to look and

[44:21] And see if there was another alternative location that we might be able to place these lots.

[44:27] We spent about a year doing that, and we came back before you earlier this year requesting

[44:32] that you consider omitting the putt again to relocate these lots to another location.

[44:37] As you well know, that was rejected and denies.

[44:41] So as a result of that, we're back before you tonight asking for concept approval,

[44:47] pursuant to the PUD plan that is in place and approved by you last year.

[45:00] The plan before you reflects 28 lots. The PUD plan allows 35, so we are less dense than is permitted. The location of these lots is precisely in the location that is permitted by the PUD plan. These are the last 24, 28 lots of the 970 lots that are permitted and be to co-creek. The plan before you would respectfully suggest is completely compliant.

[45:29] with not only our put zoning, but also with the applicable provisions of the ordinances of St.

[45:36] Tamini Parish.

[45:38] Now I know in the past there has been, if you look at the plan before you, you will see

[45:42] that we are preserving and rerouting that cart path so that it will extend around the south

[45:47] side of these lots and will connect to the existing path near B2CO Boulevard.

[45:52] I would also point out to you, and I think it's important to note that the card path is not a required amenity for B2Co Creek.

[46:03] We fulfill all of our required amenities with all of the improvements throughout the development.

[46:09] Nonetheless, we are preserving that path.

[46:12] I would also point out that we are maintaining the buffer between the back or

[46:17] the north side of our lots and the lots that are existing to the north, the three lots.

[46:22] At the closest point, we're about 59 feet, lot lined, a lot lined.

[46:26] And the largest gap is about 89 feet.

[46:29] So we have a significant buffer that is being preserved there.

[46:33] We are not seeking any waivers, although the staff has suggested that we do seek a waiver as it relates to the placement of one of our driveways.

[46:41] We will comply with all of the staff comments that are applicable to our site and to our request this evening.

[46:52] Comment number two in the staff comments suggests that section 900-3.286 of the Unified Development Code,

[47:00] which requires two points of ingress and egress, applies to beta code Creek and I would respectfully suggest to you that it doesn't.

[47:08] Mr. Easterly, here with me we'll come in a little bit more on that.

[47:13] But that particular section was created and arose for the first time when the new development code was approved several years ago.

[47:23] That particular section, I would submit to you, does not apply to a plan unit development that was approved in 1997 and was largely constructed and

[47:33] build out at the time that that section was introduced.

[47:38] I am not aware of any other substantive code change that is such as this that is being

[47:45] applied to developments that are as far down the path of completion as beta co-IS.

[47:53] In addition, I would point out to you that this issue did not arise when we amended the

[47:59] in 2025. In fact, that PUD plan that was approved showed one ingress and

[48:06] egress just like every other PUD plan since 1997.

[48:11] There was no comment at that time that this section applies.

[48:15] We applied for concept plan last year.

[48:17] There was no suggestion that that section applied.

[48:21] We applied for a PUD amendment just a few months ago.

[48:24] There was no suggestion that that section applied.

[48:27] I would respectfully suggest to you, for those reasons and others, that that section simply does not apply to Betico, but also to other similarly situated subdivisions, which if it did apply to Betico, it would apply to Gust Island, it would apply to River Club, it would apply to Chifunkta, just to name a few.

[48:48] So, I do not believe that it applies, and I hope that you will consider that in making your decision this evening.

[48:58] Our concept plan is compliant with our PUD zoning, it is compliant with your EDC, and we respectfully suggest that we are entitled to move forward.

[49:08] If we meet your codes for these 28 lots, which we do, then we believe we're entitled to move forward.

[49:15] And we ask for your approval so that we can pursue the rest of the planning process.

[49:20] Thank you.

[49:24] Okay, anyone else in the audience wishes to speak in favor?

[49:27] You have a minute and 22 seconds.

[49:31] Okay, so I have two speaker cards that wish to speak in opposition.

[49:40] And I have a card from everyone else in the audience here that does not wish to speak.

[49:50] William, Phil Plott?

[49:51] We're going to burn Justin first.

[49:53] Okay, Justin,

[49:57] I have a Joey Liberto as well, okay?

[50:03] So it's just seven minutes and we do have another speaker who wishes to speak.

[50:06] So,

[50:09] Justin Schmidt, 1506, 7th Street, New Orleans, 70115, representing consortium of the residents that are in opposition to this application.

[50:20] First, a little housekeeping, we'd like to submit, this was emailed earlier, we would just like to send up on a hard copy.

[50:28] this is a petition of 604, now residents of Bidico Creek that are against this proposal for us.

[50:38] And these are some pictures addressing some flooding concerns that were addressed.

[50:44] Hopefully you've had some time earlier today to review the letter that I wrote.

[50:53] I respectfully disagree, and the gist of this is really kind of addressing Mr.

[51:01] Meirone's last comments.

[51:04] I respectfully disagree that this is compliant.

[51:08] Actually, according to the UDC,

[51:11] BidicoGreek is, and whatever other subdivisions he cited, they're non-conformanities.

[51:17] The UDC is clear that non-conformities that once a property is in place that if the UDC changes it then becomes a non-conformity that's in section 500 of the UDC.

[51:36] So, in order for that to, for changes under Section 500, 4.1 B4, which addresses those items that are non, the dress is not conformities and what must be there, he simply does not make the threshold requirements that the expansion is not going to create.

[52:04] the parking hazard permit in an adequate parking and substantially overburden the existing drainage sewage system or in danger, the safety of the residents.

[52:17] While the PUD was approved in 1997, it wasn't approved with 970 lots.

[52:27] these have come, these have evolved over time, and whether or not the council on the commission

[52:38] didn't apply the two, because it wasn't there to apply, the two accents point at the time,

[52:46] that's irrelevant at this point. We're here today on this application. That's what we're looking at

[52:51] is the merits of this application and what it is as of today, not in what it was in 1997.

[52:56] I think St. Tamini has, since 1997, has seen exactly the problems that have arisen from overbuilding and manipulation by developers that continue to try to shoehorn projects and milk every single square foot of property out of a subdivision into a lot of records so they can sell it for profit.

[53:21] But that was not the case here.

[53:23] We've already had several and you can see the sea of red behind me that are against this.

[53:35] In addition to the problem with the ingress and

[53:40] the technical problems that I'm sure your legal department will eventually key in on the fact that these are applicable provisions.

[53:48] You know, my letter highlights some of the problems, specific to this area and flooding.

[53:59] People are trapped in their homes because they can't get out before.

[54:04] This is a property that for whatever reason appears to have been overbilled or

[54:09] the infrastructure was not properly installed to address these issues.

[54:15] If there were a catastrophic, you know, let's say there was a fire, you'd have big problems with 974 residents, you know, homes, families getting out of a two lane ingress in

[54:31] address, the one that they have.

[54:33] These are there for a reason, and I'm kind of surprised that the fire codes don't even

[54:41] address that while it's in the UDC certainly does.

[54:48] The staff was very thoughtful in its analysis, and that's just one.

[54:55] I think you saw in the first comment that the staff made, they suggested that, look, apply for the waiver.

[55:06] And the developer just decided, no, we're not going to do that.

[55:10] This to me seems like a developer that's just decided, I want what I want.

[55:14] And this is how it's going to be, and that's just not how like works.

[55:20] I also note that there are several comments by the staff and the staff report that there's not enough information here.

[55:35] I don't think there's enough information here too, but I don't think that calls for a reason to postpone this or defer it to another meeting.

[55:43] I think this should be denied out right, and I think that should have to go back and

[55:47] put together a plan that's going to work on a regular pace that's consistent with the UDC.

[55:54] So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer that otherwise, I'm yielding my time to.

[55:58] Thank you, Mr. Joey,

[56:06] Roberto,

[56:10] William, do you wish to speak as well?

[56:15] Okay, good evening, my name is Joey Leverto.

[56:18] So, many of us choose to live in this neighborhood because what was presented to us was presented to us when we bought our homes, a community with green space, amenities, and a certain quality of life.

[56:31] Now after families have invested their savings, raised their children, and built their lives here, we're being asked to accept the removal of those very things just so we could build more homes.

[56:42] to many of us that feels like bait and switch.

[56:45] The people who live here will be the ones left to deal with the consequences,

[56:50] increase traffic, greater strain on the infrastructure, and loss of green space,

[56:55] and permanent impact on our quality of life.

[56:57] Meanwhile, the developer receives the financial benefit and simply moves on.

[57:02] For me personally, for me, the responsibility to protect the community is deeply personal.

[57:09] My father, Captain Vincent Liberto, Mendeville Police Department, was killed in the line of duty serving this community.

[57:15] He was killed on September 20, 2019.

[57:20] He believed in the words protect and serve.

[57:23] They were not just words to him, he lived them.

[57:25] He ultimately gave his life for them.

[57:28] That same principle, putting the well-being of the community ahead of individual interest, is at the heart of public service.

[57:36] us. You were elected or appointed to represent the people who live here. And when a community

[57:42] is faced with someone willing to sacrifice our green space, our amenities, our quality

[57:47] of life for personal financial gain, government becomes our last line of defense. We need you

[57:53] to be that line of defense. Not only do not allow bait and switch to be rewarded,

[58:06] do not

[58:06] up for the families who already live here, protect the community you are entrusted to serve,

[58:12] protect our quality of life.

[58:14] My father showed this community what protect and serve truly means.

[58:19] Tonight, I'm asking each of you to honor that same responsibility.

[58:24] Stand between this community and those who wish to diminish it.

[58:28] And protect the people you are entrusted to serve.

[58:32] I yield my time.

[58:33] Thank you for your father service, guys

[58:41] I know that was very moving but we just we can't do the the applause, please

[58:46] Mr. Morone

[58:54] Thank you, Mr. Chairman just a few follow-up comments

[58:57] First I do not believe that there was a bait and switch to the contrary we have been through

[59:04] numerous

[59:06] Community meetings and public meetings through the last two years

[59:10] Probably more than any other project that there's been

[59:13] I would also suggest to you that the idea that we have added all of these lots is simply not the facts.

[59:20] The lots that were approved in Beta Code Creek in 1997, the number of lots was the number of lots until 2025 when it was increased by 35 when the commercial went away.

[59:31] Other than that, there has been no increase in density whatsoever to suggest over the years that density has creeped up is simply not the case.

[59:39] I would also respectfully disagree with the idea that these 28 lots are going to create parking

[59:46] problems or create a health safety and welfare for the residents.

[59:51] I just don't believe that these 28 lots out of 900.

[1:00:00] Section 70, we'll do that. I would also remind you that with regards to flooding deals with the hydrology and with drainage, where we will have to have a comprehensive study submitted to your staff and to you about drainage. So that respectfully is premature.

[1:00:30] But I believe there is ample information to make a decision on what is germane tonight and that is the concept plan.

[1:00:37] How have we configured these 28 lots?

[1:00:40] We have configured them in a manner that we believe is consistent with our pud zoning and consistent with your unified development code and the applicable provisions of each.

[1:00:52] You know, it was suggested that we just want what we want and it's our way of the highway.

[1:00:57] Well, I disagree with that, but we do want what the PUD plan allows and what your UDC permits.

[1:01:07] We do want that, and I'm here to ask you for that tonight.

[1:01:10] I think we're entitled to that.

[1:01:12] I know that people don't like our plan.

[1:01:14] I know that people don't want it approved, but I don't believe that's the question.

[1:01:19] I think the question tonight is for concept plan approval, are we consistent with our zoning and do we meet the Unified Development Code and myself and my co-council, Mr. Easily, believe that we do and so we respectfully ask for your approval this evening.

[1:01:37] Thank you.

[1:01:45] Hi, William Fulpa, speaking in opposition to the rebuttal.

[1:01:49] So I guess I want to speak to just a couple of things, features on the plan, just where

[1:01:53] I see it.

[1:01:54] We see maybe there's softer things here that violation with the comprehensive plan and

[1:01:58] consistent with the future land use map.

[1:02:01] If you notice in the concept, there's a detention pond located in what is currently forced

[1:02:05] to green space.

[1:02:06] While we have many beautiful lakes and retention ponds throughout the community's green spaces,

[1:02:10] as a detention pond, which is a dry pond, this would not only be an anomaly in our subdivision,

[1:02:15] but it would be unwanted standout on full display at the entrance of the subdivision.

[1:02:20] Additionally, it has been a promise to all homeowners and prospective ones that green space will remain undeveloped.

[1:02:26] See, I have an image, and you guys have a folder, and that's been on the website since 1990, whatever it is,

[1:02:32] or one of we picked it up about green space and conservation are being preserved.

[1:02:37] Also another feature of the golf cart walking path, not a promise of many of the well.

[1:02:43] As it stands today, it wants to arguably the most scenic and wildlife abundant part of the community.

[1:02:48] It's been part of the comprehensive plan for over 20 years, and with it meandering through the rolling hills and all the tall shade providing trees, it's enjoyed by all.

[1:02:57] Reconstructing this path to either merge with a street that runs along home fronts, which they've moved that out of the plan now they're going to put it behind, which is going to be wedged between fences and a detention pond.

[1:03:06] that would be a travesty.

[1:03:08] Furthermore, should the Gulf Card be in a, it should be in that location.

[1:03:12] It grandly exposes the neighborhood to non-resident traffic, as it would be accessible without the need to enter the front gate, causing safety concerns.

[1:03:21] Also, they talked about flooding, they talked about the, having one in-gress, one in-gress.

[1:03:26] And the flooding concerns here, guys, is we've had two floods where, and continue the

[1:03:37] valve.

[1:03:37] So this is the lowest point.

[1:03:39] So I'd say the entire subdivision is in a critical drainage area.

[1:03:42] Furthermore, parcel of one is located in one of the lowest points in the subdivision.

[1:03:46] With it being adjacent to our only true drainage waterway, B2Co Creek, it's really border

[1:03:53] and reckless and development.

[1:03:56] And the other comment to Mr. Ronan saying, hey, they just want what's permitted by the UDC?

[1:04:02] Well, I think it's clear the UDC permits that the permission is you need more than one ingress in egress.

[1:04:08] That's what the current, what it permits, and I'd say right now this plan does not follow that.

[1:04:13] So, I said I'll remain.

[1:04:16] I mean, thank you.

[1:04:19] Any further comment?

[1:04:20] You have 32 seconds?

[1:04:22] No, come on up.

[1:04:28] Hi, my name is Russell Gorgio.

[1:04:30] I live at 1320 Audiment Parkway.

[1:04:33] And one thing I really asked the council and the commission

[1:04:36] to really view the area that this development is in.

[1:04:41] Like Phil said, he's right by the creek.

[1:04:45] During our floods, that area was under four foot of water.

[1:04:49] Okay, now this previous tropical storm that we got, that flooded Scydele, had that bull's eye landed over us?

[1:04:59] We barely missed flooding this time.

[1:05:02] Right at time.

[1:05:03] Thank you, sir.

[1:05:05] That is the end of public comments.

[1:05:07] We'll bring it back to the commission.

[1:05:09] Mr. Morone, I'm going to start if you could come up to the microphone, please.

[1:05:18] Yes, sir.

[1:05:19] Mr. Morone, you made a comment and I'm giving you a chance to alter your comment.

[1:05:24] If you said that in your first statement that the location of these 29 homes is in the exact

[1:05:35] footprint of the original PUD design, I got a planning department to give me a copy of the PUD design

[1:05:42] and it is not in that location, you've moved it far more to the side.

[1:05:49] Please do not do that.

[1:05:50] You may have misunderstood or I may have misspoke.

[1:05:53] I said it's in the precise location as in the 2025 amended put plan.

[1:05:59] So that's, you got a zoning change, and then I was part of the commission at that time.

[1:06:05] So you got a zoning change, and I don't see that part of that put plan.

[1:06:09] We moved it all the way up behind those houses.

[1:06:12] Well, as part of our mandate to preserve the health safety and welfare of the community.

[1:06:20] I would like to see that green space replaced.

[1:06:24] So you can pull it back down into the footprint of where that original commercial was and

[1:06:30] place it there and preserve that green space.

[1:06:33] That may respond to this.

[1:06:36] So a few points one, that would require an amendment to the put.

[1:06:40] But to suggest that nobody knew that it was being moved to the north.

[1:06:47] If you look at the 2025 plan, the staff comments themselves specifically say that one of the reasons for the request is

[1:06:59] moving the parcel further to the north for the following reasons.

[1:07:05] And then on the PUD plan, it shows the old area and then it shows the new area.

[1:07:11] So it shows both of them on the plan.

[1:07:13] also with regards to the reduction of green space.

[1:07:17] Remember that in the 2025 plan, the green space actually went up.

[1:07:23] The commercial area was larger than the residential area that we're now seeking concept plan for.

[1:07:33] So ultimately, you have more green space than you did prior to the 2025 amendment, if that makes sense.

[1:07:39] It's audience, please, I'm telling you for the last time, please hold your comments and everything we're in the back and forth here.

[1:07:52] If you continue to outburst, I'm going to ask the officer to remove you.

[1:07:58] Paul, I hear what you're saying.

[1:07:59] Staff was the location of this moved in the 2025 public amendment.

[1:08:06] the location of the when this was changed from highway commercial

[1:08:11] into residential did that change the location of this of this area as well?

[1:08:17] Yes.

[1:08:18] Okay.

[1:08:18] As the commission can we request and modify the green space that's around this?

[1:08:28] In the area that was requested for the major minutes of flood.

[1:08:33] Okay.

[1:08:35] So it seems like even though that that was moved as part of our authority, we can adjust that within the major,

[1:08:43] major amendment to the putt and I'm asking that you adjust this to be within the confines of the original

[1:08:50] commercial development and move that down below the cart path and restore that green space.

[1:08:55] Mr. Chairman, I can't do that.

[1:08:58] All right, so I believe the, I made some notes.

[1:09:04] The request in 2025 was 8.9 acres of commercial and other uses, not residential.

[1:09:13] And these are just my notes.

[1:09:15] I'll have to start from front of me, but somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[1:09:18] 8.9 acres of total area that was for a major room into the pud, 7.16 acres

[1:09:22] within become residential, and 1.8 acres of increased green space.

[1:09:28] So within that 8.9 acres, we can talk about those 8.9 acres that was in the measurement of the putt.

[1:09:34] I just don't know if it's hot in my head if the area you're speaking of is within that point 8.9 acres that was for the measurement of the putt.

[1:09:42] So I might just have to discuss a little bit more if we aren't exactly where we are.

[1:09:46] Correct. So we just need to look at the plan and see if there were that green space can be reallocated in there.

[1:09:50] Sure, absolutely, yes.

[1:09:53] Also, Mr. Morone, when you guys requested a major amendment to the PUD, does that not force you to comply with the current version of the UDC?

[1:10:05] I do not believe it does.

[1:10:08] And the reason that is is because for one, even though there's an amendment to the PUD, that PUD amendment specifically showed and identified one ingress and egress.

[1:10:20] In addition, I would submit that even if that provision of two points of ingress and

[1:10:29] egress applied, it applies to parcels or new developments of over 100 acres.

[1:10:36] We're only talking about 20, excuse me, 100 lots, pardon me.

[1:10:40] We're only talking about 28 lots that would be subject to the new amendment.

[1:10:45] In addition, we just change the use and we shrunk the use down as a part of that amendment.

[1:10:52] So we do not believe that that provision of the code applies.

[1:10:57] And just your comments to the other subdivisions that you mentioned, like River Chase.

[1:11:02] None of them have come before us to ask for a major amendment to their putt.

[1:11:06] That's why they're not following under the UDC guidelines.

[1:11:10] So that's just an comment to your previous comment.

[1:11:12] That's why they're not being forced to comply with those restrictions as well.

[1:11:17] Staff, when does the major amendment to the PUD, does that bring all the new UDC requirements along with it?

[1:11:25] So the major amendment to the PUD did trigger certain UDC requirements of which was in the staff report.

[1:11:35] If they would have developed with commercial properties, or this was identified as residential to begin with,

[1:11:40] that a major omit to the putt was not required, and they were coming in firm of this commission for concept plan, then they would just simply move forward with their putt that was approved.

[1:11:49] However, a major omit to the putt does trigger certain requirements that ingress, egress being one of them.

[1:11:55] In addition, that's one aspect of the commission's authority.

[1:11:59] The second aspect is since the old land development code in 2005, 2006 carried over to this unified development code.

[1:12:07] It's section 800-3.3-E, and I'm going to read it, the Commission reserves the right to mandate additional reasonable requirements for subdivisions, which are related to but not limited to the subdivisions, recreational areas,

[1:12:19] general street design, construction specifications, buffer zones, and screening, and lot designs and configurations.

[1:12:25] So the Commission reserves at a 40, at any point in time, at a concept plan.

[1:12:31] A lot of designs and configurations.

[1:12:34] May I respond, Mr. Chairman?

[1:12:36] Sure, I would respectfully suggest that it would not be reasonable.

[1:12:42] I think in Mr. Liner's comments, the reserve powers under the Earl Code was that you had reasonable ability to do that.

[1:12:49] I would suggest that the last 28 lots of a 978 lot subdivision that has been in place in under construction for almost 30 years,

[1:12:59] where there is no tangible physical way to get access to another road beyond the emergency exit that we have now,

[1:13:08] it would be unreasonable to require that at this stage, would be our position on that.

[1:13:12] Okay, I understand your position.

[1:13:15] It's my position and I'll defer to the rest of the commission that preserving this green space and

[1:13:22] Reallocating the way the lots are designed to go and fit in this area might require another new plan because that's what

[1:13:29] I would like to see is some reallocation of that green space more closely related to how it was on the original, not necessarily exactly because I know that we've had some changes, but I'd like to see that reallocated to some of the green space that was behind the homes existing there possibly preserving that guard cart path if possible.

[1:13:49] I'm going to let the rest of my commissioners speak on this.

[1:13:52] May I ask a question to be related to that, and I know I'm certainly not going to go beyond that.

[1:14:00] So that I better understand what you're saying, would not that require an amendment to the PUD?

[1:14:05] I don't think so.

[1:14:06] And maybe I'm confused by that.

[1:14:09] That's okay.

[1:14:09] And that's where we're asking.

[1:14:11] So I was going to back look at the staff report from,

[1:14:16] what was this one?

[1:14:19] Yeah.

[1:14:20] Okay,

[1:14:23] this is April 1st, 2025 staff report, and it says size 7.16 acres, and again, y'all remind me of this.

[1:14:33] I had a note about 8.9 acres, I'm not sure where that 8.9 acres came from, but the 7th.

[1:14:41] You're right, the original parcel, the commercial parcel was 8.9 acres, then the new residential parcel is the 7.16 acres.

[1:14:52] that you're referring to.

[1:14:53] And then the 128 or difference.

[1:15:00] Was green, just remaining green space, yes.

[1:15:03] So I guess the question is, is the 7

[1:15:10] .16 acres that were in play for the mayor,

[1:15:14] a major amendment to the putt, that can be in play for the discussion.

[1:15:20] That makes sense, that better understand. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:15:24] Thank you, Ross, for that.

[1:15:25] Thank you, thank you.

[1:15:27] Commissioner, I know you're going to take a little while.

[1:15:29] I'll commit.

[1:15:31] Commissioner Truxillo.

[1:15:33] Paul, don't sit down.

[1:15:38] Yes, sir.

[1:15:40] About a second exit.

[1:15:42] How many times did the Unite talk in this chamber

[1:15:45] about the exit?

[1:15:46] Yeah.

[1:15:47] No, you're absolutely right, Mr. Truxillo.

[1:15:50] There were.

[1:15:51] And how many years?

[1:15:53] Numerous times that you brought up the issue,

[1:15:58] I couldn't count.

[1:15:59] I would say more than five and less than 10,

[1:16:01] And if I had to just put a number on it, so that is absolutely correct.

[1:16:05] The comment I made before was that that comment did not appear in the staff comments.

[1:16:10] Certainly, I acknowledge and respect and agree with you that you have brought that up during these public meetings on numerous occasions.

[1:16:19] Yes, sir.

[1:16:20] Okay, let's talk about the court path.

[1:16:22] Yes.

[1:16:23] You said that it's not an amenity, it's been an amenity for 20 years.

[1:16:29] going through the woods and the hills and everything.

[1:16:31] Now, many people use and now you're going to take that away and put it closer to the

[1:16:36] street which impacts safety, impacts welfare, impacts quality of life, and then bring it

[1:16:45] to the houses.

[1:16:46] So how can you take an amenity that's been there for 20 years that hundreds and hundreds of

[1:16:53] people use daily?

[1:16:57] That foot play has to move.

[1:17:00] So I said it's not a required amenity under the putt.

[1:17:04] I didn't say that if I suggested that it was not an amenity, it was not being used, that was not my intent, but it was not a required amenity under the putt.

[1:17:12] Also, where we are tying into next to the street is with the existing path.

[1:17:19] So, as far as health safety and welfare, we're not bringing it necessarily any closer to the, we're making the same tie in where it goes right now.

[1:17:31] Okay. Yes.

[1:17:33] Hold on.

[1:17:34] Hold on.

[1:17:34] Yes, sir.

[1:17:40] But bring it to the houses.

[1:17:44] How close can we be to the house?

[1:17:46] So if you look on the plan, it would go south of the existing lots, and then it would go between the lots and the retention pond.

[1:18:02] I can't tell you exactly how far there is.

[1:18:04] Is it 10 feet from houses?

[1:18:07] I would say it's probably within 10 feet of the back property line of the houses.

[1:18:14] That can be an issue.

[1:18:18] And you said that the court is not an amenity,

[1:18:21] but the developers sold it as an amenity to all of us,

[1:18:26] to every person out there.

[1:18:30] So if the developer says, this is an amenity,

[1:18:33] then this is an amenity.

[1:18:35] I don't care what the poet says.

[1:18:36] The poet's contract, right?

[1:18:38] The poet's a contract.

[1:18:39] I understand.

[1:18:40] Yes, sir.

[1:18:40] When you change the contract, on the part you change the contract, correct?

[1:18:47] Yes.

[1:18:47] Okay, so every time we do this, we change the requirements.

[1:18:57] Yes, I would agree when the putt is formally amended, it changes.

[1:19:02] Absolutely, so the UDC does come in play.

[1:19:08] I would respectfully disagree with the House.

[1:19:09] Is it applies to that provision?

[1:19:11] Well, now you say one thing, there's another thing.

[1:19:14] No, no.

[1:19:15] I agreed that an amendment to the PUD changes the PUD and

[1:19:20] changes the parameters of that PUD.

[1:19:22] That I agree with.

[1:19:23] I do not agree that amending the PUD in 2025

[1:19:29] resulted in the applicable provision of the UDC applying to

[1:19:34] Bidico Creek.

[1:19:35] I do not believe that's the case.

[1:19:37] Well, I do. Okay. Thank you.

[1:19:39] Yes.

[1:19:41] Paul, I'm going to ask one more question before I hand it over to my other commissioner.

[1:19:45] So you've done this numerous times, not this particular, although this particular case is numerous times.

[1:19:52] You've been before us with numerous different cases.

[1:19:55] Does staff enumerate all of the UDC changes in those cases when you make a major amendment to the PUD?

[1:20:02] They do not.

[1:20:02] But you're expected to comply with all of them though, correct?

[1:20:05] In fact, those that apply, yes, I would agree with that.

[1:20:08] Staff, is there any case where there's particular sections of the UDC that would not apply to, that would not be brought forward when a major amendment?

[1:20:20] He's saying that he's all that applies, or any case where code does not apply?

[1:20:26] So we wouldn't necessarily research and analyze that during the major amendments of the putt.

[1:20:32] That's when we start at concept.

[1:20:33] What codes apply to what development patterns for a major room to the put is just like a zoning change.

[1:20:38] We're typically looking at land use and does it apply and conform to the general area?

[1:20:42] So this is where we get into codes, engineering, design, things like that.

[1:20:48] So is there any time that you would exempt a subdivision from parts of the code?

[1:20:56] If you were to exempt from parts of the code, that would be explicitly enumerated, would it not?

[1:21:03] Well, again, we're talking, we're talking about a major room into the putt and identifying every single potential code change there, so the realm absolutely not.

[1:21:12] Mr. Morone, Mr. Morone, in the major amendment to the putt that was executed in 2025, did you exempt yourself from any, did you get a waiver for any provisions of the code?

[1:21:23] We did not ask for any waivers, but we also did not modify our ingress an egress on that put plan that was approved.

[1:21:30] I would also point out that the concept plan application in 2025 likewise did not contain the same comment that the staff comments have this time regarding that provision.

[1:21:43] Thank you very much.

[1:21:44] Thank you.

[1:21:45] Commissioner Martino.

[1:21:46] Don't go away.

[1:21:50] That's true.

[1:21:51] Most of them on are comments.

[1:21:52] Okay.

[1:21:53] So with major amendments to a pod in this particular case,

[1:21:57] well, this is a question.

[1:21:59] How many have taken place?

[1:22:01] How many major amendments since 1997?

[1:22:05] More than five, less than 10?

[1:22:07] I don't know.

[1:22:08] Yes, I would say that's pretty close.

[1:22:10] Yes, sir.

[1:22:10] So with this particular case when since 1997, this is not accurate, but it may be close.

[1:22:21] 100 homes and then 10 years later was 300 homes and then maybe 500.

[1:22:27] Now we're at 900.

[1:22:28] So at no point in those five to 10 was an additional ingress or egress specifically included or requested or discussed.

[1:22:39] We're at least not by the developer and correct I would say yes, but I wouldn't say that they weren't discussed.

[1:22:46] They weren't discussed I would say they were just that there were occasions during and I'm not sure if it was doing a major amendment to a put or during some of the planning phases, but they were they were discussed primarily at the behest of Mr. Truxilla.

[1:23:02] Right.

[1:23:02] So, to me, that's something we, as a commission, staff can also give us guidance on, but as a developer,

[1:23:11] the first person making the first entity making this amendment and request, it should be something that is considered more.

[1:23:21] regardless if Chafonkto and River Chase, Brady Island, there are many of different scales.

[1:23:30] This is one of the largest scales of all of these examples as far as number of homes.

[1:23:37] Without the many discussions of flooding, fire, whatever other emergency for access to someone in need.

[1:23:46] If it is the middle of a day on a work day, when there's no emergency potentially happening,

[1:23:53] except for one particular home in the very back of this neighborhood,

[1:23:57] you're talking life-saving minutes for an ambulance to reach that home,

[1:24:02] but add the additional flooding and whatnot.

[1:24:05] So you see what I'm saying?

[1:24:08] It is something that's very important, and if there is an option,

[1:24:12] It would be who you as the representative to the developer to have that discussion before

[1:24:18] going to staff and before coming to the commission.

[1:24:22] That being said, this is a complete and compatible plan and that's our job is to first check

[1:24:33] that box.

[1:24:34] I had a lot of comments on the last three months and more since last year.

[1:24:41] Is this something that protects the welfare, the safety?

[1:24:45] Is it compatible with the surrounding area?

[1:24:49] We're talking a 2% increase to the overall current density.

[1:24:54] To me, all of those answers are, well, yes, it is compatible and it's not a popular opinion.

[1:25:00] And however, with things like a agreed upon amenity, the location of that amenity to the

[1:25:13] road, I do believe that brings into question safety of those passerbyes.

[1:25:20] To develop the 28 homes itself, I don't believe, and from what I've heard, I don't believe,

[1:25:26] I believe in my opinion are a detriment to this current development.

[1:25:39] Those are all the things I'm going to talk on, so I'm not making a motion.

[1:25:44] Okay, thank you for being patient, commission and rebarra.

[1:25:47] You can have a seat.

[1:25:48] Okay, thank you.

[1:25:49] Okay, thank you.

[1:25:50] Thank you.

[1:25:53] I am going to comment on your comments, Paul.

[1:25:57] So one of the things you said is that this is 28 lots, could be 35 either way if we're splitting hairs looking at it like that, it's not that much, right?

[1:26:09] And I do agree, 28 additional homes is not a significant number, but the number of homes standing alone is not the reason that we have the amount of people and residents from this subdivision that we have here tonight.

[1:26:24] What concerns me is that there are over a hundred people who are showing up month after month after month, year after year, over what, 500 signatures at this point are closed to 500 signatures from residents of this subdivision opposing this request.

[1:26:39] We cannot simply dismiss that just because it's 28 lots.

[1:26:44] I do believe that had there been better communication and had the amenities that were promised to the residents of this subdivision kept.

[1:26:52] In fact, we would be having a very different discussion as a commission tonight.

[1:26:58] So, I'm going to dismiss the 28 as Laniap, it is not a big enough number for me to care about in terms of the impact.

[1:27:11] One of the other things you mentioned, you keep bringing up 1997 and PUDs and the fact that this was approved in 1997.

[1:27:20] If somebody had had a crystal ball in 1997 and saw what happened in 2005,

[1:27:27] our UDC probably wouldn't be written rewritten.

[1:27:30] The landscape of this parish would not have changed tremendously, and

[1:27:34] there would be about 1,400 people in Louisiana still alive from Hurricane Katrina.

[1:27:42] So I think that stating that because it was approved in 1997, and

[1:27:47] We're only adding 28 here and a few there.

[1:27:51] I don't think that's a very fair argument, because the landscape of this pairs has changed so tremendously in those 30 years that every time we make a major amendment to this pod, we're just adding a little bit more, adding a little bit more, and that doesn't make it right that we have 900 homes in the back of this subdivision is flooding and I'm looking at photos of homes with water in them, and we have one means of egress in and out of that subdivision.

[1:28:16] I believe that had somebody known what would happen in 2005, in 2010, 2016, there probably

[1:28:24] would have been a complete redesign to this pod.

[1:28:29] You stated that drainages are concerned tonight because this is a concept plan.

[1:28:33] However, our Unified Development Code actually states that while we don't have to have the

[1:28:38] particular engineering details 100% ironed out for concept plan, we have to have enough information

[1:28:44] that we're comfortable passing the concept plan.

[1:28:48] So the drainage does actually matter at this stage.

[1:28:52] You've also said we want what the PUD and the UDC commit permits.

[1:28:58] Section 200, 3.12H, major amendments to PUD go to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

[1:29:05] The commission itself has the authority to review and approve major changes.

[1:29:10] This is because, incrementally, 28 lots, 15 lots, 30 lots over time.

[1:29:18] Somebody has to stay on top of that.

[1:29:20] And yes, we cannot keep looking back at what was approved in 1997.

[1:29:24] We have to review it under what we are actively dealing with in this area today.

[1:29:30] Now, to the staff comments, I am curious as to why the developer is so

[1:29:38] So against asking for a waiver to permit access from the front lot line of 1062.

[1:29:48] That side yard location, exactly what staff says, satisfies a minimum requirement.

[1:30:00] But it is a terrible spot for it. Now, there is space. There's frontage. I'm curious as to why we're trying to force it off of the, well, I'm going to call it north on this, on this map, but the northern portion of Parkville Lane, rather than off of the other portion, the side, the 66.8 foot.

[1:30:23] I do have serious concerns with some of the other staff comments. Get back to that page.

[1:30:28] the

[1:30:35] existing drainage feature being relocated, not in and of itself.

[1:30:42] My concern is that everything is being rerouted through a 20-foot right-of-way

[1:30:46] between lots 10, 55 and 10, 56.

[1:30:50] That is a huge portion of drainage that comes from a major creek and floodplain

[1:30:56] in that area that we're pushing through a 20-foot right-of-way between two homes.

[1:31:02] So I have a serious concern with that.

[1:31:04] But the drainage feature,

[1:31:10] there are just a lot of questions from staff on the, on the, in this cons, I'm sorry, regarding this concept plan.

[1:31:23] And I'm not going to say that it's incomplete.

[1:31:26] We can sit here and listen and talk about the concerns that they had, but

[1:31:36] But it doesn't settle all of the issues.

[1:31:39] Ingress and egress still remains a major, major concern.

[1:31:44] And again, we can't keep saying, well, 1997 it was okay, last year it was okay.

[1:31:50] That's always been an issue.

[1:31:52] Which is why we have the opportunity to sit here in 2026 and

[1:31:56] reevaluate and say, how can we make this better?

[1:31:59] How can we fix this now?

[1:32:01] We didn't know in 1997 what was going to happen.

[1:32:03] and we didn't know that bootlegger road,

[1:32:06] beatico boulevard, all of this was gonna pop up

[1:32:08] and be as big as it is, but we have an opportunity now

[1:32:10] to fix some of this, so I would like to do that.

[1:32:13] I would actually make a motion to approve,

[1:32:16] but I would like to put some stipulations on this plan

[1:32:20] for approval, and I'm gonna need Diana's help

[1:32:23] with motions on that if she's willing.

[1:32:27] So I would like to approve, subject to

[1:32:30] If the developer is willing, number one, that the applicant can't seek the waiver to permit access from the front of lot line 10 for lot 1062, get rid of the side yard drive, I'm sorry, get rid of the other driveway location, I would also like to, I'm going to stick to the ingress and egress, I would approve subject to that stipulation being met.

[1:33:00] That.

[1:33:01] If I think that we're going to get very confusing with all the stipulations, would it be prudent to allow the developer to take our comments, post-own this, and

[1:33:12] help them redesign the plan to the specifications versus pushing it forward under an approval basis?

[1:33:23] Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind.

[1:33:26] No, of course not, Mr. Liner, you're always welcome.

[1:33:29] So if there are going to be stipulations on or an approval, that staff has to review based on not seeing it tonight.

[1:33:39] And unless it's very specific criteria that we are going to be able to have and review against a redesigned plan.

[1:33:49] And it doesn't come back to the Commission for Review, I'm not comfortable with that.

[1:33:53] Okay, then I will defer to Mr. Liner.

[1:33:57] I'm sorry, I will respect Mr. Liner and our staff.

[1:34:01] I don't want to put them in a position that is going to-

[1:34:05] So I would suggest that you state your stipulations for the record.

[1:34:08] Okay, so-

[1:34:09] And they'll possibly make a motion to allow the developer to incorporate those into the plan, and that gets staff time to review it.

[1:34:18] And then that gives time for the public and the residents to review as well.

[1:34:23] So, also, if you don't want Mr. Chairman, is anyone left in the queue?

[1:34:27] No, okay.

[1:34:29] Well, yeah, I mean, I have other commissioners, is that what you were asking?

[1:34:32] Correct, yes.

[1:34:33] Yeah, I have other commissioners, yes.

[1:34:36] I want to make it.

[1:34:38] No, I will rescind my motion and I'll wait for the other commissioners to make their comments,

[1:34:42] in case there's anything else, any other stipulations.

[1:34:45] I'm going to sit here and make a list so that we can communicate those.

[1:34:49] Okay, Commissioner Blancher, what did I do?

[1:34:52] to,

[1:34:57] it appears to me that what you're asking for is either to be grandfathered in, which

[1:35:04] I don't particularly agree with, or that the application of the dual ingress and

[1:35:11] egress only apply to 100 home developments.

[1:35:16] And I think in either case, you're sort of ignoring the 900 that are already there.

[1:35:21] And so I really have a difficult time squaring that, and for that reason, I think that the ingress

[1:35:28] eagerness issue remains a problem throughout the commission, that's my comment.

[1:35:34] Thank you, Commissioner Blanchard, Commissioner Truxillo.

[1:35:37] Yeah, I just want to make a comment also that the two entries in exit, this commission saw the need

[1:35:45] We need a subdivision over 100 to require that.

[1:35:49] And I had looked two years ago, Ross, two years ago, so this commission had foresight to understand the issues with the biggest subdivisions.

[1:35:59] I just want to make sure everybody was aware of that, that's all.

[1:36:02] Thank you.

[1:36:03] Commissioner Seager.

[1:36:06] Mr. Chairman, I'll request permission to speak after the vote is taken to address the audience.

[1:36:13] Okay, Commissioner Martino.

[1:36:21] Commissioner Robair,

[1:36:24] are you able to articulate better than most, many of these comments that

[1:36:32] we can potentially make a motion and have the developer consider?

[1:36:40] And is that something that we'll be doing?

[1:36:44] I guess I'm making the, I have a question.

[1:36:46] I mean,

[1:36:51] for second pass, yes, but Diana has just informed me that because the stipulations

[1:36:58] that I want to make are already within the staff comments, I don't have to itemize them.

[1:37:03] However, Commissioner Chairman Gaines' stipulation would need to be added as a fourth.

[1:37:09] So we would have to itemize at that point.

[1:37:12] And I'm more than happy to do that once everyone's finished commenting.

[1:37:17] So without going into many of the discussions, my own specifically, I'll just say that, my own comments with all that being said, what's in front of us is not something I agree with Mr.

[1:37:36] Liner that we would need to see some updates here for several different aspects.

[1:37:42] So I'll make a motion to deny this concept plan.

[1:38:36] I am.

[1:38:38] What?

[1:38:40] You made a motion to deny it.

[1:38:41] Sorry.

[1:38:42] I got distracted by the evening.

[1:38:44] Yeah.

[1:38:47] I see some discussion, obviously, with legal.

[1:38:51] It's my understanding that that is a more forward way to have some of these addressed.

[1:38:59] And if I'm incorrect, please let me know.

[1:39:02] So just what I was discussing with legal, if we just straight deny it, then we can't request any changes to the current concept plan.

[1:39:15] So they already have the zoning in place, so what we're undertaking right now is whether the concept plan as itself can move forward or not.

[1:39:26] And if we want to, if we want to suggest changes to them, we can suggest those changes under our authority, and then give them the opportunity to make those changes.

[1:39:36] If they did not make those changes, they came back with a plan that did not include those changes, then we would potentially deny it.

[1:39:46] Mr. Liner.

[1:39:47] I'd like to remind the commission of their authority.

[1:39:50] So at zoning commission, you are a recommending body to the council.

[1:39:54] The council is a legislative body they create and adopt ordinances, that's what zoning is.

[1:40:00] At the planning commission level, you have the authority.

[1:40:03] The commission has the authority.

[1:40:05] They are the deciding body and only under appeal to the council would it go to the council.

[1:40:12] So right now, the authoritative body is the commission able to make these stipulations as I've read out previously.

[1:40:18] and if it's just denied, then it goes under appeal to the council with no direction

[1:40:25] from the commission.

[1:40:26] The commission at planning is the authority.

[1:40:29] Is that clear?

[1:40:31] Yes.

[1:40:34] Hold up.

[1:40:36] Sorry.

[1:40:37] I was.

[1:40:37] You'll probably be as direct.

[1:40:38] Okay.

[1:40:39] Commissioner Narciss.

[1:40:40] I heard when the I.B.F. Post-Pomey came up.

[1:40:44] I heard a loud groan from the audience.

[1:40:46] As stated here, the idea of postponement would give us that check before it goes to council.

[1:40:59] Because if we deny it, it goes directly to council, goes to appeal on council, and they would have the final authority without any other changes necessary.

[1:41:10] It would be a crapshoot, it would be an understanding of whether they want the current plan to not.

[1:41:16] If we postpone it, we have an opportunity to put our request in.

[1:41:22] They have the opportunity to meet the request, because one of the requests is to move it further north away from the car path.

[1:41:29] At a second entrance, those things like that, all of that goes away if we straight deny it.

[1:41:36] And we would like an opportunity to compromise and get to a better fit for the community and for the developers instead of a straight mile, send them into council, and then nobody gets anything.

[1:41:50] That's where we're looking at and we want the best plan possible for everybody involved.

[1:42:00] So I think if Commissioner Robair has or stipulations lined up, maybe?

[1:42:06] I have a question for Ross, my stipulations are literally just the general staff comments.

[1:42:15] I would like to hold the concept plan to every one of these items on this list.

[1:42:23] Are you comfortable moving forward with, I need you to look at the list of comments, please.

[1:42:31] So, one is that the applicant seeks a waiver to permit access from the front lot line for 10-6,

[1:42:38] lot 10-62.

[1:42:40] Number two, the second means of ingress and egress.

[1:42:47] Three, the existing drainage feature.

[1:43:03] So I would make-

[1:43:05] Please, Ted.

[1:43:07] Just ma'am, just making sure we're aware.

[1:43:09] I mean, technically it could be done at the next phase, but number one is staff recommending

[1:43:13] a waiver be requested and then ultimately approved.

[1:43:17] If you are going to make a motion of approval or postponement or denial,

[1:43:21] subject to any staff comments, I just want to be very clear that very similar to

[1:43:25] like your previous cases this earlier in this meeting, that were minor subdivisions,

[1:43:29] subject to staff comments, and approval with a waiver.

[1:43:32] That waiver should be granted now for number one outlining the change in the location of that driveway.

[1:43:38] I just want to make sure that was clear on that one.

[1:43:40] I don't want to say subject to staff comments will comment number one recommends a waiver so the main reason

[1:43:46] I'm asking is because I want to make sure that with engineering not having drawings drainage for all of the things that are

[1:43:52] included in this comments that you guys are comfortable if I choose to make a motion to approve this based on those

[1:43:57] comments without having that information the technical and engineering data I'll defer to Ted on engineering for planning I'm pretty comfortable

[1:44:04] except for Chairman Gaines mentioning the moving, you know, of maybe green space and adjusting.

[1:44:14] So that one is more subjective than just what's here on a staff report that we can see in black and white.

[1:44:40] Okay.

[1:44:41] Look, I get it.

[1:44:42] You know, everybody's here tonight, and you know, we don't want to postpone it, we don't want to deny it, we don't approve it.

[1:44:47] You know, it's just, it is what it is, it's a big development, something will be developed there.

[1:44:51] They have the right to develop residential.

[1:44:54] This is a pass.

[1:45:00] I'd like to get to the best possible design.

[1:45:09] You still have the floor? Are you done? I'm thinking. Okay, while you're thinking, I'm going to call on somebody else. Yeah, go ahead. Commissioner Narciss. With all that being said, I'll make the motion to postpone based on the fact that we can consider moving the lots where it doesn't affect the existing promised amenities that's been there for 20 years on top of looking at the second egress on top of

[1:45:36] of staff comments in general.

[1:45:40] Falling for one month.

[1:45:41] Commissioner Truxello.

[1:45:49] Yeah, I think that's the best thing to do for right now is to keep it here.

[1:45:53] I second.

[1:45:55] Okay, we have a motion and a second.

[1:45:57] Any further comments?

[1:45:59] Please vote.

[1:46:16] Motion to postpone one month carries.

[1:46:19] Mr. Morone.

[1:46:21] Mr. Morone.

[1:46:22] So when you come back with a new concept plan, I would like to see the staff

[1:46:27] the staff comments, taking care of, I'd like to see what your plan is for the second

[1:46:32] ingress, according to the staff comments.

[1:46:34] And I'd like to see a reallocation of that green space so that we're preserving

[1:46:39] the cart path and the buffer between the houses.

[1:46:46] No, Commissioner Sieger.

[1:46:50] I'd like to make a comment.

[1:46:52] There's quite a, there's some young people out in the audience that have been sitting

[1:46:55] very patiently and well-behaved, and I think this is an invaluable civic lessons for them.

[1:47:03] Gentlemen, your parents are great bringing you here tonight, and we appreciate your being here

[1:47:09] and being part of this process, this is how it works.

[1:47:13] Thank you.

[1:47:14] Thank you.

[1:47:17] Motion to adjourn, thank you.

St. Tammany Parish Planning Meeting August 11, 2026

Transcript