[0:00] started with this tonight. Please call the role.

[0:03] » Seager >> here.

[0:04] » Burllo >> here.

[0:06] » Rober >> here.

[0:07] » Trxillo >> here.

[0:08] » Milligan Gaines >> here.

[0:11] » Martino. Narcissis >> here.

[0:14] » Walker >> here.

[0:14] » Barios >> here.

[0:16] » Blanchard >> here.

[0:17] » Crow here. >> We have a quorum. Would you like to

[0:20] appoint alternates? >> Please appoint the alternates. Like to

[0:22] call the meeting to order. Announcements. Please silence all phones

[0:26] and electronic devices. Please do so now. Um, appeals. If your agenda item

[0:32] does not go either for or against the way you want, uh, you wish, you can, um,

[0:36] appeal to the parish council. Speaker cards are over here on the credenza. If

[0:41] you're not the petitioner, we ask you to fill out a speaker card so we can call

[0:45] on you if you wish to speak at the time of the agenda item. Public speaking be

[0:49] five minutes each side for or against, and three minutes additional time for

[0:53] comments. After your item is heard, you can exit the building. just please do so

[0:57] in an orderly manner. Please rise for the invocation and the pledge of

[1:01] allegiance.

[1:08] Heavenly Father, we come to you this evening asking for your guidance,

[1:12] wisdom, and discernment. As we gather here in service to our community, as we

[1:16] discuss the important matters on our tonight's agenda, grant us the capacity

[1:22] to listen attentively to one another, to respect diverse perspectives, and to

[1:28] approach our discussions with humility and fairness.

[1:32] Bless our parish and its employees who labor for the betterment of St. Tam

[1:36] Parish. Help us work together towards solutions that promote the common good

[1:42] and justice for all. Amen. >> Amen.

[1:45] » I pledgece to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

[1:51] for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for

[1:57] all.

[2:03] » Everyone should have a copy of both the July 14th and August 11th minutes uh in

[2:10] their uh packet. Do we have to approve them individually?

[2:14] » Uh, I need a motion to approve the July 14th minutes. Commissioner Walker.

[2:21] » Uh, motion to to approve the minutes as written.

[2:24] » Motion to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Walker.

[2:27] Commissioner Trxillo. >> I second.

[2:29] » We have a motion and a second to approve the July 14th minutes. Please vote.

[2:38] » Missing one.

[2:44] Motion to approve minutes carries. >> Okay. Uh I need a motion to approve the

[2:49] August 11th minutes. Commissioner Rober >> like to make a motion to approve.

[2:55] » Motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Rober. Commissioner

[2:58] Trxillo. >> Second.

[3:00] » We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. Please vote.

[3:09] Motion to approve minutes carries. >> We have a public service announcement by

[3:14] the director of planning and zoning. >> Yes, sir.

[3:16] » Can you can you hit your mic? There we go.

[3:20] » All right. So, a couple months ago, we were alerted about an American uh

[3:24] planning association of a scam that's been going on with playing departments

[3:29] across the country, specifically related to public hearings. So, what the

[3:33] scammers do is they pull agendas. They look at people's information. They then

[3:38] contact them using a fake email address. So, if you look at the email, it doesn't

[3:42] come from Saint Tammy Parish, but it looks like it's coming from me

[3:45] requesting thousands of dollars to make sure that their cases on the agenda. And

[3:51] we received two emails from the public who had items on the agenda tonight um

[3:55] requesting, hey, can y'all look at this? This doesn't seem right. So, I'm glad,

[3:59] you know, they sent it our way. But we added a disclaimer to our application

[4:04] and every agenda moving forward is going to say it's going to be an alert to say

[4:09] if somebody emails you asking for money, please don't pay it. Just send it to us.

[4:13] We'll work it out. But I wanted to make an announcement that scammers are

[4:16] getting very creative. Uh typically we don't have a lot of money in playing

[4:19] departments, but I guess people coming in front the commission, you know,

[4:22] trying to get their stuff done and uh they feel like it's uh an easy an easy

[4:27] hit. So please do not pay anything. Uh that's being requested. Thank you.

[4:33] » Thank you. Okay, staff. Do we have any cases to

[4:37] postpone? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have um item

[4:41] number one on the agenda, zoning case um ZC82-3-23B.

[4:51] And we also have a related case which is on the second page uh number seven

[4:57] 20254205TP.

[5:01] There's a request to postpone for 1 month at this time. Probably uh want to

[5:06] read both into the records and uh request postpone separately or vote

[5:11] separately. And Mr. Paul Marone is here if you have any questions.

[5:15] » There case number eight is O' Car. Is that not related to the major uh O

[5:20] Carver amendment? >> Yes, exactly. Yes, that's correct. I'm

[5:26] sorry. >> That's okay. So, you meant you meant

[5:29] number one and number eight. >> That's correct. I apologize. Number one

[5:32] and number eight. And Mr. Mr. is not here for number one and number

[5:37] eight. >> Well, you can come and speak if you

[5:39] like. >> Okay. So, we have a mo we have a motion

[5:44] by uh staff. Uh, please read uh uh case number one into the record, please.

[5:50] » Zoning case number ZC 820323B.

[5:55] Major amendment to the Oak Harbor Planned Unit development. Partial

[6:00] located on the south side of Oak Harbor Boulevard east of Pontter Train Drive,

[6:05] Slidell Ward 9, District 12. The size is 45.34 acre. The petitioner is Angela

[6:13] Irish. Um the owner is Adair Holdings LLC and the Roman Catholic Church of Ar

[6:21] of the Arch Dasis. Okay. Uh does anyone in the audience

[6:26] wish to speak in favor of the postponement?

[6:30] Anyone opposed? We'll bring it back to the commission.

[6:33] Commissioner Robert, >> I'd like to make a motion to postpone

[6:37] both cases for one month. >> I can only do one, so we're just going

[6:40] to do one right now. I would like to make a motion to postpone case number ZC

[6:46] 82-03-023B

[6:50] for one month. >> Okay. Motion to postpone for one month.

[6:53] Commissioner Rober, Commissioner Seager. >> Second. We have a motion and a second to

[6:58] postpone for one month. Please vote.

[7:06] » Motion to postpone one month. Carries. Case number eight, 2026 4729TP.

[7:13] The breezes at Oak Harbor Subdivision. Developer owner J. Bro Enterprise LLC.

[7:19] Engineering Surveyor LLC and Company LLC. Parish Council District

[7:24] Representative Honorable Jerry Bender. General location of property is located

[7:28] southwest of Oak Harbor Boulevard, east of Pontis Train Drive, Slidel Ward 9,

[7:34] District 12. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor of the

[7:37] postponement? Anyone opposed?

[7:41] Bring it back to the commission. Commissioner Seager

[7:44] » concerning case 20264729 PTP.

[7:50] I move to postpone for one month. >> Motion to postpone for one month.

[7:53] Commissioner Trxillo. >> Second.

[7:55] » We have a motion and a second. No further discussion. Please vote.

[8:03] Staff, do we have any other cases? >> Yes, we have a request to postpone.

[8:07] » Go ahead. >> Motion to postpone one month carries.

[8:10] » Staff, >> we have a request to postpone item

[8:13] number 7, 20254205 TP, Bitical Creek subdivision, parcel

[8:19] one. Mr. Palmer is here to answer any questions you may have.

[8:25] » Mr. >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Paul

[8:29] » I'm sorry. Before you get started, let's go ahead and read it into the record,

[8:31] please. Item number 7 2025 4205TP Beico Creek subdivision partial one

[8:39] developer owner Beico Creek Preserve LLC Parish Council District representative

[8:43] Honorable Kathy Siden general location of property is located on the northwest

[8:47] side of LA 1085 south of Interstate 12 Madisonville Louisiana Ward 1 District

[8:53] 4. >> Mr. Brown.

[8:54] » Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman members of the commission. Paul Maroon on behalf of

[8:57] Beico Creek Preserve LLC. We are requesting that the matter be tabled um

[9:03] tonight uh for a month. As you all know, at last month's meeting, uh there were a

[9:09] lot of comments uh suggestions uh from the commission and others as to um

[9:15] changes that perhaps could be made to the plan. We've been working and

[9:19] investigating those, but there are a lot of moving parts to that and we simply

[9:23] need more time to be able to determine if we can make some of those changes, if

[9:28] we can comply with some of those requests and we need that time to do

[9:31] that. >> Okay. Thank you very much.

[9:33] » Thank you. >> Does anyone

[9:36] Does anyone the So, I just want to give a little bit more background than than

[9:39] Mr. Marone just gave. So, we we heard y'all's uh comments and everything at

[9:44] the last meeting. We had a meeting with the the developer. We we asked them to

[9:50] maybe move everything back to its original location and try to fit the

[9:55] lots as best they could into that location. They're trying to comply with

[9:59] that request, but they're having some drawing engineering difficulty in

[10:03] fitting that in and they just want a little bit additional time to put those

[10:07] plans together. Does everybody understand that? Okay. So, does anybody

[10:12] wish to speak in opposition to the postponement?

[10:17] » Okay.

[10:22] » Yes, ma'am. >> Uh Michaela Johnston, uh Mandville, I'm

[10:26] just uh you know, all of the money that goes into the formation of this

[10:31] neighborhood, why is it why are we asking to postpone

[10:35] it when we can employ more engineers to solve this issue? Okay. I appreciate

[10:40] your comments.

[10:46] Yes, sir. Uh Justin Schmidt on behalf of a consortium of Bedico Creek neighbors

[10:51] that I represent. Uh we don't have a not so much an opposition. We don't have an

[10:55] opposition to the proposal uh to the uh deferral. Uh we would like to though uh

[11:00] comment that u just for the record. Uh based on the staff preliminary staff's

[11:06] report, it appears there's still issues outstanding that Mr. um Marose talked

[11:12] about as far as the second entrance uh the drainage issues and then also the

[11:18] there was apparently a uh September 1st 2026 um markup of some plans um that

[11:28] we're not we're not privy to that we'd just like to get out. uh if those can be

[11:33] released by sta if you know you have staff release those to us that'd be

[11:37] helpful that that would be you know you can go

[11:41] and ask for that information from from staff I'm sure that they can comply with

[11:44] that >> that's it thank you thank you anyone

[11:47] else wish to speak in opposition to the postponement

[11:56] so I had something planned but it's not quite as planned today so I'm going to

[12:01] go load off a script Okay. As long as that long as that

[12:04] script is related to the postponement. Okay.

[12:06] » Okay. So, first and foremost, you know, I'm ready. We're ready. We're here again

[12:11] and they're not ready. Um, and I want to talk about the section 900 3.2 as it,

[12:17] you know, we all know the multiple ingress egress.

[12:21] You know, Paul said last time that he didn't believe that they were in

[12:24] violation. It's kind of interesting word to say I don't believe when in fact I do

[12:29] believe and know that they are because here we are in 2026 and in April 2025

[12:36] there was a major amendment change from the uh commercial to residential

[12:43] and now there in May 25 2025 there was a concept plan submission. These are major

[12:48] amendment changes in section 100 1.3b. This addresses applications completed

[12:54] before the current code took effect. Which specific earlier applications

[12:58] ordinance or approval exempts this change residential plan from access

[13:03] requirements? I wanted them to be able to identify the

[13:07] authority and explains that scope. So sir, I don't So since we don't have

[13:13] the finalized plans, we don't know if it in fact does include the second entrance

[13:18] egress. So I appreciate where you're coming from, but we're not reviewing the

[13:22] plan tonight because it is a postponement. Okay.

[13:24] » And so those plans may in fact include that when when they come before us.

[13:28] » Okay. And then one last comment and um believe it was your general comment

[13:33] section 4, they were talking about uh because of the area they could

[13:37] potentially build homes. Uh they're talking about a raised elevation for

[13:40] those homes. And I have a question for them. How high are you planning on

[13:44] building those homes? 3T, 4T, 5 foot, because that area that you want to build

[13:48] in, that was the area that was impacted most by the flood years ago. So, are you

[13:52] going to put those homes on stilts or are we going to just build them like

[13:55] everybody else and then, you know, you potentially put future families at risk

[14:00] of flooding again? >> Again, that'll be that will definitely

[14:03] be considered when we when we review the plans.

[14:05] » Yes. Just want to make sure we uh focus on the safety and well-being of our

[14:09] citizens. >> Yes, sir.

[14:14] » Hey, Gary Ogle, 8052B coke trail. Uh I I I think that honestly, at least what I'm

[14:20] myself, just speak for myself, I don't think that I'm opposed to pushing it for

[14:25] another month to get it right. Right. But I feel like we've just been here so

[14:28] many times and then we get an email that is dated like to come 96 or something

[14:34] like that from the from from our property owners association which none

[14:38] of the homeowners are allowed to participate in because of how our

[14:41] covenants are written. So, um, which is I I would like to maybe ask that, you

[14:47] know, the the POA doesn't send any more misleading emails saying that they're

[14:51] going to table it and discouraging u people to come because as you can see,

[14:55] we're a little bit light from the last couple times.

[14:57] » So, once miss >> I have a copy of it if you

[14:59] » Yes, sir. Hold on one second. It does. And I and I appreciate what you're

[15:02] saying. Unfortunately, that's irrelevant to us. Okay. I know it's relevant to

[15:06] y'all, but as far as us as a commission, it's not. But I want to I want to

[15:10] address that, Miss Helen. um all of the speaker cards, don't we send out a

[15:14] communication when this case is going to be heard again taken from the email

[15:19] addresses on the speaker cards? >> No, we don't.

[15:22] » Can we do that? Is that something that we can do?

[15:25] » So, the the other issue was is was discouraging people to come by saying

[15:29] that they were just going to table it. This is exactly what happened when the

[15:32] vote happened to not >> and that's what I was trying to see if

[15:35] we could get communication directly from us. That way there's no confusion on

[15:39] what time is. >> Unless unless the council is going to

[15:42] email everybody in our neighborhood then like that becomes an issue when they

[15:47] have access to all of our emails and you guys don't. So, and this is the same

[15:52] kind of communication that was given when it was initially moved and changed

[15:56] was a misleading email saying they were just going to change it.

[16:00] » I don't know how to how to solve this problem. The pro the the only thing is I

[16:04] would ask that the council maybe suggest at the very least to the POA to not send

[16:09] email like we know we know how to get the word out. We know how to get the

[16:12] word out as residents. So that's what I would say.

[16:15] » Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. Just as a point of clarification, even if we would

[16:19] send an email to everyone in Bitical Creek,

[16:22] » the email would state that a request has been put in to postpone and the planning

[16:30] and zoning commission has to vote on that request and I'm here to announce

[16:34] that request and this is for the board to vote on it. So, I I can't guarantee

[16:39] that it will be postponed. >> Yeah, I understand that. But the email

[16:42] that we received was it is going to be tabled. It wasn't that a request was put

[16:47] into table. >> So that's what we're requesting is that

[16:50] the PI >> guys doesn't send conflicting we're not

[16:53] going to we're not going to chase this rabbit anymore. I uh I appreciate the

[16:57] the lack of communication and all that kind of stuff. It's just not a problem

[17:00] that I can I can fundamentally solve. And so we're we're just going to have to

[17:05] move on uh from that. You know, I just asked Mr. Rome if y'all could

[17:08] communicate with the residents at the best way possible. Uh, that's

[17:12] » that's all I can that's all I can request. Um, Miss Marone, do you have

[17:17] any additional comments? Okay, I have one minute left. Does anybody else in

[17:22] the audience wish to speak in opposition to the postponement?

[17:26] Okay. All right. Bring it back to the commission. Commissioner Truckillo.

[17:33] Well, uh I know no one likes to postpone it, but this is necessary because of a

[17:39] of a commission's request. Uh the developers trying to do the their best

[17:46] to what we asked them to do. So, I make a motion to postpone case number

[17:53] 2026-4205TP

[17:57] for one month. >> Okay. Motion to postpone. We don't have

[18:00] to we don't have let's we don't have to get into a mode of naming the the case

[18:04] number every time guys just take you know

[18:06] » I want to do it >> that's okay you know motion to postpone

[18:10] for one month commissioner commissioner Seager

[18:15] » second thank you >> we have a motion and a second please

[18:20] vote >> we kind of arbitrary

[18:29] » motion to postpone one month carries. >> We would like to request.

[18:36] » Thank y'all. Y'all can y'all can Yes, ma'am.

[18:39] » Did everybody just vote on the thing that everybody just stood up there and

[18:43] opposed and you guys voted to postpone that?

[18:46] » So, the request was from staff because they don't have enough information and

[18:52] everything to be able to us for us to hear the case. We have to have it's it's

[18:57] a procedural thing. We have to have a completed application in order for us to

[19:01] hear it. But since we've already announced that this was going to be on

[19:04] the agenda, we have to hear it in the form of it's going to be a postponement.

[19:09] So that's just a it's just a procedural thing that we have to go the opposition

[19:12] to the postponement. We take that into account. But if they don't have

[19:16] » already predetermined that you guys are going to vote

[19:20] » not at all against it because it's >> not at all. But if if if we feel like

[19:26] we're working towards a a good outcome, then we we we feel it's relevant to

[19:32] postpone it. Does that make sense? >> So I think what I'll say is the request

[19:38] to the commission is not a guarantee. The request of the commission has to be

[19:42] voted on. So while the developer or any applicant would request a postponement,

[19:48] it's only the commission's authority and only their authority to either grant or

[19:53] not a postponement. So yes, it is predetermined that a vote is going to

[19:56] take place on a postponement and it could have been denied and we could have

[19:59] heard the case tonight. >> Thank you very much.

[20:04] » Okay, thanks guys. >> Staff, do we have any additional cases

[20:09] that to postpone? We would like to request to hear the amendments at the

[20:13] end of the meeting. Item number two. >> Okay. At the discretion of the chair,

[20:18] we'll we'll hear item number two at the at the end of the meeting. So, we are

[20:24] moving on to item number three.

[20:30] » Entering the parish right away servitude servitude easements in St. Timothy

[20:35] Trace. Item number three, request to enter the Paris rightaway for Ashna

[20:39] Boulevard and South Ashna Boulevard charter high school.

[20:44] Developer owner Allstate Financial Company, engineering surveyor, Novas Reb

[20:51] Engineering LLC, Parish Council District Representative,

[20:55] The Honorable Rick Smith. General location of property is located west and

[21:00] south of Ashner Boulevard, north of Interstate 12, Covington, Louisiana.

[21:05] Ward one, District 1

[21:11] » staff.

[21:14] » You got >> Thank you. Yes, sir. The applicant is

[21:17] requesting permission to enter the parish rightway, specifically portions

[21:20] of West Asher Boulevard and South Ashner Boulevard for the purposes of doing

[21:25] drainage and roadway improvements. Staff has no objection to the request at this

[21:28] time, subject to the attached resolution. Thank you.

[21:31] » Thank you. Does anyone in the audience wish to

[21:35] speak in favor of the request? >> Anyone opposed?

[21:44] Do >> I have my speaker card?

[21:48] » Are you Kenneth? >> What? What's your name, sir?

[21:52] » Max Boss. >> Max.

[21:53] » Yeah. >> Go ahead, Mr. Max.

[21:54] » Um, good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Max Bos, business address

[22:00] 2011 North Franklin Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Um, thank you staff for putting

[22:04] together the package. I just wanted to make one clarification. Uh, the owner is

[22:08] no longer All State. Uh, Josh and Bruce sold it to uh, Red Apple and Chart

[22:14] School USA. Chart School USA is the same operator as this transaction recently

[22:18] happened after the submit the application was made. Um the chart

[22:22] school USA is the operator of the K3A currently um at uh the north end but in

[22:29] the highway and uh we are the developer GC working for Charter School USA. Um

[22:35] and on behalf of them we're going to be doing the high school. So this

[22:38] application pertains to the high school development. Okay.

[22:40] » Uh and I'm here really to answer any questions you have.

[22:42] » Staff, does a change of ownership make any difference to the application?

[22:47] Um, we would just need to get the updated information from the applicant

[22:50] as well as update the resolution that's in the staff report right now that would

[22:54] reference also. >> Can we can we hear this as a completed

[22:56] application tonight? >> I believe so. I don't it doesn't change

[22:59] anything anything substantial in the requirements of the resolution other

[23:03] than who we listed as the applicant. So >> they would need to do a new application

[23:07] and sign it. >> Okay.

[23:09] » So they're new owners. So it's it would be

[23:12] » Can we entities? So we so we would be approving the application and they'd

[23:16] have to come back before us with a new application.

[23:18] » Yeah. Because it's a different >> and we don't have a formalized

[23:21] application for the enter the rightway. It is a written request or letterhead.

[23:25] Um there's not a signed document >> that's similar to like the concept plan

[23:29] application or anything like that. >> Well, maybe if they could just write

[23:31] something out and hand it to you tonight. I mean, and just say, you know,

[23:35] whatever we accept by email, whatever. >> Yeah, we generally accept just on a

[23:38] letterhead by email is totally fine. >> Is there a secret handshake?

[23:41] » No, shoot me the email. you get on the agenda

[23:44] » you have something you know that request >> okay yeah I think as long as as he

[23:49] agrees to update that information provide that to us and then we'll on

[23:53] staff send update the resolution accordingly before it's signed by you

[23:56] and Ross >> okay thank you uh thank you sir um I

[24:00] have a one for uh Kenneth Gilead

[24:07] » he doesn't wish to speak >> civil engineer

[24:09] » okay no problem >> anyone else in Any honors wish to speak

[24:13] in favor? Anyone opposed?

[24:17] Bring it back to the commission and Commissioner Seager.

[24:20] » Move to approve. >> Motion to approve. Commissioner Seager.

[24:24] Commissioner Trillo. >> I second.

[24:26] » We have a motion and a second. See no further discussion. Please vote.

[24:36] » Motion to approve carries. I uh minor subdivision item number four 2026 4772

[24:44] MSP minor subdivision of 9.984 acres into parses A and B owner and

[24:50] representative Matthew Edmonson and Benjamin Edmonson surveyor John G

[24:55] Cummings and Associates Parish Council District Representative the Honorable

[24:58] Marthur J Kazabon general location of property is located on the north side of

[25:03] LA Highway 40 and on Edmonson Lane Folsam Louisiana W 2 District Three

[25:09] staff. >> The applicant is requesting to subdivide

[25:12] 9.984 acres into parcels A and B. The minor

[25:17] subdivision requires a public hearing due to parcel B does not meet the

[25:20] minimum lot size of 5 acres required under the R1 rural residential district

[25:25] thus requiring a waiver from the planning and zoning commission. If you

[25:28] remember last month we had a similar case. Um if you look at the last

[25:32] sentence here, the planning and zoning commission has the authority to wave lot

[25:35] area limited to 10% reduction of the total area of the lot size. If you look

[25:40] at the survey, parcel B is proposed to be 4.984

[25:44] acres and that's the reason for the request and uh the request shall be

[25:50] subject to items 1, two, and three. >> Thank you.

[25:54] » All right. Good evening. Uh my name is Andrew Menheim. Thank you, commission.

[25:57] Thank you, Mr. Commissioner or Mr. Chairman. uh here on behalf of the

[26:01] applicants, Ben and uh Matt Edmonson. Uh guys, these are folks who are from the

[26:05] Falsam area, lived there forever. This is property, and I think I can get right

[26:09] to the heart of of why I think the waiver is appropriate. Uh number one,

[26:13] this is property that was owned by the uh by the applicant's parents. They

[26:16] acquired it in 1971. Uh it's I think appropriate to note that

[26:21] when they acquired the property, it was described in a meets and bounds

[26:23] description as being 10 acres. The chain of title prior to that was 10 acres.

[26:28] Every time these folks mortgaged the property, they described a mortgage a

[26:32] property of 10 acres. Uh in the succession in the judgment of possession

[26:36] that recognized these applicants as the owners, it was described as 10 acres. It

[26:40] wasn't until they submitted an application for the reub got a new

[26:44] survey. Uh and of course 50 years of survey advancement indicates that it's

[26:49] 9.984 acres. And so of course this is um this is property that was left to these

[26:55] applicants via their parents' succession. this is their parents'

[26:58] legacy to them um and effectively to meet their uh their parents' wishes.

[27:03] They want to divide this property among one another. I think it's also important

[27:07] to recognize that the house that is situated on the 9.984 acre parcel is uh

[27:12] is the residence of one of the brothers. The other brother lives adjacent and to

[27:17] the rear of the 5 acre parcel. So, this was the most appropriate uh division

[27:22] that they came up with to to divide the property that the parents left them. Uh

[27:26] in all it's a relatively I think minor deviation of the 5 acre rule. We're

[27:31] talking about 16 1,000th of an acre. That amounts to about 700 square ft. So

[27:37] maybe maybe half the size of this building. So again, it's a relatively uh

[27:42] minor deviation from the otherwise 5 acre uh requirement. Additionally,

[27:47] there's no no land use or any uh proposed changes of that nature coming.

[27:52] This is residential. It's going to maintain its residential status. Uh this

[27:55] is really uh about allowing the uh the folks who've had this property and owned

[28:01] it and held it for 50 years as 10 acres uh to give it to their sons and allow

[28:05] them to uh to continue ownership of it and potentially give it to their their

[28:09] heirs one day in the future as well. So with that in mind, I think it's a I

[28:13] think it's a reasonable request and u hope you guys can consider that um and

[28:18] in these in our position here. >> Thank you. Um, anyone else in the

[28:22] audience wish to speak in favor? Anyone opposed?

[28:27] Bring it back to the commission. Commissioner Rober,

[28:30] » I don't have any issue with this. It's 0.016

[28:35] acres shy of five. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve.

[28:39] » Motion to approve. Commissioner Roar. Commissioner Walker.

[28:42] » With the waiver. >> With the waiver.

[28:44] » Motion to approve with waiver. Commissioner Rober. Commissioner Walker.

[28:47] » Yeah. No issue with this. Um, makes sense. So I will second the motion with

[28:52] the waiver. >> We have a motion and a second with

[28:54] waiver. I see no further discussion. Please vote.

[29:03] » Motion to approve with waiver carries. >> Thank you.

[29:06] » Item number 5, 2026 4793 MSP minor subdivision of partial B1 into parts B1A

[29:13] and B1B. Owner and representative Claude Marboret, Katherine Marboret, and Lee

[29:19] Marboret. Surveyor KLS Group LL Inc. Parish Council District Representative

[29:25] Honorable Jill and Pistado. General location of property is located on the

[29:28] east side of Fishery Road, south of Oak Cove, Lome, Louisiana, Ward 7, District

[29:34] 7. Staff, >> the applicant is requesting to sub

[29:38] subdivide parcel B1 into parcel B1A and B1B. The minor subdivision requires a

[29:44] public hearing due to, as you can see in table one, parcel B1 has been through

[29:48] the minor subdivision process, thus requiring approval from the planning and

[29:51] zoning commission. Parcel B1A and B1B are proposed to be

[29:56] accessed from a 20- foot existing private drive, thus requiring approval

[30:00] from the planning and zoning commission and also requesting a waiver of the

[30:04] construction requirements for the existing 20oot private services to

[30:08] parcels B1A and B1B, thus requiring approval from the planning and zoning

[30:13] commission. If you take a moment to look at the picture that I included into your

[30:16] packet, this is just a a street view of the existing 20ft road. I was informed

[30:21] by Mr. Moore that this road has probably been there for approximately 60 years.

[30:27] Also, what I want to point out is uh the reason for the requested waiver to uh

[30:33] build the road up to the required manual subdivision standards is because

[30:38] it currently there are three houses on the property. The one in the front on

[30:42] parcel A1 that is existing part home on proposed parcel B1B and also another

[30:49] existing um home next to the pool. So there's no proposed uh new construction.

[30:56] Basically, this is just to carve out uh another parcel for the the residence

[31:02] that's proposed to be or that is on parcel B1B. And um this is the reason

[31:07] for the request and the reason for the requested waiver. And Mr. Moare is here

[31:11] to answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you. Anyone in Mr. Moberry, do you

[31:16] wish to speak?

[31:20] » No, really. Thank you. Uh the road like Helen's saying is probably there 60

[31:24] maybe 70 years. I think I reckon it's go back to about 1940 45.

[31:29] » Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in favor?

[31:34] Anyone opposed? Bring it back to the commission.

[31:38] Commissioner Rober. >> I don't have a problem with this. Um

[31:43] existing looks great. The road I mean obviously

[31:48] has been there forever. would like to make a motion to approve with waivers.

[31:51] » Motion to approve with waiverss. Commissioner Rober, Commissioner Narciz.

[31:55] » I pass this literally every day. No problems with it. I second.

[31:59] » Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Please vote.

[32:09] » Motion to approve with waivers. Carries. >> Item number.

[32:16] Item number 6, 2026 4790 MRP, re subdivision of lots 19A and 18A into

[32:25] lots 1981, 1881, 1882, Thelma Estates. Owner and representative Curtis Curtis

[32:34] J. Leeday Jr. Melissa Marie Leay, Surveyor, Land

[32:39] Surveying LLC, Parish Council District Representative, the Honorable Arthur

[32:44] Laughlin. General location of property is located on the south side of Barber

[32:48] Avenue, Covington, Louisiana, Ward 4, District 11.

[32:52] » Staff, >> the applicant is requesting to create

[32:55] three parcels. The res subdivision requires a public hearing due to as you

[32:59] can see in table one lots uh 18A and 18 and 19A have been through the resubd

[33:05] process thus requiring approval from the planning and zoning commission and the

[33:10] request shall be subject to item number one. If you notice it's currently two

[33:15] parcels of land. One is requested to be increased in size and there's also a

[33:20] request to create an additional parcel and I was informed that this is all for

[33:24] family members. Okay, sir.

[33:28] » Um, uh, >> you have anything to add?

[33:30] » What's that? >> Do you have anything to add?

[33:32] » Nope, that's it. I'm just I'm the oldest son. I'm not Curtis Lad. So, okay. Here

[33:36] on his behalf. >> All right. Thank you. Anyone else in the

[33:39] audience wish to speak in favor? Anyone opposed?

[33:44] Bring it back to the commission. Commissioner Walker.

[33:47] » Yeah, I see no issue with this resub. Uh, makes sense. Lots bit and size. I

[33:52] will make a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Commissioner Walker,

[33:57] Commissioner Rober. >> I don't have a problem with it. Um I

[34:01] have a question for staff and maybe just something Mr. Leay. Um it looked like it

[34:08] looks like the prior reubdivision that broke out. The initial parcel 19A was

[34:14] never reflected on the assessor's map. I did find the file was recorded, but it

[34:21] it's not shown and this was like in 2019. So, just make sure that you get

[34:25] everything recorded in time and contact the assessor's office to let them know

[34:30] what's occurred because it might be thrown off your tax assessment for this

[34:34] property. I'm not sure. >> We we now forward uh copies of the new

[34:38] surveys to the assessor's office. >> Awesome. Thank you so much for

[34:43] clarifying that. Um yeah, I don't have a problem with this. So, lot 19 A1 is

[34:47] actually increasing. We're only creating one new parcel here. So, I'd make a

[34:51] motion to second with Is there a waiver? >> There's no waiver.

[34:55] » With waiver? >> No.

[34:56] » Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve with waiver.

[35:00] » No waiver. >> No waiver. Whatever. Please vote. I'm

[35:04] waving. Thank you. >> I didn't have

[35:10] » missing one.

[35:16] » Motion to approve carries. Item number nine, 2026 4786 TP, Laughlin

[35:23] Estates, Subdivision Developer owner, Oak Island Corporation, Engineering

[35:28] Surveyor, JV Burks Associates, Paris Council District Representative, The

[35:32] Honorable David Kougall. General location of property is located on the

[35:36] east side of Military Road, north of Crawford Landing Road, Slidell, Ward 8,

[35:41] District 9.

[35:45] » Staff. >> Yes, sir. The concept plans and

[35:48] documentation have been reviewed by this office and an inspection was made on the

[35:51] site on August 20th 2026. The applicant is requesting concept plan

[35:56] review of a 103.861 parcel acre parcel on the west side of

[36:01] Military Road north of Crawford Landing Road. The property is currently zoned R1

[36:06] which requires 5 acre parcel size and 300 ft lot frontage width. The plat

[36:10] proposes nine lots with a typical lot size of 5 acres or greater all having

[36:14] individual sewer and water. The plan also proposes a 60-foot uncurved right

[36:19] ofway with ditches on either side which are proposed to be privately owned and

[36:23] maintained by the homeowners association with no common green space as none is

[36:27] required for this lot count per the UDC. The plan proposes four waivers including

[36:32] the following waiver for the minimum required size of the subdivision

[36:35] entrance. A waiver to exceed the maximum block length standard due to the length

[36:40] of the existing roadway on the property. One to exceed the maximum road length of

[36:44] the street terminated by a culde-sac due to the length of existing roadway on the

[36:48] property and finally one to provide individual water and sewer for each lot

[36:52] in lie of central water and sewer systems as required for creation in the

[36:56] minor sub in the major subdivision. Staff has reviewed the concept plans and

[37:00] notes and the plat needs to be updated to reflect and account for previous

[37:02] comments and markup summaries issued to the developer and the engineer of record

[37:06] on September 1st 2026. Should the planning commission choose to approve

[37:10] this request, it should be subject to the aforementioned required waiverss,

[37:13] the staff for comments, as well as any additional stipulations or requirements

[37:17] stipulated by the planning commission. Thank you.

[37:20] » Yes, sir. >> Good evening. Steve Deie this evening

[37:23] representing the petitioner who's also the owner of the subject property. First

[37:27] of all, I'd like to give you just a very brief history of the property. Uh,

[37:30] previously it was zoned for a pod uh with it, uh, yielding over 150 lots. uh

[37:36] June uh 2024, I received a notification from Helen that the PUD had been

[37:41] designated as uh as having expired because there was no activity on it

[37:46] moving forward from the time we got the original proposals and approvals at

[37:50] least. Shortly thereafter, I was contacted by Mr. Kougall. uh he

[37:54] indicated to us that his preference was to uh reszone the property to R1 and

[37:59] that the parish would act as a petitioner in that petitioning. Um in

[38:04] September in September 2024, the parish acknowledged and approved the R1 zoning

[38:10] minimum 5 acre lots. After that, we had several meetings. We had two meetings

[38:14] with planning, zoning, and engineering. Uh we've had two separate series of

[38:19] comments. uh we we fully recognize and have that we are in full compliance or

[38:24] agree with every every comment that they've made. I'd like to u if if I

[38:29] could just briefly pay attention to one of their what I think is significant

[38:34] comments and it's comment number four and I said the proposed concept plan is

[38:39] consistent with the following goals. the character of existing residential areas,

[38:43] expansive re rural landscape and sensitive ecological areas will be

[38:49] preserved. Also, new development and redevelopment will be environmentally

[38:53] sustainable. That was the whole objective that we had in this project.

[38:57] It's a little bit different than most. It's it's a it's hard to fathom really

[39:00] 103 acres and we got nine lots. We have we have nine lots because we start off

[39:05] on a basis where we we were not going to impact any wetlands. There's an existing

[39:09] road that provides access through Gum Bayou to our property. All we want to do

[39:14] and it's nine wet and and I have information here I'm going to disparage

[39:17] to y'all in a minute, but we want to upgrade that road. The road system goes

[39:22] through our property does not hit any wetlands. Then what we did, we went

[39:25] ahead and had our engineers determine where could we put houses on reasonably

[39:31] elevated pieces of natural ground that would not require a vast amount of fill

[39:36] but also would not touch any wetlands. That's how we wound up with nine lots

[39:40] and then beyond that it's in a it's in a no net fill area. We anticipate that

[39:44] these nine lots will be sold to individuals estate lots. We recognize

[39:49] the complication of dealing with no net fill for an individual having to go out

[39:54] and determine what what was the ground before what was brought on the way of

[39:57] fill and recognizing you'd have to compensate through the form of

[40:01] mitigation any filler brought on site. Well, that would encourage that would

[40:05] include each individual having a small pond of their own on each of those nine

[40:10] lots. >> That'd be a shame.

[40:12] » Well, it really would. It really would. That's what we said. So, you'll notice

[40:15] in in your flat there is a specified there's two of them uh field mitigation

[40:21] areas and also u the uh to provide for the drainage the required drainage you

[40:27] know 25% reduction. So anyway, our client, my client is in the excavation

[40:33] business. He said, "Well, wouldn't it be great if when we offered these lots to

[40:36] these people that we'd agree to go ahead and clear their pads, fill them up to

[40:40] the base filler elevation, and they would not have to impact their lot at

[40:44] all. We would do it on these two areas that you see on the plat not noted as

[40:50] fill mitigation areas. With all that being said, I'd like to go ahead and

[40:54] pass out

[40:59] supplement the supplemental information. I think it's important to because it is

[41:04] kind of unique property. It's a series of of and we can go through each one

[41:08] individually, pictures and drawings and delineations and determinations. I try

[41:14] to keep it as simple as possible, but it's but from the information you get

[41:18] sometime uh in the pamphlets or in the packets, it's hard to get a real good

[41:23] grip on what the property is, where it is, and even down to what is what does

[41:27] it look like.

[41:36] » Thank you.

[42:00] Thanks. >> That's for y'all. That's for you.

[42:07] The first thing you'll recognize, of course, Loftton is an island commonly

[42:13] referred in our area as Oak Island. It's been it was a homestead for over 50

[42:17] years. It was always accessed by a road going directly from Military Road to the

[42:22] property. Um, so you can see it. It's there. You can notice that we're

[42:26] surrounded by Gum Bayou. You'll also note River Gardens is to our north.

[42:31] Those are um over 700 lots were originally platted and approved for

[42:35] River Gardens, each one of them 50 by 150 back in 1954.

[42:40] South of us, the next closest subdivision is the landings. Uh those

[42:44] lots are S1 11,000 square ft minimum requirements. If you go to the second

[42:52] second page, >> Steve, you got two seconds.

[42:55] » Two seconds. Somebody ask me a question about my pictures, please.

[42:59] » Come on. Come on. You can do it. You You You had us at nine lots on 133.

[43:05] » Yeah, but I went through all this trouble. You got to hear me. I went

[43:08] through all this trouble. >> Preserved all the wetlands and cut the

[43:10] road. I mean, like, >> well, can we get 10 more of these?

[43:15] » Somebody asked me a question. >> We will. We will. Let me see if there's

[43:18] anybody in opposition. Does anybody in the audience wish to oppose this?

[43:24] » Ma'am, please come up. >> You guys know that. You know I'm coming

[43:27] up. >> I didn't before you raised your hand. Do

[43:29] we have you uh did you fill out a speaker card?

[43:32] » Yes, sir. I did. >> Okay. Thank you.

[43:34] » Hi. Nice to meet you. >> Hey, nice to meet you.

[43:35] » Michaela, this just address

[43:39] just addressed us. Thank you. >> Um so, a couple of points uh that I

[43:44] would like to raise. Um firstly, privately owned ditches.

[43:50] » Mhm. >> No.

[43:51] » Okay. >> Um no, because the parish needs to come

[43:55] in to dig out those ditches. I mean, the parish itself is working on a billion

[44:01] dollar drainage reconstruction uh project and

[44:08] not the the parish not being able to get in there to appropriately

[44:13] clean out these ditches. This is going to add to our already overwhelming uh

[44:20] flood and drainage issue. Uh that's the first point. Uh, secondly, sounds like

[44:27] these are going to be million-dollar houses. I divided 103 by 9. That's 11.5.

[44:33] So, 11.5 acres per house cuz there's nine. Um,

[44:39] the elevation selected for these houses is absolutely going to to degrade over

[44:44] time because it is, as he said, in a swamp. Um,

[44:50] » go ahead. >> I'm sorry.

[44:52] » Take a seat. Go, go take a seat for me, Steve.

[44:54] » In the wetlands, uh, if that suits you better, sir. Um, absolutely. Going to

[45:01] degrade over a short time. Uh, when the houses inevitably flood, who's

[45:07] responsible for that? Is the, uh, developer responsible for that? For

[45:13] knowingly putting a million dollar heavy house in a wetland? Who? Genuinely, I'm

[45:21] asking who should be held liable for those houses flooding when they do.

[45:27] » I'm going to let Commissioner Rober answer that question for you in just a

[45:31] moment. >> Okay. Um,

[45:35] no, that that was it. Just the two points.

[45:37] » Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.

[45:40] » Steve, did you have any uh rebuttal? >> Absolutely. Yep. uh as it relates to the

[45:46] parish's involvement in our area just in the last two years public works has come

[45:50] out and dredged gum bayou they've also taken out two I believe there was 70 72

[45:57] in culverts and replaced them with three 111

[46:02] in diameter covers parish did that parish also asked us and we gave it to

[46:08] them an easement across our property to do that work and maintain it in the

[46:12] future as far as flood flooding. Of course, we all know that there's a

[46:16] established base flood elevation to which FEMA requires you to build that.

[46:21] And then on top of that, the parish, I think, has a twoft freeboard. Is that is

[46:25] that about right? Is it two? >> No, just one right now.

[46:29] » I'm sorry. >> Just one. Okay. Um you can you you all

[46:34] have the the plat. It has our elevations on it. You're going to see lots with

[46:38] natural ground right now. 10 11 ft. You'll have some as low as seven, but

[46:43] you've got 10 11 seat. So, we're not talking about a bunch of fill on site.

[46:47] We have to mitigate whatever's added on to those lots, and we've

[46:52] already made provisions to do that. So, I don't know what else you can do in

[46:55] order to avoid uh flooding in an area. I do want to make the comment though that

[47:01] Oak Island is an island that's I don't know if I'm being silly by saying it's

[47:05] prehistoric. I mean, that thing's been there forever and it's been there and

[47:09] surrounded by by the bayou and it sustains itself. We've got pictures in

[47:13] there, which I would have liked to have gotten a little further into of the

[47:16] entrance on Military Road and on the property. You can drive on this

[47:20] property. I don't want anybody to think this is a swamp that we're trying to

[47:23] sell people. I mean, it would be absolutely ridiculous for a developer to

[47:28] come in here and say, "I've got this piece of swamp and I want you all to

[47:30] prove it because I'm going to sell these lots for $100,000." It doesn't work that

[47:34] way. It doesn't work out and y'all wouldn't allow us to do it either. So

[47:38] anyway, um, wetlands, you know, uh, I don't know what else to say.

[47:43] » You're good. >> Okay. Thank you.

[47:44] » Thank you, Mr. Dubet. >> Ma'am, you have a three-minute rebuttal,

[47:48] too. >> Absolutely.

[47:54] Uh the gentleman said that he's not sure about what uh appropriate provisions

[48:02] they as developers could make uh to these properties.

[48:09] Put some dirt. Add a lot of clay. No, we're not doing that. No,

[48:14] » I'll tell you why. >> Okay, cool. Go ahead and finish. um and

[48:20] uh the property is not sitting on a swamp.

[48:26] He verbally said that the property is on a wetland. Um and as a horiculturist and

[48:37] naturalist and uh master gardener who works in the

[48:42] area, the whole parish oh as well as you know everything else

[48:47] that surrounds us is a swamp. So that's just really dishonest I think to say

[48:55] that it's not in a swamp. Everything around here is in a swamp. That's why

[49:00] everything floods. Thank you.

[49:05] » Thank you. That ends the time for public comment. I'll bring it back to the

[49:09] commission. Commissioner Robera, I just ask you to keep it under 20 minutes,

[49:12] please.

[49:15] » You're lucky. I like you. Okay, Miss Johnston. John Stone.

[49:20] » Johnstone. >> Johnston. Okay. So, the reason we don't

[49:23] want a bunch of Phil is because what Phil does as your your gardener. So

[49:26] whether you live in a home, an apartment complex, wherever you live, what happens

[49:29] when the rain hits your roof, hits the ground, right? So what that does, that

[49:33] water gets displaced. So when we bring a lot of fill in, we we are talking about

[49:38] in wetland areas, we're talking about nationwide permits with the US Army

[49:41] Corps of Engineers, which allows uh I want to say one acre of fill to be

[49:47] brought in. That's for your driveway, your house, but everything else. You're

[49:50] right. We are in Louisiana, we are completely accustomed to building not

[49:55] just literally in a swamp but overwater sometimes. So a lot of times the best

[50:00] solution for that is driven pile foundation. So geotechnical engineer

[50:04] will come out do a soil boring check to see how far we have to I'm sorry the the

[50:09] property owner or the builder whomever um has to go to get to hard pan and then

[50:14] they drive piles to support the foundation. Sometimes they'll do a

[50:17] post-tension slab on top of that. Sometimes they'll choose not to. The

[50:20] base flood elevation for this property is 12.6 ft. Now that is the 100year or

[50:26] 1% chance flood elevation. Typically in St. Tamony Parish you have

[50:32] to be build with 1 foot of freeboard. Um the federal government tried to push

[50:36] through a couple of years ago 2T of freeboard mandatory requirement for

[50:40] homes that were being financed with governmentbacked loans. They've since

[50:43] backed off of that. I love to see three feet. Three feet is the gold standard

[50:48] for FEMA. Um, but I can't tell somebody what elevation they're required to build

[50:53] their home at because that is the job of FEMA and the National Flood Insurance

[50:57] Program is actually who insures those homes so that if they do flood, the

[51:01] insur national flood insurance program covers. Um,

[51:06] that being said, I don't love the idea typically of

[51:11] private easements um, drainage easements on properties. However, for this

[51:16] particular subdivision, I love it because that is a lot of real estate

[51:22] that public works would have to get out and clear out every time. And you made a

[51:26] a good point. The price point of the these homes is going to be more than

[51:30] anything you or I will ever be able to afford most likely in our lifetimes. So,

[51:35] I would much rather the people who own these high-end homes be responsible for

[51:39] maintaining their drainage and ensuring that they are keeping this

[51:44] through their homeowners association these nine lots completely dry. Um

[51:51] that being said, I'm really excited to see lots of this size

[51:56] anywhere in this parish. This is a huge huge turning point. Um

[52:03] » can I ask why? >> No, ma'am.

[52:05] » Okay. >> Because typically what we get are as

[52:09] many homes shoved onto a parcel as possible. And that's all I'll say. this

[52:12] one, somebody looked at it and said, "Yeah, land's not great, but we're not

[52:16] going to destroy everything and try to put as many homes on this as we possibly

[52:20] can." Um, so thank you so much for your hard work. I'm sure this is going to be

[52:25] a beautiful area. Um, I love that you're preserving the areas

[52:31] that you're preserving for wetlands, wildlife. I I mean, it's just it's just

[52:36] very well done. The I can see the topographical data on here. It looks

[52:41] like there are some higher spots. Um, so possibly particularly on lot two

[52:48] and it looks like some of lot three, those are only like 1 to 2 feet below

[52:53] base flood. So those are those you should be able to build something on

[52:58] fill mitigated with that retention pond. The other lots I would imagine those

[53:01] will probably have to be raised. Um, there's not enough real estate in the

[53:05] world to compensate for 10 ft of dirt on a on a home that size. Um, so I love

[53:11] this and thank you for bringing in front of us. I would make a motion to approve.

[53:16] » Motion to approve.

[53:22] » Motion to approve with waivers. >> With waivers.

[53:24] » Motion to approve with waivers. Commissioner Rober.

[53:27] » Commissioner Seager. Um

[53:38] » uh there was a question about who's responsible. Um and I've made this

[53:43] comment several times. U

[53:49] caveat mour

[53:53] and I'll second that. Okay, we have a mo with waiver. Motion

[53:59] to approve uh and second with a waiver. Commissioner Seager. Commissioner

[54:05] Troxillo. >> Yes, sir. Could you come up for a

[54:07] minute, please? I I just have one question.

[54:13] I do like the plan, but uh the question I have is uh electric utility. How how

[54:19] is that coming into the to this island? Well, you'll have overhead down. You

[54:24] have to recognize that road is pretty. It'll be overhead and then it'll be fed

[54:28] to each house underground, but it'll it'll be accessed overhead. Each service

[54:33] going to the house is underground. >> Yeah. No, I understand that part. But

[54:36] but is it coming on to Loftton Road through the swamp?

[54:40] » No. No. You can drive uh Mr. Cool and I drove the whole thing.

[54:44] » You drive right down the main road. It's there now.

[54:46] » Excuse me, sir. I'm talking about the electric utility.

[54:49] » It's coming right off military road. If if right now there's a poll right there

[54:53] that we having to move, but the service is right there at the entrance right

[54:56] now. Matter of fact, it's almost in the picture.

[54:58] » Okay. >> Yes, sir.

[54:59] » Okay. I just want to make sure that that that that you accounted for that because

[55:04] Absolutely. If if you're digging all through that, you you be you'd be

[55:07] disturbing some wetland. >> Oh, no.

[55:09] » Okay. And and number two, I don't know who I don't know who drew this map for

[55:13] you. >> Which one?

[55:15] » This one right here. >> Uh JB Burks.

[55:17] » Well, he actually drew a dinosaur in here. So, this island really old.

[55:22] » Oh, well, it could be. >> That's all I have.

[55:25] » Thank you very much. >> Okay, we have a motion to approve. Uh, I

[55:29] just wanted to make a comment as well. Uh, we are have a motion to approve in a

[55:32] second. Uh, I was on I think several of my fellow commissioners were on the

[55:36] commission at the time that we uh remove the PUD declaration on this land. I

[55:42] think it was originally declared for about 109 lots.

[55:45] » Over 150 >> 150. So, we're going from 150 down to

[55:48] nine. So, I think that this has been a a really good project. I'm glad to see it

[55:52] come to fruition. >> Great. Thank you.

[55:53] » We have a motion to approve and a second. Please vote.

[56:01] » Motion to approve with waiverss carries. >> Thank you.

[56:06] Item number 10 under final subdivision plat and construction plan approval 2026

[56:13] 4757 PP Clark Branch Estates phase 1 developer owner S&P Land Company LLC

[56:21] engineering surveyor K Associates LLC Parish Council District Representative

[56:26] Honorable Marthur J. Asbond. General location of property is located east of

[56:31] LA450 McDougall Road, north of LA, Highway 25, Folsam, Louisiana, War 2,

[56:38] District 3.

[56:42] » Staff. >> Yes, sir.

[56:45] This case was previously postponed at the August 11th, 2026 planning

[56:49] commission meeting. The final platin construction subdivision plans have been

[56:51] reviewed by this office and an inspection was made of the site on

[56:54] August 21st, 2026. The final platin construction subdivision plans approval

[56:58] of this case shall be subject to developer complying with comments

[57:01] numbers 1 through 4 and allformational items below and no work order to be

[57:05] issued until all items are satisfactory completed and submitted. Thank you.

[57:10] » Thank you. Is the petitioner here? >> So McDouga roll. It's been y'all been

[57:16] clearing that for about two years, huh? >> Yeah. Uh good evening. Eddie Pow with

[57:20] Kyle Associates, 638 Village Lane, North Mandeville. Um just here to present um

[57:25] final approval. Yeah, as you mentioned this project um actually back this is

[57:29] phase one of uh Clark branch estates that was um tenative approval back with

[57:35] the old process was granted I think back in 2023. Um they've been doing some

[57:40] clearing um but we're now ready to move into actual construction of phase one

[57:44] which is the first 25 lots off of LA450. Um, we've gone through staff comments.

[57:50] I've had a couple couple good conversations with staff. Really don't

[57:54] have any issues with any of their comments on the plat drainage plan,

[57:57] drainage impact study. Everything's pretty straightforward. We are working

[58:00] through um getting our scenic rivers permit and um we we did receive I think

[58:06] last week our DOTD permit. I just haven't had a chance to get that to

[58:08] staff yet, but we did receive that from DOTD. So, just a couple loose ends on

[58:13] permits and uh just addressing the last round of comments we got from staff. So

[58:17] here to answer any questions that you might have.

[58:19] » Thank you. >> Does anyone else in the audience wish to

[58:22] speak in favor? >> Anyone opposed?

[58:26] » Bring it back to the commission. Commissioner Seager.

[58:30] » Move to approve. >> Motion to approve. Commissioner Seager.

[58:34] I need a second. >> Second.

[58:37] » Second. Commissioner Trxillo, do you want to make comments?

[58:45] » Yes. >> Okay. Uh, Commissioner Rober,

[58:47] » I just want to make sure that we are addressing the staff comments

[58:51] particularly in relation to um,

[58:59] where is it? Sorry,

[59:06] » I apologize. I was mixing it up. >> All right, no problem.

[59:12] And just for the audience, this is uh 90 homes on five acre lots.

[59:16] » Uh it's 25 lots for this first. >> The initial the overall projects 90

[59:21] » 65 total. >> 65 total. So

[59:23] » 65 total. >> That's awesome.

[59:25] » Yeah, we're on just under 155 acres for this first phase with 25 lots.

[59:30] » Perfect. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. See no

[59:35] further discussion. Please vote.

[59:42] Motion to approve carries. >> Item number 11, 2026 4787 PPP, Pelican

[59:49] Grove subdivision, developer owner, St. Tam Management Group, CDL LLC.

[59:55] Engineering Surveyor, Kelly Mchuan Associates, Inc. Parish Council District

[1:00:00] Representative, Honorable Joseph Emposado. General location of property

[1:00:03] is located on the north side of highway 190 and and west of west side of pew

[1:00:08] road lome ward 4 district 7 staff.

[1:00:14] » Yes sir. The final platin construction subdivision plans have been reviewed by

[1:00:18] this office and inspection was made on the site on August 21st 2026. Final

[1:00:23] planning construction subdivision plans approval of this case shall be subject

[1:00:26] to developer complying with comments numbers 1 through eight and

[1:00:29] allformational items and no work order to be issued until all required items

[1:00:32] are satisfactory completed and submitted. Thank you.

[1:00:36] » Thank you, Mr. Morone.

[1:00:40] » Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Paul Marone on behalf of the

[1:00:44] petitioner. Um, with regards to uh the staff comments, um, items one and two,

[1:00:51] one being uh, the relocation of the sidewalks and two being uh, the need for

[1:00:56] a landscape architect. Um, we are in agreement with both of those. We don't

[1:01:00] have any problem makes sense to u follow the staff's recommendation on the

[1:01:04] sidewalks. We'll do that and we will have a landscape architect with a stamp

[1:01:08] plan that we can provide to staff for their review. Uh with regards to uh the

[1:01:13] final plat drainage and water and sewer uh the comments from September 1, 2026

[1:01:19] uh our engineers working on we don't view those to be problematic. Uh and we

[1:01:24] will comply with those. With regards to sewer and water, we have submitted the

[1:01:28] plans to the utility provider. Uh we are waiting on an approval of those plans.

[1:01:33] We do have a will serve letter from that provider. Uh so we feel confident that

[1:01:37] we'll be able to comply with uh with those comments. Uh the last item is item

[1:01:42] three which is uh Pew Road and we are we are open to making improvements to Pew

[1:01:48] Road. Um we would like the opportunity to continue to work with staff once we

[1:01:54] have able to do our engineering on that road and those ditches as to exactly

[1:01:59] what those improvements will look like. Um again, we're open to doing them. It's

[1:02:05] just until we're able to kind of do that engineering and see exactly how those

[1:02:10] ditches fall and have all that information to be able to present to

[1:02:14] staff the exact details of those improvements. Uh we'd like the

[1:02:18] opportunity to do that. I also wanted to mention that and I mentioned this to to

[1:02:22] staff. Mr. Reynolds may have comments on this but um and I wanted just to make

[1:02:27] the commission aware of it. Not that this is a decision for the commission,

[1:02:31] but um we would like the opportunity to present to the staff to Mr. Liner the

[1:02:37] opportunity to be able to use our impact fees locally on some of these

[1:02:42] improvements within that Pew Road right away. uh rather than them going into the

[1:02:47] general fund, we we'd like the opportunity to be able to use those

[1:02:51] dollars uh on the ride ofway and to have real tangible improvements in the impact

[1:02:56] area where the subdivision is located. Um with that being said, we would we

[1:03:01] would ask for your approval. The only caveat being with regards to items item

[1:03:05] three, uh the final improvements to be determined and and ultimately approved

[1:03:09] by staff. If you guys are okay with that, happy to answer any questions that

[1:03:13] the commission may have. >> Thank you. Thank you.

[1:03:15] » Does anyone else in the audience wish to speak in favor?

[1:03:19] Anyone opposed? I'm sorry, sir. Did Did you wish to

[1:03:24] speak in favor or in opposition? >> Favor.

[1:03:27] » Good. Come on. This is the the favor time.

[1:03:30] » This is very >> very rare. I just want to say I welcome

[1:03:33] it to the to the area. I'm soon to be building nearby and the homes and all

[1:03:39] that would be good for the community community. So, that's it.

[1:03:42] » Thank you very much. What's your name, sir?

[1:03:45] » Steven Armstrong. >> Okay, thank you.

[1:03:48] » Anyone in the audience wish to speak against? Come, come on up.

[1:03:53] » Hey guys, nice to see you all again. Um, before my time starts, I would just like

[1:03:57] to say uh this, you know, I have prolongingly uh been involved with local

[1:04:04] politics, namely in Madisonville. Um, and this is my first like meeting. I'm

[1:04:09] happy to be here with y'all. This is very exciting that you know we can still

[1:04:14] do this. So, >> God bless America.

[1:04:17] » Yeah, something like that. Um, so I grew up actually on Pew Road in Lacome.

[1:04:26] It's a disgusting swamp. Uh, I'm curious to know um about

[1:04:34] the drainage plan for this neighborhood. Um, and also

[1:04:39] this is a final subdivision vote like the vote

[1:04:44] is going to >> Yeah. So there's there's several

[1:04:47] different stages. You want to pause it? So we we've already uh heard So first

[1:04:52] they had to reszone the property. Then they had to come to us with a concept

[1:04:56] plan that was approved I think when was that done? Like a

[1:05:02] » months ago. July 14th.

[1:05:05] » July 14th. And now they're coming back to us with a final plan that after that

[1:05:11] staff has had an opportunity to review all of the plans that they've submitted,

[1:05:15] which includes hydraology studies, drainage, all of that kind of stuff.

[1:05:19] » Uh, and that hasn't been submitted yet. >> It has been submitted.

[1:05:24] » Okay. Um, but >> it's it's actually part of the packet

[1:05:27] that you can see on the website. Um the gentleman uh said that engineers have

[1:05:34] not been out to this property. >> Uh

[1:05:39] » am I correct me if I'm wrong? I >> I did not hear that, but we will if one

[1:05:43] of the commission wish to ask that question. We'll we'll see.

[1:05:45] » Yeah, I'm just wondering, you know, if this is a final vote for this

[1:05:48] subdivision, where are the engineers at? Where's the math? Where's the money?

[1:05:51] Mhm. >> Uh

[1:05:55] yeah, I'm just And it's a really dangerous area actually. Um north uh it

[1:06:01] starts at North Tibido to Pew Road. It's actually a very dangerous area. So um

[1:06:10] I I just want to say these things and have them on the record. You know, I I

[1:06:14] am in opposition of this environmentally. It's it's going to ruin

[1:06:17] everything. And I think it makes this the parishes uh drainage

[1:06:23] um program I think it makes it moot to continue to add these subdivisions that

[1:06:31] have not properly um

[1:06:35] corresponded with environmentalists or uh you know people that know about the

[1:06:41] the land that they're building on. Um, so I would just like to implore that

[1:06:48] that property is the the whole subdivision is is not a

[1:06:53] good idea. Okay. >> And it's more than likely going to fail

[1:06:57] due due to watering water. So, >> thank you'all.

[1:07:01] » Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to

[1:07:04] speak against? Bring it back to the commission.

[1:07:08] Commissioner Narcissis >> to address

[1:07:13] the young lady that just came up here. Thank you for your comments. Um I take

[1:07:18] exception a little bit to calling Briar Lake disgusting. Um not Briar Lake, but

[1:07:24] uh Pew Road disgusting. That's kind of dis unfavorable to the residents that

[1:07:30] live there. Now, um I will say that this process has been a

[1:07:37] long long process. They originated with 98 houses. We're down to 51. Um there

[1:07:44] was a lot of back and forth and and planning and and and working to get it

[1:07:51] to where it is now. Um they have the right to develop it

[1:07:56] and there's a lot of work that went into it. So to kind of say that the whole

[1:08:03] process is not beneficial to everybody involved, there

[1:08:08] was a lot of community input into this process.

[1:08:12] With that being said, I have a question for Paul. Um the impact fees, I know

[1:08:17] that you guys are responsible for the improvements on Pew Road. Are you

[1:08:22] intending to use those impact fees to offset your cost for those improvements

[1:08:27] or are you going to improve in other areas around? We we would like to u

[1:08:31] request um that uh we be able to use some of those impact fees to offset some

[1:08:37] of the cost to whatever improvements are made within the the Pew Road rightway

[1:08:42] for traffic and then drainage if if there is drainage improvements there.

[1:08:47] That's one of the things that we would have to look at um as we kind of get the

[1:08:51] engineering not on the whole subdivision. Let me be clear. Maybe I

[1:08:54] was unclear. It's just the the uh improvements that might need to be made

[1:08:59] to to Pew Road. >> Well, respectfully, I think that would

[1:09:02] be your obligation to do regardless and to use some of those impact fees in

[1:09:07] other places would be beneficial. I mean, yes, it would be beneficial to

[1:09:14] uh improve P Road, but you have to do that anyway. The continuation of impact

[1:09:19] fees in other places would probably be beneficial to the community as a whole.

[1:09:24] You see what I'm saying? >> Yes, I do. I follow you. I guess the

[1:09:28] only thing I would say is that um with the number of lots that we have now,

[1:09:34] neither the the state or the parish ordinances require any definitive

[1:09:40] improvements to Pew Road. Now, we want to make those. We want to do some of the

[1:09:44] improvements and we think that there's an opportunity to do some of the things

[1:09:48] that that the staff has suggested. And so that's why we at least wanted the

[1:09:52] opportunity to make the request to use some of those impact fees for that. And

[1:09:56] I I just wanted to make sure I wanted to make that make sure the commission

[1:10:00] understood that. I didn't want there to be confusion going forward about that.

[1:10:04] » So I think in general just my understanding and staff can can help me

[1:10:09] out. I think for me personally, if um if you have the opportunity to

[1:10:17] if there's no improvement on Pew Road that you are obligated to make, then use

[1:10:22] the impact fees of course to do that. If you are obligated to make them, use the

[1:10:26] impact fees to better the community somewhere else.

[1:10:28] » I don't dis I I think that's well said. I I look to Mr. Reynolds. I think I

[1:10:33] think you hit the nail on the head with that. I believe right.

[1:10:36] » I believe >> um my biggest concern about this

[1:10:39] Oh, sorry. >> Please, please do.

[1:10:43] » Um, >> actually would like to make two. And

[1:10:46] this is just with everything that's currently going on in St. Tam. I think

[1:10:50] Paul may have misspoke a little bit earlier. He said he would like to

[1:10:53] reserve that the impact fees go back to the general fund and instead use them

[1:10:56] here. Impact fees do not go to the general fund.

[1:11:00] » Very clear on this one. Impact fees go into a separate impact account to be

[1:11:04] used in the service area, not into the general fund. So, I just

[1:11:07] » Yes. Thank you. to make that clarification with everything going on

[1:11:09] right now in the past. >> Thank you for that.

[1:11:11] » But to his point, they would go back into the service area fund for impact,

[1:11:16] » the dreaded Louisiana general fund. >> I I had to. Sorry, guys. Um, but they

[1:11:23] would go into a service area impact fee fund to be utilized in this area for

[1:11:28] traffic and drainage improvements pri primarily capacity related. to Paul's

[1:11:32] point as well as to Miss Reese's point, yes, we when it's required, they are

[1:11:37] obligated to do it and they cannot utilize impact fees to do it. And just

[1:11:40] full disclosure is no, no disrespect to the commission. It is not the

[1:11:43] commission's obligation to determine how to expend those impact funds. That is

[1:11:47] what we jokingly call the RIFFA, but it's the road impact fee administrator

[1:11:50] and the drainage impact fee administrator, which is currently housed

[1:11:53] in the department of engineering and is Mr. D. I think Miss Moron's just trying

[1:11:56] to be transparent, which appreciate. >> So to the point of the road itself, it

[1:12:00] is it is meeting curtain standards. The we cannot require them to subsurface it

[1:12:04] because it's not meeting death requirements, which is why in the staff

[1:12:06] report, it was discussed as a recommendation because we felt it was

[1:12:10] appropriate to improve the capacity and drainage and ultimately safety on this

[1:12:15] roadway, particularly at the entrance to Pew Road and Highway 190 where you see a

[1:12:19] lot of traffic. So it would have to go through a series of vetting. He would

[1:12:22] have to propose some cost analysis, things like that. All that come to the

[1:12:26] riffa. Sorry, I'm gonna keep it as riff word because that's what we're used to.

[1:12:30] But all that would be evaluated and it would have to pass a series of criteria

[1:12:34] that would allow us to utilize that money or rather provide an impact fee

[1:12:38] credit. If it doesn't pass those criteria, he cannot utilize it nor can

[1:12:42] we issue it. So there is a check and balance there. Just wanted to make sure

[1:12:45] we're aware of that. >> Thank you for that clarification.

[1:12:47] » Yes, sir. My biggest concern is the existing utilities that are in the

[1:12:53] neighboring subdivision and tying into that system that residents have said was

[1:13:00] already underperforming and tying into a system that is already

[1:13:04] underperforming. What would be our recourse to kind of

[1:13:09] prevent that from happening or or work to better that system?

[1:13:13] » Um is is that in reference to the water and sewer specifically? Um yes sir. So

[1:13:18] generally it's not uncommon that when we have systems connecting or tying in or

[1:13:21] increasing capacity that the utility provider will actually require them to

[1:13:25] help upgrade their system do via through a service agreement or impact fee funds.

[1:13:30] Not our impact fees but their impact fees. Um it's very common like we

[1:13:34] actually just did one with Department of Utilities on Hoffman where we wanted to

[1:13:37] add a subdivision Belleview Estates. they were required to improve our plant

[1:13:40] to make it function better prior to connecting those additional lots onto

[1:13:44] » and I know that there was uh early on we talked about a couple hundred,000 to go

[1:13:48] into approve to improve those systems. It's very hard for me to to put faith in

[1:13:57] that. >> Yeah. And just to be clear, the impact

[1:13:59] fees we currently have are only for road and drainage. That is completely

[1:14:02] separate from the water and sewer course. So, none of those impact fees

[1:14:05] would be utilized at all for any of the improvements required for the water and

[1:14:08] sewer. Gota >> and just to piggyback on that, uh, the

[1:14:12] utility provider has already advised us that we do have to pay to upgrade their

[1:14:16] system, which we which we're aware of and and we're we're going to comply with

[1:14:20] that. So at the end of the day, I think the state and I believe also the parish

[1:14:24] will have to um you know, we'll have to see those improvements so that we can

[1:14:29] demonstrate and the utility provider more importantly can demonstrate that

[1:14:33] it'll function uh with the capacity that's needed to service our area. So it

[1:14:38] should be a better functioning and better uh working system with the

[1:14:42] improvements that we'll be obligated to make.

[1:14:44] » Here's open. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Anything

[1:14:48] else, Commissioner Rober? >> Um, okay. So, I completely agree with

[1:14:54] the staff comments. First one, and this is the one I was mistaken on thinking it

[1:15:00] was for the other one. Um, the sidewalk connections to the proposed green space

[1:15:06] mailbox area. If we could address that, um,

[1:15:11] staff recommends relocating the sidewalk to the opposite side of the street. I do

[1:15:14] completely agree. is currently shown. Residents accessing the green space and

[1:15:18] mailbox area would need to cross the street and the proposed sidewalk does

[1:15:22] not provide the most direct connection. I would also go so far to say I don't

[1:15:26] love the location of the green space at the south right by the detention pond

[1:15:31] and 190, but I understand that that is going to be the best possible location

[1:15:37] when we look at the overall drainage for this entire area. Um, Miss Johnson, I

[1:15:43] want to make one more comment on something you said. So,

[1:15:47] um, when we initially approved this, I pulled topographic topographic data on

[1:15:53] this entire parcel and it actually sits kind of on top of a hill. The majority

[1:15:58] overwhelming majority of this parcel the whole 20 somehat 22.37 acres was in

[1:16:05] flood zone X and it was substantially higher than the surrounding area which

[1:16:10] now that we are discussing P road improvements gave an opportunity for

[1:16:14] this for P road to get much needed drainage improvements

[1:16:18] » and I have a very specific question this not it's not your time

[1:16:22] » just one second so that would be my um other comment on the staff comments.

[1:16:28] Paul, based on the existing width and configuration of Pew Road, staff

[1:16:32] recommends that the proposed improvements include the installation of

[1:16:35] a subsurface drainage system and widening of the asphalt roadway. I

[1:16:38] remember when we initially heard this, Pew Road's inadequacy was the sticking

[1:16:43] point for this, if you wouldn't mind coming back up. Um, because I do have a

[1:16:47] question for you and for staff. How do we guarantee that?

[1:16:52] What do we need to do as far as motions with this to ensure that P road has the

[1:16:57] best possible chance at improvements moving forward? Not that I don't trust

[1:17:00] you, Paul. >> No, I not I understand. Good question.

[1:17:03] Um Ted, you want to go first? You want me to you want me? Okay, maybe I'll try

[1:17:08] to answer and then uh so we again we're we are not we are open to making

[1:17:13] improvements to to Pew Road. Um and so we would be very comfortable if the

[1:17:19] commission were to decide to make part of their motion comply with staff

[1:17:25] comments and with with regards to item three that improvements be made to Pew

[1:17:30] Road subject to those final improvements being approved reviewed and approved by

[1:17:35] staff. I just want to have the ability in other words what exactly what they

[1:17:41] have word for there. for example. >> I don't want to I don't want to lock

[1:17:44] y'all in any what we actually need. So that's why I

[1:17:49] want I want to get the wording from D from staff Diana and

[1:17:54] » Maria or Ted so that we get this to the best possible point with approving it to

[1:18:00] give P road the best chance to improve drainage and widen that roadway but

[1:18:06] without locking them into something that they can't commit to.

[1:18:12] I think it's evidence. I think that's in truthfully um that's the intent of how

[1:18:15] we wrote number three and why we wrote it as a recommendation and we stated on

[1:18:20] what that recommendation should be aso as opposed to lowering and regrading it

[1:18:24] which is currently proposed in their civil plans

[1:18:26] » to instead actually subsurface it and widen it. Now what that looks like the

[1:18:31] reason we kind of left it a little bit open-ended intentionally is how far do

[1:18:35] we subsurface? Well, we don't fully know that answer yet. That's I believe what

[1:18:38] Mr. is looking for some leeway on. Can we engineer it, look at it, evaluate

[1:18:43] it and say, "Okay, instead of 100 feet, it's going to be 150 or 200." So, we

[1:18:48] left it as the recommendations are two subsurface and too wide in the road is

[1:18:52] what we are essentially requesting or requiring in the stat. I think it was

[1:18:56] written as a request, but it be subject to a requirement. Um, but we left it

[1:19:00] very intentionally not to set numbers or stipulations so that it can be designed

[1:19:05] appropriately. >> That's perfect. So,

[1:19:08] I would need to make the motion to approve subject to the staff

[1:19:12] recommendation. Can you help me with the wording? I don't want to. Well, it would

[1:19:15] be to staff comment number three, not making it a recommendation, but a

[1:19:21] requirement >> which you could do it

[1:19:25] » to install subsurface stream systems and then widening the existing

[1:19:31] roadway

[1:19:34] » as as opposed to making it a recommendation.

[1:19:37] » Thank you. So, make making that requirement. Okay. All right.

[1:19:42] » All right. Am I good to Mhm.

[1:19:44] » All right. I would like to make a motion to approve provided staff comment number

[1:19:50] three is a requirement and not a recommendation.

[1:19:57] » Subject to their specifications >> subject to

[1:19:59] » staff specifications. >> Staff specifications working with the

[1:20:02] developer >> on the details.

[1:20:04] » On the Yes. Yeah. It's written vaguely in here so that we're giving the

[1:20:09] opportunity for this to be ironed out at a later date. But the requirement is

[1:20:14] that you comply with what staff >> that there be some lighting and

[1:20:17] subsurfacing. >> I think that's fine. May I ask a

[1:20:21] question, Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. My my hesitation is although it doesn't say

[1:20:25] any distances, it says from 190 all the way to the boulevard and that even

[1:20:31] though it doesn't give a distance, that's that's where I think we need to

[1:20:34] have some flexion. That's what we're trying to codify it as staff

[1:20:37] recommendation >> and that's as long as we're clear on

[1:20:39] that then >> I'm saying whatever the staff decides is

[1:20:42] what I'm happy to I just want to make sure that it's a requirement

[1:20:48] that you comply with what the staff recommends.

[1:20:51] » Okay. >> Yeah.

[1:20:53] » And you're making a motion to approve a motion to approve without amendment.

[1:20:56] » Without amendment. >> Motion to approve with amendment.

[1:20:58] Commissioner Rober, Commissioner Narcissis,

[1:21:03] » when asked about it early on, they said, "What are your concerns?" I said,

[1:21:06] "Water." And they said, "Is it the drinking water or is it the water on the

[1:21:10] road?" And I said, "Both." So, I really, really, really implore you to do your

[1:21:15] best to make sure the utilities are where they need to be and the road is

[1:21:19] improved with the drainage. And I hope you do it out of the goodness of your

[1:21:23] heart, Miss Marone. Um, and with the uh requirement there. But I'm going to go

[1:21:28] ahead and second the motion. >> Have a motion and a second with the

[1:21:32] amendment. Commissioner Seager,

[1:21:37] » I'd just like to recognize a young man in the back that's been sitting here for

[1:21:41] the whole meeting. He's a lot better behaved than some of our regular

[1:21:45] attendees. And u congratulations. You're raising a great young man back there.

[1:21:51] » Thank you. We have we have a resolution to uh uh congratulate the young man in

[1:21:55] the back there. Okay, we have a motion a second. Do you

[1:21:59] have no further comment? >> I just want I just

[1:22:02] » I just want to make sure that the first comment

[1:22:06] my motion because we're adding additional

[1:22:12] is it is subject to that also being fulfilled.

[1:22:16] » That's correct. >> Okay, perfect.

[1:22:17] » Yep. >> Okay, we have a motion with an amendment

[1:22:20] and a second. No further discussion. Please vote.

[1:22:31] Motion to approve with amendment carries.

[1:22:33] » Thanks for working with us. >> Okay, I think we're moving on to the uh

[1:22:39] UDC. Is that what we're doing? Is that next?

[1:22:43] Okay.

[1:22:47] » So, we're going to we're going to hear these one at a time.

[1:22:51] Do we do we need to hear these one at a time? Yes. So, let's let's read in the

[1:22:56] uh amendments to the code ordinance. I'll just I'll Yeah. And just we're only

[1:23:01] going to take a first. We're not we're not going to go we're going to go one

[1:23:04] after another.

[1:23:09] » Amendments to the code of ordinances part two unified development code amend

[1:23:13] chapter 100 administration section 102.5 board of adjustment to add training

[1:23:19] requirements. So, this requested UDC amendment is it

[1:23:24] essentially to add uh four hours of training for newly adopted board of

[1:23:30] adjustments members and continuing education uh every two years. It's

[1:23:35] pretty consistent with existing planning and zoning commission training within

[1:23:38] the code now. >> Okay. Uh anyone else in the audience

[1:23:43] wish to speak in favor of this amendment?

[1:23:47] Anyone opposed? Bring it back to the commission.

[1:23:51] Commissioner Seager. >> Move to approve.

[1:23:53] » Motion to approve. Commissioner Seager. Commissioner Trxillo.

[1:23:56] » Second. >> We have a motion and a second. See no

[1:23:59] further discussion. Please vote.

[1:24:05] » Motion to approve carries. Item B, amend chapter 200

[1:24:11] procedures section 2003.3 zoning map changes to codify the

[1:24:16] procedure for parish council action on zoning map changes applications.

[1:24:22] » Uh this amendment will establish a process for council action after they

[1:24:25] receive the recommendations from the planning and zoning commission.

[1:24:29] Approvals will proceed with an introduction of ordinances and denials

[1:24:33] are documented via resolution. Uh, it also allows an applicant to request a

[1:24:38] less intense zoning classification before the council other than what was

[1:24:42] advertised and heard by you all at the planning and zoning commission.

[1:24:47] » Anyone else in the in the audience wish to speak in favor?

[1:24:52] Anyone opposed? Bring it back to the commission.

[1:24:56] Commissioner Seager, >> move to approve.

[1:24:58] » Motion to approve. Commissioner Seager. Commissioner Roar.

[1:25:01] » I have a question for Ross. >> Yes. Um, I noticed that at the Thursday

[1:25:06] night council meeting, >> could you come up to the microphone,

[1:25:08] sir? >> Yeah, if you could. Thank you very much,

[1:25:10] Mr. Liner.

[1:25:15] » Little faster, please. >> I'm listening.

[1:25:19] » Okay. Um, my understanding at the council meeting Thursday night, a

[1:25:26] I don't know. I don't know if it was off the floor or what. Um the very end of

[1:25:30] the meeting a motion was made by a council person for requesting

[1:25:35] explanations of denials for zoning cases. Correct.

[1:25:40] » Incorrect. So what is this on? >> Yeah.

[1:25:42] » All right. So basically what they asked me to do and what this department

[1:25:46] provided previously from 2021 to 2024 is when appeal is made to give them

[1:25:51] additional information related to the staff comments to the commissioner

[1:25:55] comments and to the public comments about why the appeal uh is coming before

[1:25:59] them whether it's something that was approved or denied. So I just want a

[1:26:02] little bit more information related to the case. I'm also going to link a

[1:26:06] YouTube video of that case on that uh memo as well. So, it's just really

[1:26:11] trying to point them in the right direction with some additional

[1:26:13] information for an appeal only. >> Okay. Um,

[1:26:17] » and this was brought to us by the DA's office.

[1:26:19] » No, I love it. >> To make it more clear about what the

[1:26:21] actions of the council should be. >> No, I think it's great, but when we look

[1:26:25] at this, my concern is that so just take like an HC zoning for example. Um,

[1:26:34] this expressly lets an applicant whose reasoning was denied to amend the

[1:26:39] request to a less intensive zoning classification. My understanding is that

[1:26:42] has happened in the past. This is just codifying it. Correct.

[1:26:45] » Correct. It's always been policy that someone can always ask for something

[1:26:48] less intense. >> Okay. So that being said,

[1:26:53] if there is a statement and all of the information, if I'm sorry, if the

[1:26:59] information that PNZ has on the denial is not present,

[1:27:07] I'm a little concerned that we're allowing downzoning

[1:27:12] and also asking for information as to why we would have denied in the first

[1:27:16] place. >> Like it's it's so

[1:27:20] under appeal >> under

[1:27:25] so under appeal is the only time but what I'm saying is this could all

[1:27:30] compound and occur on the same case >> if if that makes sense

[1:27:34] » I'm trying to think so >> it has it has

[1:27:37] » it has many times so if we make a recommendation that HC3 just say for

[1:27:44] instance is not appropriate on a parcel and we give that information to the

[1:27:49] council and the council says, "Well, we're

[1:27:51] totally fine with it going down to HC1, I'm sorry, if we didn't give that

[1:27:57] information to them, then they have nothing in hand in that meeting when the

[1:28:03] down zoning is requested." >> I mean, I disagree. We we provide a

[1:28:07] staff report to the uh council every month for every case. So

[1:28:14] » So they're still getting it. They're just not getting the supplemental that

[1:28:16] would have come correct with an appeal. Okay. Yes, exactly.

[1:28:19] » Okay. All right. In >> that case,

[1:28:22] » I have some concerns just because I think this is an opportunity for people

[1:28:26] to game the system. I think that they could come

[1:28:28] » something less. >> Yeah. Well, it could come to us uh

[1:28:31] proposing something more intensive knowing they're going to get a denial to

[1:28:35] to to bring it to the council in an attempt to try to get, you know, some I

[1:28:40] just >> But that's already happening.

[1:28:44] » Yeah. Right now that's a risk. >> Right now they'd have to come come back

[1:28:48] to uh the planning commission with with the petition for the lesser zoning.

[1:28:53] » No right no this has happened. That's why I wasn't worried about codifying it

[1:28:58] because this has literally happened already.

[1:29:02] » Yeah. I don't like that. >> So this prevents that.

[1:29:05] » I think Isidora >> it happened on didn't it?

[1:29:08] » Isora John. >> Isidora. It happened. Yeah,

[1:29:12] » it happened on a Pew Road case. >> Happened on Pew Road as well.

[1:29:15] » Not not using it to to game the system. I'm not

[1:29:20] saying that. >> No, but this this happened frequently.

[1:29:23] » So, this is a recommending body >> for zoning to the council. It's the

[1:29:28] council's authority, >> correct?

[1:29:30] » To come up with an appropriate zoning classification. If they uphold a denial,

[1:29:35] that's fine. if they work with a property owner for a more reasonable

[1:29:42] uh zone classification or for the one that y'all denied. In fact, that's the

[1:29:46] council's authority and that's their >> then why.

[1:29:51] » So that is zoning is an ordinance. Zoning is a it's a law. So it has to go

[1:29:55] to the legislative body. This is a recommending body for planning

[1:29:59] commission. You have the authority only under appeal to the council. Yeah.

[1:30:02] » So, you're providing your >> recommendation to the council. They have

[1:30:07] the authority to do whatever they want. >> Just like uh the the time for public

[1:30:11] comment on this is expired. So, uh any any questions that are that are to the

[1:30:16] public have to originate from the commission at this time.

[1:30:20] » Commissioner Rober, you still have the floor.

[1:30:22] » Thank you. Um, so seeing as this has already presented

[1:30:28] issues in the past, whether it's friction or just misunderstanding,

[1:30:35] I would love to see something come from us regardless on

[1:30:41] it. I don't know how we set that bar, but if it's HC, if it's a down um I'm

[1:30:47] sorry, if we're re made a recommendation not to reszone and it is an egregious

[1:30:52] move like you know the ones we're talking about right now, like um you

[1:30:57] know going from R1 to S2, why I think that having that supplemental

[1:31:04] information for the council to be able to read that regardless of if it's on

[1:31:09] appeal or not, that's what I want to see happen.

[1:31:13] » I believe they get all the information now. So, I'm I'm not thinking that

[1:31:16] there's a disconnect. >> Okay. There's Okay.

[1:31:19] » Are are you saying you want it to come back if it's amended to come back to PNZ

[1:31:24] for >> No, I I I do still think that the

[1:31:26] council should retain that that benefit so to I don't know what other word to

[1:31:33] use, but that is still the council that that I don't think it should always come

[1:31:38] back to us. But I do think that if it's a major leap, then there there should be

[1:31:44] some >> But then again, they're overriding a

[1:31:48] denial today to give them what they even asked for. So, I don't see

[1:31:54] » the the reasoning behind it because if y'all deny a case and they someone

[1:31:59] appeals it, they can just get that zoning classification that they

[1:32:03] came to y'all for that was denied anyway. So even if they lessen

[1:32:07] the request of something less intense, it seems

[1:32:12] that is, you know, that it's appropriate.

[1:32:16] » No,

[1:32:21] » no, they can. That's what he's saying. >> They don't have to go back is what is

[1:32:27] what it is. They don't have to go back. So, like the example I just used, if

[1:32:30] they request HC3 and we deny it and they appeal it, the council person can say,

[1:32:35] "Well, I'm >> I see where the zoning commission

[1:32:39] denied. I'm totally fine with this being HC2."

[1:32:42] » They can be fine with HC3 as well. >> They could be fine with HC3 as well.

[1:32:45] Correct. >> And override your denial.

[1:32:48] » Right. >> So, I'm I'm not seeing we're going to

[1:32:52] get overridden. I mean, it's just it's just a

[1:32:54] » I don't have a problem with being overridden. I don't have a problem with

[1:32:57] being overridden. That is their right to override us. My problem is when we're

[1:33:01] talking about massive jumps in density one way or the other and not having all

[1:33:06] of the information because it feels like they're being caught off guard.

[1:33:09] » Well, we do work with the council cuz when it comes to an appeal, I mean, we

[1:33:12] do start working with the council and they start asking staff questions

[1:33:16] whether it's permits and inspections, planning and development or engineering.

[1:33:20] I mean, >> I think I think this is most pertinent

[1:33:23] when uh the case really should be heard almost in a planning stage first prior

[1:33:29] to zoning because the the zoning classification is kind of dependent that

[1:33:33] is is creating the density that the plan is. And I think that is that is the the

[1:33:39] problem in some of these particular cases is that we're we don't have the

[1:33:43] plan that that really kind of understands what the density is going to

[1:33:48] be prior to making the zoning case. It's almost like it's almost like we need a

[1:33:53] new process specifically for like concept plans or something like that so

[1:33:58] that we we hearing some of those things together, you know.

[1:34:01] » So Councilman Kuville was talking about the memo for appeals. Councilman

[1:34:04] Laughlin was talking about trying to get something as a new process. And again,

[1:34:10] you know, no zoning change can be predicated on any kind of condition.

[1:34:14] » Correct. >> So, it's not like they can come here for

[1:34:16] a concept and say, "Yep, I'm going to do this."

[1:34:17] » Let's hear from some of the other commissioners

[1:34:20] » and then, you know, you're forced to do it. It's

[1:34:23] » they're trying to work it out. >> Commissioner Blanchard.

[1:34:25] » Yeah. I think that where I see the conflict is that they're asking for the

[1:34:29] report to come back and sort of give them a heads up of why it's on appeal,

[1:34:33] but then they bring it to a down zoning, right? Which again is their right. So,

[1:34:40] it it seems to me like they they want some information, but they they're not

[1:34:43] asking for all of it. >> I mean, I'll say it this way. I work

[1:34:46] with council a lot and if it's something that's coming under appeal whether it's

[1:34:50] a subdivision or even a single lot just a 1acre lot for a commercial property.

[1:34:57] The council reaches out, we engage, and we give them all the information they

[1:35:00] request. It's not like they're requesting information from y'all so

[1:35:03] y'all never see it. But believe me, we provide a lot of information to the

[1:35:06] council. They're not going in there blind.

[1:35:07] » Yeah. No, I I know they aren't flying blind. I guess my thought there is just

[1:35:11] if we're going to provide some sort of supplemental report so that they're up

[1:35:14] to speed when the appeal comes, maybe we should be including some language that

[1:35:19] says, "Look, if you want to go down from HC3 to HC2, we might be okay with that.

[1:35:25] We be willing to reconsider it." And so the council at that point has a better

[1:35:29] idea of obviously again they can override, but how we all feel, right?

[1:35:33] And I think that would maybe, you know, leave everyone a little bit better

[1:35:36] informed >> this negotiation want to be on here.

[1:35:39] Yeah, >> I mean I get what you're saying. Um,

[1:35:44] you know, maybe in under an appeal we can provide a little bit more

[1:35:48] information so they have >> the next one or two zoning

[1:35:52] classifications that would be less intense that may meet the needs of that

[1:35:56] particular person and say, "Look, y'all might want to consider this, you know,

[1:35:59] during uh the appeal process." Something like that.

[1:36:02] » Yeah. I think you just again you want to give give them a better idea um I guess

[1:36:08] why number one you know they're they're asking for a down zoning unbeknownst to

[1:36:11] us obviously because that's happening after we've already made our

[1:36:15] recommendation so if we can give them a better idea of hey we'd like to see it

[1:36:18] here then I think we would all feel a lot better about being overridden in

[1:36:23] downtown sort of exparte right >> so I'll say this um you know during an

[1:36:28] appeal when we zoning change that's going to come back to y'all all under

[1:36:33] planning and if there's a if if if it's an intense appeal,

[1:36:39] we have a commissioner or two sometimes attend those meetings with council

[1:36:44] members andor developers because it may go it's it may come back to y'all. If

[1:36:49] it's just a 1acre park that's going to be commercial, they're going to get

[1:36:52] permits. They're going to move on. But if it's a subdivision that is trying to

[1:36:55] go to S2, but they're negotiating down to S1, and we know it's coming back to

[1:36:59] the commission under planning, we'll probably have a commissioner or two

[1:37:03] there. >> That makes sense.

[1:37:05] » So, we're doing a lot in the background. Um,

[1:37:09] » we uh can always improve, but yeah, we're doing a lot of these things that

[1:37:13] you're all talking about. >> Mr. Trxillo.

[1:37:15] » Yeah, this is the staff Ross also. Uh, I'm sure y'all give them lots of

[1:37:22] information and if and and uh because I know uh some of the council people

[1:37:29] called me. I've been here a long time. So, I have interaction with them at once

[1:37:35] we deny some before they call me. Sometimes they call and ask, "Hey, why?"

[1:37:39] And I give them uh my reason. And I'm sure they do the same thing to y'all.

[1:37:45] » Absolutely. So I I don't see any issue with giving them more information. If if

[1:37:49] they choose to read it, fine. If they don't, that's that's that's them. And

[1:37:53] they the they are the are in charge of the decisions. Basically, they rule. If

[1:38:00] they want to change it, they're going to change it. That That's all I want to

[1:38:03] say. >> That's I' I'd comment on that, too, and

[1:38:06] say ultimately they're the elected officials. So, you know, they're held to

[1:38:10] a higher level of accountability than, you know, based on the decisions to

[1:38:14] overturn or to uh, you know, approve a downzoning. Commissioner RC, you have

[1:38:20] additional comments. >> Yeah, I like the part in here where it

[1:38:22] says if we recommend a modified approval, I think that I think that

[1:38:27] gives your I guess I think that marries both y'all is in there that if we say,

[1:38:32] "Hey, this is not good, but we would go to that." That gives a a quicker way to

[1:38:37] do it. Yeah. What the fear I think what you're

[1:38:40] saying is in that case where it's not a recommendation where we're like no this

[1:38:46] is not fitting and then they go one thing under it and then the council

[1:38:51] person based on various different other factors

[1:38:55] are not having that oversight by us is that I think that's the fear that we

[1:38:59] have. Um >> it's they don't have we don't have

[1:39:04] oversight over them. They have over us, >> not oversight, but the idea that

[1:39:09] somebody else is looking over it. >> Cuz if John Gain

[1:39:12] » not having the recommendation, >> if John Gains, not having the

[1:39:15] recommendation, if John Gaines is friends with the developer

[1:39:19] » and they shoot for Highway Commercial 3, >> I'm not friends with any developers.

[1:39:25] » Lucky you have friends. and that they shoot for highway

[1:39:28] commercial 3 knowing that it's a settle at highway commercial one, but it's

[1:39:32] really a neighborhood commercial district, but they play that game and

[1:39:36] that shell game without oversight from a commission that actually live on the

[1:39:39] ground and actually want to work and play that and play the process.

[1:39:43] » You know, we have 14 council members who's it's always going to be somebody's

[1:39:46] district who lives in that area. >> I get it. I get it.

[1:39:49] » I mean, I think >> it I I agree. I think

[1:39:52] » I'm overthinking the film. I'll take your word for it.

[1:39:54] » Well, I think so. I think we're trying to codify the process.

[1:39:57] » We can't control what they think of. >> We do by policy now. Yeah.

[1:40:01] » Um it's really just making it where they're where it's on the books.

[1:40:06] Um and we're going to provide them more information, better memos.

[1:40:11] » Yeah. I love I love the idea of more information and the and the

[1:40:14] recommendations being able to be moved on. It's just that one little blind spot

[1:40:20] that is a fear for >> and it's been happening since day one

[1:40:22] since this commission and I council been >> Do we have a motion?

[1:40:27] » Make a motion. >> We need a second. Commissioner Rober,

[1:40:30] » I'd like to second the motion to approve.

[1:40:32] » Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve.

[1:40:36] No further comments. Please vote.

[1:40:44] Motion to approve carries.

[1:40:48] » Amen. >> Come over here.

[1:41:00] » We made amend on that last motion, I guess. I don't know. All right. See

[1:41:04] amen. Chapter 100, Administration. Section 105, definitions, and chapter

[1:41:09] 300, buildings and construction. Section 305, inspections to add requirements for

[1:41:15] construction test meters and non-residential projects. staff.

[1:41:19] » So, this amendment establishes a definition for a construction test meter

[1:41:24] and requirements and allowances for non-residential projects and allows them

[1:41:28] to be active no longer than 90 days from the date of issuance until the the date

[1:41:33] of issuance for a certificate of occupancy. It essentially allows the

[1:41:36] permits director to pull the temporary test meter if the building isn't in

[1:41:40] compliance with building code or other applicable sections of the unified

[1:41:43] development code. Anybody in favor wants to speak?

[1:41:50] » Anybody opposed? >> I want to speak.

[1:41:52] » I'm going to bring it to the push. >> I'm going in order, sir. I might be a

[1:41:57] rookie here, but I know the processes. Commissioner Rober,

[1:42:02] » this one's easy. >> Rober was the first one.

[1:42:04] » This one's easy. I'd like to make a motion to approve.

[1:42:07] » All right, >> Mr. Seager.

[1:42:09] » Second. >> Can I speak or No,

[1:42:13] » did you? Oh, I didn't I didn't I didn't know.

[1:42:15] » That's this is on rural temples for non-residential construction.

[1:42:19] » Okay. I thought we were on a different >> Gotcha. Mr. Seager. Second.

[1:42:24] » Yes. >> Second by Mr. Seager. Mr. Truckillo and

[1:42:27] you >> Yes. I just have questions if you don't

[1:42:29] mind. I I had quite many years experience with with

[1:42:34] the utility company. I I have a few questions here. Uh when you're saying

[1:42:38] test me is actually a temporary plugin uh but for about 39 day permit correct

[1:42:44] before they could check the equipment and and and make sure that the that the

[1:42:49] floors the the floors are sealing properly and everything like that which

[1:42:53] is a great idea which that does it speeds up the the occupancy rate so so

[1:43:01] people have to wait later but do we have anything like that for the residential

[1:43:05] side? No, not this time. >> We don't this time, but we allow for it

[1:43:11] after the rough and inspections. And the uh

[1:43:14] » Will you come up here, please? >> Mic, please.

[1:43:16] » I apologize. >> No, come sit over here.

[1:43:19] » Yeah, come sit over here.

[1:43:24] » This is Nick Leblon, our permits inspection.

[1:43:27] » I know. You know, >> this is Nick Leblanc,

[1:43:31] » the director of permits and inspections. Um we we allow for a temporary utility

[1:43:36] connect um during residential post roughening inspection. So when they

[1:43:40] allow to insulate is when we allow for it in residential. Commercial is a

[1:43:43] little bit more complicated. >> Oh no. Well I understand that.

[1:43:45] » So we want to make sure that we get a CT.

[1:43:47] » I just want to make sure that that the residential side had that opportunity

[1:43:49] but I know it's not 90 days. It's usually a 30-day period. Right.

[1:43:52] » They have that opportunity right now. Yes sir. This is just

[1:43:55] » and these are the meters that are plugged into the meter pan. Not not

[1:43:58] temporary. Okay. >> That's correct. Two poles are cut early.

[1:44:00] » That's why I want to make want to clarify to everybody. Thank you.

[1:44:05] » I'm good.

[1:44:11] » Motion in a second. >> Okay, we have a motion in a second.

[1:44:14] » Yeah, >> please vote.

[1:44:20] » Missing one.

[1:44:24] » Mine is blue.

[1:44:30] » Everybody got a blue light? I got blue lettering.

[1:44:36] » So, how do I

[1:44:40] » Can we all reselect our vote? >> Yeah. Everybody hit it again,

[1:44:43] » please.

[1:44:47] » All right. Hold on. >> Try again.

[1:44:51] » Please try again.

[1:44:55] » There we go. >> Yay.

[1:44:58] » Motion to approve carries. Item D, >> give me a mic.

[1:45:03] » One more time. >> Item D, amend chapter 400, zoning

[1:45:08] section 48 RR. U standards for swimming pools to clarify setbacks for pool

[1:45:15] equipment.

[1:45:19] » This one's pretty self-explanatory. It's uh clarifying setback requirements for

[1:45:24] swimming pool equipment. So that and why do we need a clarification?

[1:45:30] » Well, right now right now it goes

[1:45:36] right now it goes by the the rim of the pool or the decking, but we have an

[1:45:40] issue with swimming pool equipment encroaching into the sideyard setback

[1:45:43] and the UDC didn't specifically require any setback, but we've always had a

[1:45:47] policy to say it needs to be compliant with the pool setback. This just

[1:45:50] codifies it. >> Oh, thank you. very important piece of

[1:45:54] legislation. >> Self-explanatory. Please explain,

[1:45:56] please. >> A little more than you thought.

[1:46:00] » Yes. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor?

[1:46:04] Anyone opposed? >> Bring it back to the commission.

[1:46:09] Commissioner Seager. >> Move to approve.

[1:46:13] » Motion to approve. Commissioner Seager. Commissioner Trxillo.

[1:46:16] » Second. >> Motion and a second. No further

[1:46:20] discussion. Please vote.

[1:46:26] Motion to approve carries. >> Item E, amend chapter 100 administration

[1:46:31] and chapter 400 zoning, including section 4003 commercial zoning

[1:46:36] districts. Section 44 specialized zoning districts. Section 405,

[1:46:43] industrial districts, 407 overlay districts, and section 48 using

[1:46:49] standards to add outdoor shooting range as conditional use and include minimum

[1:46:54] standards.

[1:46:57] » This one again is relatively um you know easy to understand.

[1:47:02] » Don't say the words. We're requesting postponement uh of this

[1:47:07] UDC amendment to allow us further time to research to make sure that we get all

[1:47:12] the comments that we received the first time this was on your agenda by you and

[1:47:15] implemented into the code before it comes back to you.

[1:47:17] » So you're requesting item E be postponed or table motion to postpone.

[1:47:22] » We'll revert. >> We have a motion to postpone.

[1:47:25] » Second. >> Yes.

[1:47:26] » And a second. >> How long?

[1:47:28] » Indeely. >> Indefinitely.

[1:47:30] » Nope. We don't do indefinitely anymore. >> Okay. Motion postpone.

[1:47:33] » Motion to table. >> Motion to table. Okay.

[1:47:42] » Motion postpone. >> Is is is

[1:47:46] one month enough time >> if you table it. We don't try to bring

[1:47:49] these UDC amendments to you every month. We try and separate them out a few

[1:47:52] months. So we'll have to readver. >> I'm being informed by legal that we

[1:47:56] can't table it because table it just pulls it to the la end of the meeting

[1:48:00] » and we are at the end of the meeting. Can we withdraw?

[1:48:03] » The next time we wait for it will be December.

[1:48:06] » Two months. >> Two months.

[1:48:08] » Three months. >> November,

[1:48:11] » October, November, December. >> Three months.

[1:48:14] » Motion for three months. Postponement. >> Second to approve.

[1:48:17] » Motion and a second to postpone for three months. Please vote.

[1:48:28] » Motion to postpone three months. Carries.

[1:48:32] Item F, amend chapter 400, zoning section 400- AAA. Uh, use standards for

[1:48:39] mobile food trucks to incorporate revised standards.

[1:48:45] Currently in the UDC, food trucks have to come to us every time they want to

[1:48:49] sell from a different property. Um, it's incumbent upon the planning department

[1:48:53] to check the zoning of the property, make sure they're not parked in required

[1:48:56] parking spaces, make sure they have the correct LD, LDH lensure. It It's not

[1:49:02] necessarily making sense for the way food trucks operate and that they're

[1:49:06] mobile business to come to us every time they want to sell from a different

[1:49:10] property and pay the $100 fee. Um, we looked into best practices and other

[1:49:14] jurisdictions and found that a lot of places are just requiring an annual

[1:49:18] permit. So that's what this ordinance is proposing just to have a one-time annual

[1:49:22] permit where they understand read all the rules and regulations and sign to

[1:49:26] abide by the before notary.

[1:49:31] » Okay. Anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor?

[1:49:35] » Food trucks are good trucks. >> Anyone opposed?

[1:49:39] » Best kind of truck. >> Bring it back to the commission.

[1:49:41] Commissioner Walker. >> Yeah. Thank you all for this one. Been

[1:49:45] in this industry a couple years and it's mindboggling every time. New piece. Dang

[1:49:50] it. We got to go back to the parish. So, no. This one is awesome. Makes sense. No

[1:49:55] issues. I'll make a motion to approve. >> Motion to approve. Commissioner Walker.

[1:49:59] Commissioner Blanchard. >> I I'll move to second. Um I love food

[1:50:03] trucks. >> We have a motion to second. Do you have

[1:50:07] comments? >> Won't be long.

[1:50:11] » I just have a favor to ask. Can we get GIS to add a food truck approved layer

[1:50:16] to the parish GIS so that the food trucks have somewhere to go to see

[1:50:20] pre-approved locations and then we can all follow and see where they're going

[1:50:25] to be at >> I could find them.

[1:50:26] » Yeah.

[1:50:29] » Yeah, that was it. You just have to have a written permission. Like if you're

[1:50:33] going to our precinct for instance, we just have to have either a text, email,

[1:50:38] something. >> I have to approve all taco trucks before

[1:50:43] they can operate.

[1:50:47] » I'll take care of the >> We have a We have a motion and a second.

[1:50:50] No further discussion. Please vote. >> Hey guys, come on. I know I know this is

[1:50:55] waning on tonight, so let's uh we got a couple more here to get through.

[1:50:59] Motion to approve carries. >> Item G, amend 500, uh, nonconformity

[1:51:06] section 500-2, types of non-conformities to clarify abandonment terms for

[1:51:11] manufactured homes.

[1:51:15] » Um, right now for legal non-conforming uses, specifically manufactured homes,

[1:51:20] if the electricity to that manufactured home is turned off for longer than 6

[1:51:24] months, the parish no longer considers it a legal non-conforming use. is just

[1:51:28] non-conforming and the electricity can't turn be turned back on. The same

[1:51:32] situation is similar if the manufactured home is removed from the property. This

[1:51:37] ordinance uh proposes an extended timeline of two years so that when you

[1:51:42] have an existing mobile home that's been on a piece of property for some time and

[1:51:46] the electricity is turned off within that two-year time span, it it can be

[1:51:51] administratively approved under a request for a building permit uh by the

[1:51:56] planning department who checks the zoning even if the property is not zoned

[1:51:59] correctly. This also allows um for the same consideration if the manufactured

[1:52:04] home is taken off the property. As long as we have that date of last service

[1:52:08] that's within the 2-year time span, then we can approve as as considering it as

[1:52:13] illegal non-conforming use.

[1:52:19] » Anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor?

[1:52:22] Anyone opposed? So, the only comment I have on this one

[1:52:27] is two years is a long time. And the only concern I have on that, I mean, I I

[1:52:32] I do think that six months is too short. The only concern I have is sitting two

[1:52:36] years, uh, it's going to have a lot of mold because you have a a a property

[1:52:41] that's not on a slab. It doesn't have the moisture remediation that

[1:52:45] » still needs to be inspected and approved.

[1:52:47] » Okay. I was wondering if that was Okay. So, that's that's the only thought that

[1:52:51] I had. Uh, Commissioner Seager, >> I really like the idea that um the staff

[1:52:58] is able to do that for the public uh immediately instead of waiting for

[1:53:02] another governing body. I move to approve.

[1:53:05] » Motion to approve. Commissioner Seager, Commissioner Trxillo. Yeah, I agree with

[1:53:10] my colleague that that's that's a good thing for the public and I'm sure the

[1:53:14] staff and and and Nick with uh with permitted going to make sure that that

[1:53:18] the that the media pan is expect inspected before they plug anything in.

[1:53:24] I second >> motion and a second. Mr. Roar.

[1:53:28] » Oh, I was just going to say I really like this one. kind of gives us a little

[1:53:31] bit more flexibility with housing options in the parish and it gives

[1:53:34] estates time to settle after succession wills everything else. So yeah, I would

[1:53:40] have seconded. >> We have a motion and a second. No

[1:53:43] further discussion. Please vote.

[1:53:50] » Motion to approve carries. >> Item H amend chapter 600 general

[1:53:54] development standards 600-6.2 to accessory use standards to increase

[1:53:59] the size of a boat house allowable on a state designated scenic river.

[1:54:06] » Um, this one is pretty self-explanatory, but I can give you some details if you

[1:54:09] like. >> Can you please explain it to explain it

[1:54:12] in extreme detail? >> The state doesn't have any requirements

[1:54:17] uh for scenic rivers that cap the allowable size of a boat house. So, this

[1:54:21] is just revising our ordinance to take that C cap off for scenic rivers and

[1:54:25] allow all boat houses uh the same affordability for size requirements.

[1:54:31] » Thank you. >> Um, anyone supposed to speak in favor?

[1:54:35] » Anyone opposed? >> Mr. Allen.

[1:54:41] » Thank you, Chairman Gaines. Matthew Allen with Northshore Riverwatch. And

[1:54:45] I'm neither for or against this. I just wanted to give you all some background

[1:54:49] information. Last year, uh, Scenic Rivers went underwent some rule changes,

[1:54:54] and one of them was to give general permits for certain activities on, uh,

[1:54:58] Scenic Rivers, and one of them was to, uh, for boat houses under 800 square ft.

[1:55:03] They would give a general permit, but the permit would still be needed for

[1:55:07] anything over 800 square ft. So, that takes it out of the parish's hands and

[1:55:11] puts it in Scenic River's hands. I just wanted to let y'all know that. Thank

[1:55:15] you. >> Thank you. Any

[1:55:19] uh anyone else wish to speak in favor or opposed?

[1:55:24] Bring it back to the commission. I'm going to comment on this first because

[1:55:26] I've actually built boat houses on on uh several of the scenic rivers and uh it's

[1:55:32] extraordinarily difficult uh to to put anything in a 800 ft footprint. It's

[1:55:39] just it's very small. Uh boats have have gotten a lot larger in size. So, I think

[1:55:44] that this is a a in good and and it can still be in keeping with the surrounding

[1:55:49] area. I know that a lot of our builders built some some really nice structures

[1:55:54] uh in the area. Uh so, I think this can still be, you know, accommodated. Um

[1:56:00] Commissioner Walker, >> move to approve.

[1:56:03] » Motion to approve. Commissioner Walker, Commissioner Seager.

[1:56:06] » Second. >> Motion and a second. Please vote.

[1:56:15] Motion to approve carries. >> Item I amend chapter 900 infrastructure

[1:56:23] section 900-6.5 placement of field to add language which

[1:56:28] regulates the placement of field and major subdivisions.

[1:56:36] » Yes, sir. >> I'll try to be quick on this one.

[1:56:39] » This one. >> That'll be me. I'll try to be quick on

[1:56:41] it, but so um major subdivision developments are currently required to

[1:56:45] undergo engineering review, including drainage plans, hydraulic analysis,

[1:56:48] storm water detention that controls the rate at which storm water leaves

[1:56:51] development and fills mitigated in an effort to manage water, which naturally

[1:56:55] moves across the property where it's temporary stored in low areas during

[1:56:58] rainfalls. The proposed tech change attempts to manage how development how

[1:57:02] developing new major subdivisions can fit within existing terrain and natural

[1:57:06] drainage patterns of the property. In a very general summary, the ordinance does

[1:57:09] four things. For new major residential subdivisions, the ordinance will limit

[1:57:14] fill and grading to 24 in above and below the pre-development grade to

[1:57:18] encourage development that follows the existing terrain rather than

[1:57:21] substantially reshape the site. Two, in floods in flood zones A and AE, as well

[1:57:27] as areas shown in the engineered approved inundation model to be

[1:57:30] inundated during a 100red-year rainfall event, the ordinance requires a 1.25

[1:57:34] mitigation factor. The additional 0.25 0.25 mitigation factor which can be

[1:57:39] applied towards the major subdivision's green space when landscape or

[1:57:41] amenitized. Number three, it requires maximum

[1:57:45] allowable fill elevations for individual lots to be shown on the recorded plat

[1:57:48] for future home construction. And number four, it requires that if regulatory

[1:57:52] height of the home FFE cannot be met using the allowable amount of fill, the

[1:57:56] additional height must be achieved using peers, pilings, or vented crawl space.

[1:58:00] In other words, a raised construction. The parish had a meeting with interested

[1:58:04] parties which resulted in several amendments to the text change. A copy of

[1:58:07] that amended document has been placed in front of you for your review and the

[1:58:10] track changes are presented in red. And those changes include the following.

[1:58:13] One, a disclaimer that all requirements for the proposed text change don't apply

[1:58:17] to major residential subdivisions where the average lot size of the residential

[1:58:21] lots exceed 1 acre or greater in area. Two, a statement that roadways can be

[1:58:26] elevated beyond the 24inch max cap at intersections with existing rights of

[1:58:31] way roadways or drainage crossings. Number three, a statement that says the

[1:58:35] additional 0.25 fill mitigation factor shall qualify the development for a 10%

[1:58:40] reduction in lot area or with not to exceed the maximum 20% reduction allowed

[1:58:44] in the major subdivision incentive list. Number four, an exclusion for the

[1:58:49] coastal areas inundated by title events. And number five, a statement which says

[1:58:53] that 24 in maximum filamentations shall not include the house slab or

[1:58:59] thicknesses for foundations for major subdivisions when situated in flood zone

[1:59:03] X, C, B, or X500. Thank you. Thank you. >> Self-explanatory. Okay. I have uh

[1:59:13] several cards here uh in the uh four category. Uh Mr. Allen, just be

[1:59:18] cognizant that I have two other cards.

[1:59:24] All right. Thank you again, Chairman Gaines and uh committee members. Uh

[1:59:29] Matthew Allen for Northshore Riverw Watch. And I gave you all good

[1:59:32] eight-page comment. I'm not going to go over all that, but I do want to point

[1:59:35] out my main point that the special flood hazard areas are quickly becoming

[1:59:40] irrelevant. Those are based on 1968 concepts.

[1:59:46] 68 60 year old concepts. we have a lot better understanding of what our flood

[1:59:51] hazards are nowadays and it was really just for the initial mapping of it. Now

[1:59:57] after decades of focusing just on the special flood hazard areas, 1% chance

[2:00:01] 100year flood areas, however you want to say it, it's given us a binary. You're

[2:00:07] either in a flood area or you're out of a flood area. That is not true. There

[2:00:11] are grad gradations of it and we've seen that over the course of the last few

[2:00:15] years. uh uh talking about uh flood plane development

[2:00:20] but and so we really don't know the true flood risk and they are out of date and

[2:00:26] the federal government's not going to update them. They neither have the

[2:00:30] resources nor the expertise at this point or the willpower to do anything

[2:00:34] else. Now for example just on the little chafuna

[2:00:39] BF has been exceeded five times in 40 years. So and here's an example from Mr.

[2:00:45] Jacobson over in uh the meat area for example the water institute recently

[2:00:50] estimated a 1% annual chance of flood level at Port Vincent to be 3 ft higher

[2:00:56] than the outdated maps. So we need this we need to be able to study and we need

[2:01:01] the higher standards the best available data not rely on just these outdated

[2:01:07] FEMA maps which is my main point for my comments. Thank you. Um Paul

[2:01:14] Abbotti.

[2:01:21] » Hi, I'm the uh secretary uh for Savannah Trace HOA and uh just want to say that

[2:01:28] uh anything that would uh uh that would help out stifling uh Phil anything that

[2:01:34] would be an improvement on those regulations would be appreciated for our

[2:01:38] subdivision. Uh my daughter lives in the front and she's two feet higher than me

[2:01:43] and that's typical of many subdivisions I know in Jefferson Parish and I found

[2:01:48] out it was typical here. Um I also uh would like to know when you say

[2:01:55] subdivision, is that applicable to just single family homes or is this multi-

[2:02:00] housing units as well? Developments that that would have condos and apartments

[2:02:05] and things like that. >> It's a great question. So I will take

[2:02:07] that for you. Okay. Okay. And um and my understanding then since it said

[2:02:14] new is that with two lots left to develop in my neighborhood, would that

[2:02:19] person get the the same right that I got four years ago when I was developing and

[2:02:24] I was able to write a variance and uh and acquire my fill or is that going to

[2:02:30] change now? Just curious. >> That is also a great question and I

[2:02:35] think one of our commissioners going to field that for you.

[2:02:38] Okay. Uh, and I would also say before I part,

[2:02:42] uh, as someone who was a victim of living next to somebody hired, we're

[2:02:46] talking about dirt. Um, Jeffson Parish did develop article 202, which came to

[2:02:51] my rescue 30, 40 years ago when I was a young man. I noticed that in reading

[2:02:56] some things lately that it does say no one shall build higher than the other

[2:03:00] person. It just doesn't say what you're going to do to fix that problem. And I

[2:03:07] have been through engineering with some very helpful people, but it still

[2:03:10] doesn't say how you're going to cure that right now. I know there's a

[2:03:14] gentleman who who's trying to uh survive a situation and and he's he's not sure

[2:03:20] how he's going to be able to to make it work, but but it's not his fault. It's

[2:03:25] it's so so maybe an article that would help people.

[2:03:29] » Thank you. >> Along that line. Thank you,

[2:03:31] » Jamie Seagura.

[2:03:39] You didn't you didn't mark four or against. So which which category should

[2:03:43] I put you in? >> Um

[2:03:46] » against. >> Against. Okay.

[2:03:48] » Yeah. >> Yeah. I asked for four right now. So you

[2:03:51] didn't mark it. So if you could just give me one minute.

[2:03:54] » Okay. >> Barbara.

[2:03:59] Barbara Haron.

[2:04:03] Christy Trail.

[2:04:14] » Yes, ma'am. >> Good evening. I'm Christy Trail,

[2:04:17] executive director of Pont Train Conservancy. I'll keep this very brief.

[2:04:20] I think it's worth stating that the Army Corps of Engineers has conducted a

[2:04:24] feasibility study in St. Tam Parish. They concluded that more than 65 6,400

[2:04:29] structures across the parish would benefit from elevation or flood

[2:04:33] proofing. And that tells us that flooding is a widespread challenge and a

[2:04:37] parish and state as flat as ours where waterways frequently fill and drainage

[2:04:40] slows or backs up. We cannot solve flooding by simply digging deeper

[2:04:44] ditches or moving more dirt. We must preserve flood storage, maintain natural

[2:04:48] drainage patterns, and build in ways that work with the landscape. This

[2:04:52] ordinance is not the final answer, but it is an important step in that

[2:04:55] direction. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:04:58] Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in favor?

[2:05:04] » Sorry, D card for you. So, >> you're fine. Hi, my name is Russell

[2:05:08] Gorgio and I just want to say I'm in favor. I think this is a good step

[2:05:11] forward because not just new subdivisions, but my old subdivision

[2:05:17] that I lived in in 21 with IDA, the houses past me had to get raised because

[2:05:22] of new flood requirements and my house almost flooded. I missed it by half an

[2:05:27] inch because all of the houses above me shed their water on me. So, I think this

[2:05:31] is a good step forward. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[2:05:34] » Okay. Uh for against, we'll move on to the opposition now. Go ahead.

[2:05:40] No, go ahead. Chair. >> Yes, sir. I'm going to catch you.

[2:05:44] There's another threem minute period. I'm going to give you that time at the

[2:05:47] after the the against. Okay. I don't want to just deprive you with just 4

[2:05:51] seconds. Okay. Migura,

[2:06:04] to be honest, I really don't know if I'm for or against this. I just want to talk

[2:06:10] about the overuse of fill in our wetlands.

[2:06:16] And there are subdivisions that have recently been points of controversy that

[2:06:23] were approved. Unfortunately, our parish president vetoed them. That um in my

[2:06:31] mind should never have been developed because they're wetlands

[2:06:35] um and not just regular wetlands having been the recovery manager for this

[2:06:42] American Red Cross. I personally was out there in 2016, you know, in an area that

[2:06:50] wasn't supposed to flood. So, um, but the more fill you put in in areas that

[2:06:57] are meant to hold water, um, any amount of fill, um, is

[2:07:03] dangerous. And we've seen that millions of times across me, um, across Orleans

[2:07:10] Parish, various places, and some of the other South Louisiana parishes. And

[2:07:15] we're seeing that here in St. Tam Parish. build build to build build we

[2:07:23] need to fill fill fill and it's ruining our quality of life here. So um my

[2:07:31] question I do have a question um with this new regulation

[2:07:37] since Espironza and Isizador and Providence Park all that area is kind of

[2:07:45] you know up in the air right now. Will these new regulations that you outlined

[2:07:52] apply to those? Because something has to be done to save that area. Thank you.

[2:08:00] Thank you, Mr. Marone.

[2:08:10] » Thank you. Uh just briefly, you noticed I did not check for or against. Um, and

[2:08:16] really we're just, um, I'm here tonight on behalf of some of the business

[2:08:20] community and the development community to ask that you all consider tableabling

[2:08:24] this. Um, we just found out as a group last Wednesday. Uh, staff through Ross

[2:08:30] and Nick and and Ted were kind enough to have a meeting with us on Thursday,

[2:08:35] which we appreciated. I would say was a very productive meeting. In fact, I

[2:08:38] think some of the amendments, if not all of them, came out of that meeting. Uh so

[2:08:42] we as a group are not opposed to it. But obviously there are a lot of moving

[2:08:47] parts in this um in this document. It's it's it's somewhat complicated. Uh and I

[2:08:53] think it's just important that we take our time and try to get it right. And so

[2:08:57] we would just ask you to consider tableabling it this evening so we can

[2:09:00] continue those discussions and hopefully get to a finished product that everybody

[2:09:04] can live with. >> Thank you. Sir,

[2:09:07] this is the rebuttal period. So, we're going to give you 3 minutes on the

[2:09:11] clock. >> Yeah. I I I'm hope you do something

[2:09:17] because you know I live at the poor point of St. Tamony Parish in Old

[2:09:21] Manderville. So, every time it rains now, we fill up. But, um, fill

[2:09:29] really is just crazy stuff because one, it damages the natural soils that we

[2:09:34] have. So my gon silt loom is just surrounded by albida red clay and that's

[2:09:41] wrong that does not work for the environment the critters everything. So

[2:09:46] there's a lot that's wrong with with Phil and uh there's just something that

[2:09:51] we've got to think about. One acre inch means that 27,000 gallons of water

[2:09:57] looking for a new place to go and believe me that place is any place low.

[2:10:03] I was going to ask the planning folks, have you seen the latest uh LAR? Are you

[2:10:08] using that now? >> Engineer

[2:10:10] » that's going to allow us to make decisions. I used to work with Rusty and

[2:10:13] Gibb back when planning was above Teddy's bar

[2:10:18] and the difference that has been made with this LAR.

[2:10:22] I mean that should be when we talk about Phil when we talk about any kind of

[2:10:27] development that should be the thing we do. And we need we need micro sheds, not

[2:10:32] just these giant water sheds, but in those micro sheds, we need to look at

[2:10:37] what Phil can do. So, I've spent 40 years doing it all over the world. And

[2:10:42] and it's all about water no matter where you go.

[2:10:46] And and in in St. Tamony Parish, water is a huge problem and it's growing

[2:10:51] because we have overfilled it already. Thank you.

[2:10:55] » Thank you. >> Come on up. Would you mind to fill that

[2:10:59] out? >> Sorry.

[2:11:00] » Would you mind to fill that out? >> I did fill it out. I just said my name

[2:11:03] and date. >> Can you fill that out so we can contact

[2:11:07] you? >> Thank you.

[2:11:08] » Hi, Rebecca Bone. And I'll be honest, I don't know a lot about Phil and all

[2:11:11] that, but as a resident here, I think y'all need to plan out ways to prevent

[2:11:16] flooding before our development just slaps in a neighborhood and then we have

[2:11:20] flooding. They develop behind my house. My backyard is soggy all the time. My

[2:11:25] ditch is filled. I might be dead before they come fix it because I've called the

[2:11:29] bears so many times and I just think a little pre-planning whether it's raising

[2:11:33] houses or whatever needs to be done before development developers just the

[2:11:37] get get the get go. Thank you. There's >> Matthew.

[2:11:46] » Thank you chairman. Um >> did you say

[2:11:49] » I really almost agree with Mr. Marone about tableabling it. Uh, but I think

[2:11:54] that should be something for the parish council to take up. I'm going to ask you

[2:11:58] all to vote on this and let the parish council take up having some committees

[2:12:03] or some public hearings on this because this is a very complicated issue. And

[2:12:07] one thing I'd like to point out is I love the fact that use the natural

[2:12:12] terrain. That's what history has always done and it's time that we start doing

[2:12:17] it again here. It's only common sense. Thank you.

[2:12:20] » Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak?

[2:12:29] » I know y'all are sick of seeing me. >> No.

[2:12:32] » Um, okay. A couple points. Um, I would just like to clarify that when I

[2:12:37] suggested adding Phil to the land, it was specifically

[2:12:42] uh the I'm sorry, it was specifically

[2:12:46] referring to the 11.5 acre subdivision. >> Okay. Those are million-dollar houses,

[2:12:52] you know. >> Sure. This is But we're talking about

[2:12:54] » Yeah. Sorry. I just wanted to circle back. Um, so in we're talking about

[2:12:59] flooding. Yes. Um, >> we're we're we're out of time.

[2:13:03] » Sorry. >> Damn. All right.

[2:13:05] » Apologize. Thank you. Okay. Time for public comment is expired. Commissioner

[2:13:10] Rober. >> Settle in. Miss Johnson.

[2:13:15] » Johnston. >> Johnston. This is my baby. I could not

[2:13:19] be any happier to see this in front of me tonight. Um, as a flood plane

[2:13:24] manager, somebody who is from this parish, somebody who has seen this

[2:13:26] parish grow exponentially over the last 30 years. I'm tickled pink at what's in

[2:13:32] front of me. I am thankful and grateful to staff for the sheer amount of work

[2:13:38] that they have put into this. This is beautiful. Um, this is going to make

[2:13:42] such a difference moving forward, not just for this commission and for the

[2:13:45] parish council, but for everybody who lives anywhere in St. Tam Parish. Um, so

[2:13:53] a few things, the gentleman who was concerned with your current subdivision.

[2:13:58] So this these standards do not apply to an existing your subdivision is almost

[2:14:04] complete. You said there are two lots left in it. So, right now, and staff can

[2:14:08] correct me if I'm wrong, um, you did not get a quote unquote variance. Your lot

[2:14:16] is in a subdivision that has an approved engineered drainage plan on file. Is

[2:14:19] that correct, staff? It's Savannah Trace, you said.

[2:14:24] » So, Savannah Trace, is that correct, Ted?

[2:14:27] » Approved. >> Uh, yes, we do have an approved drainage

[2:14:30] plan. I don't know particularly if his lot got a variance or if he went to the

[2:14:33] BOA. So I don't want to speculate that he did not form of variance but

[2:14:37] » Thank you. Did you have to go to the board of adjustments?

[2:14:42] » So you Okay. So you did so you went for a variance. So typically with flood

[2:14:45] plane matters with flood elevation there's no variance because that does

[2:14:49] not come from the parish. Those standards come from the federal

[2:14:52] government from FEMA and then FIP. So variances on flood plane matters really

[2:14:57] just are not a thing here. So that subdivision has an approved drainage

[2:15:02] plan on file. So the other gentleman, I'm assuming, would more than likely not

[2:15:08] have to mitigate his fill because it's already accounted for in the fill

[2:15:11] calculations for that subdivision that his lot his finished floor elevation has

[2:15:14] to be at a certain height. Um, so hopefully that answers your question.

[2:15:21] I strongly support the direction of this ordinance. Our existing regulations

[2:15:26] focus heavily on what happens after a site is developed. The runoff detention,

[2:15:31] hydro hydraologic analysis, and all of the discharge rates, and they're

[2:15:35] essential, but it's only one side of the equation.

[2:15:40] The land performs a function before development that we are not accounting

[2:15:44] for. Water follows the natural topography and low areas provide

[2:15:48] temporary storage. And when we substantially raise a development site,

[2:15:52] we are changing that system, that ecosystem, even if a detention pond

[2:15:57] ultimately releases water at an allowable rate.

[2:16:01] This does not prohibit fill and it does not prohibit development. It just asks

[2:16:06] us to design subdivisions around the existing land rather than automatically

[2:16:11] reshaping the land around the subdivision.

[2:16:14] Where a home needs additional elevation for flood protection, we can raise a

[2:16:18] structure. We don't have to raise the land itself.

[2:16:22] I believe that is the reasonable a reasonable evolution of our drainage and

[2:16:27] flood plane regulations. The subdivision that we approve on paper

[2:16:32] should be the subdivision that we inevitably build. We're not doing that

[2:16:36] right now. This fixes so much of that. Um,

[2:16:42] staff requested one month hold on this and I'm actually

[2:16:49] in favor of it. I want everybody in this parish, our council people, every

[2:16:54] elected official, every environmentalist, everyone who has been

[2:16:57] screaming and asking for these regulations for decades to truly

[2:17:01] understand how they're going to benefit us. And this has been out for a week.

[2:17:06] So, I'm imploring Northshore Riverwatch, everyone who h understands what this

[2:17:13] means for the future of St. Tam to champion it because I will be the

[2:17:16] loudest voice champion as well. Um, so I would make a motion to postpone for

[2:17:22] one month so that we give everyone time to wrap their heads around this

[2:17:27] » motion to postpone for one month. Commissioner Rober, Commissioner Seager.

[2:17:32] Um, I would like to for Commissioner Roar to

[2:17:37] consider a two-month thing. This is a there's a lot of moving parts in this

[2:17:42] and I would like to um amend her to a two-month instead of a one month.

[2:17:49] » Have to make a new motion. >> Yes, that's what I'm moving for.

[2:17:53] » Okay. So, you're making a motion to postpone for two months.

[2:17:56] » Yes. >> Okay. Motion to postpone for two months.

[2:17:58] Commissioner Seager. Commissioner Trxillo. staff

[2:18:04] uh y'all had conversation and y'all recommend the postponement. I mean y'all

[2:18:11] according to what what was said. So is it a month, two months you prefer

[2:18:21] » for a month? >> A month.

[2:18:22] » Yeah, I think you guys can get it done. >> Okay.

[2:18:26] » The longer the postponement, remember it's got to go to council as well. So

[2:18:29] it's a multi-month process. just kind of that.

[2:18:31] » So, a month. I second a month. >> Okay, we have a motion and a second to

[2:18:37] postpone for one month. >> Commissioner Rober,

[2:18:40] » Commissioner Seager. I I appreciate the two months. My concern is that the

[2:18:46] longer we don't approve this, the more it's going to get picked apart.

[2:18:52] We're going to have one person, one interested party after another who is

[2:18:56] going to try to tear everything about this down. I don't want that to happen.

[2:19:00] I want it as strong as it can be. I want it rolled out. I just want everybody to

[2:19:04] understand it first. But I do not want to give time the opportunity to tear

[2:19:09] down what is already a very very strong >> I know we have a motion to postpone on

[2:19:13] the on the the docket. I just have a question for staff about the

[2:19:17] postponement if we could. >> Um

[2:19:20] » we're making a change to the UDC, but if if there was something that needed to be

[2:19:26] worked out later, they could just propose a new change. Correct.

[2:19:29] » Mhm. >> That's correct.

[2:19:30] » So, we could just we could just put this in tonight and if they want to have

[2:19:36] additional discussions and make that change, they could they could put that

[2:19:40] forward on the second. >> I'd still prefer a month. I mean, this

[2:19:42] is something big for Saint Parish. >> It has only been released to the public

[2:19:47] a week because that's when we release uh release our staff reports. Um to clarify

[2:19:52] few things or questions that came up, it would apply to new major subdivisions.

[2:19:57] So that definition >> residential

[2:19:59] » new major residential subdivisions um and it would apply

[2:20:04] » just just because the audience may not know exactly what that definition is.

[2:20:07] Could y'all define that new major subdivision? How many how many lots is

[2:20:10] that? >> Six lots or more?

[2:20:12] » Six lots or more? >> Yes. In addition, um there was another

[2:20:16] question I just wanted to hit real quick. Oh,

[2:20:19] » anything that has not received concept plan yet would it's concept plan is a

[2:20:24] trigger. So at concept plan, anything through the process, that's that's kind

[2:20:28] of like where it hits. >> So one other clarification, one of the

[2:20:31] gentlemen asked if it was applied to commercial properties. So commercial

[2:20:35] properties have a different code that they have to apply to because they can

[2:20:39] do flood mitigation on the building itself that you can't do on a home. So

[2:20:43] they have a completely different code that they have to apply to in the

[2:20:47] commercial basis. But I did I did appreciate that question.

[2:20:50] » Any any else you want to address? Okay, we have a motion to postpone and a

[2:20:54] second for one month. That takes precedent. Please vote.

[2:21:05] » Motion to postpone. One month carries. >> I think that uh we're done on the

[2:21:11] agenda. Motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn.

St. Tammany Parish Planning Meeting September 9, 2026

Transcript