[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.