- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ascension Parish Planning Commission Denies New Subdivision
Posted on 2/15/26 at 6:36 pm to LSUengr
Posted on 2/15/26 at 6:36 pm to LSUengr
For a moment, forget about the net developable land.
What is the minimum frontage for RM with curb and gutter? Compare that to the homes from the plat in the underlying area zoned RM. Or you can compare minimum lot ft2.
What is the minimum frontage for RM with curb and gutter? Compare that to the homes from the plat in the underlying area zoned RM. Or you can compare minimum lot ft2.
1
Posted on 2/15/26 at 6:46 pm to LSUengr
quote:
The pertinent portion of the ordinance is above. The pipeline servitude is part of the recreation system so it counts towards the net density
There can be no trees or permanent structures on the pipeline ROW, so therefore, it is not developable land. It really isn't recreational land either by that same standard.
They appear to be putting a walking path across it at one end and claim that as recreation area. bullshite like this is how we end up with postage stamp lots that are supposed to be RM lots.
Posted on 2/15/26 at 7:23 pm to Cuz413
I look forward to that neighborhood New Year bonfire down at the park
Posted on 2/15/26 at 8:23 pm to lsualum01
quote:
Compare that to the homes from the plat in the underlying area zoned RM.
Doesn't matter. The property is zoned RM and the plat met RM. It doesn't matter if the adjacent lots are 1/2 acre.
quote:
bullshite like this is how we end up with postage stamp lots that are supposed to be RM lots.
Minimum lot size has nothing to do with net density. So the pipelines use or not has nothing to do with the lot size. Whether you agree with the code or not, the plat met the requirement since the servitude is part of the recreation area. Kids/adults can play soccer, football, baseball, ride their bikes, have a picnic, do anything on it other than build a structure or plant a tree. So it can be used for recreation. Matter of fact multiple kids/adults spoke about how they use an asphalt street for recreation, but a pipeline servitude can't be recreated on. That's a pretty backwards argument.
Posted on 2/15/26 at 9:24 pm to LSUengr
I’m not talking about the adjacent lots. I am talking about the plat. The majority of the lots in the RM area are less than required minimum frontage of 70’ required of RM and that’s why the density is so much higher than allowed because there are so few that are at 70’ or 80’ to offset it.
Either way, I hope the people there keep fighting it. It will set a bad precedent if approved and eventually we will be fighting it near me when they revisit gateway farms or whatever the next iteration will be called. Stop building shitty zero lot homes in flood prone areas.
Either way, I hope the people there keep fighting it. It will set a bad precedent if approved and eventually we will be fighting it near me when they revisit gateway farms or whatever the next iteration will be called. Stop building shitty zero lot homes in flood prone areas.
This post was edited on 2/15/26 at 9:30 pm
Posted on 2/15/26 at 9:39 pm to lsualum01
Right, just degenerate to total falsehoods when you cant win an argument. Typical NIMBY tactic. No one is building zero lot line houses, but again you know that. The plat met the code, and 70' lots aren't the minimum in RM per the code.
Posted on 2/15/26 at 10:11 pm to LSUengr
I must have hit a nerve. What is false? That 70’ is minimum frontage for curb and gutter in RM in AP UDLC? That the majority of the plat is 50’ and 60’ frontage? That RM must be developed at 3 dwellings per acre? That the code says land must be developed at its underlying zoning density? What part are you disputing?
You have misunderstood just about everything I have said and your only response is “it complies with RM.” In the history of the AP P&Z I can not find another single instance of a subdivision plat failing unanimously. That’s how bad this plat was. But obviously you’re an engineer and you are smarter than everyone else and it failed because they listened to the lies of the audience ??.
You have misunderstood just about everything I have said and your only response is “it complies with RM.” In the history of the AP P&Z I can not find another single instance of a subdivision plat failing unanimously. That’s how bad this plat was. But obviously you’re an engineer and you are smarter than everyone else and it failed because they listened to the lies of the audience ??.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 7:28 am to LSUengr
quote:
The plat met the code, and 70' lots aren't the minimum in RM per the code.
This is from Appendix I, Table B of the ULDC
This is the RM zone of the plat that was uploaded to the meeting agenda
There's only a couple of lots that are minimum 70' wide
Posted on 2/16/26 at 7:38 am to lsualum01
quote:
You have misunderstood just about everything I have said and your only response is “it complies with RM.” In the history of the AP P&Z I can not find another single instance of a subdivision plat failing unanimously. That’s how bad this plat was. But obviously you’re an engineer and you are smarter than everyone else and it failed because they listened to the lies of the audience ??.
Just watching the meeting video and it was apparent that the developer was looking for a business as usual rubber stamp, and the public came out well prepared. And only one of the commissioners was well prepared. It looked to me like the chair wanted the development, but was called out for meeting in private with the developer, a couple of the other commissioners were impartial and know the traffic in that area is hosed.
I also thought that was a shite deal for the public only getting 3 minutes to hurry up their individual cases especially the ones citing specific code violations, while the developer got 10 minutes before, then 10 minutes after the public, then the chair granted them 3 more minutes? That is a massive advantage to the developer and to give them 3 more minutes after they fumbled through the 10 minutes was a slap in the face to the citizens.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 7:45 am to Cuz413
Thank you. And of the ones that are 70’ min frontage, several are <10,500 ft2. minimum lot size. That is 76 lots on about 21.75 acres gross including ponds, roads, servitudes, etc. I’m not an engineer, but even being generous with the net developable land 76/21.75 is certainly > 3:1.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 7:50 am to lsualum01
quote:
What is false?
Hit a nerve? Nah, deal with uninformed people like yourself everyday. Everything you have said in the thread is false. Just like most opposition you simply choose one part of the code and ignore the rest.
quote:
There's only a couple of lots that are minimum 70' wide
Table C of the code is the guidelines for a major subdivision.
The plat met all the requiements, but the commissioners don't know the code well enough. So due to public pressure, they incorrectly denied a plat that met all the requirements of the code they are to uphold.
Not smarter than everyone else, but do know the code better than mostly everyone but the staff.
quote:
That is a massive advantage to the developer and to give them 3 more minutes after they fumbled through the 10 minutes was a slap in the face to the citizens.
The public was prepared with false information that has no basis in reality. The public each get 3 minutes and around 30 people spoke, so if you watched the meeting they spoke for far longer than the developer. To argue that the developer got more time than the public is hilarious.
quote:
76/21.75
Wrong again, keep trying though.
This post was edited on 2/16/26 at 7:55 am
Posted on 2/16/26 at 7:59 am to LSUengr
You still haven’t answered the question. If you have a vast majority of 50’ and 60’ lots, without offsetting them with larger lots, and exceed 3:1, how is that compliant? I’m not trying to be a dick. If there is a reasonable explanation then give it to us.
Posted on 2/16/26 at 8:22 am to lsualum01
Because the density doesn't exceed 3:1. Pipeline used as rec area CAN BE COUNTED toward density. This isn't that hard. Misinformation is the problem here - perpetuated by under-educated and under-prepared Commissioners. The staff vets it all before the Commission even looks at it (if they look at it before the meeting at all).
Posted on 2/16/26 at 8:27 am to LSUengr
You are trying to use table c clustering, and calling this a major subdivision, but it fails to follow major subdivision rules on open spaces/ parks
This development is trying to claim the pipeline and their ROWs as park space, yet they cannot plant trees on them. This is some underhanded BS that violates the spirit of intent.
eta: the plat states RM and MU2, table B is applicable
quote:
6.Park Standards.
a.The minimum standards for a Stage 1 Park provided by a developer in a major subdivision are:
i.Sidewalk/Walking trail that connects the park to the homes in the subdivision;
ii.A sign identifying this place as a private park and under the ownership/maintenance of the HOA;
iii.12 Class A trees per acre minimum as listed in Section 17-4020.I.4;
iv.24 Ornamental trees per acre minimum.
This development is trying to claim the pipeline and their ROWs as park space, yet they cannot plant trees on them. This is some underhanded BS that violates the spirit of intent.
eta: the plat states RM and MU2, table B is applicable
This post was edited on 2/16/26 at 8:28 am
Posted on 2/16/26 at 8:34 am to Cuz413
the Staff wrote the UDC (development code). The staff meets with the developer well before the submittal, and instructs the developer on what they need to be in compliance with UDC. They charge the developer for this meeting.
They calculate the trees based on a per acre basis, and they allow the trees to be planted where the developer wants to plant them (in a common area / doesn't have to be in a pipeline ROW).
I see you have a lot of questions, and that's understandable, because the UDC is VERY CONVOLUTED. I suggest you go and speak with the Staff and have them explain it all to you. They have plenty of time, since no new developments have been approved in over 5 years (except the one off 74 near Faucheaux, which was saddled with a turn lane that will cost more money than any profit from those lots can cover).
There are no backroom deals. Everything is there for understanding and compliance. The staff is very helpful, but they follow the UDC to the letter.
They calculate the trees based on a per acre basis, and they allow the trees to be planted where the developer wants to plant them (in a common area / doesn't have to be in a pipeline ROW).
I see you have a lot of questions, and that's understandable, because the UDC is VERY CONVOLUTED. I suggest you go and speak with the Staff and have them explain it all to you. They have plenty of time, since no new developments have been approved in over 5 years (except the one off 74 near Faucheaux, which was saddled with a turn lane that will cost more money than any profit from those lots can cover).
There are no backroom deals. Everything is there for understanding and compliance. The staff is very helpful, but they follow the UDC to the letter.
This post was edited on 2/16/26 at 8:36 am
Posted on 2/16/26 at 8:37 am to Cuz413
quote:
the pipeline and their ROWs as park space
Pipeline Pointe Park - High Pressure Fun!
Enjoy:
- Walking
- Yellow Warning Sign Slalom Race *
*Replaces Annual New Year Bonfire after last year's incident.
Please Refrain From:
- Smoking
- BBQs
- Fireworks
- Landscaping
- Digging
- Bonfires
- Sparks of any kind
(Please do not do this, you may be arrested)
Posted on 2/16/26 at 9:35 am to bamaswallows
quote:
They calculate the trees based on a per acre basis, and they allow the trees to be planted where the developer wants to plant them (in a common area / doesn't have to be in a pipeline ROW).
This is where things go astray. The UDC should be there to make sure developers are building subdivisions that are uniformed and aesthetically pleasing. By allowing them to count a pipeline ROW as a park or recreational space that is nothing more than an open field is much different than the same development with no pipelines that plants trees, has playgrounds, ponds, etc that enhance the living for it's residents. Dantin Bruce is a known shady developer that has been sued before for not following sound development practices.
Likewise if a development encompasses two different zones (RM and MU2) allowing the gross acreage to determine density is also a slight on the home values of existing neighborhoods. If a developer can use MU2 in an RM zone because the development touches both, then you really don't have an RM zone, you have a gross acreage of MU2.
quote:
There are no backroom deals. Everything is there for understanding and compliance. The staff is very helpful, but they follow the UDC to the letter.
Who in the Ap government ensures that a developer adheres to the UDC? And who is responsible when a negative consequence happens to existing neighbors because of the development?
Posted on 2/16/26 at 3:52 pm to RougeDawg
In St. Tammany the parish council definitely has final say and can override the planning and zoning commissions decision.
Happens weekly
Happens weekly
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News