re: Ascension Parish Planning Commission Denies New Subdivision

quote:

---

In their defense, that land was worth something when they sold it. They did the smart thing and secured their future while they had leverage.


Now that land is worthless.

---

From what I understand, the land was not sold to Dantin Bruce, the sale of the land was contingent upon the development approval.

quote:

---

at the tested intersections

---

This is an issue in itself. The impact analysis only looks at the immediate intersections near the proposed development. They don't look downstream at the major roadways. This is why 73 and Airline in and out of BR is absolutely horrendous. Developers are allowed to drop 1,000s of new drivers on feeder roads and the major arteries get choked up.

Somewhat off-topic here, but not recognizing the growth explosion (by Louisiana standards) of Ascension Parish that was apparent in the mid-90's, is the root of these issues.

There should have been long term plans at that time to deal with flood control, convert Airline into a limited access freeway and/or widen major surface streets and funnel more traffic onto I-10. The fact you have a suburban parish the size of Ascension with only one means of freeway access between Highland Road and Hwy 30 is asinine. What's more mind boggling is you have numerous surface streets along that stretch that cross over/under I-10 with no freeway access.

quote:

---

How bout bigger lots instead of cramped future housing projects?

---

Agreed. There hasn’t been a large lot subdivision built around here in 20+ years.

Focusing on the part that runs behind the other subdivision….There are 76 houses in 20 acres of RM land. Point me to the code where it says that is allowable? Then there is the whole minimum lot and frontage issue. But enlighten us.

quote:

---

I am curious as to who is buying all of these houses being built everywhere?

---

Private equity is your answer. They turn them into rent rouses.

quote:

---

Point me to the code where it says that is allowable?

---

Again, you are misrepresenting the numbers. Those numbers aren't correct. Get the spreadsheet that the Parish requires be submitted with every submittal that spells it all out. Perform the calculations and then come enlighten us to how it's wrong. The problem is you don’t know what the code spells out as development acreage and allowed in the density calculations. If you don't agree with the code, that's fine, but don't say it doesn't meet the code because you don't agree with it.

quote:

---

I love all these traffic and flood studies done by the developers.

---

Try again baw. The parish hires the consultant to do the traffic study and the developer simply pays. So are you saying the Parish is cooking the numbers on their own study? Also the Parish spent millions building a stormwater model. Every proposed development is entered into the model and must have zero impact. So the parish cooks the books on that too?

What other professional, such as doctors, dentist, accountant, lawyer, plumber, electrician, do you say always done their job wrong? How come everyone is an expert on traffic, drainage and sewer but the engineers? Just cause you have some perceived anecdotal evidence? Let me guess, the ditches in your neighborhood have water in them after a rain and one time you had to wait 5 minutes to get out of your neighborhood so you know drainage and traffic.

quote:

---

There are 76 houses in 20 acres of RM land. 

---

LSUalum quoted these numbers. Those aren't correct as I stated because he/she doesn't understand what the code calls developable acreage that is considered for density.

Your acreage is wrong but you already knew that. Keep on saying 76 on 20 acres, but it still won't make it true.

Net Density is calculated by subtracting out any of the following that are not part of the recreation system from the Gross Site Area:

i.Any portion of pipeline servitudes/ROW's that is not within a developable lot...

The guy in the glasses is the staff and he actually knows the code. The lady commissioner doesn't know the code as well as he does. She was fed the wrong info from the neighbors. The pertinent portion of the ordinance is above. The pipeline servitude is part of the recreation system so it counts towards the net density. Her points about whether the pipeline company needs to do maintenance or whether structures can be built on it have nothing to do with the code. It's in black and white, the only requirement is that it be part of the recreation area.

In your made up scenario, yes you could develop the 30 lots on the 5 acres if you could meet all of the other requirements in the code, which you couldn't. So you couldn't do 30 lots on the other 5 due to the other code restrictions, such as lot sizes, detention, etc.

The development complied with the code. The staff and ERA, who actually know the code, certified as such. Of course, the general public is smarter and more knowledgeable than the people who deal with the code every day...