re: Kleinpeter Family is Throwing a Fit

I’m confused on how that’s their plans when they don’t even own all that land. At least according or OnX they don’t

This is still MX-3 vs MX-4 at a major interchange the state already built and partially expropriated land for. Treating a step-down in intensity there like it’s routine, no-big-deal zoning is a stretch.

Nobody is asking for special treatment. The issue is whether a key interchange site gets treated like a regional node or capped below that.

Zoning shouldn’t depend on who owns the property or whether or not you think they're "assholes". It’s supposed to be about land use, location, and planning context. Once you start grounding the argument in ownership and likability instead of policy, you've already lost it. Based on your statement, if someone owned two acres and wanted to put a 10 story apartment building on it in the same location, you'd be fine with it?

quote:

---

I’d be kinda pissed too if I were them

---

quote:

---

BRBR adds that LRK also argues that its property has carried a C-2 Heavy Commercial zoning designation since 1994, consistent with zoning in East Baton Rouge Parish, but that the overhaul of St. George's zoning code caused LRK’s tract to be assigned a more restrictive classification The lawsuit says that the tract should retain its decades-old C-2 designation and the development rights that come with it, BRBR added.

---

With all due respect, isn't this commonplace for any rural tract that suddenly has a massive corridor being built through it, to be rezoned? Was there a hearing, or is there some kind of quiet way to change zoning when a new city incorporates?

Either way, you're either with me or against me. Kleinpeter sounds like they're against me.

C-2 got phased out by the parish in 1999 and Kleinpeter had it grandfathered in under the parish, per notes upthread.

Incorporation of the area would be a legit reason to revise zoning. The existing zoning is no longer used. The city decided on new zoning and Kleinpeter was unhappy with that.



Trying to challenge the incorporation of St George entirely rather than the zoning tells me they don’t think they could win a zoning challenge. And frankly it makes me think they are going to lose the PR battle on this considering the whole shitstorm that was the fight to have St George’s incorporation upheld by the state.

Sounds to me like the Big Stick that the Kleinpeter's used to swing in Baton Rouge doesn't work anymore in St. George.

Exactly this. Well said. For the love of God, I hope St. George has better city planning and won't get pushed around like Baton Rouge. This is where change is made. Right now.

TREES
Cities like Charlotte require 40–50% canopy in new mixed-use district. New developments must plant enough trees to achieve canopy coverage at maturity, not just plant a few saplings. Tree Save Program requiring 10–15% of the site to be preserved as tree save area. Street trees required every 40 feet on both sides of the street.

Baton Rouge has no canopy target. No tree-save percentage requirement. Only requires 10% landscaped area, which can be grass, shrubs, or small trees — not canopy. Street tree spacing is recommended, not strongly enforced.

RAIN
Charlotte requires first 1-inch rainfall retention on-site. Mandatory bioretention, bioswales, tree trenches, and permeable paving in many districts. Watershed-based modeling required.

Baton Rouge requires detention but not retention. No requirement to treat the first inch of rainfall. Green infrastructure is optional, not required. No watershed-based modeling.

WTF does Charlotte have better rain requirements than Baton rouge? Baton rouge averages 62.8 inches of rain to Charlotte's 43.1 inches

SIDEWALKS

Charlotte requires: 8–12 ft sidewalks; 6–8 ft planting strips; Continuous street trees; and Pedestrian-scaled lighting.

Baton Rouge requires sidewalks only in certain districts. No minimum planting strip width. No continuous shade requirement. Streetscape cross-sections exist but are rarely enforced outside new subdivisions.


[Note: Largely provided by AI, but you can see the difference immediately whenever you travel.]

quote:

---

The family also want to demolish the old Kleinpeter home that sits in the middle of Willow Grove subdivision and carve out about 10 new home sites. Residents kinda pissed.

---

If they want to demolish an old home they own and cut it into 10 lots, I think that's their call. As long as it's zoned for single family homes and that's the plan.

The OP is a different issue, but the one I quoted that you laid out is tough titties for the neighborhood I think.

quote:

---

That shite is flooding so badly right now that it's hard to imagine pushing it all into the city's storm system or a retention pond will remedy the situation.

---

It won’t. The water will be pushed to already established neighborhoods and the roadway.

If I were the owner of Lakeside, I’d be taking pictures everytime that cleared out land next to them floods. He’ll have water in his establishment once those homes are built.

You are terrible at communicating thoughts through the written English language.

quote:

---

Charlotte requires first 1-inch rainfall retention on-site. Mandatory bioretention, bioswales, tree trenches, and permeable paving in many districts. Watershed-based modeling required.

---

Because developers have the money and ear of state and especially local regulators. And any time something more stringent than the status quo is proposed they throw a fit and it gets killed.

You even see it at the federal level with some of these executive orders pushing for bypassing regulations in favor of more development.