- 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
In fight over a 2,000-lot subdivision, Livingston settles lawsuit with developer
Posted on 7/31/23 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 7/31/23 at 2:07 pm
Looks like the developer won't get to build what they wanted at least. The parish apparently didn't follow their own laws and are incapable of writing zoning language to manage development appropriately for this.
The Advocate must have had a dozen articles about this whole debacle; not a single one contains the site plan of the development that has gotten everyone so angry in Livingston Parish. Such a terrible paper.
quote:
TheAdvocate
Livingston Parish has settled a contentious federal lawsuit over zoning filed by the developer of a 2,000-lot proposed subdivision in the Denham Springs area.
“We closed a case that our lawyer, the District Attorney and the Council’s hand-picked zoning expert told us we could not win,” said Livingston Parish President Layton Ricks on Monday morning.
Ascension Properties Inc., developer for the controversial Deer Run subdivision, sued, arguing the parish council did not follow state and local law in setting new zoning rules and was unfairly targeting its project. Many residents have pressured the parish to block the subdivision, arguing it could dramatically wordsen traffic, infrastructure problems and school overcrowding.
quote:
The agreement includes a reduction in the number of lots and the addition of a fourth entrance/exit to improve traffic safety, Ricks said. The developer also agreed to construct 155 owned condos instead of 400 apartments.
The Advocate must have had a dozen articles about this whole debacle; not a single one contains the site plan of the development that has gotten everyone so angry in Livingston Parish. Such a terrible paper.
This post was edited on 7/31/23 at 2:11 pm
12
Posted on 7/31/23 at 2:31 pm to member12
quote:
District 5 residents later won a tenuous victory in court, requiring the Deer Run developer to follow current zoning laws that say the subdivision must have 1-acre lots, instead of lots 40-feet wide.
Good for them.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 2:34 pm to member12
This entire saga is such a shite show. I am not trying to side with the developers on this one, but every single issue from drainage, to road capacity, to zoning, to giving preliminary approval for the project falls at the feet of Livingston Parish.
No love lost for a developer thinking 2000 homes in that location was a good idea, but at the end of the day, they are the ones being hit financially.
No love lost for a developer thinking 2000 homes in that location was a good idea, but at the end of the day, they are the ones being hit financially.
This post was edited on 7/31/23 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 7/31/23 at 2:40 pm to Bronson2017
quote:My God!
District 5 residents later won a tenuous victory in court, requiring the Deer Run developer to follow current zoning laws that say the subdivision must have 1-acre lots, instead of lots 40-feet wide.
Who wants to hear their neighbor fart in his sofa cushion?
Posted on 7/31/23 at 2:42 pm to Bronson2017
quote:
subdivision must have 1-acre lots, instead of lots 40-feet wide.
Oh great, now where are we gonna cram the third worlders?
Posted on 7/31/23 at 2:55 pm to Stealth Matrix
quote:
Oh great, now where are we gonna cram the third worlders?
Seeing this crap more and more these days. It's unfortunate, but maximizing density is pretty much the only way developers can do cheaper homes these days.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 2:57 pm to Bronson2017
quote:
requiring the Deer Run developer to follow current zoning laws that say the subdivision must have 1-acre lots, instead of lots 40-feet wide
The tide is slowly turning. Literally everyone you talk to despises the street-facing garage, zero lot line, 40 ft lots.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 2:59 pm to Ten Bears
I would pay a premium for a 2 or 3 acre lot in a neighborhood.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:01 pm to RidiculousHype
quote:
The tide is slowly turning. Literally everyone you talk to despises the street-facing garage, zero lot line, 40 ft lots.
Yep. hurt us in Zachary for a while and we got our shite together. You can't outright ban the zero line lots but you can say that you can only have max 15-20% of them. We also put in 20% green space requirements which track developers hate. You can't use wetlands as part of the green space formula either.
Track builders are the scourge of suburbia.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:03 pm to lsufan1971
quote:
Yep. hurt us in Zachary for a while and we got our shite together. You can't outright ban the zero line lots but you can say that you can only have max 15-20% of them. We also put in 20% green space requirements which track developers hate. You can't use wetlands as part of the green space formula either.
Good to hear
quote:
Track builders are the scourge of suburbia.
Bingo
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:07 pm to Basura Blanco
quote:
This entire saga is such a shite show. I am not trying to side with the developers on this one, but every single issue from drainage, to road capacity, to zoning, to giving preliminary approval for the project falls at the feet of Livingston Parish.
Sounds like the parish screwed up, got some pushback from the people and now having to scramble to fix it. original plan would have been a huge disaster for traffic and crowdedness. This updated plan will only be a small disaster.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:09 pm to RidiculousHype
quote:
Literally everyone you talk to despises the street-facing garage, zero lot line, 40 ft lots.
And those same people bitch and moan about not being able to afford a mortgage on a +$500K home. I don't like them either, but everyone wants a quality home (i.e. skilled labors quality materials), in a decent area with solid growth (i.e. valuable land). Something has got to give.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:11 pm to member12
quote:
400 apartments.
What idiot thought this was a good idea to build in Denham? Are they trying to turn DS into a slum?
This post was edited on 7/31/23 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:15 pm to EvrybodysAllAmerican
That is confusing. I’m in favor of new development around Denham…. People are wanting to leave Br in droves… Watson I’d huge now. It would help Denham area economics greatly.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:18 pm to member12
With all of this bullshite going on you criticize the newspaper?
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:22 pm to lsufan1971
quote:
Yep. hurt us in Zachary for a while and we got our shite together. You can't outright ban the zero line lots but you can say that you can only have max 15-20% of them. We also put in 20% green space requirements which track developers hate. You can't use wetlands as part of the green space formula either.
Zachary's problem is that there are areas in their school district that are out of their control from a development perspective. They've been fighting the good fight against one of the DR Horton shite shows though. Impressed with their political pull on that. Good for them!
Unfortunately Zachary still has about 4500 approved home sites outstanding. While most are not shitty DR Horton developments....that's still a massive amount of homes and it will be very taxing on the local roads and schools, which will have to expand.
Zachary and Central are both better organized than Livingston. That's not at all suggested that Zachary or Central or organized. Just that Livingston is a complete free for all that will not pay a dime to improve their own infrastructure.
I think the Comite diversion canal will help Central and Zachary much more than Livingston. So IMO developers that want to build out higher density housing should be kicking the tires more in those areas than southern Livingston, which should be less dense. IMO Livingston should not allow anything under 1 acre lots anymore unless it's an in-fill development inside of one of their municipalities like Denham Springs - and in many areas, the minimum should be 1.5-2.0 acres.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:24 pm to EvrybodysAllAmerican
quote:
What idiot thought this was a good idea to build in Denham? Are they trying to turn DS into a slum?
I can see age-restricted condos geared for retired people being popular there. And frankly they could easily fill those apartments. But I could see why the locals would want to fight the latter.
Apartments will be well run for about 10-15 years, then the owner will sell out to some out of town conglomerate who will not be able to raise rents enough so they will go all in on Section 8.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:24 pm to EvrybodysAllAmerican
Yes, that’s their goal. Probably helps boost the ESG score.
These things always follow the same pattern: “luxury apartments” or “garden apartments” are built and marketed to single young professionals.
After about 3-5 years, the apartments turn into a crack den surrounded by Nissan Altimas.
Look at New Orleans East. That was the original place for “luxury apartments”.
Rinse and repeat.
These things always follow the same pattern: “luxury apartments” or “garden apartments” are built and marketed to single young professionals.
After about 3-5 years, the apartments turn into a crack den surrounded by Nissan Altimas.
Look at New Orleans East. That was the original place for “luxury apartments”.
Rinse and repeat.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:24 pm to member12
I think a few people here will say "YAY big greedy corporation doesn't get to make it's money", but limiting housing development just hurts US home buyers as we need all the new houses being developed as possible to raise supply which lowers prices for all
This post was edited on 7/31/23 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 7/31/23 at 3:30 pm to EvrybodysAllAmerican
That's what they did to Buddy Ellis Rd. Too little to late for that area. It's gonna be apartment complexes from Juban to the curve in a few years. All the giant subdivisions at the back of the road and all down John L Lane. It disgusts me what they did to that area.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News