►
From YouTube: Zoning Commission - May 10, 2023
Description
Zoning Commission - May 10, 2023
A
The
zoning
commission
meeting
May
10
2023
6
p.m
and
Ascension
Parish
courthouse
607,
East,
Worthy,
Street,
Gonzales,
Louisiana
councils,
Chambers
first
floor
is
now
called
to
order.
We
have
a
roll
call
of
men
members.
All
members,
with
the
exception
of
commissioner
Dumas
and
kluwat,
are
present
item
three
we'll
have
the
minutes
for
the
April
26
2023
zoning
commission
meeting
motion
by
commissioner
Nasser
seconded
by
commissioner
Villa,
all
in
favor
to
approve
the
minutes:
okay,
any
opposition.
B
C
A
D
Vertical
Bridge,
which
would
be
the
company
constructing
the
proposed
Tower
I'm
sure
I
won't
waste
your
time.
All
of
our
materials
were
submitted
with
the
application
we're
requesting
a
conditional
use
permit,
with
relief
from
the
strict
requirement
of
the
setback
requirement
to
of
130
percent
of
the
height
of
the
tower
to
nearby
residences
and
commercial
buildings.
A
E
D
E
E
E
The
person
that
that
spoke
representing
the
the
prior
applicant
said
you
know.
Well,
none
of
these
towers
anywhere
in
the
country
actually
meet
the
setback.
That's
why
we
developed
this
Design
This
engineering,
design
that
it
collapses
upon
itself.
So
my
question
really
doesn't
relate
specifically
to
you,
but
it's.
If
that
is
the
case,
why
do
we
maintain
the
setback.
F
That
is
a
requirement.
That's
in
the
code.
Probably
these
when
it
was,
you
know,
stated
they
probably
didn't.
Have
the
design
at
that
time
and
now
they've
come
to
with
this
design.
But
it's
correct
I
mean
there's
a
engineer
statement
certifying
that
this
thing
collapsible,
you
know
upon
itself,
so
it's
in
there
I
mean
that's,
maybe
something
we
can
bring
up
at
a
later
date
and
and
discuss
that
and
and
have
someone
here
and
I
know.
We
can
have
someone
to
explain
that,
but
I
know
that
they
do
collapse
upon
themselves.
E
So,
okay,
so
I'm
I'm
an
understanding
in
an
agreement
with
everything
you
said:
I
guess
my
point
is:
maybe
we
should
be
pushing
to
make
a
recommendation
that
this
setback
ought
to
be
changed.
If
it
is
the
right
thing
to
do,
we
need
to
figure.
We
need
to
figure
that
out.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Foreign.
C
I'm
not
happy
putting
a
tower
in
a
strike
zone.
You
know,
I
realize
it'd
be
a
very
strategic
strike
to
hit
that
exact
house
there.
You
know
or
a
commercial
building
there,
but
we
also
as
addressed
last
time,
there's
a
a
nearby
Tower
did
we
do.
We
Spencer
brought
up
last
time
about
the
Dual
rules
there
that
if
there
was
a
nearby
Tower
to.
C
D
Sure
I'm
happy
to
address
that.
So
there
are
two
issues
going
on
one:
your
code
has
a
setback
requirement
of
750
feet.
You
can't
you
can't
build
within
750
page
unique
fishing
Tower
we're
fine
on
that,
but
you
also
have
a
co-location
kind
of
requirement
within
a
two
mile
radius.
There
are
there's
at
least
one
other
Tower
within
that
two
mile
radius.
However,
it
does
not
provide
it
will
not
provide
the
same
coverage
as
this
one.
D
H
D
This
is
location
of
the
proposed
Tower.
This
is
the
coverage
that
exists
now,
so
green
and
blue
are
going
to
be
where
you've
got
coverage,
issues
and
capacity
issues.
This
will
be
the
coverage
and
capacity
Improvement
provided
by
this
Tower
in
this
area.
To
get
this
Improvement,
you
have
to
be
within
a
certain
location,
and
those
existing
towers
do
not
provide
those
capabilities
to
be
able
to
be
able
to
meet
these
coverage
and
capacity
needs.
D
We
we
do
not
necessarily
reach
out
to
those
Tower
owners.
We
have
Engineers
that
evaluate
what
would
be
the
capabilities,
what
they
can
do
with
those
locations.
In
fact,
T-Mobile
is
actually
already
on
one
of
those
Towers,
so
it
needs
this
Tower
to
the
way
these
things
kind
of
work.
They
work
in
tandem
right.
C
G
G
A
E
A
I
A
A
J
Thank
you.
So,
with
the
passing
of
that
revision,
we
discovered
an
unintended
consequence
which
you
may
or
not
have
read
about,
and
basically
the
intent
here
is
to
say
that
in
existing
subdivisions
that
existed
prior
to
the
passing
of
that
original
ordinance,
if
there
are
homes
that
already
have
fences
in
a
servitude
and
somebody
wishes
to
build
a
fence
in
that
same
servitude,
it's
not
really
fair
to
require
that
person
to
lose
property.
J
But
the
applicant
has
to
acknowledge
that
that
fence
is
being
placed
within
a
drainage
servitude
and
if
any
work
is
ever
to
be
completed,
that
removal
and
relocation
is
at
the
owner's
expense
and
not
at
the
parishes
expense.
And
so
that's
the
gist
of
this
revision
is
basically
saying
subdivisions
before
we
originally
passed
it.
We
will
issue
a
variance
so
that
those
fences
can
remain
where
they
were
and
in
line
with
the
other
existing
fences.
A
C
C
J
I
think
that
what
what
I
would
say
is
that,
generally
speaking,
you're
going
to
have
thousands
of
homes
that
have
already
built
fences
in
servitudes
through
I'm,
not
going
to
say
no
fault,
because
those
plots
existed
when
those
fences
were
built
and
those
plants
have
a
note
that
says
nothing
should
be
built
in
the
drainage
servitude.
But
there
wasn't
a
mechanism
in
place
for
us
to
either
issue
a
permit
or
to
document
when
those
things
were
built
in
the
wrong
location.
J
And
so
when
we
passed
this
fence
permitting
requirement,
the
intent
was
to
catch
all
new
fences
and
prevent
them
from
being
built
in
drainage
servitudes.
But
what
we
realized
was
you're
going
to
have
20
homes
in
a
row
that
built
in
the
servitude
and
this
one
person
whose
fence
finally
rotted
and
fell
down
we're
going
to
require
them
to
now
jog
their
fence
around
which,
if
there
is
a
drainage
problem
that
one
fence
not
being
in
the
servitude,
doesn't
solve
it.
J
It's
a
much
bigger
problem
and
we
just
want
them
to
acknowledge
if
we
ever
come
in
and
try
or
or
make
an
effort
to
improve
the
drainage.
In
that
servitude,
they
have
acknowledged.
Okay,
yes,
I'm
building
a
new
fence
and
I
may
have
to
move
it.
It
may
be
torn
down.
I
may
have
to
relocate
it,
whatever
that
that
may
be
so
I'm
not
going
to
argue
that
we
intended
to
resolve
this.
C
C
We're
going
to
have
to
continue
to
address
these.
These
issues
I
think
that
allowing
it
to
continue
is
contradictive
to
what
we're
trying
to
do
we're
trying
to
make
the
improvements
we're
trying
to
get
it
back
to
where
maybe
that
entire
20
homes
or
whatever
down
that
ditch
line
or
a
server
too
long,
they'll
all
need
to
replace
that
fence.
If
we
continue
to
make
them
go
one
at
a
time
and
get
back
in
line,
then
we
have
less
issues
going
forward.
C
I,
don't
like
creating
a
situation
where
we're
allowing
it
to
con
the
improper
Behavior
to
continue
versus.
Let's
stop
it
and
fix
it.
Now
we
have
that
capability
by
not
going
with
this
and
saying:
look
you
have
to
get
back
in
line
I
realize
you
got
away
with
it
for
x
amount
of
years
get
back
in
line
to
what
we
should
have
been
doing
from
the
beginning
from
day
one.
That's
my
concern,
there's
continuing
to
allow
the
wrong
non-conforming.
You
know
Behavior
to
keep
going.
E
Okay,
I
I
have
a
little
bit
of
confusion
and
it
made
me
maybe
my
fault,
but
I've
got
black
Print
blueprint
purple
print.
Some
of
the
blueprint
has
lines
through
it.
Some
of
the
blueprint
does,
and
some
of
the
purple
has
lines
through
it.
Some
of
the
purple
doesn't
what
am
I
supposed
to
be
considering
so.
J
I
I
don't
have
that
version.
I
have
the
version
that
is
without
revision
and
so
on.
The
version
that
is
currently
in
your
code
item
C
reads:
a
fence:
permit
shall
be
issued
by
the
building
department
prior
to
construction
of
any
fence
or
wall
and
shall
meet
the
requirements
of
this
section
right.
That's
what
C
says.
Yes,.
E
J
Have
added
a
one
underneath
that
that
reads:
permits
within
subdivisions
whose
final
plats
were
approved
prior
to
427
2022
may
be
granted
a
variance
from
the
requirements
of
not
placing
a
fence
within
a
drainage
servitude.
If
the
following
stipulations
are
met,
a
there
are
existing
fences
already
located
within
the
drainage
servitude
where
the
new
fence
is
to
be
located
and
B.
The
applicant
acknowledges
via
signature
that
any
future
work
that
may
need
to
be
performed
within
the
drainage
servitude
could
result
in
the
applicant
being
responsible
for
the
removal
of
the
fence.
That's
the
only.
E
F
J
J
I
H
I
I
would
suggest
that
what
we're
going
to
look
at
here
this
is
for
discussion
only
and
with
your
recommendation.
We'd
come
back
at
the
next
meeting,
with
with
an
ordinance
change
that
you
can
take
action
on
and
and
would
subsequently
go
to
the
council
right.
So
what
we're
liking
you
do,
and
that's
why
Ricky
was
here,
is
just
kind
of
discuss
some
of
the
problems
that
we've
seen
happen
out
in
the
field
and
then
get
your
recommendation
as
to
what
we
should
do.
I
A
And
and
that's
what
I
think
that
ultimately,
we
are
trying
to
accomplish
I
do
understand
through
what
we
have
been
experiencing
in
Prairieville
in
some
of
the
areas,
the
necessity
for
for
what
we
have
in
in
item
C,
so
but
I'm,
just
going
to
kind
of
say,
is
I,
do
want
to
see
y'all
come
back
with
something
a
little
bit
more
refined,
and
you
know
what
we're
asking
for
which
I
think.
Commissioner
Nasser
he's
got
some
some
suggested
changes
as
well.
E
I
mean
that
was
my
question:
I
have
I
have
some
items
in
in
E
materials
and
an
F
that
I
just
wanted
to
point
out,
and
maybe
maybe
if
we
are
going
to
be
considering
offense
requirement
that
maybe
we
could
we
could
address
those
and
I'll
tell
you
what
they
are.
They're,
simple
but
I
think
clarification
would
help
so
materials.
J
E
The
only
question
I
have
there
and
again
look
I
I,
always
I
mean
I'm
in
the
engineering
industry,
so
I
always
think
about
engineers.
It's
it's.
You
know
one
and
two
fences
and
walls
located
within
the
servitude
or
otherwise
in
Peter,
divert
the
flow
of
water
and
drainage
ways
so
prohibit
it
well,
who
determines
that?
I
E
I
I
would
just
like
something
in
writing,
because
as
administrations
change
so
do
their
philosophies
of
things.
Okay-
and
you
know
you
guys-
may
be
very
stringent
on
something
the
next
guy
that
comes
in
might
not
care.
You
know,
I,
don't
know
so
so
I
like
to
have
things
like
that
written
down,
so
I
know
who's
making
that
decision.
B
C
Miller,
what
Jerome
you
were
talking
about.
You
know
what
we're
seeing
in
the
actual
field
out
there.
What
are
the
the
thing,
the
issues
that
we
are
finding
in
the
field
and
with
how
much
regularity
where
we
need
to
make
this
this
change?
Are
we
every
day
getting
work,
orders
and
getting
into
a
an
area
where
we're
seeing
there's
a
fence
in
the
way
we
got
to
tear
it
down?
We
got
to.
I
Ricky
described
earlier
is
really
what
we're
seeing
out
in
the
field.
So
we've
got
an
older
subdivision
that
has
a
row
of
houses,
that's
20
rows
long,
all
right
and
we've
got.
We've
got
fences
that
go
into
encroach
into
the
servitude
and
they'll
put
up
the
back
portion
of
the
fence,
so
the
the
portion
that
is
parallel
to
the
lot
lines
you
know
comes
to
the
back
and
Those
portions
of
the
fence
are
in
the
servitude.
Then
we'll
have
a
guy
who
or
a
person
who
didn't
have
a
fence
there.
I
You
know
for
years
and
years
and
years,
and
now
they
want
to
put
one
in
and
with
the
new
criteria,
we're
having
them
comply
with
the
new
provisions
of
the
ordinance,
and
they
cannot
put
it
in
the
servitude.
So
we've
got
this
stair-stepped
approach
to
the
to
the
fence
line
at
the
back
back
lots
and
we're
seeing
that
quite
a
bit,
and
so
this
is
where
it
came
out.
I
mean
they
had
a
an
article
in
the
paper
about
it.
I
C
I
I
A
Next
meeting
we'll
come
back
with
that.
Well,
we
definitely
would,
like
pardon
me,
come
back
to
his
next
meeting
with
a
cleaned
up
version
please,
and
then,
if
at
all
possible,
address
some
of
the
issues
that
commissioner
Nasser
did
mention,
and
then
that
way
we
can
properly
review
this
and
make
a
a
better
suggestion
to
the
commission
to
the
of
council.
F
A
F
A
A
I
Might
discuss
as
Spencer
walked
out
so
as
soon
as
come
back,
we'll
get,
we
sure
will
a
bit
about
it,
but
we
reviewed
the
tape
and
apparently
there
was
never
a
vote
on
that
particular
item.
Okay,
the
public
hearing
was
open.
It
was
closed,
but
a
vote
never
occurred
for
that
particular
item.
So
we're
just
bringing
this
back
to
you.
We'd
like
to
officially
have
a
vote
on
it
all
right,
so
Mr
Mr
long
has
just
returned
what.