From: Barbara Jacob-Tucker
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:06 PM
To: Valarie Berthelot; Sandra Miguez; Nicole Breaux
Subject: FW: Buffering requirements
Barbara
Jacob-Tucker, LCMC, CAA, CMA, CPO
Council Secretary
St. Charles Parish
P. O. Box 302
15045 Highway 18
Hahnville, LA 70057
985-783-5127 - office
985-783-2067 - fax
504-415-2980 - cell
From: Kimberly Marousek
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:55 AM
To: Barbara Jacob-Tucker
Cc: VJ St. Pierre; Wendy Watkins
Subject: FW: Buffering requirements
Barbara,
This letter should go with the council correspondence for the
Neal Clulee rezoning request which is on the April 5th Council
Meeting. Thanks, Kim
From: Rickey Dufrene
[mailto:rdufrene2@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 5:01 PM
To: Kimberly Marousek
Cc: Terry Authement; Carolyn Schexnaydre; Shelley Tastet
Subject: Buffering requirements
Kim,
Sorry
for the delay in pushing this issue with you since we last spoke about the
buffering requirements. In our last conversation, you informed me that
buffering requirements for the Clulee proposed rezone would be waived if the
zoning case passes the Parish Council. You told me that Planning and
Zoning would not require the buffering because the permit application was for temporary
construction uses.
Your
stand and logic on this issue is perplexing, inconsistent, and immoral.
I’d like to post the code taken off the parish website:
____
4. Special Provisions:
a. Where any commercial use in a C-3 zoning district abuts any residential district or use, a six-foot high solid wood fence or masonry wall shall border the same and there shall be a buffer strip ten (10) feet wide designated and maintained on the site planted with plant materials acceptable for buffer zones unless the Planning and Zoning Department shall require a greater or lesser buffer strip.
___
I
highlighted the word shall, which has some legal meaning and then notice I
highlighted the “trump” that finishes up the provision. The “trump” that
allows your department to once again skirt the rules for a favored
citizen.
Neal
has retroactively applied for a rezone to C-3 property from R1-B. Even
ignoring the illegal circumstances which has led us to this rezoning
application, your code still provides for fencing and buffering. There is
nothing in the code that says temporary permits are exempt from this
provision. In fact your code clearly states that it shall be required…
unless your department plays the trump card. Your stance to me was that
since it was temporary construction, the buffering would be waived for Neil’s
property. It is inconsistent and disingenuous because if you read through
your analysis and recommendation for approval, you stated that the property
would be subject to all fencing and buffering requirements. Here are your
exact written words from your analysis for approval to Planning and Zoning
commission:
____
Although it is not ideal to
place commercial development adjacent to single family residential uses the
proximity to a major arterial
highway should be noted. Additionally, the C-3 regulations anticipate the
mixture of commercial and
residential uses and provide for buffering requirements when those uses are
adjacent. Any future
commercial development on Lots A-1
and the Balance of Lot B would be required to
meet those buffering requirements.
____
So
allow me to recap this entire scenario for you so you can understand why this
is the wrong stance:
Neil
begins illegal commercial activity on residential property and a complaint is
filed with Planning and Zoning. A delayed, sham of an investigation
ensues in which the goal is to validate Neil’s use of the property with the
Corps of Engineers so the Parish can justify their stance of allowing the
illegal work to continue. Once the Corps refuses to comply with the “Get
Out of Jail Free” card the Parish is requesting, we wait another month and a
half for Neil to be given a letter of violation. I inform the Parish that
I will oppose both the rezone and special permit on the residential land.
I stated to P & Z my measured opposition to the special permit and rezone
was on the basis of them allowing an extra truck entrance onto Hwy 90 that is
unsafe and that the residential property did not have a method for turning west
onto Hwy 90 as well as the most important FACT... the work was illegal and not
supposed to be taking place there.
In
the meantime, the residential property is transformed into a parking lot,
fueling station, and maintenance shop for dump trucks while the Parish chooses
to ignore Section
XI. Administration and Section
XII. Violation and penalty in its code of ordinances. Neil
applies for rezone to C-3 property and ignores the other provisions of the
letter in which he has to relocate the fuel tanks and trailers off the
residential property. The Planning and Zoning department recommends
approval of the land to C-3 and presents this is a simple rezone case to the
commission without any mention or notice of the 3.5 months of violations that
have and are continuing to occur on the residential property. Another
important fact is left out… as a commissioner, Neil has voted against other
residential rezoning by a neighboring landowner, thus preventing a prescribed
and definite use for his neighboring land and his comments record his
preference for commercial property along the Diversion corridor and establish
clear conflicts of interest. The fact that the zoning case is made before
the commission on which Neil is appointed makes this a violation of state
ethics. The fact that it was presented by his wife makes it another
ethics violation. I pointed these ethics concerns out at the meeting and
in conversations with Planning & Zoning officials.
Brings
us to today, where we are poised for a council vote of rezone. I have a
residential lot in which I have invested time and money into that I have
watched become useless to me and diminished to the market because the
residential land next to me has been illegally transformed into a limestone
dump. My life’s course has certainly been altered because of another
man’s illegal actions; my property is now diminished and is not usable for its
established zoning. Now I am told that the Parish will not even uphold the
buffering and fencing portion of the code.
Did
you know the word morals appears in the code of ordinances 8 times? It is
used the same way every time and is one of the cornerstones for the adoption of
the code. Sort of like the commandments, Public Health, Safety, Comfort,
Morals, or Welfare.
Two separate excerpts from the Parish Code of Ordinances:
____
1) Section I. Adoption.
For the purposes of promoting the health, safety,
morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the Parish of St.
Charles, there shall be adopted and established this zoning ordinance of the
Parish of St. Charles, State of Louisiana.
2) In consideration of all appeals and all
proposed exceptions or variances under the terms of this Ordinance, the board
shall, before making any exception or variance from the Ordinance in a specific
case, determine that the granting of an exception or variance, will not impair
an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or unreasonably
increase the congestion in public streets, or increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety, or unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other respect impair the
public health, safety, comfort, morals, or welfare of the inhabitants of St.
Charles Parish.
____
I
wonder why I would suppose the mission statement for the code of ordinances is
just words?
I
am asking my council representatives to please vote against this unethical, immoral
rezone on the basis of my argument above. At the very least, can one of
you introduce an amendment to require the immediate installation and upkeep of
approved buffering and fencing that is provided for in the code of
ordinances? This is a vote for all the residents of St. Charles Parish,
the validity of our code and the morals in which we live and govern.
Thanks,
Rickey
Dufrene