Garden City lot is now single-family residential

Action by the St. Mary Parish Council may have put to rest the fate of a residential development in Garden City after years of contention.
The council voted Wednesday to change the zoning designation of the property at the La. 182 and La. 3215 by ordinance originally introduced by Councilman Dale Rogers.
The ordinance changes the zoning from high-density residential to single family residential.
During a public hearing before the parish council’s regular meeting, developer Lloyd Harris urged that the property not be rezoned. Also voicing opposition was Mark MacMurdo, attorney for the Bailey family, original owners of the property.
Nearby resident Lynn Klutz, in favor of the zoning change, presented the council with a copy of the covenant agreement he said other property owners have to abide by when they purchased their lots, which outline several restrictions which he said were counter to the development.
Harris said single-family development does not suit his plans. “There’s no restrictions that I can’t build a multi-family residential” development on the site, he said.
Rogers and Councilman Glenn Hidalgo offered the rezoning ordinance for action during the regular meeting.
Councilmen Craig Mathews and J Ina were vocal in their opposition to the change.
Mathews worried about personal liability of council members should the ordinance pass; legal counsel said council members hold a certain level of immunity in such matters.
Ina said over the last three years no zoning board-approved recommendation has been denied by the parish council. “I’m curious why today we’re going to set a precedent,” he said.
Parish President David Hanagriff said there was one, possibly two past instances where the council did overrule the zoning board. He noted that the property first came to notice in 2009 when another developer proposed a similar high-density project that “went nowhere.” From 2009 through present day, Hanagriff said the surrounding area has changed considerably to single-family residential.
He said Harris first approached the council in 2013. Opposition mounted then, and by 2017 the project “has not advanced at all.”
Harris’ initial approval expired after one years, which he said at an earlier meeting was because of the depressed economy.
“Is this a parish council issue or is this an issue of private citizens?” Ina asked.
Hanagriff insisted it is a parish governmental matter.
“It seems like we’re headed down the road to litigation and the parish is going to have to spend money (to defend against litigation,)” Ina said. He added that parish employees have not had raises in quite a while but “we can find tax payer dollars to fight this.”
Hanagriff countered that he always considers costs, but bases his actions on “true and honest” conditions of a matter.
“I find it interesting that right down the street Mr. Bailey is selling similar single-family residential spots,” Hanagriff added. “I sympathize with Mr. Harris and Mr. Bailey and will work with them any way I can.”
Mathews said he has during his tenure in public office voted counter to what his constituents expected.
Rogers then called for the vote, but despite usual protocol the debate continued. Legal counsel said the chairman could limit who is allowed to speak.
Harris added that, “I will use every avenue I have at my disposal…no one is interested in loaning $24 million dollars if there is litigation.” He said he has spent $320,000 so far on the project, and that improvements to the local water system will improve service pressure as far as the east edge of Franklin. His cost to accomplish that would be about $700,000, and he would donate the improvements to the parish. Harris also added that he will be paying property taxes, and that other business owners in the parish are in support of the development.
Hanagriff and Harris engaged in a debate about alleged threats of litigation and a previous litigation issue Harris had reportedly instigated.
Mathews said neighboring parishes are growing but “this parish continues to be stagnated and devoid of growth financially…when are we going to stop that? I know that there are people in this parish that are privileged and have a sense of entitlement that is by design, and developments are rejected…if we turn away every potential developer…where will we end up in 20 years?”
The ordinance was approved with Mathews, Ina and council Chairman Paul Naquin against; Councilwoman Pamela Washington abstained.
The council agenda also contained the zoning board’s recommendation to approve the Harris development. Legal counsel recommended that the matter be deferred, based on the passage of the previous ordinance since it is unlikely the parish president will issue a veto.
Mathews and Ina amended a motion to defer to bring the zoning recommendation back to the table for action. Harris asked to take the floor several times, but Naquin denied his request.
The amendment failed and the deference passed.