Council upholds planning commission denial of Piney Ridge Estates after residents cite flooding, drainage and sewer concerns

The St. Tammany Parish Council on Oct. 2 upheld a planning commission denial of the concept subdivision plan for Piney Ridge Estates, a proposed 150‑plus lot development west of Pen Mill Road and north of U.S. Highway 190 in Ward 3. The council voted 11–3 to concur with the planning commission’s denial, blocking the developer’s appeal to advance the plan to the next design stage.

Supporters of the developer, Precision Development LLC, told the council the concept plat meets the Unified Development Code’s standards, noting the developer intends to donate a 2.4–2.5 acre tract for public use, potentially for a fire station, and to coordinate required DOTD traffic improvements. Derek Deliquin of Precision Development said the project “meets and exceeds your UDC code in all aspects” and that the firm has worked with staff on traffic and drainage reviews.

Why the council’s decision matters: residents and river‑watch advocates urged the council to reject the appeal, arguing the subdivision places too many homes in flood‑prone areas, threatens wetlands and longleaf pine savanna habitat, and could worsen wastewater discharges into nearby streams. Several speakers detailed prior major floods in the area and cited concerns about Pruden Creek and the Tchefuncte River watershed.

Neighbors and environmental advocates pressed technical concerns during public comment. Christina Gould, a Pen Mill Road resident, said the site includes wetlands and a flood‑risk zone locally known as Lake Ramsey Preserve and Ramsey Savanna WMA, and urged the council to limit or reduce the scale of development. Matthew Allen of North Shore River Watch and other speakers questioned drainage capacity, the placement of homes relative to the flood plain, and the proposal to connect additional flow to the Pinmill Place wastewater treatment plant. Allen asked the council to require LDQ/LDEQ concurrence on any new or expanded sewage discharge before construction begins.

Council discussion focused on process and timing. Council member Katrina Casaubon said she met with planning staff and commissioners and believed the developer’s concept plan complied with the new UDC terminology (concept vs. preliminary/tentative). Casaubon moved to overturn planning’s denial so Precision could proceed to the next stage; that motion initially failed 9–5 because a two‑thirds majority was required to overturn. Council later voted to concur with the planning commission’s denial, 11–3.

Developer responses: Derek Deliquin said Magnolia Water Systems had provided a signed “will‑serve” letter and that Precision planned to add two cells to the existing Pinmill Place treatment plant and to upgrade associated infrastructure; he said engineering designs would be reviewed and approved by parish engineers and regulators before construction.

What the council voted on: the council considered an appeal of a planning commission denial of the Piney Ridge concept plat. After public comment and debate, the council first failed to overturn the denial (motion to overturn: 9 yays, 5 nays; two‑thirds required). A subsequent resolution to concur with the planning commission’s denial passed 11–3.

Next steps and context: because the council concurred with the planning commission decision, the developer must return to the drawing board with a materially revised plan if it wishes to proceed. Council members and staff indicated that drainage, traffic, wastewater capacity, and community meetings would be points of review for any future resubmission.

Ending: The council’s action preserves the planning commission’s judgment at this stage and leaves unresolved longer‑term questions about regional sewer service and drainage upgrades in the area; speakers urged the parish and the developer to coordinate further technical analysis and community outreach before resubmission.