Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecom Tower Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boyette Lane rezoning for telecom site pulled after residents press conditional-use alternative
Summary
An applicant seeking C-1 commercial zoning on Boyette Lane — proposed to host a communications tower — withdrew the rezoning request after residents raised concerns and planning staff suggested a conditional-use approach within R-1 zoning.
The commission opened public hearings Oct. 2 on case 25-42 (Boyette Lane, parcel 0202895-R1), a request to change underlying zoning from Residential R-1 to Commercial C-1 to permit a communications tower.
Residents from Boyette Lane urged the commission to retain R-1 and instead consider a conditional-use pathway. John Mangus, a local resident, told the commission he has “been requesting since the whole process of zoning started that we create a municipal zone” specifically to allow civic uses and communications towers but not broader commercial development.
Planning consultants noted an alternative: the parish council could introduce an ordinance enabling tower installations as an allowable conditional use within R-1; if the council adopts that change, the planning commission would review each tower through conditional-use procedures rather than permanently changing a lot’s base zoning to C-1. Resident Ashley Lender cited subdivision deed restrictions for Hammock Estate that read, in part, “all lots are hereby designated as residential lots, and no business or commercial activity shall be conducted upon any lot,” and argued the rezoning would “undermine financial investments we have all made into our homes.”
Commissioners and staff discussed technical issues that would be addressed if the project advanced to planning, including fall radius and setback requirements for towers and whether a monopole or guyed tower would be proposed. Commissioners also noted the parish cannot enforce private deed restrictions; enforcement is a civil matter, and legal counsel should be consulted on whether deed restrictions would bar commercial use.
After hearing residents’ concerns and staff’s explanation of the conditional-use alternative, the applicant (represented in public comments by John Mangus and others) requested that item 7A be pulled from the agenda for further work. The chair granted the request and removed the item for later reconsideration.
The commission emphasized that a pulled application may return with additional legal or ordinance work; if the applicant re-files a straight C-1 rezoning and it is denied, the applicant may not reapply for the same zoning change for one year.
