Council denies rezoning for large Comey Drive subdivision after residents raise flood and infrastructure concerns

The East Baton Rouge Parish Metropolitan Council voted June 11 to deny a rezoning request for a proposed Stillwater subdivision on Comey Drive, rejecting a developer's plan to change roughly 90 acres from A1 (single-family residential, larger lots) to A2.7 (smaller-lot single-family zoning).

The motion to deny was made by Councilman Brandon McKinney and seconded by Councilwoman Coleman; the motion carried (vote recorded as "motion carries" on the dais).

Developers J. Burrow Enterprises and representatives including George McCallum (developer) and Lance Robichaux (engineer) described the proposed plan as a 230- to 235-lot subdivision on approximately 90 acres, saying much of the eastern portion would remain open space because it sits nearer the White Bayou floodway. McCallum said the design calls for an oversize pond to help with stormwater retention and that a traffic-impact and drainage-impact study would be required by parish engineers as part of the subdivision approval process.

Residents who live on and around Comey Drive spoke in opposition during public comment. Kimberly Leap, who said she has lived on Kamey (Comey) Drive since 1997, presented a petition and argued the area was zoned A1 for a reason, calling it rural and low-density and warning that A2.7 would allow smaller lots and much higher density that would change neighborhood character. She and other opponents raised repeated concerns about flooding (noting the 2016 White Bayou flood), limited road capacity, volunteer fire protection, stretched water and sewer systems, and public-school performance. Deborah Pearson and others described repeated flooding of homes and questioned whether the proposed pond and stormwater measures would be adequate.

The applicant reiterated that required technical studies (drainage-impact and traffic-impact studies) would be completed and submitted to parish engineers and that preliminary calculations indicated the existing pond could reduce runoff if improved. The developer said the proposed plan would come in at about 2.6 units per acre (below what A1 zoning allows and well below the maximum density permitted under A2.7), but council members noted that a rezoning remains in force for the land and could be used by subsequent owners.

Planning staff told the council most of the tract has been zoned A1 since 1957 and said A1 allows about 4.1 units per acre with minimum 10,500-square-foot lots; A2.7 allows up to 7.3 units per acre and 6,000-square-foot lots. Council discussion emphasized compatiblity with the character of adjacent properties (many of which are multiple-acre lots) and the need to evaluate worst-case density that the zoning would permit if approved.

Councilmember McKinney, citing constituent input (he noted more than 350 petition signatures), moved to deny the rezoning; the motion was seconded by Coleman and carried. Council members who spoke during debate indicated they supported responsible development but were not convinced A2.7 was compatible with the immediate neighborhood given infrastructure and flood history.

The developer and staff noted there is a companion subdivision application tentatively before the planning commission, but the council's action on rezoning was the central decision taken at the June 11 meeting.

Votes at a glance: motion to deny rezoning of parcels referenced as Case 10-25 (lots 6263 and 6777 Comey Drive) — motion to deny by Councilman McKinney, second by Councilwoman Coleman; motion carries.