St. Tammany postpones Folsom rezoning after hours of public comment; community meeting ordered

The St. Tammany Parish Council on an unspecified August meeting night voted to postpone for one month a zoning change for about 20.81 acres near Highway 25 and Bennett Bridge Road in Folsom. The applicant had asked to rezone the property from ML (multifamily low) and HC‑2 (highway commercial) to S‑2 (suburban residential), a downzoning the petitioner said would reduce potential development from roughly 183 apartment units to an estimated 60–75 single‑family lots.

The applicant’s representative, Catherine Muir of Jones Fussell (representing petitioner Paul Marone), told the council the request is a “true down zoning” that would “convert [the site] permitted for apartments and highway commercial uses and convert it entirely to single family residential.” She said the site is outside the floodplain (flood zone C), has central water and sewer with capacity, and that any traffic or drainage improvements would be reviewed during future subdivision and DOTD review.

The proposal drew extensive opposition from residents who live along Highway 25 and Bennett Bridge Road. Speakers repeatedly called Highway 25 a “death trap,” raised traffic and sight‑distance concerns, and said local drainage, wells and fire protection would be strained by added homes. Bryant Laird, a Folsom resident, told the council, “If you allow this type of density of homes on this piece of property, it's gonna change that forever.” Lauren Kramer, who lives adjacent to the site and trains horses, said she moved to the area for rural conditions and expressed concern about noise and safety for horses and equestrian operations if a subdivision is built adjacent to her property.

Supporters and the applicant said the S‑2 request would be less intensive than what is allowed now under ML and HC‑2 zoning and argued single‑family lots would produce less traffic and fewer curb cuts on Highway 25 than multiple commercial curb cuts or multifamily development. The applicant’s planner, Franklin Kyle, said the developer expects to submit a traffic study to LA DOTD during the subdivision review and that DOTD will dictate state‑highway access points and required improvements.

Commission debate split. Commissioner Robert argued the S‑2 proposal was preferable to the present ML/HC‑2 zoning and moved to approve; Commissioner Arcemont moved to deny. Commissioner Narcisse moved to postpone in order to hold a community meeting; Commissioner Seager seconded the postponement. The council voted to postpone for one month and directed staff to arrange a community meeting and notify all speaker‑card holders. Commissioners who agreed to attend the community meeting included the chair (Gaines) and Commissioners Narcisse and Seager; Commissioner Martino indicated he would plan to attend.

Why it matters: Highway 25 is a primary local corridor for residents in the Folsom area. The rezoning request pits long‑standing zoning entitlements (multifamily and highway commercial) against neighbors’ concerns about safety, drainage, school capacity and preserving rural character. The council’s postponement aims to give residents and the petitioner a structured forum to try to narrow options before the council votes on a zoning change.

The project still faces multiple future steps: removal from any moratorium in effect for that area (if applicable), the community meeting, a concept subdivision review, a formal traffic study and LA DOTD review of any state‑highway access. The council did not adopt any zoning change at the meeting and will consider the item again after the community meeting and related staff follow‑up.

Several of the principal speakers during the item were residents who live on or near Highway 25 and Bennett Bridge Road and described traffic incidents and local drainage problems. Other technical points raised in the hearing included that the property has been zoned for apartments since the 1980s and that the petitioner sought a permanent downzoning to remove multifamily and highway commercial entitlements.

The council instructed staff to contact those who submitted speaker cards with meeting logistics for the community meeting; staff said it would contact all speakers by phone or email and work with the council clerk to find an available date and venue.