Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Rose rezoning request to convert commercial parcel to two-family residential fails after business opposition
Summary
A rezoning request to change lots on St. Rose Avenue from commercial (C-2) to two-family residential (R-2) failed after business owners and council members cited parking, congestion and the corridor's recent commercial revitalization.
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A proposal to rezone two lots on St. Rose Avenue from general commercial (C-2) to two-family residential (R-2) failed at the St. Charles Parish Council meeting on April 7 after business owners and council members urged the council to preserve a commercial corridor.
Applicant Malcolm Darensberg presented the rezoning request for lots totaling about 12,600 square feet and asked the council to approve the change. Johnny Rupert, who owns Broadband Communications next door, told the council he and other nearby property owners opposed the rezoning and that the block is predominantly commercial. "To put a residential right next to two businesses that are operating ... we—re just concerned about having residents right next to us when we're working late at night," Rupert said.
Councilwoman Cindy O'Daniels, whose district includes the corridor, said the area has recently seen reinvestment and new businesses and that converting a "slice out" of a commercial corridor to housing would undercut momentum. Councilmembers who visited the site described heavy parking and traffic congestion near lunchtime and during events, and one council member said he observed large groups gathering in a nearby strip-mall parking lot during Mardi Gras.
Councilwoman Wilson announced she would abstain from the vote; the council then voted and the rezoning ordinance (file no. 2025-0080) failed. The planning department record shows the department recommended approval but the parish planning commission recommended denial.
The council did not adopt a zoning change; applicants may pursue alternatives such as a special-use permit or a commercial redevelopment plan. During the discussion staff clarified that duplexes could be allowed under a special-use process in C-2 rather than rezoning the property.
No formal amendments or procedural referrals were made on the record.

