Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Permits topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves Blue Dog RV Park final permit despite neighbors’ objections

Plaquemines Parish Council · October 10, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Plaquemines Parish Council granted final approval Oct. 10 for Blue Dog RV Park’s 36-space permanent expansion after residents complained about notice and perceived inconsistent permitting; vote outcome recorded as 6 yes, 1 no, 2 abstentions.

The Plaquemines Parish Council voted to grant final approval for a 36‑space permanent Blue Dog RV Park at Prote Drive and Blue Dog Lane after several residents objected at the meeting that the project had grown beyond what they expected and that notice to neighbors was insufficient.

Rick Jackson, a nearby resident, told the council he believed the park already had more than 36 spaces and said neighbors received no notice, describing the process as inconsistent. He told the council, “I think you guys are playing, you know, games with the way this is worded,” and accused officials of unequal treatment of applicants.

Councilmember Ronnie Newsom (District 6), who offered the motion and said the parcel in question is already zoned for mobile home use, clarified that the item before the council was the back parcel with 36 spaces as the final tranche of approval and said the council had unanimously approved conditional approval on April 24. Newsom and administration said the permitting process dated back to an earlier conditional approval and that the 36‑space limit would be enforced; administration indicated they would post notices if the applicant exceeded the approved number.

Council discussion referenced prior conditional approvals and zoning board actions; council and administration noted differences between other, earlier rezoning denials and this site’s existing zoning classification. Members expressed sympathy for residents’ confusion while also noting the applicant followed the conditional-approval process. Reverend Edwards announced he would vote no based on past perceived inequities in similar cases. The council recorded a tally of six yes votes, one no (Reverend Edwards), and two abstentions (LaFrance and Kognevich).

The council did not impose additional conditions beyond the final approval language at that meeting; officials said enforcement would follow inspections and posted notices if more units appeared than permitted.

Next steps: administration will monitor the site for compliance with the approved plans and will post notices if the developer adds spaces beyond the approved 36.