Parish council rejects rezoning request from local business owner after hours of public comment

St. Charles Parish Council voted Monday to deny a request from Robert Gilbert Jr. to rezone a parcel in the Lakewood West area to allow a commercial building and two homes, rejecting the application after a lengthy public hearing and sustained public comment.

The proposal would have changed the property’s designation to allow Oliver/open-land and commercial uses near Highway 90; the planning department and the parish Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial. “I’m trying to move my business and keep it here in the parish,” applicant Robert Gilbert Jr. said during public comment, identifying himself as the property owner and a long‑time local employer. Opponents cited wetlands, drainage and traffic concerns.

Why it matters: The parcel borders existing Lakewood West residences, and speakers from both sides framed the vote as a choice between keeping a local employer and preserving wooded wetlands behind homes. Council members said they were weighing land‑use policy, drainage impacts and the planning commission’s recommendation as they voted.

Council and staff said the application did not meet rezoning criteria in the parish ordinance. Planning staff clarified that open‑land zoning was requested in part to avoid building a new public street and because the applicant described possible accessory uses such as horses; the staff memo and the planning commission concluded the request would be a spot zone and was incompatible with the surrounding low‑density residential land‑use map.

Public comment was extensive and polarized. Supporters — including tenants, local business owners and neighbors who said the applicant had decades of local investments — urged the council to keep the company in St. Charles Parish and to approve a less‑intensive commercial footprint than a potential large subdivision. Residents who opposed the request said they bought adjoining homes expecting wetlands and woods to remain and that increased commercial traffic and future owners could change the use over time.

Council discussion focused on two questions: whether the application met the ordinance’s rezoning criteria and whether a commercial designation would set a precedent or risk higher‑intensity development later. Several council members said they were sympathetic to keeping local employers in parish limits but limited by the legal tests that govern rezoning decisions.

Outcome and next steps: The council voted on file 20240405 and the motion to approve the rezoning failed. Council member district votes were not recorded in the public transcript beyond the roll call; Planning and Zoning’s denial and the council rejection together mean the parcel remains under its current zoning. The applicant and residents were advised that future applications could be made with revised proposals, and staff encouraged any applicant to consult planning for alternative options (for example, a different commercial district or reduced footprint).