St. Charles Parish Council rejects rezoning request for Lakewood property after hours of testimony

The St. Charles Parish Council voted on Dec. 16 to deny a rezoning request from local business owner Robert Gilbert that would have changed the zoning of a roughly 44.5‑acre parcel near Lakewood Drive in Luling.

The application sought to reclassify portions of the property from its existing residential zoning (identified in the application as R‑3 / R1A) to open‑land and commercial zoning (OL and C‑3), allowing a proposed new office/warehouse for Gilbert’s business and two house lots behind it. Michael Albert, a planning department representative, told the council “the department, as well as the planning commission, recommend denial.”

Council members and residents debated the application for more than two hours. Gilbert told the council he wanted to move his company’s office and parking from River Road to the front portion of the parcel near Highway 90, saying the current site is “outgrowing it” and that a five‑acre front parcel would provide needed parking. He described plans to leave wetlands and wooded areas intact and to reserve back acreage for two homes for his sons.

Opponents, including several homeowners whose properties back onto the parcel, urged the council to preserve the existing wetland buffer and raised concerns about traffic, drainage and the possibility that future owners could change uses. Aaron Walker, whose property backs up to the land, said the parcel’s wetland character was the reason he bought his home: “When I look out in my backyard, I don't want somebody ... taking care of this land,” Walker said during public comment. Other residents described past flooding in the neighborhood and urged caution.

Supporters — including tenants, employees and longtime community members — said Gilbert and his family have a track record of local investment and stewardship. Dozens of residents spoke in favor of the rezoning, saying the proposed use was preferable to a large subdivision or apartment complex that could be built under current zoning if a future owner pursued mitigation and development.

Planning staff explained why they had recommended denial: the requested zoning did not conform to the parish’s established land‑use pattern, the parcel contains federally regulated wetlands that would need mitigation for more intensive development, and open‑land zoning raised access and use questions that R‑1A or other classifications would treat differently. Albert described access and infrastructure constraints and noted that open‑land zoning allows different accessory uses (such as keeping horses) and different access servitudes that would not be permitted under a simple R‑1A subdivision plan.

Council members emphasized the complexity of weighing private property rights, neighborhood expectations, and drainage and wetlands permitting. Several members said they were inclined to support keeping the property as residential or to require a more narrowly tailored application; others said they were sympathetic to Gilbert’s desire to keep his business local. Ultimately, the council voted to deny the rezoning; the motion failed on the floor and the ordinance did not pass.

The Planning & Zoning Commission had denied the request earlier, and the parish council’s decision leaves the property under its existing zoning. Because the parcel contains areas identified in the application as wetlands, any future large‑scale development would likely require federal permitting and wetland mitigation.