Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Resubmission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose Rose/Meadow Lake resubdivision; commission debates jurisdiction and lot-size rules
Summary
Developers asked the DeSoto Parish Planning Commission to approve a resubdivision of Meadow Lake (presented as Rose Subdivision); neighbors opposed smaller lots and cited subdivision covenants, while the commission and staff said covenant enforcement belongs to district court and that parish regulations (minimum 0.51-acre lots) control whether commission approval is required.
Jason Decote and attorney Aaron Wilson appeared before the DeSoto Parish Planning Commission to seek final approval of a resubdivision of the Meadow Lake property, described in the packet as Rose Subdivision. Wilson told commissioners the plat as presented conforms to DeSoto Parish regulations and that restrictive covenants are a civil matter for district court, not a planning-commission decision.
Several residents opposed the proposal during public comment, arguing the resubdivision would create lots smaller than Meadow Lake Estates’ long-standing covenant minimum of 1 acre. Ms. Ferguson and other neighbors said the covenant language and long-standing enforcement were the basis for their objections; they argued the commission should block the split to preserve the neighborhood’s character.
Staff and commissioners reviewed the subdivision regulations on the record. Engineering/staff noted that parish rules require a minimum lot size of 0.51 acre (22,500 square feet) as the threshold for when the commission must review proposed splits; the commissioners and staff repeatedly stated that if each resulting lot is at least an acre the commission would not need to act, but because some proposed lots were smaller than an acre the commission has jurisdiction. Staff also explained septic permitting and setback considerations and said the administrative review found no deficiencies with the plat relative to the parish’s minimum standards.
Aaron Wilson repeated that restrictive covenants are enforceable in district court and that the commission’s role is to apply parish subdivision regulations. Neighbors maintained that the covenants should prevent the subdividing as proposed and said they would seek legal remedies. One speaker told the commission, “I’ll file a suit tomorrow,” after the vote.
The transcript records an apparent contradiction in the roll-call portion of the meeting: commissioners vocalized counts and some speakers recorded “nay” votes, the chair is quoted as saying “Motion carries,” and later the minutes record “Motion failed.” The transcript does not resolve that discrepancy; staff minutes or the official vote record should be consulted for the definitive outcome.
What happens next: staff confirmed that affected landowners have an appeal path and that covenant disputes are for the district court. The commission asked for any additional technical details and signaled that questions of enforcement remain a legal matter outside the body’s authority.
