Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects rezoning for Old Scenic Highway parcels; approves resubdivision
Summary
The Zachary council voted down a rezoning request for two Old Scenic Highway parcels after a split vote but approved a separate resubdivision of those same lots. The public hearing featured the property owner and a resident's question about access and office space.
The Zachary Mayor and Council on Jan. 27 rejected a request to rezone two Old Scenic Highway parcels but approved a related resubdivision of the same lots.
At a public hearing, the owner, Jimmy Baker, spoke in favor of rezoning Lots G‑2 and G‑3 of the E.D. Annison Sr. Place from Estate Residential (RE) to Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and Suburban Residential (RS). Resident Anna Clara Gayle asked how office space would be accommodated and about property access. Following the hearing, the council voted on the rezoning motion; Councilmembers James Graves and Jennifer Landry voted in favor, while Mayor Pro Tempore Brandy Westmoreland, Councilman John LeBlanc and Councilwoman Ambre DeVirgilio opposed the rezoning, and the motion failed.
The council then considered RESUB‑9‑25, a separate item to resubdivide Lots G‑2 and G‑3 into G‑2‑A, G‑2‑B, G‑3‑A and G‑3‑B. That resubdivision passed on a 3–2 vote (Yeas: LeBlanc, Graves, Landry; Nays: Westmoreland, DeVirgilio).
Council later considered a motion to reconsider and amend the rezoning item (RZ‑11‑25); that motion also failed, by the same 3–2 split. The sequence means the rezoning proposal remains denied while the resubdivision is approved, creating separate regulatory outcomes for the same parcels.
Why it matters: The split votes signal differing views among councilmembers about commercial development along Old Scenic Highway. The approved resubdivision could allow future land-use or development proposals to be filed consistent with the newly configured lots even though the requested zoning change did not pass.
What’s next: No additional votes on RZ‑11‑25 were scheduled at the meeting; applicants or affected parties may return to the Planning and Zoning Commission or the council with revised proposals.
