Ascension Parish planning panel approves Harvest Fields preliminary plat with environmental, geotechnical condition

The Ascension Parish Planning Commission voted July 8 to approve the preliminary plat for Harvest Fields, a 115-lot subdivision on LA 44, but added a requirement that environmental and geotechnical studies and all required permits be validated before any construction begins.

Tom Easterly, speaking for the applicant, told commissioners the revised Harvest Fields submission “meets all the criteria” of the Unified Development Code, does not request a zoning change or variance, and is a use‑by‑right development supported by parish staff studies. “The staff looks at these all the time. That’s their role,” Easterly said, urging the commission to apply the UDC’s objective standards.

Residents and community groups opposed the plat in forceful testimony that ran more than three hours. Multiple speakers said the project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA) was flawed because some supplemental counts were taken during periods when schools were not in session and when nearby roads were under construction. “The traffic study itself was done during a period when the teachers were in conference, so the schools were out,” said Mark Wilson, a neighborhood resident. Several speakers pointed to North Burnside and Germany Road — a state‑controlled intersection — and said the applicant’s own tables show failing level‑of‑service (LOS E/F) conditions for key movements. “This project doesn’t just add traffic, it directly causes and worsens roadway failure on a major state highway,” resident Amanda Taylor said, citing westbound‑left delays of more than 115 seconds in the study’s worst‑case runs.

Speakers also raised school‑capacity and drainage concerns: former educators and parents warned that Sugar Mill Primary and Prairieville High are rapidly adding students and portable classrooms, and several residents cited recurring pond/ditch maintenance problems and erosion. Environmental concerns emerged when two retired environmental scientists said parish records and historic material suggest a plugged and abandoned oil well and a reserve pit in the project footprint; Jeff Nolan told the commission that archived samples recorded pH values above 12 in the site’s mud pit decades ago.

Staff and the applicant pushed back on those critiques in the hearing. Kimberly McDaniel, the traffic engineer under contract to the parish, said the TIA used a seven‑day, 24‑hour base dataset to identify peak hours and that turning‑movement counts used data collected March 25, 2026 — a day when schools were in session. She testified the methodology followed parish and national standards and that the supplemental analyses were performed to balance volumes across the corridor. Planning staff said drainage and floodplain work were analyzed with HEC‑RAS modeling and that the proposed detention ponds are designed to meet parish drainage criteria and create required flood storage.

Commissioners debated both the technical record and the policy context. Several members acknowledged the parish’s infrastructure is strained and said the debate highlights a continuing need to coordinate road, school and drainage planning. Commissioner Unitas, who pressed staff for the Phase I environmental memorandum during the meeting, sought stronger documentation before construction disturbance.

The final motion approved the preliminary plat with a condition added by Commissioner Unitas and seconded by Commissioner Marshall: the developer must complete and validate environmental investigations (and any required Phase II testing and remediation) and geotechnical work and obtain any necessary state and federal permits before breaking ground. The motion passed with three affirmative votes, one opposed and one abstention; the clerk recorded Marshawn, Nassar and Unitas voting yes; Veil voting no; and Eric Jones abstaining.

What happens next: approval of a preliminary plat is not the end of the permitting sequence. The developer must complete construction plans, secure DOTD, pipeline and other utility approvals where required, and demonstrate that on‑site and off‑site mitigation (turn lanes, pond construction, erosion controls) meet parish and state standards. Staff and the Engineering Review Agency will verify technical compliance during construction‑plan review and before any final plat or issuance of building permits.

The commission adjourned at the conclusion of the vote.