Commission postpones Oak Harbor PUD amendment after residents and lawmakers flag drainage and density concerns

The St. Tammany Parish Planning and Zoning Commission voted to postpone a major amendment to the Oak Harbor plan‑unit development (ZC8203023B) for one month after residents, the Oak Harbor homeowners association and a state representative urged delay to allow more study of drainage, title and consent‑judgment issues.

The proposed amendment would change development standards on Parcels 10 and 11 to allow smaller single‑family lots — a proposed minimum 60‑foot lot width, down from current standards that generally average 70 feet or larger. Staff said the change would reduce previously permitted uses and that any action on the concept subdivision would be contingent on approval of the PUD amendment.

Lance Robichaud, the civil engineer on the project, told commissioners the developer intends to “uphold that standard” in Oak Harbor and offered offsets including common areas and a 50‑foot green buffer along Oak Harbor Boulevard. He said the site’s shape and existing levee and canal lines limit lot depth and that engineering solutions will be used to avoid negative downstream impacts: “I can guarantee you… they are gonna make me prove [we] do not negatively impact anybody in the surrounding area,” Robichaud said.

State Representative Glorioso, who said he lives in Oak Harbor’s vicinity and represents District 90, urged postponement. He warned that the 45‑acre site is low‑lying, that runoff patterns changed after Hurricane Katrina, and that adding impervious surface at greater density could push more stormwater into local canals and backyards. “If we take 45 acres… the runoff’s gonna encroach into people’s backyards further,” he said, and asked the commission to consider Army Corps and coastal‑protection plans before altering the PUD.

Judith Otero, an attorney speaking for the Oak Harbor Property Owners Association, said the property remains subject to a 1995 development agreement and a 2004 consent judgment that she said require approvals from those parties before a major amendment may proceed. She asked the commission to require those signoffs and additional plan revisions before acting.

Commissioner Robert said the PUD amendment and the concept plan are interdependent and that the commission lacked a “full set of cards” to make an informed decision. Citing packet timing and multiple outstanding staff comments, Robert moved to postpone the amendment one month. The motion was seconded and carried.

Staff and the developer agreed to deadlines for corrected materials: the developer committed to provide the corrected plat to staff promptly and to meet a July 21 submission deadline for materials to be included in next month’s packet. Staff noted that while the concept/tentative plan was filed earlier under the old procedural track, full engineering, hydrology and title documentation will be required and reviewed at the final‑plat and construction stages.

The commission’s action leaves the PUD amendment and its accompanying concept plan pending; commissioners asked that drainage studies, evidence of required consents under the 2004 judgment, corrected plats and other staff comments be addressed before the item returns to the agenda next month.