Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Point Ruston topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Ruston council to pause zoning change until TerraCotta ownership and EPA issues are resolved
Summary
Multiple residents told the City Council the Marina District height change is premature because TerraCotta’s acquisition, receivership proceedings, and EPA remediation uncertainties remain unresolved; speakers urged delaying permanent zoning changes to avoid granting concessions the City may later regret.
A string of residents and stakeholders urged the Ruston City Council on June 2 to reject or postpone Ordinance No. 1604 until ownership questions and environmental remediation are resolved.
Stu Lehr, speaking as a Ruston resident and Planning Commission member, urged approval but defended the Commission’s approach, saying the recommendation follows legal guidance and that the proposed 10‑foot increase would be broadly available. By contrast, Tom Poole said he “strongly opposed Ordinance 1604,” warning that approving the change would set a precedent, reduce views and property values, and that residents have proposed alternative revenue ideas such as a fire levy. Talia Thepvongsa and Ford Connor asked why the City should change zoning for a developer that does not yet own the property, citing receivership developments and court statements indicating TerraCotta might withdraw from parcels until other sales close or EPA matters are addressed.
Laura Leizear and Sophy Englund urged the Council to preserve the existing standards for Lots 14 and 15, arguing that a permanent zoning change would remain attached to the land even if a developer withdraws. Englund asked the Council, “What problem are we solving tonight that cannot be addressed later when there is a specific project, a completed transaction, and greater certainty?”
Speakers emphasized that EPA remediation, declarant rights, and unresolved HOA governance create practical uncertainty. The Council heard these concerns alongside staff and Planning Commission testimony and ultimately did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting.
