May 6, 2004

Lake Charles, Louisiana

The Police Jury of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, met in Regular Session at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 6, 2004, in the Police Jury Meeting Room of the Parish Government Building, 1015 Pithon Street, Lake Charles, Louisiana, with The Honorable Brent Clement, President, presiding, and the following members present:

Mrs. Sandra J. Treme; and Messrs. Francis Andrepont, Calvin Collins, Mike Danahay, Tony Guillory, Chuck Kleckley, Chris Landry, Charles S. Mackey, D.D.S., Don Manuel, Hal McMillin, Cornie Moon, Tony Stelly, and Alvin Stevens

Absent: Mrs. Elizabeth Conway Griffin (out of town)

Also present were Mr. S. Mark McMurry, Parish Administrator; Mr. Bryan Beam, Assistant Administrator; Mrs. Coleen Clark, Executive Secretary; Mr. Richard Gremillion, Director of Emergency Preparedness; Mrs. Cheryl Heisser, Director of Human Resources; Mr. Jerry Milner, Director of Finance; Mr. Claude Smart, Parish Engineer; Mr. Allen L. Smith, Jr. of the firm of Plauche, Smith and Nieset, General Counsel; Mrs. Kathy P. Smith, Recording Secretary; Mr. Gerry Trahan, Director of Facility Management; and Mr. Jim Vickers, Director of Planning and Development.

President Clement called the meeting to order. The invocation was pronounced by Father Ed Brunnert, Our Lady of Prompt Succor Catholic Church in Sulphur, which was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mr. Andrepont. The roll was called with the result being as outlined above.

President Clement welcomed everyone in attendance and asked those who would like to address the Police Jury to fill out a “Request to Appear” form and submit it to the staff. He also asked that all cellular telephones and pagers be turned off or set on a suitable mode so they would not interrupt the meeting.

Motion was made by Mr. Andrepont, seconded by Mr. Stevens and carried that the following application for a beer permit be approved and the issuance of the following special events permits be ratified, with Mr. Manuel voting in opposition to the issuance of a beer permit to Fausto’s of Moss Bluff, Inc.:

WARD 1

Fausto’s of Moss Bluff, Inc.

Veva Davis — Secretary

FAUSTO’S RESTAURANT

173 Hwy 171 North

Lake Charles, LA 70611 Beer $35.00

(Don Manuel’s District)

* * * * * * * * * * * *

It was moved by Mr. Andrepont, seconded by Mr. McMillin and carried unanimously to approve the payment of all current invoices.

Upon motion made by Mr. Landry, which was duly seconded by Mr. Kleckley and carried unanimously, the minutes of the regular meeting of the Police Jury dated April 1, 2004, were approved, and the reading of same was dispensed with.

President Clement advised that an item on the agenda would be taken out of sequence at this time, said item being Zoning Case RZ04-008-04 which was a request by Anthony J. Palermo, Jr. to rezone from C-1 (Light Commercial) to C-2 (General Commercial) to allow a restaurant (consumption of alcohol on premises) at 861 Houston River Road in Ward Four, Police Jury District 14. He further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 20, 2004, and voted unanimously to recommend that the request be granted with the following stipulations: (1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; (2) that a parish occupational license must be obtained; (3) that all required parking spaces (nine spaces) and driveways must be hardsurfaced (asphalt or concrete) prior to opening of business; (4) that each driveway must be marked as an entrance or exit; and (5) that the dumpster must be placed behind the building with a privacy fence enclosure prior to opening of the business. President Clement further advised that on April 22, 2004, the Police Jury had deferred action until the Regular Meeting on this date.

Motion was made by Mr. Landry and seconded by Dr. Mackey to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to Zoning Case RZ04-008-04 and to grant the request to rezone with the stipulations outlined by said Board.

President Clement set a ten-minute time limit for the proponents and for the opponents, with a five-minute rebuttal for each side.

Mr. Richard D. Moreno, 203 West Clarence Street, Lake Charles, attorney at law representing Mr. Anthony J. Palermo, Jr., appeared before the Police Jury and explained that the rezoning request was for the purpose of establishing a family pizza restaurant. Mr. Moreno presented photographs of a similar establishment opened in DeQuincy by the proposed lessee of the property under discussion, Mr. Shane Nelson. Mr. Moreno also presented copies of affidavits signed by Ms. Verna Perry and Mr. Aaron Perry, residents immediately north of and contiguous to the property in question, stating they were in support of the rezoning.

Mr. Moreno also submitted letters of support for the proposed pizza restaurant from Mr. David Lindeman of 910 East Houston River Road (across the street from the location), from Mayor L. A. “Buddy” Henagan of DeQuincy stating that Big Red’s Pizza had been an asset to his community, and from Fire Chief Dean Lappe of the Houston River Fire Department, noting that said fire department could use the additional tax base.

Mr. Moreno stressed that Mr. Nelson intended to operate a family-oriented pizza parlor and would like to sell wine and beer. He pointed out that with a Class A permit, Mr. Nelson could sell hard liquor but that he had no intention of doing that. Mr. Moreno stated that some people were claiming that Mr. Nelson planned to open a bar, which he said was not the case.

Mr. Moreno advised that to the east of the subject property, an E-Z Mart had been in business since 1986 and sold alcohol. He further advised that according to the Perry’s and the Palermo’s, there had been no disturbances as a result.

Mr. Moreno stated that the proposed business would generate approximately 20 new jobs with an annual payroll of approximately $100,000 and that the sales would increase the tax base. He also stated that Mr. Nelson wanted to employ local people and do everything in his power to not have anything negative happen, i.e., a bar. Mr. Moreno reiterated his earlier statement that Mr. Nelson did not wish to sell hard liquor, nor did he want to have the type of patrons a bar would attract.

Mr. Manuel stated that with a Class A Beer Permit, a business could have three video poker machines, and he asked if Mr. Nelson planned to have those. Mr. Moreno advised that Mr. Nelson did intend to apply for a video poker license, pointing out that state law required that the machines be completely isolated and proper signs put up to keep anyone under 21 years of age away from them. Mr. Moreno stated that it would be Mr. Nelson’s responsibility to enforce those state regulations and that if he did not, he would be fined by the State Police.

In answer to a question by Mr. Kleckley, Mr. Vickers advised that a business had to be 300 feet from a church or school in order to obtain a parish liquor license, measuring from the front door of the establishment to the property line of the church or school or playground. He pointed out that a lounge had to also be 300 feet from a residence but that these requirements would not apply to a restaurant.

Mr. Kleckley asked if there would be bands playing or loud music at the proposed business, and Mr. Anthony J. Palermo, the applicant, appeared before the Police Jury and stated there would be none of that. Mr. Kleckley asked if there would be a drive-through window, and Mr. Palermo responded that there would be.

Mr. Danahay asked if any alcohol would be sold at the drive-through window, and Mr. Palermo stated that there would only be consumption of alcohol on the premises, not in the drive-through.

President Clement advised that the Police Jury would at this time hear from the opposition.

Mr. Scotty Taylor, 3482 House Lane, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and stated he had two businesses in Sulphur and that he appreciated economic development and growth in the community. He further stated that he had been life-long friends with the Palermo family and that he had seen the positive developments the family had made in the community.

Mr. Taylor suggested that other property be found where these types of businesses had already been established and in areas where such a business would be welcomed, not a rural community where it was not wanted. Mr. Taylor stated that the proposed location was approximately 1500 feet from the corner of Houston River Road and Highway 27 North which was a “terribly” busy intersection. He further stated that the proposed location would also be the only business where alcohol could be consumed on the premises from Westlake east on Houston River Road, north on Highway 27, to DeQuincy.

Mr. Taylor stated he was not judging anyone and that if it was simply a restaurant and pizza stand, he would support it but that everyone had heard horror stories of families being destroyed by drinking and gambling, and it was his opinion that the Parish did not need another such establishment. Mr. Taylor further stated that he had heard other business people claim they could not make it without video poker and alcohol consumption, but he felt that someone should not start a business if they knew ahead of time they were going to fail.

Mr. Taylor stated that this issue had not gone through the Houston River Baptist Church but that he was a member of said church and felt he had an obligation to not sit back and do nothing about the rezoning request. He asked each juror to set aside any political agendas and to vote with their hearts to not rezone the property for consumption of alcohol on the premises and video poker.

Mr. Don Fruge, 3115 Chalkley Pines Road, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and stated he had lived just north of Houston River Road for the past 19 years and loved the community. He presented the results of a survey which he said had been done by approximately 20 residents of the community which indicated that 60% of the 215 homes in the area had been successfully contacted and that 116 homes (216 voters) were opposed to the rezoning request. Mr. Fruge pointed out that of the homes successfully contacted, almost 90% were opposed and that on Judie Street adjacent to the proposed establishment, all six homes were opposed.

Mr. Fruge stated his concerns about his children and relatives driving in the area and accidents that might happen. He also stated that everyone was excited about a pizza place so close to their homes, and he hoped it was not ruined by allowing alcohol or video poker.

Mr. Fruge closed by saying that the data he had presented spoke for itself in that the community was united and not divided, and was closely allied in their opposition to the rezoning request.

President Clement recognized Mr. Lonnie L. Gothrup as having requested to speak on this matter, and Mr. Gothrup asked that he be allowed to speak in rebuttal. President Clement advised that the rebuttals would take place at this time, with the proponents speaking first.

Mr. Moreno again appeared on behalf of the applicant and pointed out that the Police Jury had the affidavits of Verna and Allen Perry which stated they were told things about the proposed establishment which were not true and that if all the people in the neighborhood had been told these untruths, perhaps the survey data was tainted. Mr. Moreno also pointed out that the Perry’s had lived on Judie Street for 18 years and had withdrawn their opposition which made him wonder how many others would do the same.

Mr. Moreno acknowledged Mr. Taylor’s concerns of increased drinking, whether someone should start a business if they needed video poker to survive, etc., as being legitimate concerns, but he stated that the applicant was a demonstrated businessman who had made an investment to establish a family-oriented business which would hire additional people, increase the property and sales tax base, and improve the community.

Mr. Moreno suggested to the Police Jury that although he could abide with the position of the opposition, there was still no reason to deny the application to rezone.

Mr. McMillin pointed out that Mr. Moreno had not mentioned the possibility of video poker until Mr. Manuel brought up the subject, and he felt Mr. Moreno should have talked about that in the beginning of his presentation. Mr. Moreno stated that Mr. McMillin’s criticism was a fair one but that the hearing on this date was the Police Jury’s opportunity to ascertain all those kinds of facts.

In answer to questions by Mrs. Treme, Mr. Shane Nelson appeared before the Police Jury and stated that he had recently obtained a liquor license for his Big Red’s Pizza business in DeQuincy and in the month he had it, he had experienced no problems associated with it. Mr. Nelson stated that he had operated for a year without one but that a lot of people liked to drink beer with their pizza, and he personally saw nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Andrepont asked if the applicant would have to come back to the Police Jury for permission to sell hard liquor, and Mr. Vickers stated that while the law was confusing on that issue, the Police Jury could stipulate that no hard liquor could be sold if they chose to approve the rezoning request.

Mr. Lonnie L. Gothrup, 114 West Houston River Road, Sulphur, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that while he was the Pastor of Houston River Baptist Church, he was not representing the church but instead concerned citizens. He thanked the Police Jury for deferring action on the rezoning request at its Regular Meeting on April 22^nd until the meeting on this date.

Mr. Gothrup urged the jurors to vote against the request to rezone. He stated that it was true there was no opposition at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing when it was originally approved by said Board but now the Police Jury had an accurate account of the wishes of the citizens who lived in the area. Mr. Gothrup also stated that the Police Jury provided checks and balances of the system and could overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board.

Mr. Gothrup stated that it had been said that the owner was wanting to increase revenues for the Parish, yet the same owner would in the next month be asking for a rezoning of property from commercial to residential use.

With respect to the affidavit signed by the Perry’s, he stated that they had not spoken to Mrs. Perry, only Mr. Perry.

Mr. Gothrup stated that their primary concerns were video poker and the “type of people” who would be attracted to the establishment, as well as people driving away from it drunk. He pointed out that many people were not aware of the possibility of video poker and that it was not printed on the rezoning sign. Mr. Gothrup stated that nowhere in the notice did it say that gambling could be introduced in their own back yards, and he further stated that he doubted the police jurors would want it in their back yards either.

Mr. Gothrup closed by saying that he believed the interests of the residents in this area should supercede the interests of a businessman who did not live in the area, and he again urged the jurors to vote against the request to rezone.

Mr. Manuel suggested that the motion on the floor be amended to include stipulations requiring that there would be no sales of hard liquor as defined by current state law, no drive-through alcohol sales of any form, and no loud bands/music or live entertainment allowed on the premises.

Mr. Landry then amended his original motion to include the stipulations outlined heretofore by Mr. Manuel, and Dr. Mackey (who seconded the original motion) accepted Mr. Landry’s amendment.

A vote was then taken on the motion as amended which was to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to Zoning Case RZ04-008-04 and to grant the request of Anthony J. Palermo, Jr. to rezone from C-1 (Light Commercial) to C-2 (General Commercial) to allow a restaurant (consumption of alcohol on premises) at 861 Houston River Road in Ward Four, Police Jury District 14, with the following stipulations: 1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; 2) that a parish occupational license must be obtained; 3) that all required parking spaces (9 spaces) and driveways must be hardsurfaced (asphalt or concrete) prior to opening of business; 4) that each driveway must be marked as an entrance or exit; 5) that the dumpster must be placed behind the building with a privacy fence enclosure prior to opening of the business; 6) no sales of hard liquor as defined by current state law; 7) no drive-thru alcohol sales of any form; and 8) no loud bands/music or live entertainment allowed on premises.

The vote thereon was as follows:

YEAS: Mr. Andrepont, Mr. Danahay, Mr. Guillory, Mr. Kleckley, Mr. Landry, Dr. Mackey, Mr. Manuel, Mr. Moon, Mr. Stelly, and Mr. Stevens

NAYS: Mr. Collins, Mr. McMillin, and Mrs. Treme

ABSENT: Mrs. Griffin

NOT VOTING: President Clement

The vote being ten (in favor of the motion) to three (against), President Clement declared said motion as having carried; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

ORDINANCE NO. 4725

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by Anthony J. Palermo, Jr. to rezone from C-1 (Light Commercial) to C-2 (General Commercial) to allow a restaurant (consumption of alcohol on premises) on the property described as: The W 48 feet of Lot 1 together with all improvements located thereon less the S 130 feet sold to Aaron Perry bearing the municipal address of 861 E. Houston River Road, Sulphur, LA 70663 and all of Lot 2 less the S 130 feet sold to Aaron Perry of Sandy Pines Subdivision located in S13, T9S, R10W.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, convened in regular session on the 6^th day of May, 2004, that Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, and the Comprehensive Zoning Map for Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, be and they are hereby amended insofar as said ordinance and map pertain to the following property in Ward Four of this parish:

From C-1 (Light Commercial) to C-2 (General Commercial) to allow a restaurant (consumption of alcohol on premises) with the following stipulations: 1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; 2) that a parish occupational license must be obtained; 3) that all required parking spaces (9 spaces) and driveways must be hardsurfaced (asphalt or concrete) prior to opening of business; 4) that each driveway must be marked as an entrance or exit; 5) that the dumpster must be placed behind the building with a privacy fence enclosure prior to opening of the business; 6) no sales of hard liquor as defined by current state law; 7) no drive-thru alcohol sales of any form; and 8) no loud bands/music or live entertainment allowed on premises, on the property described as: The W 48 feet of Lot 1 together with all improvements located thereon less the S 130 feet sold to Aaron Perry bearing the municipal address of 861 E. Houston River Road, Sulphur, LA 70663 and all of Lot 2 less the S 130 feet sold to Aaron Perry of Sandy Pines Subdivision located in S13, T9S, R10W.

Zoning Case RZ04-008-04

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the rezoning of the above described property is effective this date, classified in accordance with a new zoning District Map (adding to the existing District Map) which is attached to this ordinance to be placed on file in the Office of the Clerk of Court showing the classification of the new area of the above described property.

THUS DONE AND PASSED BY THE CALCASIEU PARISH POLICE JURY on the date above inscribed.

/s/ Brent Clement, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

* * * * * * * * * * * *

It was moved by Mr. Stevens, seconded by Mr. Kleckley and carried unanimously to approve the Agenda Committee Report dated April 29, 2004, as follows:

AGENDA COMMITTEE REPORT

April 29, 2004

A meeting of the Agenda Committee was held on Thursday, April 29, 2004, in the Police Jury Meeting Room of the Parish Government Building, 1015 Pithon Street, Lake Charles, Louisiana, with Vice-Chairman Sandra Treme presiding, and the following members present:

Mr. Francis Andrepont, Mr. Brent Clement, Mr. Mike Danahay, Mrs. Elizabeth C. Griffin, Mr. Tony Guillory, Mr. Chris Landry, Mr. Don Manuel, Mr. Hal McMillin, Mr. Cornie Moon, Mr. Tony Stelly, and Mr. Alvin Stevens

Absent: Chairman Calvin Collins (recuperating from surgery), Mr. Chuck Kleckley, and Charles S. Mackey, D.D.S. (out of town)

Also present were Mr. S. Mark McMurry, Mr. Bryan Beam, Mrs. Coleen Clark, Mr. Richard Gremillion, Mrs. Cheryl Heisser, Mr. Jerry Milner, Mr. Claude Smart, Mr. Allen L. Smith, Jr., Mrs. Kathy P. Smith, Mr. Gerry Trahan, and Mr. Jim Vickers.

Vice-Chairman Treme advised that the purpose of the meeting on this date was to review the proposed agenda for the regular meeting of the Police Jury to be held on May 6, 2004.

Following review of the items to be considered by the Police Jury on May 6^th, it was unanimously recommended that the proposed agenda be accepted as presented by the staff, with the following additions:

Take appropriate action on bids received at the Special Meeting of the Police Jury on April 29, 2004, for Calcasieu Parish Project No. 2004-05 (Overlaying of Various Roads in Calcasieu Parish).

Consideration of approving the recommendation of Legal Counsel given in Executive Session during the Agenda Committee meeting held on Thursday, April 29, 2004, relative to Lawsuit No. 10272-02 (State of Louisiana vs. Tonguis) and Lawsuit No. 22815-02 (State of Louisiana vs. Citizen). [This item was originally stated on the agenda for the Agenda Committee meeting as follows: Consideration of going into executive session on Thursday, April 29, 2004, on Lawsuit No. 10272-02 (State of Louisiana vs. Tonguis) and Lawsuit No. 22815-02 (State of Louisiana vs. Citizen).]

Also, recommendations for appointments to various boards of special service districts were made by members of the Committee.

There being no further business, Vice-Chairman Treme declared the meeting to be adjourned.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Motion was made by Mr. Manuel, seconded by Mr. Collins and carried unanimously that the Public Works Report dated April 29, 2004, and all recommendations contained therein, be approved as follows:

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT

April 29, 2004

______________________________________

A meeting of the Public Works Committee was held on Thursday, April 29, 2004, in the Police Jury Meeting Room on the first floor of the Parish Government Building, 1015 Pithon Street, Lake Charles, Louisiana, with Mr. Hal McMillin, Chairman, presiding and the following members present:

Mr. Francis Andrepont, Mr. Brent Clement, Mr. Mike Danahay, Mrs. Elizabeth C. Griffin, Mr. Tony Guillory, Mr. Chris Landry, Mr. Don Manuel, Mr. Cornie Moon, Mr. Tony Stelly, Mr. Alvin Stevens, and Mrs. Sandra J. Treme

Absent: Mr. Calvin Collins (recuperating from surgery), Mr. Chuck Kleckley, and Dr. Charles S. Mackey (out of town)

Said Committee:

(1) Received report from Mr. Pat Brown, Complex Manager with Sasol North America, the first of such reports to be given by representatives of local industry, as requested by Chairman McMillin. He advised that annually, Sasol had a $50 million annual payroll, paid $36 million to Louisiana vendors, $50 million in utilities, $8 million in state and local taxes, and $210,000 in philanthropic activities. Sasol’s products include substances used in the production of soaps, detergents, shampoos, cosmetics, plasticizers, catalytic converters, feedstocks, etc. Mr. Brown welcomed everyone to the grand opening/open house on June 5, 2004, of Sasol’s new 80,000 sq. ft. research and development center, an estimated $20 million project.

(2) Received report from Mr. Lee Mallett and Mr. Glenn Duhon of Mallett, Inc. in Iowa, and Mr. Charles Marceaux, Executive Director of the Louisiana Contractor Licensing Board, wherein they asked that the Police Jury consider adopting an ordinance to enforce the provisions of State law governing contractor licensing, and in particular, the Home Improvement Registration Act (No. 1146 of the 2003 Regular Session of the Legislature, effective August, 2003) which provides that anyone involved in a home improvement project valued at $7,500 or more, on their personal residence, must employ a building contractor who is licensed with the State or sign an affidavit certifying the work will be done by themselves. Mr. Vickers was requested to fax the jurors a copy of an ordinance adopted by East Baton Rouge Parish with regard to this issue for further study and future discussion.

(3) Recommended approval of the following actions regarding donations of rights-of-way for various purposes as listed, as recommended by the Parish Engineer (Police Jury District 12):

(3.1) authorize the President of the Police Jury to execute the necessary documentation for donation of right-of-way from J. D. Greco, Gary Vincent, and Dalton Langford on an unnamed road off Carlyss Drive (Private Road) in Ward Four, in accordance with criteria established by the Police Jury and the recommendation of the Parish Engineer.

(3.2) authorize the President of the Police Jury to execute the necessary documentation for donation of right-of-way (Drainage Easement) from J. D. Greco, Gary Vincent, and Dalton Langford on an unnamed road off Carlyss Drive (Private Road) in Ward Four, in accordance with criteria established by the Police Jury and the recommendation of the Parish Engineer.

(3.3) adopt a resolution accepting said unnamed road off Carlyss Drive, a non-parish maintained public road, located in Section 21, Township 10 South, Range 10 West, for future parish maintenance, as recommended by the Division of Engineering and Public Works, and removing said road from the Master Private Road List.

(4) Recommended that a resolution be adopted accepting the following non–parish maintained public roads, for future parish maintenance as recommended by the Division of Engineering and Public Works, and further, removing said roads from the Master Private Road List: (100% of right-of-way was previously accepted by the Police Jury.)

Acadian Lane in Ward Three

Schultz Road (previous unnamed road off A. Derouen) in Ward Two

Sonny Granger Road (previous unnamed road off Arthur Irwin Road) in Ward Six

Fluty Lane (previous East Sandy Lane #2) in Ward Six

McLean Road (previous South Sandy Lane) in Ward Six

Latiolais Road (previous East Sandy Lane) in Ward Six

Butler Lane (previous West Sandy Lane) in Ward Six

(5) Recommended that a resolution be adopted authorizing the Division of Engineering and Public works to submit an Application for Transportation Enhancement Projects for the construction of a sidewalk on the west side of Prater Road, from Old Spanish Trail to the Southern Pacific railroad tracks, with the Police Jury assuming full responsibility for the local matching funds, the responsibility for managing and maintaining the project, and the responsibility for legal liability incurred by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, as a result of the project. (Police Jury District 14) (Police Jury will be reimbursed 95% of eligible expenses.)

(6) Recommended that the Parish Administrator be authorized to advertise for bids for Calcasieu Parish Project No. 2004-07 (Striping of Various Roads in Calcasieu Parish).

* * * * * * * * * * * *

As a result of approval of the foregoing report and all recommendations contained therein, the following resolutions were adopted:

RESOLUTION

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, in regular session convened on the 6^th day of May, 2004, that it does hereby accept the following non-parish maintained public roads, for future parish maintenance as recomended by the Division of Engineering and Public Works, and further, removing said roads from the Master Private Road List:

● unnamed road off Carlyss Drive in Ward Four

● Acadian Lane in Ward Three

● Schultz Road (previous unnamed road off A. Derouen) in Ward Two

● Sonny Granger Road (previous unnamed road off Arthur Irwin Road) in Ward Six

● Fluty Lane (previous East Sandy Lane #2) in Ward Six

● McLean Road (previous South Sandy Lane) in Ward Six

● Latiolais Lane (previous East Sandy Lane) in Ward Six

● Butler Lane (previous West Sandy Lane) in Ward Six

THUS DONE AND PASSED on the date above inscribed.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDINANCE NO. 4726

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 23 – Subdivision and Chapter 26 – Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, in regular session convened on the 6^th day of May, 2004, that it does hereby amend Chapter 23 – Subdivision, Section 23-8 (c), and Chapter 26 – Zoning, Section 26-15 (b), of the Code of Ordinances of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, to remove roads within various wards of Calcasieu Parish: an unnamed road off Carlyss Drive, Acadian Lane, Schultz Road (previous unnamed road off A. Derouen), Sonny Granger Road (previous unnamed road off Arthur Irwin Road), Fluty Lane (previous East Sandy Lane #2), McLean Road (previous South Sandy Lane), Latiolais Lane (previous East Sandy Lane), and Butler Lane (previous West Sandy Lane), from the revised Master Private Road List, as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 23-8. Administration and violation, is amended as follows:

(c) Variance on Private Road. No application for variance request shall be processed by the commission staff for authorization of a development permit on a private road other than those shown on Calcasieu Parish’s Master Private Road List officially adopted by the Police Jury on June 20, 2002, with revisions adopted on May 1, 2003, June 5, 2003, November 6, 2003, April 1, 2004 and May 6, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and which is also hereby incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, as Exhibit A in the Appendix Chapter. Procedures for applying for development permits without public road frontage requirements.

SECTION 2. Section 26-15. Procedures for applying for development permits without public road frontage requirements, is amended as follows:

(b) No application for variance request shall be processed by the Division of Planning and Development for authorization of a development permit on a private road other than those shown on Calcasieu Parish’s Master Private Road List officially adopted by the Police Jury on June 20, 2002, with revisions adopted on May 1, 2003, June 5, 2003, November 6, 2003, April 1, 2004 and May 6, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and which is also hereby incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, as Exhibit A in the Appendix Chapter.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that any ordinance or parts of any ordinance in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the provisions of this ordinance shall be included and incorporated in the Code of Ordinances as an addition or amendment thereto, and shall be appropriately renumbered to conform to the uniform numbering system of the Code.

THUS PASSED AND ADOPTED on this, the 6^th day of May, 2004.

/s/ Brent Clement, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Parish Administrator &

Ex-Officio Parish Secretary

* * * * * * * * * * * *

RESOLUTION

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, in regular session convened on the 6^th day of May, 2004, that it does hereby authorize the Division of Engineering and Public Works to submit an Application for Transportation Enhancement Projects for the construction of a sidewalk on the west side of Prater Road, from Old Spanish Trail to the Southern Pacific railroad tracks, with the Police Jury assuming full responsibility for the local matching funds, the responsibility for managing and maintaining the project, and the responsibility for legal liability incurred by the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, as a result of this project.

THUS DONE AND PASSED on the date above inscribed.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

With reference to the foregoing resolution, it was noted that the Police Jury would be reimbursed 95% of eligible expenses.

President Clement advised that action was needed on amending the Code of Ordinances of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, as it related to the zoning ordinance and the floodplain ordinance. He further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, March 16, 2004, and voted nine (for) and two (against) to recommend that the zoning ordinance be amended, and had voted unanimously to recommend that the floodplain ordinance be amended. President Clement further advised that on March 18, 2004, the Police Jury deferred action until April 1, 2004, and on April 1, 2004, had deferred action until May 6, 2004.

President Clement pointed out that a revised copy had been distributed to the jurors prior to the meeting which superceded the copy they had in their printed agenda packets.

Mr. Vickers advised that at the Police Jury’s request, the staff had met with the Planning and Zoning Liaison Group and Mrs. Treme and as a result of those meetings, the proposed amendments had been amended. He further advised that he felt that the final amendments were ones with which everyone would be happy.

Motion was made by Dr. Mackey, seconded by Mr. Collins and carried unanimously that the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance and the floodplain ordinance as presented by the staff on this date be approved and that the following ordinances be adopted:

ORDINANCE NO. 4727

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 – Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, in regular session convened on the 6^th day of May, 2004, that it does hereby amend various sections within Chapter 26 – Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, as follows:

SECTION I. Article II, Sec. 26-6. Definitions. Manufactured home, is amended to read in its entirety as follows, and also to include the new definitions for Impervious surface and Large developments within said section:

Impervious surface area: Shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt, concrete, roofs, structures, parking areas and appurtenances.

Large developments: Any commercial, industrial, or noncommercial developments which include more than forty thousand (40,000) square feet of impervious surface area.

Manufactured home: A structure transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode, is 8 body feet or more in width and 40 feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation, when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein. The construction complies with HUD Code under the Federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards.

SECTION II. Article III, Div. 1, Sec. 26-7. Division of planning and development, (b) Development permits, is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

(b)Development Permits. The director of planning and development shall issue development permits. No building or structure shall be erected, altered, repaired, or relocated until a development permit has been issued. The application for and issuance of such permits shall be in accordance with the requirements of the code of ordinances, except that no permit shall be issued until application for a certificate of zoning compliance has been made and approved. A site plan will be required as determined by the division.

The director of planning and development or designee may authorize technical adjustments to site plans approved by the police jury or board in light of technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development. Such adjustments shall be consistent with the intent of the Parish Zoning Ordinance and the approved site plan. The adjustments shall be the minimum necessary to overcome the particular difficulty.

The director of planning and development may attach such conditions to the approval of a development permit as is deemed necessary to further the purposes or to ensure conformance with the provisions of this chapter including, but not limited to, traffic impact analysis (TIA) and drainage impact analysis (DIA) and improvements. Such conditions shall be set forth in writing as a part of or attachment to the permit, and shall have the same force and effect as the provisions of this chapter. The applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the attachment of such conditions as provided in section 26-8 (f) (2).

(1) In advance of submitting any application for development, the applicant shall complete and submit a TIA worksheet, as specified by the Parish, which shall be used to determine if a TIA is required. The threshold requirements for a TIA shall be a development or combination of developments that would result in trip generation of more than an average of one thousand (1000) trips per day based upon the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.

(2) In advance of submitting any application for development, the applicant shall complete and submit a DIA worksheet, as specified by the Parish, which shall be used to determine if a DIA is required. The threshold requirements for a DIA shall be a development or combination of developments that would result in any expansion of an existing development of greater than forty-thousand (40,000) square feet of impervious surface area or proposed development which would cause the impervious surface area to exceed forty-thousand (40,000) square feet of impervious surface area shall be subject to the provisions of this article as to the entire development, including off-site drainage, and no further development or such nonconforming use shall be commenced and no development permit shall be issued until such time as a certificate of compliance, pursuant to the requirements and regulations of this article, has been issued.

SECTION III. Article III, Div. 2, Sec. 26-13. Procedure for applying for an application to petition for zoning amendments and rezonings (1), is amended to read as follows:

(1)The applicant executes and files an application to petition with the division. The division may require supplementary data including, but not limited to, a plat plan, site plan, building plans, traffic impact analysis, drainage impact analysis, and economic impact analysis.

SECTION IV. Article III, Div. 2, Sec. 26-14. Procedure for applying for an application to petition for zoning exceptions and variances and administrative appeals (1), is amended to read as follows:

(1)The applicant executes and files an application to petition with the division. The division may require supplementary data including, but not limited to, a plat plan, site plan, building plans or studies including but not limited to traffic impact analysis, drainage impact analysis, and economic impact analysis.

SECTION V. Article IV, Div. 2, Sec. 26-23. Minimum off-street parking requirements, (b) Number of Spaces Required, is amended by including Lounge and Mini-warehouses within said section as follows:

Lounge – 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. Minimum number of parking spaces is 3, excluding handicap spaces.

Mini-warehouses – 1 space for every 10 individual storage units, plus 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area for offices. Minimum number of parking spaces is 3, excluding handicap spaces.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that any ordinance or parts of any ordinance in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

THUS PASSED AND ADOPTED on this, the 6^th day of May, 2004.

/s/ Brent Clement, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Parish Administrator &

Ex-Officio Parish Secretary

* * * * * * * * * * *

ORDINANCE NO. 4728

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 9 – Floodplain Management Regulations, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, in regular session convened on the 6^th day of May, 2004, that it does hereby amend various sections within Chapter 9 – Floodplain Management Regulations, of the Code of Ordinances of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, as follows:

SECTION I. Article I, Sec. 9-3. Definitions, Manufactured home, is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

SECTION II. Article II, Sec. 9-40. Conditions of approval (d), is amended to read in its entirety as follows:

(d) The director of planning and development may attach such conditions to the approval of a development permit as is deemed necessary to further the purposes or to ensure conformance with the provisions of this chapter including, but not limited to, transportation and drainage impact analyses and improvements. Such conditions shall be set forth in writing as a part of or attachment to the permit, and shall have the same force and effect as the provisions of this chapter. The applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the attachment of such conditions as provided in section 9-41.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.

BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that any ordinance or parts of any ordinance in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

THUS PASSED AND ADOPTED on this, the 6^th day of May, 2004.

/s/ Brent Clement, President

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Parish Administrator &

Ex-Officio Parish Secretary

* * * * * * * * * * * *

President Clement advised that action was needed on amending the Code of Ordinances of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, relative to the proposed Nelson Corridor Overlay District, as presented to the Police Jury on April 1, 2004. He further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had conducted public hearings on April 20, 2004, and May 4, 2004. President Clement also advised that on Tuesday, May 4, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to amend the Code of Ordinances, as presented, to also include a request by Leonard Pauley to include the east 400 feet of a five-acre tract located on the west side of Nelson Road adjoining Deepwoods Subdivision, which was currently zoned R-1 (Single Family Residential), and further, had deferred a request by Alvin Brass to exclude a 1.5 acre tract located at the northwest corner of Gauthier Road and Nelson Road which was currently zoned C-2 (General Commercial) to allow the applicant time to submit an accurate site plan and that upon receipt of same, the Board would act on this issue and provide the Police Jury with a recommendation.

Motion was made by Mr. Kleckley and seconded by Mr. Landry to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and to amend the Code of Ordinances of Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, relative to the proposed Nelson Corridor Overlay District in accordance with the amended study presented by the staff on this date, and further, to uphold the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to the requests of Mr. Leonard Pauley and Mr. Alvin Brass as outlined heretofore.

Mr. Kleckley reminded the jurors that a six-month moratorium on requests for rezoning of property on this section of Nelson Road would end on this date and that he had asked for said moratorium in an effort to be very careful with commercial development in the area that would become the Nelson Corridor Overlay District (NCOD). Mr. Kleckley complimented the staff of the Division of Planning and Development on the study, pointing out that the district was broken down into two sections, Section I being the more restrictive due to it being surrounded by three major subdivisions which contained more than 300 homes, those being Pine Mist, Crestview, and Deepwoods.

Mr. Kleckley stated that the study had already been tweaked and modified, and he felt he could fill the Police Jury meeting room with residents of the three aforementioned subdivisions who did not think it was restrictive enough but that those residents were aware of the development of Highway 14 and how fast that had occurred, and they wanted to protect their investments.

Mr. Kleckley also stated that he did not wish to restrict commercial development but that there was genuine concern because of the impact of the hospital (Lake Charles Memorial). He pointed out that there were almost three miles of land which were currently zoned commercial in the District.

Mr. Kleckley stated that the plan was very proactive which he felt represented the Police Jury’s forward thinking, and he thought it could set the standard for the future and for other parts of the Parish if it was successful in the NCOD. Mr. Kleckley also stated that if there was a landowner who was not happy with it, they could request on this date that their property be removed from the overlay district.

Mr. Vickers pointed out that if a piece of property was not part of the district, it would remain as it was currently zoned. He stated that the benefit of the district would be that once the corridor was constructed, the restrictions would be in place so that residential and commercial uses could co-exist in harmony, and so there would be no need for constant zoning battles.

Mr. Manuel asked what period of time someone would have in order to request that their property be taken out of the NCOD if the Police Jury approved the plan on this date, and Mr. Vickers stated that it would need to be done on this date. Mr. Vickers pointed out that the Planning and Zoning Board had held two public hearings and that the study had been placed on the Parish’s internet website, along with applications for inclusions or exclusions. Mr. Vickers stated that personal letters had been mailed to all affected property owners asking for their comments, and the staff had received one request for inclusion in the district and one request for exclusion from the district, the latter of which the Planning and Zoning Board would act on as soon as the necessary information was received. Mr. Vickers explained that the reason for the hearings and notifications was to give the Board as much information as possible on which the members could base a sound recommendation to present to the Police Jury.

In answer to a question by Mr. Manuel, Mr. Vickers stated that letters had been sent out and although the staff had heard from number of residents, he was surprised there had not been more responses. Mr. Manuel stated that this was the first time he had heard that someone could ask for their property to be excluded from the district.

Mr. Danahay asked if someone who had their property excluded could later come back and request a rezoning change, to which Mr. Vickers explained that the whole purpose of creating the overlay district was to avoid rezoning battles and to get ahead of the game by creating a compatible environment for both commercial and residential uses to co-exist. Mr. Vickers stated that the plan should be tweaked if necessary, not the property, and that the plan was designed to be flexible.

Mr. Vickers pointed out that since April 1, 2004, some technical corrections had been made to the plan, particularly with respect to the landscaping requirements.

Mr. Stelly asked what the procedure would be if there was a request for something different than what was stated in the plan and who would decide if the plan was to be changed. Mr. Vickers stated that the staff would present those kinds of things to the Planning and Zoning Board for a recommendation to the Police Jury. He pointed out that any amendments to the plan would need to be enacted by an ordinance adopted by the Police Jury and that if something was not working, he favored amending the plan rather than issuing individual variances for individual properties.

In answer to a question by Mr. Danahay, Mr. Vickers stated that any section of the plan could be amended as needed, for example, to provide additional uses for commercial property, if it was determined the plan needed to be more flexible.

Mr. Ralph Lewing, 1914 Linden Lane, Lake Charles, appeared before the Police Jury representing himself and Mr. Curtis Vincent. He stated that he lived in Deepwoods Subdivision which would be in the overlay district and that he also owned property contained in both Sections I and II of the plan. Mr. Lewing advised that he had been in favor of the plan from its inception and had always been a proponent of doing something to manage commercial development along this section of Nelson Road in a manner which would be conducive to the existing residential neighborhoods. He added that now was a good time to enact the plan.

Mr. Lewing stated that several years ago, he had tried to relocate his construction office to Nelson Road, but the residents of Crestview and Deepwoods Subdivisions, along with the planning staff, were opposed to it, and he had abided by their wishes. Mr. Lewing further stated that he felt the Parish’s administrative staff did a great job in looking out for all of the citizens’ interests and that the staff had done a great job with the proposed plan because it would protect the value and integrity of the property along Nelson Road.

Mr. Lewing also stated that this type of zoning was in place in Lafayette and in Beaumont (Texas), the latter in which he was currently developing a project. He advised that the rate of development in that area was incredible and that nobody was complaining because the restrictions helped maintain the value of both kinds of property, commercial and residential. Mr. Lewing stated that sometimes developers thought first about their own profits and did not always consider the fact that a home was oftentimes the biggest investment a person would make in their lifetime, and perhaps now was a good time to do something about that.

Mr. Raleigh Newman, attorney at law, 1830 Hodges Street, Lake Charles, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that as the developer of Crestview Subdivision, he would be the last person to do anything to detract from the property in that subdivision but that if a plan had a problem, he felt it was incumbent for the people to be notified of such a problem to allow them an opportunity to do something about it.

Mr. Newman distributed copies of a presentation in which he stated that he was not opposed to the overlay plan per se and in fact, welcomed it; however, there were several potential problem areas in the plan that he felt should be seriously discussed and considered, the first being the requirement that there be no front parking, only side and rear parking. Mr. Newman stated that this requirement for side parking would increase the cost of a lot by at least $150,000 and with the increased cost of a two-way street and parking area, the total additional cost for side parking would range from $170,000 to $185,000. He questioned whether a buyer would be willing to spend that much additional money just to provide side parking.

Mr. Newman offered a solution which was to increase the front landscape buffer from 15 feet to 30 feet and the front set back from 30 feet to 60-70 feet, which would allow front parking and thereby eliminate the added cost of side parking. He stated that this would probably enhance the appearance of the development since the building would be further from the street with a much wider landscape buffer, thus eliminating the approximately 70 feet of added front footage to accomplish side parking. Mr. Newman stated that no one had argued that side parking was completely necessary, and he asked that it be eliminated as a requirement in the plan.

With respect to the recommended architectural design (French Country), Mr. Newman stated that he did not know where this idea had originated but that some people were going to be very sick of that requirement before everything was over with. Mr. Newman also stated that the staff had mentioned The Woodlands in Texas as a model for the overlay district but pointed out that The Woodlands was comprised of 28,000 acres which was owned and developed by a single person from the ground up, with six championship golf courses as well as homes costing up to $2.5 million. Mr. Newman pointed out that a required style of architecture might be feasible for such a development as The Woodlands but was totally impractical for Nelson Road.

Mr. Newman stated that a French Country style might actually look out of place and questioned this requirement in light of businesses such as franchises which had their own architectural design. Mr. Newman felt that prospective buyers might not locate on Nelson Road because of this requirement, just as homeowners probably would not build their homes if told that all homes had to be the same architectural style in a subdivision.

Mr. Newman stated that nice looking buildings could be constructed which would not unduly impact the homeowners without requiring French Country architecture, but by instead requiring quality construction, i.e. no metal buildings of any kind whether brick fronts or not, no concrete block or cinder block construction, etc.

Mr. Newman further stated that Mr. David Burns, Vice President of Finances for Pacer Health, who wanted to build a hospital on a Nelson Road site, had informed him that it would not be financially feasible to build on the site due to the French Country requirement. Mr. Newman also stated that Mr. Burns had stated that he had contacted the planning staff and told them he would build a quality building if not required to adhere to French Country and that even though there were foundation problems on the site at which they were looking, they would still build if they could get a waiver on the French Country architecture. Mr. Newman stated that he had told Mr. Burns that he owned and would sell to Mr. Burns the highest piece of property on Nelson Road and that there would be no foundation problems.

Mr. Newman pointed out that Nelson Road had a commercial character and while that did not mean running “helter-skelter” with development, by the same token, there should be no unnecessary impediments to commercial development.

The third issue Mr. Newman had with the plan was that to him, Section 1, which would allow business or professional offices, institutions, churches, and parks, was too restrictive, as opposed to Section II, located south of Ham Reid Road, which would allow numerous types of businesses. Mr. Newman stated that when he developed Crestview Subdivision, he intentionally developed up to Nelson Road so there would be no commercial development right in front of and adjoining the homes in order to minimize the impact of Nelson Road which he felt sooner or later would be widened and become more of a commercial highway. Mr. Newman pointed out that his property was located on the east side of Nelson Road adjoining Ham Reid Road and extending north along Nelson Road to a large drainage canal, which he did not feel would significantly affect the character of the residential subdivision. Mr. Newman noted that there was another piece of property diagonally across Nelson Road from the northwest corner of Crestview, on which he had been told that an apartment complex would be built, and he felt that would have more of an impact than his property across the drainage canal. He pointed out that if someone wanted to purchase his property to build a savings and loan or bank, a furniture company, or a restaurant, he would have to tell them they could not. Mr. Newman stated that he could envision a convenience store or a fix-it-shop on his property but that Section I was so restrictive that he felt his land would remain vacant.

Mr. Newman asked that more work be done on the plan, particularly with respect to the requirement for side parking, as well as the establishment of additional uses for the property that would not detract from Crestview Subdivision.

Mr. Kleckley asked that Mr. Vickers address Mr. Newman’s concerns. With regard to Mr. Newman’s statement about what business establishments would be acceptable under Section 1 of the plan, Mr. Vickers stated that banks, savings and loan institutions, mortgage companies, and similar businesses were permissible. Mr. Vickers further stated that professional service businesses would also be allowed such as for physicians, accountants, etc.

Mr. Vickers explained that Section 1 of the overlay district would be located between Lake Charles Memorial Hospital (at Gauthier and Nelson) and Women and Children’s Hospital (at Sale and Nelson). He further explained that the plan had been set up so that in Section 1, there could be day care facilities, elderly care centers, or anything that was medically related. Mr. Vickers pointed out that in the overlay district, the facilities would have an unlimited basic square footage as was not the case in a commercial zone.

Mr. Vickers stated that there was a residential area contained in Section 1, and the staff had attempted to plan for commercial uses that would be compatible so that when residents in the area got home from work, most of the employees at the businesses would have already gone home.

Mr. Vickers further stated that the geriatrics hospital which Mr. Newman had previously referred to had presented an architectural drawing to the staff in the French Country theme but that the problem had been that because of soil conditions on the piece of property in which he had been interested, he could not locate on said property. Mr. Vickers stated he would continue to work with Mr. Burns to find a more suitable location with better soils and better elevations.

Mr. Vickers advised that the premise behind the requirement for side parking was that the north section of the overlay district was five-laned in concrete and the south section was five-laned in asphalt. He explained that since there was so much pavement, the staff felt there was a need for some green space to make it more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Vickers pointed out that he had received not one complaint regarding the side parking requirement other than from Mr. Newman.

Mr. Moon stated that he had attended the Planning and Zoning Board hearing and while there had been questions, no one had been opposed to the plan. He stated that, as Mr. Vickers had previously said, there were many uses that could be allowed in Section 1. Mr. Moon further stated that the district needed to have a theme, and he would leave that choice to an architect. Mr. Moon pointed out that only side parking had been mentioned but that the plan allowed rear or side parking, so the plan was not limited to just side parking.

With reference to Mr. Vickers’ earlier comments about the reasons Mr. Burns had chosen not to build the geriatric hospital, Mr. Newman stated that he had talked to Mr. Burns who had told him that he had told Mr. Vickers the reason he backed out was because of the French Country requirement. Mr. Newman stated that his property was perfect for the building of the hospital. He again stated that he did not think anybody should be expected to spend an additional $150,000 to provide side parking and that there were numerous businesses which could not be established in Section 1. Mr. Newman stated that the requirements of side parking and French Country would “come back to bite us”.

Mr. Arnie Natali, no address given, appeared before the Police Jury and stated he was pleased with the efforts in this area and felt the residents of the existing subdivisions needed to be protected. Mr. Natali spoke of some problems he had experienced in marketing/developing property he owned on Nelson Road within the city limits of Lake Charles, and he stated that the overlay district would prevent some of the problems he had experienced.

Mr. Natali also had concerns about how the plan would be tweaked and wanted some explanation of that or he would ask that his property be excluded. Mr. Natali also stressed his belief that the Director of Planning and Development should be given some authority to work with the developers on problems as they arise, for instance Mr. Natali owned property 1400' in depth off of Nelson Road between a residential apartment complex and a trailer park, but the overlay district only extended 400'. Mr. Natali wanted the assurance that he could go to Mr. Vickers with a request to expand that 400' with greenery and then plan to build a different type of building than was allowed in Section 1, or he would lose customers. Mr. Natali stated that developers would be limited to a very small selection of uses in Section 1 on some very expensive property that was vital to the community.

Mr. Natali stated that he did not think the staff, the Planning and Zoning Board, or Police Jury wanted people in every week fighting over shrubbery. Mr. Natali further stated that the plan was not complete, and he did not want to lose potential customers. He pointed out there were a lot of other towns a customer could go to and have the smaller details handled in-house.

Mr. Natali closed by asking that the Director of Planning and Development be given some control to take care of the details/problems with the plan as they arose. He stated that he was worried about all of the talk about tweaking because if he came back to get some help, and there was no tweaking available, that would scare him.

Mr. Tim Castle, local realtor, 438 Scarlett Drive, Lake Charles, appeared before the Police Jury and questioned what amount of control would be left if the plan was passed, and would it all go to the planning and zoning office. He also asked if variances would be handled only by the Planning and Zoning Board, pointing out that in trying to balance the needs of a five-lane thoroughfare with the needs of the residents, some controls were needed.

Mr. Castle also asked if the plan was an infringement on property rights in that people were being told they must develop property with a French Country theme. He stated that he had not known property owners could ask that their property be excluded from the district, pointing out that one of his clients did not know anything about the proposed overlay district. Mr. Castle questioned whether this was an infringement which might create exposure for the Police Jury.

Mr. Castle stated that the plan was progressive but that controls were still needed through the zoning process and then the Police Jury if necessary, a process which he pointed out had been in place and worked for many years. Mr. Castle pointed out that he had every bit of confidence in the police jurors and the staff but if too much control was given in this proposed district, problems would be created for the future.

Mr. Castle stated that tweaking the plan would not fix everything, nor would “throwing the baby out with the bath water”. He also stated that it was a progressive plan, but something different needed to be done and although he did not know what the answer was, he urged the jurors to tread lightly with respect to property rights which he felt should be treated with respect.

Mr. Kleckley asked what would happen when modifications were needed to the plan. Mr. Vickers advised that in order to avoid individual variances and amendments to the map, he favored amending the plan instead. He explained that if something was not working, i.e., to add a new use, the plan should be amended. Mr. Vickers also explained that this was a totally new concept and that to open up this portion of Nelson Road to commercial development, and have it compatible with existing residential areas, was a “give and take” process but would require tighter restrictions. Mr. Vickers stated there was no perfect plan and that when changes were needed, he would come back to the Police Jury with a recommendation. He further stat