BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the above described property is hereby classified and ratified as R-M (Multi Family Residential).

 

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

 

            BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that any ordinance or parts of any ordinance in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

 

            This ordinance was adopted on the 19^th day of April, 2007.

 

                                                                                    /s/ Chris E. Landry, President

 

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

 

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

            President Landry advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ01-007-07 which was a request by Donald Hodge to rezone from A-1 (Agricultural) to C-2 (General Business Commercial) to allow a truck stop on Highway 171 North in Ward One, Police Jury District 1 (Mr. Manuel’s district). President Landry further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 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; and (2) that all development must be landscaped with an approved landscape plan submitted to the Division of Planning and Development.

 

            It was moved by Mr. Andrepont and seconded by Dr. Mackey to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to Zoning Case RZ01-007-07 and to grant the request to rezone with the stipulations outlined by said Board.

 

            Mr. Manuel pointed out that this request to rezone had come up previously, and he had been opposed to it because of drainage problems and the manner in which the road was built at that time, however, the State Highway Department had reconfigured the turn at that intersection, and work had been done to improve the drainage in that area. Mr. Manuel stated that he hoped the developer would continue to address any drainage concerns as well as traffic concerns that might develop.

 

            A vote taken on the motion on the floor carried unanimously; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

 

ORDINANCE NO. 5268

 

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by Donald Hodge to rezone from A-1 (Agricultural) to C-2 (General Commercial) to allow a truck stop on the property described as: Tract No. 1: Com at the SW cor of the SW/4 of NW/4 of S6, T8S, R8W; thence run S 88 degs 47’ 05” E along the S line of said SW/4 of NW/4, a distance of 30’ to the E right-of-way line of N Perkins Ferry Road and the pob; thence run N 0 degs 55’ 35” E along said right-of-way line, a distance of 434.89’; thence N 12 degs 29’ 33” E along right-of-way for connection road, 168.04’; thence continue along right-of-way for connection road, said right-of-way being an arc with a radius of 335’, and a long chord which bears N 32 degs 02’ 41” E, 345.64’, an arc distance of 363.16’; thence S 72 degs 09’ 24” E, 53.03’ to the W right-of-way line of U.S. Hwy 171; thence southerly along said right-of-way, said right-of-way being an arc with a radius of 2914.79’ and a long chord which bears S 32 degs 59’ 35” E, 595.58’ an arc distance of 596.61; thence continue along said right of way S 22 degs 54’ 22” E, 166.25’; thence continue along said right of way, said right of way being an arc with a radius of 2964.79’ and a long chord which bears S 42 degs 58’ 42” E, 106.61’, an arc distance of 106.62’; thence continue along said right of way S 63 degs 03’ 02” E, 166.25’; thence continue along said right of way, said right of way being an arc with a radius of 2914.79’ and a long chord which bears S 47 degs 42’ 31” E, 62.07’, an arc distance of 62.07’; thence continue along said right of way S 48 degs 19’ 06” E, a distance of 73.48’ to its intersection with the S line of said SW/4 of NW/4; thence N 88 degs 47’ 05” W along said S line, and the N line of Pine Park Subdivision, a distance of 988.18’ to the pob. Contains 10.81 acres. Tract No. 2: Com at the SW cor of the SW/4 of NW/4 of S6, T8S, R8W; thence run S 88 degs 47’ 05” E along the S line of said SW/4 of NW/4 a distance of 30’ to the E right of way line of N. Perkins Ferry Road; thence N 0 degs 55’ 35” E along said E right of way line, a distance of 906.51’ to the N right of way line of a connection road and the pob; thence continue N 0 degs 55’ 35” E along said E right of way line, a distance of 434.01’ to the N line of said SW/4 of NW/4; thence S 89 degs 52’ 41” E along said N line, a distance of 66.11’ to the E right of way line of U.S. Hwy 171; thence southerly along said E right of way line, said right of way line being an arc with a radius of 2914.79’ and a long chord which bears S 20 degs 14’ 52” E, 304.45’, an arc distance of 304.59’; thence S 19 degs 22’ 08” W, 23.05’; thence southwesterly along the N right of way of a connection road said right of way being an arc with a radius of 480’ and a long chord which bears S 52 degs 48’ 09” W, 200.58’, an arc distance of 202.07’ to the pob. Contains 1.068 acres.

 

            BE IT ORDAINED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, convened in Regular Session on the 19^th day of April, 2007, 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 One of this parish:

 

From A-1 (Agricultural) to C-2 (General Commercial) to allow a truck stop with the following stipulations: 1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; and 2) that all development must be landscaped with an approved landscape plan submitted to the Division of Planning and Development, on the property described as: Tract No. 1: Com at the SW cor of the SW/4 of NW/4 of S6, T8S, R8W; thence run S 88 degs 47’ 05” E along the S line of said SW/4 of NW/4, a distance of 30’ to the E right-of-way line of N Perkins Ferry Road and the pob; thence run N 0 degs 55’ 35” E along said right-of-way line, a distance of 434.89’; thence N 12 degs 29’ 33” E along right-of-way for connection road, 168.04’; thence continue along right-of-way for connection road, said right-of-way being an arc with a radius of 335’, and a long chord which bears N 32 degs 02’ 41” E, 345.64’, an arc distance of 363.16’; thence S 72 degs 09’ 24” E, 53.03’ to the W right-of-way line of U.S. Hwy 171; thence southerly along said right-of-way, said right-of-way being an arc with a radius of 2914.79’ and a long chord which bears S 32 degs 59’ 35” E, 595.58’ an arc distance of 596.61; thence continue along said right of way S 22 degs 54’ 22” E, 166.25’; thence continue along said right of way, said right of way being an arc with a radius of 2964.79’ and a long chord which bears S 42 degs 58’ 42” E, 106.61’, an arc distance of 106.62’; thence continue along said right of way S 63 degs 03’ 02” E, 166.25’; thence continue along said right of way, said right of way being an arc with a radius of 2914.79’ and a long chord which bears S 47 degs 42’ 31” E, 62.07’, an arc distance of 62.07’; thence continue along said right of way S 48 degs 19’ 06” E, a distance of 73.48’ to its intersection with the S line of said SW/4 of NW/4; thence N 88 degs 47’ 05” W along said S line, and the N line of Pine Park Subdivision, a distance of 988.18’ to the pob. Contains 10.81 acres. Tract No. 2: Com at the SW cor of the SW/4 of NW/4 of S6, T8S, R8W; thence run S 88 degs 47’ 05” E along the S line of said SW/4 of NW/4 a distance of 30’ to the E right of way line of N. Perkins Ferry Road; thence N 0 degs 55’ 35” E along said E right of way line, a distance of 906.51’ to the N right of way line of a connection road and the pob; thence continue N 0 degs 55’ 35” E along said E right of way line, a distance of 434.01’ to the N line of said SW/4 of NW/4; thence S 89 degs 52’ 41” E along said N line, a distance of 66.11’ to the E right of way line of U.S. Hwy 171; thence southerly along said E right of way line, said right of way line being an arc with a radius of 2914.79’ and a long chord which bears S 20 degs 14’ 52” E, 304.45’, an arc distance of 304.59’; thence S 19 degs 22’ 08” W, 23.05’; thence southwesterly along the N right of way of a connection road said right of way being an arc with a radius of 480’ and a long chord which bears S 52 degs 48’ 09” W, 200.58’, an arc distance of 202.07’ to the pob. Contains 1.068 acres.

 

            Zoning Case RZ01-007-07

 

            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 / Chris E. Landry, President

 

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

 

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

            President Landry advised that action was needed on Zoning Case RZ01-003-07 which was a request by Powell Timber Company to rezone from A-1 (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential), R-M (Multi Family Residential), and C-2 (General Commercial) to allow a planned community development (mostly residential with low density commercial development) at Cypress Lake Drive and Dunn Ferry Road in Ward One, Police Jury District 1 (Mr. Manuel’s district). President Landry further advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 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 all signs must be low-profile monument signs; (3) that the use be limited to C-1 (Light Commercial) uses and car washes, farmers market, gasoline stations, institutions, janitorial services, laundry and linen services, neighborhood shopping, professional and medical offices, printing and engraving, retail manufacturing, restaurants (alcoholic beverages consumed on premises) and theaters in the C-2 (General Commercial) area; and (4) that all development must be landscaped with an approved landscape plan submitted to the Division of Planning and Development. (On March 22, 2007, the Police Jury deferred action on this Zoning Case for thirty days at the request of the Planning and Zoning Board.)

 

            Motion was made by Mr. Brame and seconded by Mr. Danahay that the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld with respect to Zoning Case RZ01-003-07 and that the request to rezone be granted with the stipulations outlined by said Board.

 

            Mr. Manuel stated that there were questions regarding this proposal for which answers had previously been unavailable and in answer to his questions, Mr. Vickers responded that (1) the development would have underground utilities, (2) the commercial portion would be located inside of the residential subdivision, (3) there would be adequate drainage and storm water retention provided, (4) there would be an architectural control committee and a homeowner’s association, and (5) a community-type sewer system would be utilized. Mr. Vickers pointed out that the project would take several years to develop and would also depend on market conditions. In response to Mr. Manuel’s concerns regarding drainage and traffic issues, Mr. Vickers stated that once the plans were received, the Division of Public Works and Engineering, as well as Gravity Drainage District No. Eight of Ward One, would review said plans and provide an assessment thereof. Mr. Vickers pointed out that a traffic study would also be done.

 

            A vote taken on the motion on the floor carried unanimously; whereupon, the following ordinance was adopted:

 

ORDINANCE NO. 5269

 

AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 26 - Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, classifying the area: A request by Powell Timber Company to rezone from A-1 (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential), R-M (Multi Family Residential) and C-2 (General Commercial) to allow a planned community development (mostly residential with low density commercial development) on the property described as: Based on survey by K. Carl Johnson, dated August 9, 2002, titled “Powell Timber Company, Survey of Properties in Section 27 and the N/2 of Section 34 in T. 8 S. – R. 9 W.”) That certain tract or parcel of land being portions of the West Half (W/2) of Section Twenty-seven (27) and the North Half (N/2) of Section Thirty-four (34), Township Eight (8) South, Range Nine (9) West, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Section Twenty-seven (27), Township Eight (8) South, Range Nine (9) West, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; Thence North 89 degs 30’ 16” East, along the North line of said Section Twenty-seven (27), for a distance of 2385.90 feet; Thence South 00 degs 45’ 50” East, for a distance of 3965.20 feet to the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE/4-SW/4) of said Section Twenty-seven (27); Thence North 89 degs 19’ 16” East, along said North line, for a distance of 306.40 feet to the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE/4-SW/4); Thence South 00 degs 08’ 01” East (call South 00° 41’ 45” West), along the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE/4-SW/4), for a distance of 1317.18 feet (call 1323.90 feet) to the South line of said Section Twenty-seven (27) and North line of Section Thirty-four (34); Thence North 89 degs 20’ 00” East (call North 89° 22’ 20” East), along said North line of Section Thirty-four (34), for a distance of 1310.69 feet (call 1313.75 feet) to the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW/4-NE/4) of Section Thirty-four (34); Thence South 00 degs 18’ 24” West (call South 00° 20’ 54” West), along the East line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW/4-NE/4), for a distance of 1324.60 feet (call 1323.27 feet) to the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE/4-NE/4) of Section Thirty-four (34); Thence North 89 degs 32’ 38” East, along the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE/4-NE/4), for a distance of 1317.67 feet to the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE/4-NE/4); Thence South 00 degs 16’ 20” West, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE/4-NE/4), for a distance of 311.13 feet to the South right-of-way line of a 30 foot Florida Gas (formerly Coastal Transmission Corp.) pipeline right-of-way; Thence South 70 degs 07’ 06” West, along said South right-of-way line, for a distance of 3025.46 feet to the South line of the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of the aforesaid Section Thirty-four (34); Thence South 89 degs 43’ 10” West, along said South line, for a distance of 2444.42 feet to the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of Section Thirty-four (34); Thence North 00 degs 56’ 23” East (call North 00° 51’ 43” East), along the West line of said Northwest Quarter (NW/4), for a distance of 2622.64 feet (call 2623.20 feet) to the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter (SW/4) of the aforesaid Section Twenty-seven (27); Thence North 01 degs 10’ 32” West (call North 01°16’ 33” West), along the West line of said Southwest Quarter (SW/4), for a distance of 2645.52 feet (call 2643.50 feet) to the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of said Section Twenty-seven (27); Thence North 01 degs 27’ 11” West (call North 01° 16’ 33” West), along the West line of said Northwest Quarter (NW/4), for a distance of 2642.18 feet (call 2643.50 feet) to the Point of Beginning. Herein described tract containing 540.96 acres more or less and subject to road rights-of-way on the North, East and South sides thereof, and subject to any rights-of-way, servitudes and/or easements of record or by use.

 

            BE IT ORDAINED BY THE POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH, LOUISIANA, convened in Regular Session on the 19^th day of April, 2007, 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 One of this parish:

 

From A-1 (Agricultural) to R-1 (Single Family Residential), R-M (Multi Family Residential) and C-2 (General Commercial) to allow a planned community development (mostly residential with low density commercial development) with the following stipulations: 1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; 2) that all signs must be low profile monument signs; 3) that the use be limited to C-1 (Light Commercial) uses and car washes, farmers market, gasoline stations, institutions, janitorial services, laundry and linen services, neighborhood shopping, professional and medical offices, printing and engraving, retail manufacturing, restaurants (alcoholic beverages consumed on premises) and theaters in the C-2 (General Commercial) area; and 4) that all development must be landscaped with an approved landscape plan submitted to the Division of Planning and Development, on the property described as: Based on survey by K. Carl Johnson, dated August 9, 2002, titled “Powell Timber Company, Survey of Properties in Section 27 and the N/2 of Section 34 in T. 8 S. – R. 9 W.”) That certain tract or parcel of land being portions of the West Half (W/2) of Section Twenty-seven (27) and the North Half (N/2) of Section Thirty-four (34), Township Eight (8) South, Range Nine (9) West, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Section Twenty-seven (27), Township Eight (8) South, Range Nine (9) West, Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana; Thence North 89 degs 30’ 16” East, along the North line of said Section Twenty-seven (27), for a distance of 2385.90 feet; Thence South 00 degs 45’ 50” East, for a distance of 3965.20 feet to the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE/4-SW/4) of said Section Twenty-seven (27); Thence North 89 degs 19’ 16” East, along said North line, for a distance of 306.40 feet to the Northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE/4-SW/4); Thence South 00 degs 08’ 01” East (call South 00° 41’ 45” West), along the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SE/4-SW/4), for a distance of 1317.18 feet (call 1323.90 feet) to the South line of said Section Twenty-seven (27) and North line of Section Thirty-four (34); Thence North 89 degs 20’ 00” East (call North 89° 22’ 20” East), along said North line of Section Thirty-four (34), for a distance of 1310.69 feet (call 1313.75 feet) to the Northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW/4-NE/4) of Section Thirty-four (34); Thence South 00 degs 18’ 24” West (call South 00° 20’ 54” West), along the East line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW/4-NE/4), for a distance of 1324.60 feet (call 1323.27 feet) to the Northwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE/4-NE/4) of Section Thirty-four (34); Thence North 89 degs 32’ 38” East, along the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE/4-NE/4), for a distance of 1317.67 feet to the Northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE/4-NE/4); Thence South 00 degs 16’ 20” West, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (SE/4-NE/4), for a distance of 311.13 feet to the South right-of-way line of a 30 foot Florida Gas (formerly Coastal Transmission Corp.) pipeline right-of-way; Thence South 70 degs 07’ 06” West, along said South right-of-way line, for a distance of 3025.46 feet to the South line of the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of the aforesaid Section Thirty-four (34); Thence South 89 degs 43’ 10” West, along said South line, for a distance of 2444.42 feet to the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of Section Thirty-four (34); Thence North 00 degs 56’ 23” East (call North 00° 51’ 43” East), along the West line of said Northwest Quarter (NW/4), for a distance of 2622.64 feet (call 2623.20 feet) to the Southwest corner of the Southwest Quarter (SW/4) of the aforesaid Section Twenty-seven (27); Thence North 01 degs 10’ 32” West (call North 01°16’ 33” West), along the West line of said Southwest Quarter (SW/4), for a distance of 2645.52 feet (call 2643.50 feet) to the Southwest corner of the Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of said Section Twenty-seven (27); Thence North 01 degs 27’ 11” West (call North 01° 16’ 33” West), along the West line of said Northwest Quarter (NW/4), for a distance of 2642.18 feet (call 2643.50 feet) to the Point of Beginning. Herein described tract containing 540.96 acres more or less and subject to road rights-of-way on the North, East and South sides thereof, and subject to any rights-of-way, servitudes and/or easements of record or by use.

 

            Zoning Case RZ01-003-07

 

            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/ Chris E. Landry, President

 

/s/ S. Mark McMurry, Administrator &

Ex-Officio Secretary

 

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

            President Landry advised that the next item of business was to take appropriate action on RZ08-008-07 which was a request by Sarah Spencer and Joe G. Berry to rezone from A-1 (Agricultural) to I-2 (Heavy Industrial) to allow a temporary asphalt plant, laydown yard, and backfilling of existing pond with construction debris at 118 Frontage Road along Interstate-10 in Ward Eight, Police Jury District 10 (Mr. Stelly’s district). President Landry also advised that the Planning and Zoning Board had met on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, and voted seven (for) to two (against) 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 the property will revert to A-1 (Agricultural) upon completion of State Project #450-03-0071; and (3) that the three construction trailers, asphalt plant, equipment, etc. must be removed from the premises within 60 days of completion of State Project #450-03-0071. [This project involves the construction of six lanes on Interstate-10 from Kayouchee Coulee to Highway 165 to be completed within 800 days (two years, two months, and ten days).]

 

            Mr. McMurry asked for a few moments prior to debate on this issue to address the events leading up to this date, specifically newspaper advertisements in the “Lake Charles American Press” which he considered to be vicious attacks on Mr. Vickers, a co-worker with whom he had worked for thirty years. Mr. McMurry explained that the staff was aware that it was “open season” 365 days of the year on criticism pertaining to their actions and/or recommendations, and that was as it should be, referring to President Harry Truman’s slogan “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

 

            Mr. McMurry stated that sometimes those criticisms were fair, and sometimes they were unfair but well-intended which was as it should be; however, what he had seen in this case was a line beyond “unfair” that had gotten crossed involving personal attacks against Mr. Vickers’ trustworthiness. Mr. McMurry further stated that Mr. Vickers’ trustworthiness and integrity was only matched by his intelligence and the effectiveness with which he performed his job and that perhaps the tone of the advertisements indicated more about the character of the people placing those advertisements than about Mr. Vickers’ character.

 

            Mr. McMurry concluded his comments by saying that he would hope that the members of the Police Jury would be vigilant about not allowing those types of comments and to allow the debate to continue based on facts and opinions and not personal attacks on Mr. Vickers which he felt should not play any part in the jurors’ decision on this zoning case.

 

            Mr. McMurry’s comments were echoed by many of the jurors, including Mr. McMillin, Mr. Manuel, Mr. Brame, and Mr. Guidry.

 

            President Landry pointed out that zoning issues could be very emotional and that the problem was that not everyone would be happy with whatever decision was made, and by the very nature of zoning cases, someone would leave the meeting unhappy. He assured those present that the jurors would do what was right in their vote.

 

            President Landry stated that he would not allow any personal remarks against anyone, whether it was the opponents, the proponents, or the staff. He asked that everyone stick to the facts of the case and if they did not, they would receive one warning which would then be followed by being escorted out of the meeting room, and this ruling would include comments made while someone had the floor as well as when they sat down.

 

            President Landry stated that each side (proponents and opponents) would be allowed ten minutes to present their views, followed by a question and answer period, and then a three-minute rebuttal for each side.

 

            Motion was made by Mr. Stelly and seconded by Mr. Clement that the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board be overturned with respect to RZ08-008-07 and that the request to rezone be denied.

 

            Mr. Mike Hudnall, Vice President and Asphalt Division Manager, Gilchrist Construction Company, LLC, Alexandria, appeared before the Police Jury and distributed copies of affidavits signed by the following persons expressing support for the project:

 

•          David R. Gilchrist, Owner and President of Gilchrist Construction Company, LLC, stating that the company would remit taxes on this $68 million project to various taxing authorities including, but not limited to, employment taxes, state and local sales and use taxes on materials, property taxes on the plant facilities and construction equipment, and income taxes on project revenues;

 

•          Doug Hillebrandt, project manager for Gilchrist Construction Company, LLC, attesting that the Federal Register dated February 12, 2002, deleted the source category Asphalt Concrete Manufacturing based on available data concluding that no asphalt concrete manufacturing facility had the potential to emit HAP approaching major source levels;

 

•          Theodore Fountaine, Jr., member of the Rapides Parish Police Jury representing the district where the Company’s asphalt plant was located in Alexandria, stating that he knew of no problems resulting from the location and industrial activity of the plant in Alexandria;

 

•          Myron K. Lawson, member of the Alexandria City Council, former member of the Rapides Parish Police Jury, and current chairman of the Southern University Board of Supervisors, stating that he knew of no problems resulting from the location and industrial activity of the plant in Alexandria;

 

•          Joe Fuller, member of the Rapides Parish Police Jury and Executive Board Member and past President of the Louisiana Police Jury Association, stating that he knew of no problems resulting from the location and industrial activity of the plant in Alexandria;

 

•          Martha Lowe, Rapides Parish School District parent/teacher organization member at schools near highway outlets that frequent traffic by Gilchrist Construction Company trucks, and who lived less than two miles from the Alexandria plant, stating that she knew of no problems resulting from the location and industrial activity of the plant in Alexandria;

 

•          Letter from Robert Hennigan, P.E., District Engineer Administrator for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD), expressing support to the Company as they attempted to find a suitable location for their temporary asphalt plant for this project; and

 

•          Herbert Dixon, member of the Rapides Parish School Board, stating that he knew of no problems resulting from the location and industrial activity of the plant in Alexandria.

 

            Mr. Hudnall also distributed a copy of information regarding the solicitation by Tony Hebert and Lee Mallett, representing themselves as partners in the business of selling dirt, whereby Gilchrist Construction Company would purchase dirt from them for the I-10 project. This information revealed that (1) the Company did test the dirt at one location and found it to be not in compliance with LDOTD specifications which would have prevented it from being used, and the Company attempted to test another location, but the ground was too boggy to allow testing equipment onto the site; (2) the purchase price of the dirt was much too high ($1,050,000 to $1,225,000); (3) the Company would have had to truck the dirt through the same area that Mr. Mallet was now opposing additional truck traffic on; (4) after Mr. Hebert was notified that Gilchrist would not be purchasing the dirt from he and Mr. Mallet, circulations by Mr. Mallet were passed out locally opposing the plant proposed by Gilchrist.

 

            Mr. Hudnall also presented a copy of a petition which he said contained 272 signatures obtained since 4:00 p.m. on April 18, 2007, of Calcasieu Parish residents in support of the plant, many of whom were residents of the Town of Iowa. He also spoke of his company’s community-related activities and showed an aerial view of the plant in Alexandria, indicating a newly-built subdivision and an elementary school in very close proximity to the plant. Mr. Hudnall pointed out that downtown Alexandria and the hospital were located less than three miles from it, there were16 nearby schools, churches, federally-protected waterways, and not one complaint had been lodged.

 

            Mr. Hudnall stated that the reason for choosing the proposed location was to avoid hauling materials through downtown Iowa which is what would have been required had the company chosen the property offered by Mr. Lee Mallett which was one mile from the proposed location. Mr. Hudnall further stated that his company had discussed putting in a ramp at its own expense to access I-10 which would alleviate a lot of hauling and while DOTD had not yet approved those plans, they had indicated they liked the idea for safety reasons as well.

 

            Mr. Allen Smith, General Counsel, pointed out that Mr. Hudnall had exceeded his time limit but was almost through with his presentation. President Landry ruled that he could continue but that the opposition would be granted an equal amount of additional time for their presentation.

 

            Mr. Hudnall stated that the I-10 project would not be tax-exempt, contrary to recent allegations by the opponents. He explained the three different types of asphalt plants, pointing out that his company’s process did not deal with hazardous toxins, and the plant in Alexandria was a $750 million investment. Mr. Hudnall closed by saying that if these types of plants were toxic, no one would be able to give one away, but they were sold around the world.

 

            Mr. Smith advised that Mr. Hudnall’s presentation had taken exactly 14 minutes, so the opposition would be granted an additional four minutes.

 

            President Landry stated that Mr. Mark Gault of Aztec Industries, 4101 Jerome Avenue, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Mr. John Harrington, 135 Morgan Road, Alexandria, and Mr. Chester Jones of the African-American Chamber of Commerce, were all present at the meeting in support of Gilchrist Construction Company, if any of the jurors had questions of them.

 

            Mr. Stelly stated that he had always had concerns about the proposed location of the asphalt plant and with reference to the petition Mr. Hudnall alluded to earlier in the meeting, Mr. Stelly stated that it contained signatures of people who lived far from the proposed site, for example, south Lake Charles, Moss Bluff, Sulphur, and Westlake, which were nowhere near Iowa, so he did not feel the petition was relative. With regard to the compromise Mr. Hudnall discussed, Mr. Stelly asked what the company’s plans would be for traffic control if DOTD did not approve the building of the ramp, particularly with early-morning work and school traffic.

 

            Mr. Hudnall stated that the company realized when it first looked at the site that if traffic laws were obeyed, there should be no problems. He pointed out that there was no shorter distance or safer place to be than closest to the access ramp onto I-10.

 

            Mr. Manuel asked if the plant could be moved one-quarter mile away, given the concerns expressed about the proposed location being too close to schools and sports fields, and to address any possibility of toxicity. He stated that Mr. R. L. Webb, member of the Calcasieu Parish School Board representing the area of the proposed location, was present at the meeting on this date, and he would like Mr. Webb to have an opportunity to address the Police Jury prior to a vote being taken on this matter.

 

            Mr. Hudnall pointed out that his company’s trucks would still have to haul through the same area, regardless of whether he moved the location one-quarter mile away, and he did not think that would be a wise compromise. Mr. Hudnall stated that the plant’s emissions would not be toxic and that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) had spent millions of dollars studying it and had not found it to be toxic. He also stated that Gilchrist Construction Company was a responsible contractor and that there were already asphalt plants in Calcasieu Parish right next door to schools, etc. Mr. Hudnall stated that the main safety issue was trucking of materials, and his company was willing to put in a ramp to alleviate 50% of the trucking.

 

            In answer to questions by Mr. Guidry, Mr. Hudnall stated that the contractor was paid based on how many units of asphalt were delivered and that the asphalt could not arrive at the construction site with a variation in temperature of more than 25 degrees from which it left the plant.

 

            Mr. Guidry stated that he was concerned for the people of Iowa, and he did not feel that he had received a clear answer as to what was best for them.

 

            President Landry asked Mr. Joe Berry and/or Mr. Lynn Berry, the applicants for the rezoning case, to come forward to answer questions.

 

            In answer to a question by Mr. Stelly, Mr. Berry stated that he had sold some property on Frontage Road to Mr. Lee Mallett and at that time, it was his understanding that Mr. Mallett wanted to use it as commercial property for a flea market.

 

            President Landry asked Mr. Stelly where his line of questioning was going, to which Mr. Stelly responded that what he wanted to discuss was property development. President Landry stated that would be a civil matter, and Mr. Stelly responded that he felt it was part of this issue. President Landry agreed to allow Mr. Stelly to continue, if he would do so in a timely manner.

 

            Mr. Stelly advised that a concern he had, other than for the Town of Iowa, was that this development could be a business opportunity for Mr. Mallett. Mr. Berry stated that he and his brother-in-law had discussed buying the property back from Mr. Mallett, with an allowance of ten years CPI, however, they had not formally made that offer to him. Mr. Stelly asked why they had not, and Mr. Berry stated that he had not had any other conversations with Mr. Mallett since all of this had started.

 

            With regard to the compromise being offered by Gilchrist to build an access ramp, Mr. Stelly asked Mr. Hudnall if he felt this was “solid”, to which Mr. Hudnall responded that it would have to go through the permitting phase with DOTD. He pointed out that DOTD had wished the company success in its endeavors.

 

            In answer to a question by Mr. Danahay, Mr. Hudnall explained that the project was scheduled to take a maximum of 800 days, but the company would like to finish it 100 days sooner than that, depending on weather.

 

            In answer to a question by Mr. Guillory, Mr. Hudnall stated that 20 people had already been employed for this project, and it had not commenced yet, and future projections were an average of 60-65 employees with most of the workforce to be local.

 

            President Landry stated that the opposition would present its case at this time, and he called on Ms. Sally Mhire, 813 Hardy Street, Iowa, who stated that she lived less than one-quarter mile from the proposed location. She spoke of her concerns about the people who lived in the vicinity, including her husband, who had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and who she said did not need to be inhaling the fumes and dust from the asphalt plant. Ms. Mhire also stated that she was with the Iowa Fire Department and had attended some very bad wrecks in this particular area, and she also spoke of her concerns about the noise, smell, and safety issues concerning the proposal.

 

            President Landry called on Mr. Lee Mallett, but Mr. Mallett deferred to Ms. Wilma Subra, Post Office Box 9813, New Iberia, Louisiana. Ms. Subra stated that she was a toxicologist and had provided technical assistance on environmental issues, had served on EPA committees dealing with environmental issues, and had testified before the U.S. Congress and the Louisiana Legislature. Ms. Subra distributed copies of information including articles published by the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, relative to asphalt plant pollution, a pamphlet published by the EPA entitled “Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Emission Assessment Report” dated December, 2000, and a 1994 article published by the American Journal of Industrial Medicine entitled “Toxic Health Effect Including Reversible Macrothrombocytosis in Workers Exposed to Asphalt Fumes.”

 

            Ms. Subra stated that emissions from asphalt plants were toxic to human health, and the question for the Police Jury on this date was a siting issue. Ms. Subra stated that she did not think the proposed location was the right one, near residential areas, a FEMA trailer park, school, etc., and that it should be located elsewhere so that there would be fewer health impacts to fewer people. She pointed out that the project would last two years which might lead to persons developing cancer in ten years – long-term health issues – but that the short-term effects would be immediate. Ms. Subra stated that the asphalt plant must be denied at the proposed location, and the applicant should come back with another location that would not harm the health of the people in the area.

 

            Ms. Tammy Siebarth, 116 North Kinney Street, Iowa, appeared before the Police Jury on behalf of her children who she said played ball every season. She stated that her intent was not to hurt anybody, but she felt the signatures represented people who needed to be heard which was her reason for placing the advertisements in the newspaper. Ms. Siebarth further stated that she had been born and raised in Iowa and had seen her parents fight the proposed landfill (Western Waste Industries) years ago in the Iowa area, and she was fighting the asphalt plant for the safety of her children and the elderly. Ms. Siebarth stated that the project was not worth one child’s life if they were to get sick or hurt.

 

            Mr. Mitchell LeBleu, Post Office Box 4, Iowa, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that he did not live in Iowa but had grandchildren who did. He further stated that he had undergone cancer treatments for a year as a result of working at Citgo. Mr. LeBleu advised that he was not sure what the toxicology reports meant, but that if someone smelled something (toxic) long enough, they would get sick. Mr. LeBleu concluded by saying that everything the company wanted to do was good, but he did not think it should be one-quarter mile from the school.

 

            President Landry advised that the opposition had three minutes left to make their presentation.

 

            Mr. Kerry Venable, 2500 Smith Road, Lake Charles, appeared before the Police Jury and expressed his concern regarding health risks. He asked the jurors to listen to the toxicologist (Ms. Subra) and not allow the asphalt plant. Mr. Venable stated that he worked for Mr. Mallett and that there was congestion at the location of the proposed plant every morning, noon, and 5:00 p.m.

 

            Mr. Brent A. Ferguson, 4025 Pleasant Drive, Lake Charles, appeared before the Police Jury and stated that he also worked for Mr. Mallett. He advised that he had an extensive background in roofing asphalt which he said did emit fumes, and they were not allowed to work on school projects until after the children left for the day. Mr. Ferguson further stated that roofing asphalt was the same thing as road asphalt.

 

            President Landry advised that the time allotted to the opposition had expired, and he would allow Mr. R. L. Webb, member of the Calcasieu Parish School Board, to address the Police Jury even though time had elapsed, since Mr. Manuel had asked earlier that the Police Jury hear from him.

 

            Mr. R. L. Webb, 6751 Joe Spears Road, Iowa, appeared before the Police Jury representing the Calcasieu Parish School Board and stated that they were not for the project and were concerned about the smell, shelters in place, etc. Mr. Webb stated that the main concern was traffic congestion and safety, pointing out that the school buses and students from Hecker and LeBleu Settlement traveled Highway 383, the same road the asphalt trucks would be traveling. Mr. Webb further stated that there was already traffic congestion in this area and suggested a compromise of utilizing property near the Chloe exit off of I-10 which he thought was already zoned properly.

 

            Mrs. Griffin pointed out that there were various agencies which would have regulatory and monitoring powers over the facility and asked what role EPA would play in this type of project. Mr. Vickers stated that it would really be the responsibility of LDEQ and that in talking with them, they had indicated it was not so much the permit they would have to approve but the relocation of the Gilchrist facility. Mr. Vickers explained that if the Police Jury were to grant the rezoning, the location would still have to be approved by DEQ.

 

            Mrs. Griffin stated that she was concerned about some of the accusations being made on this date and if one was not careful, they would think Gilchrist Construction Company was out to kill everybody in Iowa, and she did not believe that. Mrs. Griffin further stated that this company, or any company, would have to abide by DEQ and EPA regulations, and they would be stopped if they were posing a health risk to the community.

 

            President Landry stated that each side would be allowed three minutes for rebuttal at this time.

 

            Mr. Hudnall stated that he had three children – eight, six, and four years of age – and elderly grandparents. He also stated that he felt he was a person who knew right from wrong and would not put his children’s lives or others in danger. Mr. Hudnall pointed out that if the product he had been around for years was indeed toxic, people would be falling dead left and right. He also pointed out that 90% of the country’s roads were asphalt. Mr. Hudnall stated that there were agencies which were responsible for looking at the safety issues because the Police Jury and other bodies had to make these types of decisions based on what was best for the health and welfare of the residents.

 

            President Landry called upon Mr. Mallett to address the Jury for rebuttal, and Mr. Mallett yielded his time to Ms. Subra who stated that a facility that had toxic fumes being released into the air should not be located next to residential areas and schools and that the theory of “for two years, it will be okay” was wrong. She further stated that she had not even addressed the toxic fumes from the trucks. Ms. Subra concluded by saying that the health effects would start immediately, would continue for two years, and the long-term effects would continue forever, and further, that the Police Jury would be responsible for making that decision.

 

            President Landry asked that the motion on the floor be read aloud which was a motion made by Mr. Stelly and seconded by Mr. Clement that the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board be overturned with respect to RZ08-008-07 and that the request to rezone be denied.

 

            Mr. Andrepont offered an amendment to the motion on the floor, which was seconded by Mr. McMillin, to add a stipulation that the rezoning be effective subject to the approval by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality of the relocation of the asphalt plant.

 

            Mr. Andrepont explained that Gilchrist Construction Company would have to move a portable plant from Alexandria, but before they could move it, the Company would have to get the necessary permit from DEQ.

 

            Mr. Allen Smith, General Counsel, pointed out that the motion on the floor was to deny the request to rezone and if that motion failed, it would be appropriate at that time to add the stipulation as outlined by Mr. Andrepont’s amendment.

 

            President Landry ruled that the amendment would be held in abeyance until a vote was taken on the motion on the floor.

 

            Mr. McMillin stated that this was a difficult situation, pointing out that Mr. Stelly was a great friend and police juror, however, his district (Mr. McMillin’s) included Westlake and the industrial complexes, so he was pro industry and pro progress. Mr. McMillin also pointed out that S. P. Arnett Middle School in his district was .7 of a mile from an asphalt plant, and the Isle of Capri Casino was even closer. He stated that the asphalt industry was a successful business in Calcasieu Parish and while he knew it was inconvenient for the Town of Iowa, the facility had to go somewhere, and the road construction needed to take place as soon as possible, pointing out that this stretch of Interstate-10 which was being proposed to be resurfaced and widened had been voted the number one worst road in the United States.

 

            Mrs. Griffin called the question on the motion on the floor.

 

            President Landry then called for a reverse roll call vote on the motion, and the result thereon was as follows:

 

YEAS:Mr. Collins, Mr. Guidry, Mr. Manuel, and Mr. Stelly

 

NAYS:Mr. Andrepont, Mr. Brame, Mr. Clement, Mr. Danahay, Mrs. Griffin, Mr. Guillory, Dr. Mackey, Mr. McMillin, Mr. Moon, and Mrs. Treme

 

ABSENT:None

 

NOT VOTING: President Landry

 

            The vote being four (for) to ten (against), President Landry declared the motion as having failed.

 

            It was then moved by Mr. Brame and seconded by Mrs. Griffin that the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board be upheld with respect to RZ08-008-07 and that the request to rezone be granted with the stipulations outlined by said Board, those stipulations being: (1) that the development adhere to the site plan on file with the Division of Planning and Development; (2) that the property will revert to A-1 (Agricultural) upon completion of State Project #450-03-0071; and (3) that the three construction trailers, asphalt plant, equipment, etc. must be removed from the premises within 60 days of completion of State Project #450-03-0071.

 

            The amendment previously offered by Mr. Andrepont and seconded by Mr. McMillin was reintroduced at this time, said amendment being to add a stipulation that the rezoning be effective subject to the approval by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality of the relocation of the asphalt plant.

 

            President Landry called for a roll call vote on the amendment to the motion, and the vote thereon was as follows:

 

YEAS:Mr. Andrepont, Mr. Brame, Mr. Clement, Mr. Collins, Mr. Danahay, Mrs. Griffin, Mr. Guidry, Mr. Guillory, Dr. Mackey, Mr. Manuel, Mr. McMillin, Mr. Moon, Mr. Stelly, and Mrs. Treme

 

NAYS:None

 

ABSENT:None

 

NOT VOTING:President Landry