The "Enhancement" Trap

While the Town Center threat has receded, a new threat looms for Lacombe and Hwy 434. Suburban regulations are being pushed onto rural landowners.

1. The Threat to Lacombe (Hwy 434)

The "Corridor Enhancement Subarea" is still on the table.

The LA 3241 Corridor Study specifically analyzes Hwy 434 (South of I-12) and criticizes existing rural features:

  • Vehicle Storage: The study explicitly flags boats and RVs in front yards as "detracting from character."
  • Fencing: It criticizes tall privacy fences, pushing for "open fencing" that offers less privacy.
  • Circular Drives: It targets circular driveways as "increasing conflict points."
The Goal: To transform rural Hwy 434 into a standardized, suburban arterial road to support commercial development, effectively zoning out the current rural lifestyle.
Study Analysis: Hwy 434

Source: Page 27-30 of LA 3241 Corridor Study

See Document Page 27

The study refers to rural homesteads with boats and fences as having "Visual Impacts" that need "Mitigation." This is planner-speak for "We want to hide your lifestyle."

2. "Garden Homes" Postponed, Not Dead

The parish has asked to postpone the decision on the "Garden Home" density (12 units per acre) for 60 days. This is a temporary reprieve, not a victory.

Why we must stay vigilant:

  • 12 units per acre is suburban density (similar to Terra Bella).
  • This density creates massive runoff issues in our flood-prone areas.
  • It requires "Central Sewer," which opens the door for private utility monopolies.

Status: PAUSED

We have 60 days to ensure this language is completely removed from the code, not just re-worded.

3. The "Ghost Zoning" Mechanism

Even with the Town Center map removed, the underlying text mechanism for "Overlay Districts" allows for future mapping without the same level of scrutiny.

We need the Parish to commit that NO property will be mapped into a high-density subarea without a full, individual notification process for every neighbor within 1,000 feet.

Administrative Approval vs. Public Vote

Our core demand remains: Any change in density or land use must require a Public Council Vote, not just an administrative "opt-in" by a developer and the planning department.