Planning and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Call to order the City of Natchitoches Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. We've got a couple of things on the agenda tonight.

One is a resubdivision and, well, two of them are resubdivisions and one is a rezoning. The resubdivisions are subject to a 10-day appeal and will be final on 11 days if they're not... If they're not appealed from, people who want to appeal from a subdivision have to file a written appeal within 10 days of today's hearing. And it would be documented within 45 days to come before the City Council. We have one rezoning application that automatically goes before the City Council. It would be introduced at the next meeting next week and then voted on two weeks after that. So that is a natural progression. The way we'll take care of the business today is that I will read the synopsis of the application. I'll have the director tell us what, if anything, any comments she has, plus any comments that she's received by the office, and then the applicant or his designee will come forward to the AMBO and tell us what they're going to do. Then we'll hear from other folks in the in favor of the application. And then anyone in opposition to the application will be heard. And then there will be a single designee by the applicant to respond to any opposition limited only to the comments made in the opposition. Then we'll move on to discussion by Commission members and voting. Any comments I've left out, Madam Director?

No, sir.

All right. John, who's doing roll today? Ms. Donna, number two, roll call.

Charles Whitehead III.

Here.

Alexis Bernard Conde. Ms. Anita DuBois. Here. Ms. Sadie Sawyer. Here. Mr. Walter Johnson.

Here.

Mr. Ricky McAllister.

Here.

Mr. Michael Lewis. Here. Mr. Isaac Bo Lewis. Here.

By my count, that's a quorum. You concur, Madam Director? That's correct. All right. Roman numeral three. Commissioners have been provided minutes for my July 7, 2026 meeting. If there are no... corrections, additions, or deletions, I'll entertain a motion to waive their formal reading and adopt them as proposed. Motion by Dubois, second by Johnson. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. I'll sign those at the conclusion of the meeting if they're in signature format. The recording of all city meeting videos will now be posted on the city's website. To watch the video, the user can subscribe to the city's YouTube channel, City of Natchitoches, L.A., or visit the city's website link, https://www.natchitochesla.gov forward slash content forward slash meeting dash videos. Roman numeral IV, Old Business, subsection A, the application by Mr. Eric Winn, doing business in Southern Oaks Construction to rezone the following. The lot contained 3 1⁄2 acres in section 56 and 57, Township 9, North Range, 7 West, Naglish Parish, Louisiana, on the north side of Kaiser Avenue, as shown on a plat in conveyance book 443, folio 67 of the records of Naglish Parish, and a 1 1⁄2 interest in a strip 50 by 195 feet, But between lot three of block O and lot four of block N, Blanchard Road subdivision from R1 to R2 reason the creation of a multifamily development duplex that's on Claudia Street, exhibit two, council person district three. Was that approved, Madam Director? It was. All right. We'll so note that. Old business subsection B, the application by Shree Enterprises, LLC, doing business at the Hampton Inn, Naglish, to rezone the following. A lot containing 0.2 acres. located in the northwest corner of the intersection of I-49 and Louisiana Highway 6 in Section 40, Township 9, North Range 8 West, Natchez Parish, Louisiana. It's shown on the plan of survey and conveyance, Book 529, page 625, and described as follows. Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 4 of the Westwood Estates, I-49 commercial lots as shown on a plat of survey by Jackie Farmer, PLS, dated June 6, 1992, and recorded at map slide 334B of the records of Natchez Parish, Louisiana. This perceived north 46 degrees, 47 minutes east, 411.18 feet to the point of beginning. Thence from said point of beginning proceed north 13 degrees, 2 minutes, 10 seconds west, 196.7 feet. Thence proceed north 76 degrees, 57 minutes, 50 seconds east, 200 feet. Thence proceed 9 degrees, 34 minutes, 49 seconds east. east 85.82 feet, thence proceed south 9 degrees, 17 minutes, 49 seconds, east 335.29 feet, thence proceed south 46 degrees, 49 minutes, 29 seconds, west 200 feet, thence north 13 degrees, 2 minutes, 10 seconds, west 69.38 feet, thence north 13 degrees, Two minutes, 10 seconds. west, 254.57 feet to the point of beginning, less 24,750 square feet to a radiance by Rene, Inc. from B3 to B3 with an initial BA zoning for consumption on the premises. Very municipal address, 5300 University Parkway. Exhibit number three in Commissioner's packet at last meeting, council person district number one. I take it that passed as well, Madam Director? It did. It was approved. So noted. And that's a conclusion of old business? That is. Roman numeral five, subsection A. The application by Ms. Patricia Nolley and Mr. Alexander Armadero-Rizzo divide the following 3.5 acres, more or less, being tract A of the survey of the A.B. Nolley estate in Section 132, Township 9, North Range 7 West, as shown on a platter by A.J. Breuer, attached to instrument number 111885. The reason is for future sale. That's currently with the address of 2001 Texas Street, Exhibit Number 1, Councilperson District Number 4. If the applicant or the designee will come forward as we get a summary by the director.

We are. As the description stated, this is a 3.5 acre tract of land and the family has wanted to divide the tract into four individual lots for resale. That's pretty much it. They have met the requirements of having frontage on major roads. Each lot is above 7,200 square feet. That's the requirements for a subdivision, or to subdivide each tractor land.

Do we have sewerage out there or not? Would it have to be septics?

I have not checked on the sewer or anything like that.

Okay. Will the applicant or the designee come forward?

No, that's it. Okay. Stand to the podium.

Go to the AMBO, sir, right there at the microphone. Please speak into the microphone.

Just tell us who you are and what you wanted to do.

Yeah, my name is Alexander Armatour. That's my wife, Patricia Nolley, over there. What we intend to do is sell three of the lots and build a single-family residence for ourselves on the other one.

What is the current zoning? That's R1 up there, is it not? It is R1. Is there anything else you want to tell us about this application, Mr. Arbiter?

Let me see. I have a proposal here. Let me see. I have a declaration of building restrictions and covenants here for the Nolly Cove Subdivision in the City of Natchitoches. And I don't know if I was supposed to get those notarized before I came here or if I could do that later.

Those don't have anything to do with us, and we do not enforce. building restrictions. Private building restrictions are between you and the three other people. That's a matter of contract law. All we are doing what's in our ordinance. If somebody's violating a building restriction that's also a building covenant that you have that's also a violation of our code, we get involved. But if you've got some deal where you won't Something done, you know. You can't have more than a three-car garage and somebody puts a four-car garage. We got nothing to do with that. That's between y'all and the neighborhood and what y'all have agreed to contractually. Have you all reached out to the utilities, the public works, to see if you have sewerage out there?

The only thing I can tell you is there was a house there before, and it had sewage in it. It's just all the typical utilities, right?

And there's a sewer line that runs down Knowledge Road to the subdivision back as well.

Is it a pressure line? Do you know that? Well, here's the issue. If you don't have sewerage, lot three is too small.

Okay.

You have to have 22,500 square feet typically to put in a septic system.

Okay, because there's a sewer line running down the property, I assume that we'd be able to tap into it.

Well, it wouldn't be running down the property. It's probably running in the street.

Yeah, yeah.

And so the point is if it's a gravity line, probably got no problem with you tapping into it. If it's a pressure line, y'all are going to have to put in a lift station.

Okay. That I can't answer you.

Well, I'm telling you, what happens is if we approve this, I'm just explaining these pitfalls to you so that you may have to come back and regroup if it's determined that that's not a gravity line or it's a pressure line that you don't want to spend the money putting in a sewer lift station to bring the sewer up to... If you don't have gravity sewer or not willing to put a lift station in, if such was required, you can't put a septic on three. It's not big enough. Okay. And then the other problems you've got, one, you can't, one may not be big enough either. It's big enough number-wise, but a huge chunk of it lies below the 122, which is the flooding servitude, and you can't put anything you can't put anything like sewerage below the 122 contour. Are you aware of that, sir? That the 122, you can't really build anything but a boathouse below the 122?

Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Because you own to the water's edge, but at the 122 contour, the city has a right to run the lake right up to 122. And so typically... You know, we tell people not to do something there. They do it at their own risk.

Yes, sir. I am aware of that.

That's the – I don't see really any problem other than that. I just wanted to point that out to you.

Oh, I appreciate it.

And, you know, you all might get out there. We might have to fall back and redo this. But just – they'll tell you how to get in touch with Public Works to make sure. That's the only thing I see. Does anybody else here to speak on behalf of the application of Nolly and Arbiter? Is anyone here to speak in opposition of the application of Nolley and Arminer? Let's move on to questions or discussion by Commission members. Does anybody see any issue with any of this other than the one I pointed out that may or may not be an issue? Does the Commission have a pleasure?

I move we approve it.

Motion by Dubois to approve. Second. Second by McAllister. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed like sign. That'll be final in 11 days. I'll sign the plat today. She'll get it signed. next week by the department heads and it will be available in 11 days assuming nobody appeals. You'll have to take the plant to the clerk of court's office and file it of record at the clerk's office and bring a copy back to her showing the date and time and map slide number of it for our records. I would strongly suggest you figure out that sewer thing because If you get it approved and I sign it and you file it up there and then you've got to do it again, then you've got to do – you've got to pay Mr. Stamey another $105 or $150 or whatever it is to record the plan. Okay. But I meant you've got 10 days. And it shouldn't be that – Public Works will probably be able to tell you that just right off the bat, if not within a day or so.

Okay.

But I don't know. You know, those – the problem may be is that sewerage might be behind those townhomes.

Well, I did ask a few years ago, and if you guys could tell me that there were free tie-ins along the road. You didn't mention anything about pressure, but we'll find out.

Yeah, I would just highly suggest it because we've got to do it. We've got to do it again, and it won't be that big of a deal. We just have to rejigger them to if you've got to put private septics in.

Okay.

All right. Thank you all. All right. Thank you. Let the minute reflect. Ms. Conde is now present. Roman No. 5, New Business, application by Ms. Suzette Ebro to rezone the following lot, 57 feet from the south side of St. Denis Street, by a depth of 102, east by Gahagan, south by People's Bank, west by Citibank and Trust Company, from B3 to B3 with VA. Reason is to establish a venue bearing municipal address 129 St. Denis Street, Exhibit No. 2, Council Person District No. 4. Madam Director, any comments or have you received any feedback from the public?

No, it was just questions asking what it was that they wanted to establish. Just to let it be known that because this property is in a historic district, 60% of sales would have to come from a restaurant and 40% from liquor. And the question was asked, well, all I want to do is a venue, but in order to have VA zoning, and you're in a historic district, you must be classified as a restaurant to have VA zoning.

All right.

And did you get any feedback from the public?

Just questions, wanting to know if there's any way around that. But because of our establishment for the historic district and the referendum, the only way that can be changed is if it's put to a vote citywide. And that vote can determine if it's not voted correctly, the city of Natchitoches can become a dry town, a dry city, if it's not voted correctly.

All right. Will the applicant or her designee come forward? Please tell us your name, ma'am.

Suzette Ebert.

Ms. Ebert, you heard, well, I read the application, and you heard the comments by the director. Is there anything you wish to add or tell us about this request for this additional zoning?

Well, my biggest question is, I know there's the Natchitoches Code, and I looked at that, and I read that, and I've had several people bring this to my attention, that when you look at the VA zoning, and I understand I'm in the historical district and the guidelines are different, but that it also says that it's restaurants, cafes, lounges, or private clubs. And my question is, how is that determined? And if we're wanting to have a venue with a private club membership component also, how would we go about doing that? And how would we handle that as far as not being a restaurant? And what ordinance is it, I guess, too, also that states that says you have to be a restaurant?

It's in the revised statutes.

So what does that mean?

That's in the state law.

But, okay.

And I just happen to know that because Don Kelly and I and Tom Murchison got the state law changed. The historic district was dry until about 94. Okay. Because of a referendum in 53? 53. 53. A citywide referendum that voted the entire city dry in 53. Okay. Okay.

So on, there's no special permit, and then if we're wanting to be a venue, there's not a way to have that without being zoned BA? Is that what you're saying? Just have alcohol. No, I'm just saying to have the venue to be able to, they would provide the alcohol. Is there not a way to do that either?

So what I'm hearing, she wants to open a venue without selling alcohol.

If that's not, we wanted to have alcohol, but if that's not the situation or we're not allowed to do that and there's a statute that states that, then yeah, I would want to have the venue where we don't sell alcohol, but they would be able to bring alcohol in, of course, for events. Isn't that a special permit? Isn't that what that's classified as?

So the BA is just for selling up alcohol. That's actually consumption on premise. Yeah, that's on consumption on premise to sell alcohol for consumption on premise. But to have a venue without any alcohol to allow them to bring alcohol in, from what the tax commission explained to me, that if they are not selling alcohol, then they wouldn't have any recourse on that. It's only if they were to sell alcohol.

I believe that's correct. I believe that is correct, is that BA is about selling alcohol beverages for consumption on premises. So I don't know. Now the question becomes is what has ATC going to treat that?

ATC is going to treat it based upon what the tax commission and what planning and zoning recommends. What planning and zoning stipulates is just we're giving them the rezone for BA. Once it gets to the tax commission, the tax commission is going to want to know what is it that you're selling, what is it that you're going to serve on premise. Is it going to be a high content or low content? And then they determine what type of license is issued. if they are given the BA zoning. And then if they're given the BA zoning, that's when ATC will come in to regulate to make sure that the product that they're selling is what they were licensed for. Was it low content on premise or high? And that's based upon is it the liquor, the consumption of alcohol, the liquor content, whether it be beer?

Do they need to go talk to Laura and find out what she's willing to do?

I don't think it's what she's willing to do. It's basically what the customers wanted to serve.

Well, if they, I mean, BA has to be there if they're selling it for consumption on-premises. Correct. Because we got package. Package was not broken, was not voted down.

Right. So package liquor, though, that again is determined by...

But that's a Class B. That's not a Class A license. Right. But I mean, you know, this is just about Class A licenses. So, I mean, what is the... What is our – I guess it's – I mean, this is – before engaging in the sale of alcoholic beverages of high or low consumption on the premises, I mean, if they lease it out, for lack of a better term, as a private party – And they're not selling it. Are they required to have anything other than, I guess, a certificate of occupancy?

Just a certificate of occupancy and saying that that venue or that owner or that type of business is operating as such. And if they don't have BA zoning, then they can't sell liquor.

No, but could people come in and bring their own liquor in?

Yes, from my understanding, yes, they could. They just can't sell it. They can't make a...

Okay.

And so what would happen, let's say that we allow them to do that. Not saying you do this. Yes, ma'am. So let's say that we allow them to say, well, because of what you're stating, you don't need B.A. zoning. We're not going to approve B.A. zoning. And we say we'll allow you to have your venue, right? Right. They come before planning and zoning. We give them a certificate of occupancy to let them have the venue. They don't have B.A. zoning. But let's say a resident... or someone gets upset, and they say, well, they're too loud at this venue. They're disturbing me. And then they decide to call the police. And when they walk in, you have a home bar, and you can see that someone is there taking payments for liquor. ATC comes in, the police comes in, it's an automatic shutdown on a fine.

Oh, absolutely. But I meant, you know, like stealing money from old people. That's against the law, too. I meant... You know?

I've got a question. She's talking about the venue and then she's talking about alcohol consumption on Prince. Aren't those two different?

They're two different things, but she's wanting both.

So don't we need another application for the venue and one another?

I think it's zone B3. It's zone B3. You have to have B3 zoning in order to have B8. So what she's wanting to do is rezone for the BA. The venue portion of operating, that comes to the administration portion of coming to the city of planning and zoning to do the occupational license and the certificate of occupancy or your certificate to operate. That's done through the tax commission once we finish our steps of inspections. And this is zone B3, right?

It is. So it's 24-hour, you know, subject to, I think, well, if they're not serving, if they're not serving, they're not selling alcohol on premises, just being consumed on premises, then they're not even subject to the 2 p.m. shutdown, are they?

They're not.

Yeah. So I guess if they're not selling it, does she even need to be here?

That's the question that we want to find out from her. Does she want to sell it or how does she want to operate? She wanted to sell alcohol on premise. She wanted VA zoning, but she's here now to find out what exactly can she do or can she not do? How can she operate? What would be the recommendation from the planning commission to how she wants to operate her facility?

I think it's clear that she's going to have to be a zoned to do that.

If she wants to sell alcohol.

If she wants to sell alcohol.

She has to be a restaurant or?

A restaurant.

A restaurant.

Can I ask her a question? Sure. Is that because, and I don't know, and that's what I'm asking. Even if it's private and you're not selling to the public, if it's a membership only, that doesn't make any difference? It doesn't distinguish.

That's what I was asking. It says selling alcohol. And this is actually one of the newer portions of our ordinance. This was put in in 1990. Most of this stuff is from the 50s. So this one was actually kind of thought through by people that are still alive versus some of the stuff that's in here that you try to look at.

Right.

But I mean, it talks about selling only. And so, you know, I know growing up they had some old clubs down here. There was one upstairs down there somewhere, but I bet it was there, because how my grandfather went to it. So it probably was, it was probably predated that referendum. But, because it was downtown somewhere.

Does that property butt up against the church right here? The property you're talking about?

No, sir. No, actually it butts up to my other business, which is a med spa. And there's no building on the other side.

So those apartments, isn't that connected to the church some kind of way?

There's some condos that are over there, but that's not connected to us either.

No, the only condo near Purdue is the H.M. Cook building.

Okay.

uh you're talking about that old williams building that's just apartments but it's within 300 feet of his church walter is that what you're asking yeah that's what i'm talking about well but but when don and tom and i got it passed we got it passed in the historic district and it said notwithstanding any other other any other rules including the 300 foot rules playgrounds, libraries, synagogues, and all kinds of other stuff. Because we got there and we started drawing circles, and if we didn't get an exemption for that, it would be about four places that could have restaurants serving liquor and something. It went through with that. It got approved. And of course, it only has to do, at the time, with places with national landmark historic districts. It doesn't say Natchitoches. But at that time, the only landmark historic districts were back in the French Quarter. Well, you know nobody in the French Quarter was gonna say anything.

So she's not gonna be doing any of the things in the VA to sell alcohol.

I mean, she can't sell alcohol with a B.A.

Unless she becomes a restaurant owner, so that's a mood issue. But she's a vending machine. So she can just stay like it is.

But I think the director's comment is appropriate. I mean, you know, something gets out of hand or something like that. I mean, even you have a damn tip jar up there, I think is, you know... Somebody's going to be filling out a police report at 1.30 in the morning.

Right. Well, even if we rezone it to B.A. and they do that.

Well, no, if they rezone it to B.A. and they can get a license to sell it, I mean, that's not an issue. But then again, if they had the license to sell it, they would be required to shut down at 2 o'clock and not reopen until 7 a.m. And then they have to also be at restaurants and those things.

Yeah. So, yeah, unless she's going to change her. approach to how she does it to utilize the venue. It's not on.

So you're saying if you can't sell alcohol on premises, you just want it to be a venue?

Yes, sir. If I'm not allowed to have the private membership thing, then, yes, I would just want to do the venue. I mean, we're not set up to do a restaurant at this point. Everybody that we are dealing with are all going to be, you know, just like the convention center does, we're going to all use caterers.

Except the convention center, they modified that statute to specifically exempt the convention center by name.

Right.

So, you know, they exempted it in the hotel as part of one of those economic things, which I didn't really agree with, but they talked to me about it after the fact. But in any event. Does anyone else want to speak? And I'm not cutting you off, Ms. Ebert. We'll come back to you if you want to ask some more questions. Does anybody else want to speak on behalf of the application of Ebert or Ebert? Does anybody want to speak in opposition to the application of EVA? Well, any commission members got any questions for Ms. EVA?

I just want you aware of the 60-40.

Yes, sir. Okay.

And one of the other problems is, Suzette, it's a real problem, and the people standing there two years ago didn't listen to me, is that the food has to be prepared on site. It cannot be brought in. It cannot be catered.

Right. I understand that.

And, of course, Onyx had a 10x10 kitchen. I said, how in the hell are y'all going to ever produce any food of any substance in a 10x10 galley kitchen? Especially if you're selling a $30 bottle of wine and a pair of $10 cigars, you've all of a sudden now got to sell $65 worth of bar food. That's a tall tale because it's unfortunately, and I'm not correcting the director, but it's not 60% food and 40% alcohol. It's 60% food. And of course, over there, they were selling cigars in addition to that. So cigars clearly are not food, so they were behind the curve on that deal. Most places don't. Most places and restaurants, they serve food or liquor. They're not a third option. But it's 60% food prepared on the process.

I think that's what the director said.

Okay. I thought she said 60% food and 40% liquor. And in the case of the...

Onyx, they never got it.

What's that? The fact they didn't understand that cigars were not food. So for every $10 cigar, they had to sell $12 worth of food. It's not just 60% food and 40% alcohol. But anyway, the point being that...

Yeah, I got something. So this would be primarily a private club?

Well, it would be a private venue because for weddings and baby showers and retirement parties and things of that nature, if I can't sell liquor and we can't do memberships, then that clearly is not going to be, it won't be considered a private club, no, sir. Okay. All right.

So what's the discussion about the commission? I mean, I'm unclear as to whether we even got it. I mean, based on this.

Do she even need our permission?

Well, she doesn't, but I mean, we have an application. I mean, we can just table it. You can just table it and see what you reach out. We can just table it and see what you can find out. I mean, we can. But I just don't see any way forward in the historic district without a restaurant permit like the director said. I just don't see it. But I don't have to have a venue zoning to be able to Well, you know, if she's just going to do the venue and sell it on premises, that's all taken. It's already zoned B3. There's no requirement for off-street parking because it's in the central business district. I mean, basically it's between the office and her. If she's already got the correct zoning and she's not going to sell liquor there, she doesn't even have to do anything more with us.

Is that correct, Madam Director? Mm-hmm.

So, I mean, you tell us, Ms. Ebert, do you want us to table it or do you want us to vote on it?

Well, I mean, if there's no point in it, then I don't really see, I mean, that's strictly whatever your guidelines are. Okay.

You have a motion to table, then?

I'll make the motion.

I'll second. Motion to table by Du Bois, second by Johnson. All in favor of tabling this motion? And we'll re-notice it if we take it off the table. We will not do it without notifying the public. It's not going to be just something somebody can come and make a motion to take it off the table.

Does this send her to the six-month deal? That's why I wanted to table it.

So that if something came up or something came up that we could look at and we weren't home on a six-month wait.

Okay.

So all in favor of tabling the motion of Ebert, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, like, sign. And you just reach out to them at the office and you might want to reach out to the lady at the tax commission. Yes, sir. Because she might be, you know, they've all got to work together there because she's the one who collects the taxes. She has to help sign off on the certificate of occupancy and the occupational license and all that kind of stuff. And you don't want to. get up to the last minute and realize that you've got to do something to make her happy. She's over there on 5th Street, East 5th Street, I don't know, behind City Bank.

Thank you, Ms. Houston.

Thank you, Mr. Ebert. New business subsection C, the application by the New Life Evangelism Center to resubdivide the following commencing at 1-inch iron pipe found for the northeast corner of Lot 3 of the Spanish Trail subdivision run north 80 degrees, 33 minutes, 1 second east at distance 373.29 feet to a DOTD concrete right-of-way monument. found on the southernmost right-of-way of Louisiana Highway 3278, being the point of beginning of the herein described track. Thence, along the southernmost right-of-way of Louisiana Highway number 3278, run north 58 degrees, 40 minutes, 3 seconds east, 63.65 feet to a set 1 1⁄2-inch iron rod. Thence, leaving the southernmost right-of-way of Louisiana Highway 3278, run... Yeah. Run south... 1 degree, 50 minutes, 13 seconds east of distance 4, 26.51 feet to a 1.5 inch iron rod set on the northernmost right-of-way of Louisiana Highway No. 6. Thence along the northernmost right-of-way of Highway, Louisiana Highway No. 6 run south 75 degrees, 51 minutes, 6 seconds west, a distance of 60.05 feet to a found 1.5 inch iron rod. Thence leaving the northernmost right-of-way of Louisiana Highway 6 run north 11 degrees, 50 minutes, 13 seconds west, 407.69 feet, back to the point of beginning to contain 0.575 acres, more or less being more fully shown as track one on the plan of survey. by Mr. Robert Linden Davis, professional land surveyor, dated May 6, 2026. The reason is to build a family life center, bearing municipal address 4810 University Parkway, exhibit number three, and council person district number five. We have a plat here of the proposed subdivision. Madam Director, do you have any comments or received any comments on this?

No, but I want to read what the survey notes state on the survey plot, that track one is being subdivided from track two and is to be added to the track line to the west, which is Kasachi Investors Incorporated, and track three is being subdivided from the track line to the east, Lime Kill Development Incorporated, and added to track two.

Okay, so what they're essentially doing is shedding the wings of the property, I assume, to raise the money to build the family life centers. So what we're really doing is ending up with track two. And one and three are going to the neighbors. Correct. And I believe that's sufficient to stop somebody from trying to buy track one or track three and do something on it. Is that the office's opinion on that? That's my opinion, to build a life center. So do you all understand what she's trying to do? And technically, only half of this property is in the city.

So it just is what it is.

But you see the city limits are scaled in about halfway through. Any comments from anybody from the public? No, sir. Is the surveyor or the pastor from New Life here to address this application? Would you please come forward and state your name, sir?

My name's Dennis Bjornberg, and I am the pastor of the New Life Evangelism Center. Essentially, what we have proposed to do is just a land swap, 60 feet thereabouts on the east side for 60 feet on the west, to just give us a little bit more room to build the building that we want to move forward to build. But now the existing land and buildings that we have is entirely in the city limits. We did do an annex when we built the church that we're currently in. Now I suppose if we do the land swap, then that portion on the, what is it, the west side, Would we need to then annex that into the city as well, I guess, just to keep all the property in the city? Am I correct in that? I would suggest so.

You know, you need to talk to the surveyor because he's got it scaled in. I don't know exactly where you plan to build, but if he's got the city of Natchitoches corporate boundary scaled in correctly, is your center going to be lined up with the church or is it going to be further back?

It's going to be adjacent to the first building, not the new church, but the first building. But that's closer to 6, isn't it? That one's closer to 3278.

Okay. Well, do you see the lot line pasture right there that he's got scaled in? I'm not saying it's right or not.

The old line.

No, it's right above track 2. Do you see that line that goes east and west? Right. He says that that's the city of the Natchitoches corporate boundaries. And so that means that everything below that is in the city and everything above that is not in the city.

Well, when we built the church, before we built the church, we did meet with the city to have that property annexed into the city.

Yes, because the city only annexed the road bed. When we originally did six going out there, the city limits literally were the limits of the right-of-way. So there was no property in the city limits as going out there until you got to the interchange and it bloomed out. So anybody along six, new six, that wanted to be coming to the city had to come back later and have it annexed in.

Okay. No, I think I see what you mean. That's not our new church. That would be the old building. Okay. That's... that's squared in, so the problem, yeah, the old building is part of it.

Now, what I'm saying, Richard, is that this is in the city from this point down, and above that is not in the city. Out to six. Now, this is six, okay. This is six, this is north, this is east, this is west. From this point on to Highway 6 is in the city limits. Everything above that over the 3278 is not in the city limits. Assuming that the surveyor has scaled it incorrectly. I guess my question is, your church is not right here. Is your life center going to be right here too?

I'm trying to get oriented here. The interchange is out here.

The city of Natchitoches is out here. And I'm standing at Highway 6 right here.

I guess that is supposed to be our church.

This is probably an old historical lot, and that's why it's being shown that way. That probably has no significance because it's showing the assessor map that way, and that was probably an old lot.

Yeah, the new building is going to be... It would be all six set back pretty much adjacent to the building that we've got now.

Probably right. Talk to Robert to find out. If you're already in the city, it makes sense. Assume you'll get Robert or somebody to stake out your slab for your new place so that you don't sneak over onto somebody else's property. It's a well-spent $200, believe me.

That's the reason for the land swap. We were getting real close to the property boundary. But this would give us the room that we'd be able to go ahead and move forward.

And I guess the office will take care of the inventory for parking?

Yes.

As part of the development? Mm-hmm. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions for Pastor Dennis? Is there anyone to speak on behalf of the application of new life? Is there anybody in opposition to the application of new life? Hearing none, is there discussion by commissioners?

No.

Do I have a, does the commission have a pleasure?

I move we approve it.

Motion by Dubois to approve.

Second.

Second by Ms. Conde. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. That passes. It'll be final in 11 days. I will sign the plat today. The director will get the department heads. at their next meeting next week to get them to sign all the places. And it'll be your responsibility, you or somebody on your behalf, to come get the final plat, bring it to Mr. Stamey's office at the clerk of court, record it, and bring her back one showing the date, time, and instrument number and slide number for your file.

Yes, sir. Did you have something you wanted to... You? Okay.

I've known Henry 60 years, 59 years.

He would have gotten my attention if he wanted to talk. All right.

All right.

So that's your responsibility, Reverend. Sure. All right. I appreciate it. Does that conclude our new business?

That concludes.

Any office activities?

No, not at the moment. I mean, besides you see Nichols is coming. What's that? Nichols, we finally got the sign. I saw that. We're just waiting on them to open doors.

That's good.

Yeah.

As a housekeeping measure, let's put the chairmanship on the deal next time. I know what's going to happen. Can we do an amendment? Go ahead and do it now. Do you all want to amend the agenda?

I move we amend the agenda.

Motion by Ms. DuBois to amend the agenda to add election of a chairman for this next term. Is there a second?

Second.

Let's go with Ricky Mack as a second. All in favor of amending the agenda, I guess to add To elect a chairman, y'all just pick whatever Roman numeral y'all want for that, Madam Director. All in favor of bending the, well, we did that already, didn't we? So I open the floor for nominations for chairman.

I nominate you.

All right. I second it. All right. Any other nominations for chairman?

No, sir.

You got it. So we have to vote on it. Congratulations. All in favor of electing me for chairman for another four years or until this mayoral term is over, say aye. Aye. All opposed, like, sign by coming and getting the gavel and taking it away from me and taking it over. Say nay.

We might have to do that.

Well, these ladies keep me in line at the office, so they're not going to let me get out too far. But no office activities other than Nichols?

No, that's it.

All right. Ms. Conde, number seven, you're in the hot seat over there. I don't know.

I'd like to make a motion to adjourn.

Motion by Conde to adjourn. Second by Johnson. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, like sign. Stand adjourned. Our next meeting is September the 8th.