Duplex project raising objections

Construction of two duplex buildings on a former hayfield in Schriever is resulting in tension between the property owner and long-time residents of the quiet neighborhood.

Two nearly completed dark yellow buildings, slated to become rental properties, stand at 302 Horseshoe Road, on land owned by offshore worker Russell Every since 2001.

Neighbors are critical of what they see as potential crowding, and of behavior by people doing work for Every’s contractor. They have also expressed dire predictions for the future of the property and the neighborhood when the project is completed.

Every, an entrepreneur who grew up in nearby Johnson Ridge and makes his primary living working offshore in the oil and gas industry, maintains that he is addressing a need for housing In a parish that should be welcoming his project, that he has followed all regulations and requirements to date. He sees himself as one more landowner seeking to turn mostly fallow land into an investment opportunity.

“I thought about selling it,” Every said of his land. “But I felt like I had the right to do what I wanted with it.”

Construction of the duplexes caused alarm among neighbors, who began attending Terrebonne Planning Commission meetings when the project appeared on its agendas. Neighbors also appeared at a July 25 Terrebonne Parish Council meeting to express their displeasure with the project, patiently waiting nearly three hours to address officials.

“This is four families coming in,” said Schriever resident Kathy Trosclair, one of five residents to speak against the plan. “No regulation for parking, no regulation for garbage storage, for you know they are going to have toys, bikes, barbeque pits and everything. So where are they going to store all of this?”

After Trosclair and others had their say, council members asked parish planner Chris Pulaski to brief them on the situation, and he recited what he knows of its history.

An original request, he said, sought approval for construction of six buildings housing twelve units.

That plan, Pulaski said, was not approved because it would have resulted in greater population density than regulations allow.

“The maximum density that they could have would be nine, so from that standpoint the regulations worked,” said Pulaski. “They were not allowed to have their residential building park there.”

After further discussions, the contractor settled on building two duplexes on the site, but Pulaski said the site plans are not yet in order.

“During that process, we had a site plan for the residential building park that didn’t match the site plan for the building permits. There were a lot of discrepancies,” Pulaski explained. “So, we’ve actually put a hold on any inspections right now on that property, so that he can get this straightened out. The contractor’s got to get that straightened out.”

Continued tabling of issues before the commission by Every’s contractor, Pulaski said, is a cause of concern.

“The regulations are working the rules are in place, we are enforcing,” Pulaski said. “The idea about these items being tabled again and again and again by the applicant, there needs to be some sort of control there. Otherwise these things could just go on forever really.”

Pulaski noted, as had the residents, a problem involving service availability at the site. The Schriever Fire District had sent a letter to the planning commission that resulted in a requirement that Every have a fire hydrant installed.

Parish President Gordon Dove asked Pulaski if any rules are in place requiring developers to inform adjacent property owners of construction plans.

After being told that no such regulations exist by Pulaski, Dove indicated his support for such a measure.

“Okay, I think we need to draft that, especially in the instance like this,” he said, drawing applause and some cheers from the Schriever residents, who numbered more than a half dozen. “It’s something we haven’t come across, you know so, it’s something that needs to be addressed. When they are going to build this many on a tight area, that’s something that needs to be definitely addressed and that’s something we can do as a council. Thank ya’ll for bringing it.”

Every and the residents have never communicated directly about the project, according to accounts from both sides. But interviews last week with the residents indicate strong opinions about the duplexes and the landowner.

“If he had only built a house, probably nobody would have said anything,” said Henry, seated on the bed of his classic El Camino. “I guarantee you in five years that’s going to be a cesspool, …but you know the guy doesn’t give a sh–.”

Henry, who teaches scuba diving, has complaints that began almost from the inception of the building.

Workers, he said, were stealing water from his property. A port-a-potty for workers, he said, was tipped over and not righted for days.

He and other residents also expressed concern about exacerbation of an existing drainage problem that has plagued the community for decades. Residents also predict that the project will cause devalutation of their homes.

These were minor to his larger concerns. Henry said the construction of these apartments would devalue all the neighboring properties and exacerbate a drainage problem which has been afflicting the community for years.

The water from the surrounding area bottlenecks at the culvert in front of his property and also floods his shed in the back.

Henry also said that the fire district wrote a letter about difficulty in reaching the second of the two duplexes and that this endangered Henry’s house.

 Every, who is not a professional developer and has never attempted building housing before, expressed surprise that his duplexes are causing such a stir, and that they became a topic of discussion at a council meeting. Controversy, he said, is the last thing he wants.

“I never was told there would be a meeting,” he said, asking where council meetings are held.

The duplexes were not on the Parish Council agenda. Neighbors of the property spoke during the time allotted for public comment, which does not require addition to the formal agenda.

The plan currently in motion, he said, is a simple one. He had considered having his daughters live in one of the duplexes, and renting out the other to pay for the taxes.

“I just kind of wanted to give them a spot over there,” said Every, who is frustrated by the many official requirements he has encountered as well as neighborhood ire.

 “Give me a price tag,” he said. “They can buy me out and I’ll leave.”