Meeting May 12 to Discuss Proposed Twin Lakes Subdivision

By  | 

A public meeting to discuss the proposed Twin Lakes subdivision to be located on the north side of Denham Rd between White Oak Run Drive and Hidden Creek Drive will be held on Thursday, May 12 at 6pm at Indian Mound Baptist Church, 16755 Liberty Rd.  This proposed development will consist of low-density single family residential homes in accordance with the city of Central Master Plan.  The owner of the property and his engineer will be available to answer any questions from the public.


  1. Robby

    May 3, 2011 at 10:47 am

    Here we go again! Another “Lakes” development to further crowd the already stressed school system and infratstracture we have here in Central.


  2. Mike mannino

    May 3, 2011 at 11:04 am

    I would just like someone in power to explain to me why we need to approve another subdivision with over 1400 homesites already approved ? And if you can explain that, tell me where you are going to put all these kids ? There is a severe disconnect out here on long range planning , what we can afford to support, and what affect this development has on the number 1 priority out here, our schools.

  3. Another Central resident

    May 3, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    No worries. We can just keep renting the old Starkey Academy or start renting Central Private (if it closes). Better yet let’s bring in some T-buildings at a brand new school. I have a better idea let’s go out and ask for another $100M in taxes so the superintendent has a bigger checkbook to hire his friends instead of putting out jobs for bid.

  4. Concerned Citizen

    May 3, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    They could not get a subdivision approved across the road, so now they do this!? Low density housing? Is that another term for low cost housing? I just wonder. One thing we do not need out here off Denham Road is more traffic! This is rural folks. Keep it that way! Also, how interesting is it that they are holding this meeting in an out of the way place. Stinks if you ask me!

  5. Ray

    May 3, 2011 at 8:13 pm

    I have a great idea. Why don’t we save our citizens some money and lower the city’s new construction permit fees.

  6. Ray

    May 3, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    I have a better idea. Let’s make that effective immediately!

  7. resident

    May 4, 2011 at 7:32 am

    I’m about sick of all these subdivisions!!!! I wish someone would come sit on Hubbs Rd and try to turn LEFT onto Denham SAFELY…you cant see what’s coming with all the trees and tall grass and now they wanna add more traffic coming around the curve. THANKS CENTRAL!!!! Appreciate ya thinking about the safety of your citizens!!!!

  8. Mike mannino

    May 4, 2011 at 8:44 am

    @Ray what does permit fees have to do with this ? If you are implying thats lower fees are why we are seeing more subdivisions, I dont think thats the case ?

    Folks, the reality is, we cant stop people from doing things with their land if its in compliance with the ordinance’s. The problem is, recognition of the infrastructure needs that not only handle traffic but also address safety concerns. Secondly, there is a real problem that is going to hit us with school capacity.I dont know but its something we need to ask, can we turn down developments based on lack of school capacity, and infrastructure needs we cant afford ? I dont know the answer but we better find a way to slow this train down. The only silver lining to this is that rural property, which I’m fairly certain this is, requires at least one acre lots. Dont know how big this tract is but if its say 80 acres, by the time you figure roads, drainage, medians, etc., you may be looking at 50-60 houses. Still, subdivisions like this popping up all over start to add up as far as load on the city.

  9. Concerned Citizen

    May 4, 2011 at 9:39 am

    Mike, I agree with what you are saying about people having the right to develop their own land. I do think that is is important though to ask questions of these developers/land owners when they propose developments. Questions regarding traffic studies, drainage studies, what type of housing, how many houses are we talking about and what size lots. A while back they tried to get approval for a development next to Crystal Place that would be equal to Amber Lakes. That didn’t fly. Also, have they talked to the people in Hidden Oaks and White Oaks to see how they feel about this. I would be quite suprised if they had done any of the things that I have mentioned.
    I sincerely hope that this will be a really nice development that will enhance this area, but I just don’t trust that this will be the case.
    Oh, and one more thing. You say the siler lining is that this is rural community….well, if we keep flooding our rural area with development, there won’t be any more “rural area” in Central. That is one of the main reasons I moved out here!

  10. Another Central resident

    May 4, 2011 at 9:46 am

    Majority of the main routes in Central are state routes. It is the states jobs to fix the roads so lets develop every last square inch of Central. The state will make sure Central is top priority. If it only takes 6 months to do a simple overlay of approx. 3 miles sure the state will widen all the state routes in Central within a reasonable time.

    This is another perfect example of putting cart before the horse. Plans to improve infrastructure should have been in place long before the building of new schools.

  11. resident

    May 4, 2011 at 9:47 am

    Mike, I agree! This is a rural piece of land, and I’d say around 50 acres, give or take. It sits between White Oak Run and Hidden Creek Dr. But even if they put 40-50 houses in there, that adds at least 100 more cars and up too 200 +/- more kids in the schools, which like you said, is already overcrowded before it is finished being built. They need to think about what toll its gonna take before they decide to let it fly…And I hate to say this, but I feel that the Administration is ONLY seeing dollar signs when someone wants to build something around here.

  12. Ward

    May 4, 2011 at 10:16 am

    Does anyone know the difference between low-density housing and high-density housing?
    “Low density residential zones” are locations intended for housing that include a lot of open space. These zones are meant for a small number of residential homes.

    Do you ask your neighbors how they would feel if you build a shop on your property?

    50 houses will not add 200 kids in the school. I believe the formula is 1.6 kids per household. 50(1.6)=80

    The meeting is not out of the way. It is in close proximity to the proposed location to accommodate the concerned population.

    Not defending or disputing…just saying.

  13. resident

    May 4, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Oops, sorry Ward. Even if it is just 80 kids, that’s still 80 more than the schools can handle…I just think that they need to think REAL hard before allowing anymore residential developments anywhere in the city before the roads AND schools can handle more. I know that if approved, it will be built whether neighbors like it or not, but other things need to be done BEFORE allowing another neighborhood.

  14. Mike mannino

    May 4, 2011 at 11:33 am

    Believe me, I moved out here to get away from whats coming and I wish they wouldnt build another house. But I’m a realist, its going to happen, we just need to keep the pressure on about using the schools as the controlling factor. I dont plan to vote for another tax because we didnt limit development to what we could afford to support. I am actually quite impressed with the master plan as it does limit rural properties to these low density type developments and commercial to a few nodes. The missing piece though is rate of development or what infrastructure, including Schools, needs to be in place before approving a development. The way it is today, no major (collector) road improvements nor school capacity figure in. Thats why I think we have a strong case to say stop until we figure out where we put these kids.

  15. Ray

    May 4, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    Mike, if slowing housing growth is what your trying to accomplish, higher permit fees and one time impact fees for sewer, water, and streets etc. would help. That way the person decides if the sacrifice is worth the reward to live or develop in Central. The city can collect something for the impact the new resident or development creates. I realize the city doesn’t collect fees but that can be changed.To me this would be less controversial than a board or committee trying to decide whom, what, where and when someone is worthy to develop or build in the city even though they follow the guidelines of the master plan. We can’t put a gate around the city with a fire marshall, only allowing entrance after someone else exits. As for school enrollment numbers, every year we lose an average of 300 to graduation. I think all cities would love to have controlled growth, but Is such a scenario possible without causing the stunting of growth and watching it leave for neighboring cities?

  16. Mike Mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 8:02 am

    Its a tough subject Ray. You make some good points, but I just keep dwelling on the main reason we started this city, a quality school system. To me, everything else should center around that. If we can come up with a model that shows X population will increase tax revenues enough to expand the system, I’m more comfortable. Some of what you mention is absolutely correct. Anything that we do, including permit fees, that keeps the quality standards at a high level, it will control growth. I certainly dont have the answers on this one but its worthy of discussion among all of us to come up with a strategy.

  17. Another Central resident

    May 5, 2011 at 8:40 am

    I lived in a city in a different state that was very similar to Central. This city was dealing with the same issues that Central is facing today. Fastest growing suburb to a major city. Also, ranked as one of the larger cities in the state based on population. The city administration had to make a choice on what to do. Do you raise more taxes on your citizens and keep controlled growth or do you do you allow every square inch of your town to develop so you increase your tax collections coffers. They decided to develop, develop, develop….

    Infrastructure was on the back burner. This area was filled with a lot of state and county routes. City officials had made it clear they wouldn’t spend one dime to improve infrastructure on non city routes. So growth was out of control with little to none infrasture inprovements. Before we had moved back to Central traffic had become a nightmare and was only going to get worse.

    This is the same direction Central is heading. Some infrastructure is on the horizon but not enough local funds to make all the necessary improvements. City is full of state and parish roads. Development is starting to explode with little relief in site. All taxing revenue is now leveraged on building the school system. People in Central are not going to pass any additional taxes for infrastructure improvements also throw in we are still tied with City/Parish government with a tax hungry Parish President that keeps introducing more taxes even though every new attempt has been voted down.

    So in order to feed the machine, Central officials must allow as much growth as possible and add increased strain to the current infrastructure to collect more property taxes. This is a paraphrase from the mayor and councilman in the previous town I lived in, “If we don’t allow development our city will die”.

    Next, the school board will be crying because schools are over crowded and didn’t expect this much growth.

  18. Mike Mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Absolutely resident ! Imagine if the economy wouldnt have tanked in 2008 and the housing bubble burst. It would have been worse and its already terrible.

  19. Google

    September 17, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    Remarkable things here. I’m very glad to see your article.
    Thanks so much and I’m taking a look forward to touch you.
    Will you kindly drop me a mail?

    My page – Google

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *