[{"_1":2,"_96":-5,"_97":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,84],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",7312062,"mediaKeyId","5342261-5fb27b873c03392236f293a23819d7a3","parentId",5342261,"title","Votes at a glance: Livingston Parish Planning Commission, July 8, 2025","audioSeconds",1137,"startMs",79000,"endMs",1216000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5342261-5fb27b873c03392236f293a23819d7a3&start=79&end=1216","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5342261-5fb27b873c03392236f293a23819d7a3/thumbnail_79000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/7312062/Livingston-Parish/Louisiana/Votes-at-a-glance-Livingston-Parish-Planning-Commission-July-8-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/7312062-3f78ec196e493cffa77f53cd8045ee3c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770777378&Signature=YGuGZ0jIYcvsTAtjSVM-UNN0EMby4NZE3QWJRT6WUO4raxIWTUPF~g4hVwubAHd4FgDYFf1zt81kbz2llS6Oi9I8FnPdn3JMTZIDbFtPPWPYl8hWuw8OkaBEq0C6aMOkbuMXBHqKlFLcWlSY~k64hmkN6ml08SKDMbzp~N2NiftKwISTD4y9YW2N6K0wwsjE7Y6bnegvjwGLmPGskOFrB5y~VSaWs5Xfg2zAHFY~9wt46SSxRJ-hHt7cpy8FNeQOTZDqFcyGG-f2mVjbf8hT5kGIah6WHNgO2VQYlXhBJhm7~zEVchg6ureToRDkN6rvJ1VMAxlsrPiX0jRoWHowvw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-09T19:51:28Z","article","The Livingston Parish Planning Commission voted on a series of resolutions, ordinances, site plans and waivers during its regular meeting on July 8, 2025. This roundup lists each formal action, the motion text where recorded, mover/second when on the record, and the roll-call outcome referenced during the meeting.

Why this matters: The votes decide which policy proposals move to the Parish Council, which projects advance toward permitting, and which items were delayed or denied. The commission recorded results by roll call for the items below.

Votes (itemized)
- Adoption of minutes, regular meeting dated June 5, 2025 — Motion to adopt minutes (mover: Wax; second: Clemons). Recorded roll-call: Engler — yes; Clemons — yes; Guidry — yes; Wack — yes; Dana — yes; Burns — yes; Farris — abstain. Outcome: adopted (yes votes recorded; one abstention).

- Master Plan: Recommendation to include a legacy drainage/ detention-pond plan in the master-plan update and forward materials to WSP (resolution to send proposal to WSP, mover: Burns; second: Engler). Recorded roll-call: Engler — yes; Clemons — yes; Guidry — yes; Wack — yes; Dana — yes; Burns — yes; Farris — yes. Outcome: recommended to WSP (unanimous).

- Economic corridor guidance (master plan): Motion to send the draft economic corridor language back to the Master Plan Review Committee for additional work (mover: Clemons; second: Wax). Recorded roll-call: Engler — no; Clemons — yes; Guidry — no; Wack — yes; Dana — yes; Burns — no; Farris — yes. Outcome: motion carried; item returned for further committee consideration.

- Ordinance (R-2 residential): Introduction/ recommendation to change R-2 maximum density and minimum lot width (change density from 4 units/acre to 3.75 units/acre and minimum lot width 60'→65', with side-yard language adjusted) — motion carried on roll call (Engler, Clemons, Guidry, Wack, Dana, Burns, Farris all recorded yes). Outcome: recommended for adoption with the stated amendments.

- Ordinance reactivate R-1.5 (rural single-family) with revised density/minimum-lot-size language: Motion to send to council with favorable recommendation including permitted mobile/manufactured home language clarified (mover: Burns; second: Guidry). Recorded roll-call: Engler — yes; Clemons — yes; Guidry — yes; Wack — yes; Dana — yes; Burns — yes; Farris — yes. Outcome: forwarded to Parish Council with favorable recommendation.

- Subdivision regulations (procedures for subdivisions with improvements, Article 5): Motion to table for one month to refine wording and related procedures (mover: Burns; second: Clemons). Recorded roll-call: Engler — yes; Clemons — yes; Guidry — yes; Wax — yes; Dana — yes; Burns — yes; Farris — yes. Outcome: tabled for one month.

- AT&T, French Settlement (site-plan waiver for monopole near Hwy 444): Motion to forward to council with a favorable recommendation contingent on receipt of notarized letters of no-objection from adjacent property owners and filing of those letters with the Clerk of Court (mover: Wax; second: Dana). Recorded roll-call: Engler — yes; Clemons — yes; Guidry — yes; Wack — yes; Dana — yes; Burns — yes; Farris — yes. Outcome: forwarded to Parish Council with the stated contingency.

- AT&T, Nickens Lake (site-plan waiver): Motion to deny (mover: Burns; second: unspecified on record). Recorded roll-call: Engler — no; Clemons — yes; Guidry — no; Wax — yes; Dana — yes; Burns — yes; Farris — yes. Outcome: motion to deny carried (5 yes, 2 no).

- MHP LLC preliminary site plan (US Hwy 190, manufactured housing sales lot): Motion to approve preliminary site plan (mover: Wax; second: Engler). Recorded roll-call: Engler — yes; Clemons — yes; Guidry — yes; Wax — yes; Dana — yes; Burns — yes; Farris — yes. Outcome: approved.

- Livingston Parish Fire Protection District 4 (Station 7 expansion, Walker South Road): Motion to forward with favorable recommendation contingent on required waivers (mover: Dana; second: Engler). Recorded roll-call: Engler — yes; Clemons — yes; Guidry — yes; Wack — yes; Dana — yes; Burns — yes; Farris — yes. Outcome: forwarded to Parish Council with favorable recommendation and waiver requirement.

- The Woodlands Phase 2 preliminary plat (US Hwy 444): Motion to approve preliminary plat (mover: Wax; second: Engler). Recorded roll-call: Engler — yes; Clemons — yes; Guidry — yes; Wax — yes; Dana — yes; Burns — yes; Farris — yes. Outcome: preliminary plat approved.

Notes on procedure and contingencies
- Several approvals were conditional on the applicant or carrier supplying additional documentation to the council (for example, notarized no-objection letters for adjacent property owners filed with the clerk in the case of the French Settlement tower). The commission recorded those contingencies during the roll-call votes.

Sources and provenance: Commission roll-call recorded on the transcript of the Livingston Parish Planning Commission regular meeting, July 8, 2025. For a concise list of motions and recorded tallies, see the meeting minutes and this article’s itemized list above.

Ending: Items that were tabled (subdivision procedures) or sent back to committee (economic corridor language) will return to a future commission meeting for additional review before the commission forwards further recommendations to the Parish Council.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","LPCExport 1","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of official motions and roll-call outcomes from the July 8, 2025 meeting of the Livingston Parish Planning Commission.","taxTitle","Livingston Parish, Louisiana","taxId",12941,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":44,"_45":78,"_47":79,"_49":50,"_51":80,"_53":81,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":82,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":83,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6706864,"Livingston Parish planning panel backs adding legacy drainage policy to master plan",1020,1099000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5342261-5fb27b873c03392236f293a23819d7a3&start=79&end=1099","/articles/6706864/Livingston-Parish/Louisiana/Livingston-Parish-planning-panel-backs-adding-legacy-drainage-policy-to-master-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6706864-12e750e8e8e4d19a01c4f050b5903f64/orig.mp4?Expires=1770777378&Signature=cIlXyIqRwpGxMdCT~Sn~Fco79FnIHxgeQjfmRSJaUir6zpMtH7CeyhvRbxr6wR1Y3I-Tap3vxPKe9kHgfgrrvLY~xD9DpmCUUMDE0p5oaFONsQOejLGqBaiB8stTfGBjtigfQY4Wpwe7LA6f9WXok7CNKUsk367mE4vvaxAi39Qvm1B6iSPe7vX2fDIRNUxJzhDUfqy5qys3zACqq9q~H~9seC2gQzTmM-WhG2eQjWb2AAuqU0wUpE6GRBLToLr-0d9enhlmioVl4acPSwMlCUUlOsFYIJHS5TFN~dDXZD07F0HqsFeRJE~hXEypNT9v7EE7c2IXMeRx1haqcm-A2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Livingston Parish Planning Commission voted July 8 to send a resolution asking that the parish’s upcoming master plan update include language directing review of legacy drainage issues such as aging detention and retention ponds and the question of ownership and maintenance.

The proposal came from Ralph Burgess, chairman of the master planning committee, who told commissioners the committee wants the new master plan to set out a path for addressing drainage problems in existing subdivisions. “Tonight, we have a recommendation to bring to you guys regarding legacy issues, regarding drainage… detention ponds,” Burgess said during the meeting.

The recommendation asks the master plan update team to add a section that would identify who owns and is responsible for maintenance — homeowner associations, individual property owners or the parish — and to create assessment criteria including pond type (wet or dry), whether civil engineering review is required, how long the problem has persisted, how many homes are affected and estimated remedy costs.

Commissioner Gerald Clemons, the motion’s author on the review committee, said the goal is to give future councils “a set series of rules” to defend decisions about which legacy problems to fix when resources do not allow fixing all of them. “We have to have a good reason why we fix this one and not that one,” Clemons said.

Residents and committee members urged the commission to treat the resolution as an introduction that would go to the master plan consultant, WSP, for inclusion in the comprehensive update. John Mangus, a resident who said he formerly served as an HOA president, stressed that some ponds perform pass-through drainage for other neighborhoods and that public health and safety reasons can justify parish intervention when HOAs lack funds.

Legal counsel Mike Irving explained the process: submissions to the master plan team will be incorporated into the draft; the draft will return to the planning commission as an advertised public hearing where commissioners could request changes. That process, he said, offers additional opportunities for public input and formal review.

After discussion about timing — the parish is already close to delivering a new master plan update — commissioners agreed the committee should transmit the material to the WSP consultant and the administration. The commission approved the resolution to send the recommendation to parish staff for submission to WSP. The roll call vote in favor included Burns, Engler, Clemons, Guidry, Wack, Dana and Farris.

The action establishes only a recommendation to the master plan update process; it does not itself change policy or create an enforceable regulation. The committee and staff said any specific requirements (for example, civil-engineering studies, funding sources or who can perform repairs) would be developed later and would follow required public‑hearing procedures.","The Planning Commission voted to send a resolution asking the master plan update team to include a new section on legacy drainage problems — notably detention/retention ponds and who is responsible for their upkeep — after hearing from the Master Plan Review Committee.",{"_33":85,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":86,"_41":87,"_43":88,"_45":89,"_47":90,"_49":91,"_51":92,"_53":93,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":94,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":95,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6706859,"Planning commission debates definition, density for interstate economic corridor",1188,1125000,2313000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5342261-5fb27b873c03392236f293a23819d7a3&start=1125&end=2313","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5342261-5fb27b873c03392236f293a23819d7a3/thumbnail_1125000.jpg","/articles/6706859/Livingston-Parish/Louisiana/Planning-commission-debates-definition-density-for-interstate-economic-corridor","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6706859-aa7a7c8a8b0d97ff9922cd44309a3efb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770777378&Signature=PVCfdLo2oZZ5t9Jb4kDMDjIwN9Aor925d5ONaaaEc2BGanAOLRWDqz7N9OYHTM3ljBYgMX6gLe8xkN8BLdSPAPSW4B1qV5OFa8ccgvYr6FXCtnm1D-W0gAoh8a~MoxWHSNVz8l6kd3h4O~NSN-TFTsnL-8JQ61r9nCYMsQGOsYzUi-GE8K5WyHlm52ke7som64CPTBTmvr3FlenMkdrhuEeXF8JgHhVaWH7Dtl53qoLZ~fxKI6XlN08pC9FkRAGDhjF~H0lb3fW9u2bkafG8rtuWJGh8QZXTTpdyOt8UdLXFJICO41fdlWDaJaQNrE9Lv5NolETNywvCmg2qfZj8DA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioners spent extended discussion July 8 on a Master Plan Review Committee proposal to refine the parish’s economic corridor — an area along I‑12 that review members want to define more clearly to attract jobs and infrastructure improvements.

Gerald Burns, presenting the committee’s letter, said the existing master plan lists what should not be allowed in the corridor but “does not say what should be in a corridor.” The draft proposal lists uses the committee would like to encourage or permit, including manufacturing, major warehouses, retail centers, training and technical colleges, industrial parks, and “high‑density” residential (townhouses, multifamily, garden homes) intended to house workers near jobs.

Several commissioners and residents pushed back on the emphasis on high‑density housing. John Mangus, a resident, said the commission should state a preference for job‑generating uses because in his view some high‑density residential development would not provide the sales‑tax base to support parish services unless it is mixed‑use. Commissioner Mike Dana and others favored mixed‑use (MU) language that would require a percentage of commercial uses rather than unrestricted residential density.

Commissioner Gerald Clemons and supporters argued the committee had vetted the draft and that delaying it risks missing the window to include the language in the master plan update. Other commissioners said more work is needed to avoid conflicts with zoning and future land‑use maps; one commissioner suggested clarifying garden‑home standards because the parish currently lacks an active zoning category for them.

Faced with divided views, Commissioners voted to send the economic‑corridor draft back to the Master Plan Review Committee for revision so the committee can address concerns about density, mixed use and language clarity. The motion to return the item passed on roll call; commissioners voting yes included Clemons, Wack, Dana and Farris; Engler, Guidry and Burns voted no. The action sends the item back for refinement rather than adopting corridor rules tonight.

The record shows the commission discussed process questions — whether to forward the draft now to WSP for inclusion in the update or to refine it first — and legal counsel confirmed the master plan is amendable and that the commission will have advertised public‑hearing opportunities on the update. No zoning changes or reclassifications were adopted at the July 8 meeting.","The commission split over how prescriptive to be in updating the economic corridor section of the master plan, with members disputing whether to emphasize industrial/commercial preference or allow higher-density residential and mixed use; a motion to send the draft back to the master plan review committee passed.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Livingston Parish Planning Commission, July 8, 2025

Livingston Parish planning panel backs adding legacy drainage policy to master plan

Planning commission debates definition, density for interstate economic corridor