Council denies rezoning request for Heritage Lane property after residents, commissioners debate spot-zoning risks

The Livingston Parish Council on April 24 denied a rezoning request (case 25-O4-24640) to change a four-acre tract on Heritage Lane from agricultural to R-1 residential. The planning department and a majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval, but council members and residents debated whether the change would constitute spot zoning and whether it would encourage higher-density development in parts of District 9.

Zoning administrator Scooter Keane and surveyor Ross Kinchin, who represented the property owner, told the council the owner bought the four-acre parcel before the parish’s zoning map was adopted and wants to subdivide the site to separate an existing mobile home and create at least one additional lot. Keane said utilities exist at the site but that current agricultural zoning requires a minimum three-acre lot for new divisions; changing to R-1 would allow one-acre lots on the site.

Council members raised multiple concerns. Councilman Erde (also identified as Councilman Irby/Erde in the record) said approving the rezone would open a door to similar requests across the parish and worried it could set a precedent; "I'm worried about opening a door here," he said. Planning Commission chair Cathy Long told the council the commission recommended approval because existing lots on the approach road already contain smaller residential lots and the staff felt the request was a continuation of nearby residential development rather than an isolated spot zone.

Public commenters and commissioners disagreed on benefits and intent. Surveyor Ross Kinchin said the owner intended to separate the mobile home from the remaining acreage and might sell part of the parcel; he emphasized the owner purchased the land prior to zoning adoption. Other residents and a planning commissioner flagged concerns about incremental density and infrastructure capacity.

A motion to grant the rezoning was made and seconded; the motion failed on a council vote. The recorded yays were Councilmen Watts, Taylor, Wascom and Goff; nays included Councilmen Shavers, Sandiford, Mangus, Coates and Erde. No formal remedies or conditions were adopted; the rezone request was denied and will not proceed without a new application.