Live Oak council tables zoning change after residents object to duplex on quarter-acre lot

The City of Live Oak City Council on a motion tabled consideration of Ordinance 15-31, a proposed zoning amendment that would allow up to two dwelling units on a roughly one-quarter-acre lot, until the council's June meeting.

The item drew multiple public comments during the hearing. Resident Angie Cochran told the council she and her neighbors prefer that the parcel remain single-family: "We would prefer to keep it single family versus a duplex." Resident Lynn Sweat said she worried the city is becoming dominated by duplexes: "It sounds to me like we're coming up with Live Oak becoming a big duplex county." Joseph Carroll criticized the scale of the proposal, saying, "This lot is apparently just a quarter acre. This is gonna be the smallest duplexes I've ever seen." These remarks were delivered during the public comment portion of the hearing.

Planning staff explained how the city's land-use policy and zoning work together. Staff member George said the existing assigned land use permits up to eight units per acre; on a quarter-acre parcel that density equates to two units, so the property could be developed either as two single-family units if they can be arranged on the lot or as a duplex. George added that a residential-office designation could allow a professional office with living space but that commercial standards (parking, drainage, buffering) would likely prevent such uses on a parcel this small.

Council discussion emphasized two competing considerations: neighborhood character and the city's broader housing needs. One council member summarized that the council must "balance the need for places for people to put a roof over their heads, versus what's out there available." The council also discussed the procedural route for denying a zoning change: denial must cite one or more of the 16 criteria set out in the city's land development regulations; otherwise, the planning board's finding that the request met requirements can carry legal risk if the owner challenges a denial in circuit court.

The council had earlier failed to approve the ordinance on final reading; the transcript records that Councilman Campbell voted in favor while three other members voted against final approval. After that outcome, a council member moved to table Ordinance 15-31 for further study and to bring related information from the landowner back in parallel with staff analysis. The motion to table until the June meeting was made and seconded; a roll-call in the transcript records Ralph Robinson voting yes and Jefferson voting yes. The full final roll-call tally for the table motion is not specified in the transcript provided to this article.

The item remains under study; council members asked staff to provide additional information and to coordinate any follow-up with the landowner so the council can consider the request alongside the applicable criteria from the land development regulations.