Commission declines rezoning near Livingston Hospital amid floodplain, industrial‑land concerns

The Livingston City Commission on Thursday voted to reject a proposed rezoning of two parcels near Livingston Healthcare from light industrial (LI) to mixed use (MU), after extended public testimony and questions from commissioners about flood risk, industrial land inventory and timing of updated flood maps.

The request (ordinance 3058) would have rezoned two parcels described in the ordinance as Tract 5B (about 331.29 acres in the application text) and Tract 1D (about 80.71 acres) along Applenglow/Helping Lane adjacent to the hospital. Planning Director Jennifer Severson told the commission that the consolidated land use board had recommended approval (6–0) and that mixed use zoning would allow residential development—multifamily, assisted living and workforce housing—that LI zoning does not permit. She also noted the parcels are outside the current 100‑year regulatory floodplain but do intersect mapped 500‑year (non‑regulatory) flood areas on current FEMA maps.

Why it matters: Supporters—among them Livingston Chamber representatives and hospital advocates—said the site is a logical location for assisted‑living and employee housing because it adjoins the hospital. Opponents, including residents and environmental advocates, urged the commission to wait for updated floodplain remapping now underway, saying the 2022 flood exposed risks. Several speakers also warned that rezoning would reduce the city’s limited light‑industrial acreage.

Floodplain and timing: Staff and the commission discussed a FEMA‑led remapping effort now underway; staff said draft maps are expected in roughly 14 months, with regulatory adoption possibly by the end of 2026. Planning staff said any development proposed after remapping would be required to meet floodplain permitting and mitigation rules in effect at the time a building permit or land‑use application is filed (including potential elevation or floodproofing measures).

Industrial acreage and taxation: Commissioner Willich and others asked how much light‑industrial land the city retains. Staff noted the city’s total land area and that approving the request would reduce LI acreage available for light manufacturing and related jobs. A question from the commission about current tax revenue returned that the subject parcels currently contribute minimal tax revenue (roughly $168 annually on the properties discussed). Planning staff said estimating future tax revenue would require details about construction value and final uses.

Public comment and outcome: About a dozen residents and stakeholders spoke. Common concerns were flood risk, the adequacy of notice to adjacent property owners, and whether rezoning was premature given pending code updates and new flood maps. Supporters argued the rezoning would allow needed senior and workforce housing near health care services. After discussion the commission voted to reject the ordinance on first reading.

What happens next: The zoning code rewrite now underway may offer opportunities to clarify definitions (for example, “institution,” “personal care center,” and “adult foster care” were debated) and the city will continue to require site‑specific review (traffic studies, floodplain permitting, building and fire code reviews) at the time any development application is submitted.

Quotes: Planning Director Jennifer Severson: "residential uses are allowed in mixed use under the future land use map and in our current code regulations." Dennis Glick (resident): “I would urge the city to postpone approval of the zone change until these new maps are available.”

Ending: The rejection leaves the parcels in their existing light‑industrial designation; proponents may reapply in the future or pursue alternative sites, and staff emphasized that any actual development would still be subject to floodplain rules and site plan review if and when a formal application is filed.