Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates mobile-home waiver policy and denies temporary waiver in contested Beachwood Ridge case
Summary
Council members debated removing a long-standing mobile-home waiver list from the code and heard a contested hardship waiver request for a manufactured ADU in Beachwood Ridge; council declined to grant a short-term waiver after divided votes and procedural discussion about enforcement.
The Livingston Parish Council spent significant time Thursday debating changes to a parish ordinance that restricts mobile and manufactured homes in named subdivisions and considering a hardship waiver request for a manufactured auxiliary dwelling on a lot in the Beechwood Ridge subdivision.
Councilwoman Sandifer and others urged caution and proposed tabling a broader change to the ordinance to allow additional legal review and to ensure zoning and subdivision restrictions are not placed in conflict. “If you take this out, then everyone will have to come to you for a waiver,” the planning director warned, describing how the current waiver list has been used to avoid duplicate review of previously granted determinations.
The council then considered a hardship waiver request from Asa Faulkner for a small, HUD‑rated auxiliary dwelling unit placed at 8562 Beachwood Drive. Neighbors opposed the waiver in a public hearing, citing subdivision restrictions, potential impacts on property values and concerns about septic and sewer capacity. Beachwood residents argued the structure is a manufactured home under the parish ordinance and therefore restricted in that named subdivision.
Mr. Faulkner, who said the structure is intended as an on‑site auxiliary dwelling for an elderly family member, told the council he had relied on the parish zoning that allows accessory dwelling units under 800 square feet and that the unit was placed and hooked to his house’s utilities before the permitting office declined to issue final permits because of the named‑subdivision restriction.
Council discussion turned to enforcement and practical consequences. Several council members and staff said their offices often see manufactured homes placed and connected before permits are obtained, and that compliance staff have limited enforcement options under current ordinances. Council members who opposed the waiver said removing the restriction without a clear, legally vetted replacement would invite more applications and undercut subdivision protections.
A motion to grant a time-limited hardship waiver (first for 90 days, later amended in debate) failed after a roll call; council members who voted against the waiver cited legal risk and enforcement limits. A subsequent motion to reconsider a prior vote was made and failed to change the outcome. Members agreed to send the broader waiver-and-zoning question back to committee for legal review and a proposed ordinance revision.
What happened next: Councilwoman Sandifer moved to table the proposed code change removing the waiver list and asked staff and legal counsel to draft a clearer ordinance that reconciles zoning, subdivision covenants and accessory‑dwelling rules; the council set the matter for further review and committee work to avoid unintended legal exposure. The Faulkner waiver request was denied (failed motion), and councilmembers asked staff to draft enforcement language and to consider fines or other remedies for post‑installation violations.
