Council denies short‑term rental at 400 Parkway, approves six other rezones

The Natchitoches City Council on Jan. 13 denied an application to rezone 400 Parkway to allow a short‑term rental but approved six other zoning changes that include multiple special exceptions for short‑term rentals and several residential rezonings.

The decision followed nearly an hour of public comment and council discussion focused on whether the proposed use would change the residential character of Parkway Drive. Councilman Patrick "PT" (council designation PT) moved to adopt Ordinance No. 046‑2024 (400 Parkway) but there was no second; a later motion to deny the application, made by Councilman Nielsen and seconded by Councilwoman Laura Smith, passed 4–1.

Why it matters: Council members said the city’s recently adopted ordinances require them to weigh the “character of the surrounding area” when deciding short‑term rental exceptions, and several residents told the council they fear safety and neighborhood character impacts if short‑term rentals proliferate on Parkway Drive.

Council members and residents debated whether the presence of three existing short‑term rentals elsewhere on Parkway should change the outcome. The applicant, Cissy (Sonya) Ross, told the council she lives full time at the property and said weekend rentals would be infrequent and limited to six guests. Neighbor Janet Flynn submitted a written letter in support of Ross; other nearby residents, including Greg Burke and Rhonda Leach, spoke in opposition citing privacy and public‑safety concerns and referencing a recent out‑of‑parish criminal matter that involved an Airbnb.

Council reaction was mixed. Councilwoman Washington Eli emphasized careful, case‑by‑case consideration of each application and noted how the city’s ordinance defines character in neighborhood terms. Council members who voted to deny said the majority of the immediate subdivision lacked short‑term rentals and that residents’ concerns about preserving a long‑standing residential character outweighed the applicant’s arguments. Councilman PT, who voted no, argued that the property owner pays taxes and that the presence of other short‑term rentals on Parkway reduces the grounds for denial.

Votes at a glance

- Ordinance No. 046‑2024 (400 Parkway) — Rezoning for R‑1 special exception to operate a short‑term rental — Motion to deny carried 4–1 (Eli yes, Nelson yes, Smith yes, Harrington yes, PT no). Outcome: denied. - Ordinance No. 041‑2024 (97 South Drive) — Rezoning to reopen a gas station/convenience store and related liquor‑license procedural item — Adopted unanimously 5–0. Outcome: approved. - Ordinance No. 042‑2024 (301 Williams Ave) — Rezoning (site specifics in agenda) — Adopted unanimously 5–0. Outcome: approved. - Ordinance No. 043‑2024 (126 North Street) — Rezoning from R‑2 to R‑1 with special exception for a short‑term rental — Adopted unanimously 5–0. Outcome: approved. - Ordinance No. 044‑2024 (307 Williams Ave) — Rezoning to R‑1 with special exception for short‑term rental — Adopted unanimously 5–0. Outcome: approved. - Ordinance No. 045‑2025 (932 2nd Street) — Rezoning (site details in ordinance) — Adopted unanimously 5–0. Outcome: approved. - Ordinance No. 047‑2024 (401 Jefferson Street, historic district) — Rezoning to R‑1 with special exception for short‑term rental — Adopted unanimously 5–0. Outcome: approved. - Ordinance No. 048‑2024 (424–425 Demizier Street) — R‑2 to R‑1 special exception to operate a short‑term rental — Adopted unanimously 5–0. Outcome: approved.

Discussion vs. decision: The council clearly separated public comment from its formal votes. Council members repeatedly said they must reference the character of the immediately surrounding subdivision when assessing short‑term rental exceptions; where a subdivision already contains bed‑and‑breakfasts or rental properties the council said approval is more likely. The 400 Parkway application failed because councillors concluded the subdivision’s character did not include short‑term rentals.

Context and next steps: Council members and staff mentioned that property covenants recorded at the courthouse remain an option for neighbors who want permanent limits in their subdivisions. The applicant may return to the council at a later date; the council noted an application that fails or dies can be brought back under the city’s procedures.

Ending: The council’s actions leave short‑term rental policy in Natchitoches governed by case‑by‑case council decisions and by any private covenants neighbors pursue; several residents said they plan to discuss covenant options with legal counsel or neighborhood groups.