Livingston Parish Zoning Commission forwards several rezoning recommendations to council, debates R1.5 reactivation and Brown Road gas station

The Livingston Parish Zoning Commission on a regular meeting considered a series of rezoning requests and sent most of them to the Parish Council with favorable recommendations, while members spent extensive time debating the possible reactivation of an R1.5 zoning category and hearing residents oppose a proposed convenience store with fuel pumps on Brown Road.

Why it matters: The commission’s recommendations will go to the Parish Council for final action. The R1.5 discussion affects how small family partitions and mobile-home allowances are handled across multiple districts; the Brown Road item raised traffic-safety and land‑use questions that residents say could affect a large, growing area.

The commission moved forward favorable recommendations to the council on multiple individual rezoning requests: case 2523 (LA Highway 42, R1 to C1), case 2524 (Cochrane Road, R2 to C1), case 2526 (LA Highway 16, R1 to C1), case 2527 (Jacks Road, AG to R1), and two separate requests (case 2525-series and case 2529-series as discussed) where commissioners recommended reclassification to R1.5 contingent on the Parish Council reactivating the R1.5 category. One applicant withdrew earlier in the agenda.

Several items drew little public comment and were described by staff as bringing zoning into conformity with existing development. For example, commissioners heard that portions of Cochrane Road already contain small businesses and that the requested commercial zoning would align official maps with existing land use; the commission then voted to forward that request to the council with a favorable recommendation.

The commission spent the most time on two related matters: a Nan Wesley Road request (case 2525, parcel 0555920) where property owners sought to split an acre‑and‑a‑half lot to allow a family member to move onto part of the parcel, and a separate subdivision request (case 2529) where heirs asked to divide a 1.9‑acre lot. Commissioners and members of the public repeatedly returned to the same constraint: the current code does not permit a half‑acre minimum (R1.5 is inactive), and R2 would prohibit mobile homes. Commissioners ultimately voted to recommend rezoning those parcels as R1.5 to the council — but only on the condition that the council reactivate the R1.5 category. Commissioners said that approach would give the applicants the lot size they seek while avoiding immediate nonconformance issues tied to mobile‑home rules.

During the Nan Wesley discussion, Lynn Dupree, who identified herself as the property owner, described the request as a family partition: "...we're trying to put, split it up so that there'll be 3 fourths of an acre where my house sits and 3 fourths of an acre that we're gonna sell to our friend who's going to help us take care of the property mainly," she said. Rick Trout, the prospective buyer, told commissioners, "it will never be more than the 2 houses there, period, at least for the rest of my life," and said the request was time‑sensitive because he has an approved home ready to move onto the site.

Commissioners repeatedly flagged precedent concerns. One commissioner warned that granting an R2 rezoning alongside a waiver to allow a mobile home would prompt similar requests elsewhere: "There will be plenty of people standing in line waiting for their waiver for their mobile home in R2 as well," the commissioner said.

The commission also heard a lengthy, well‑attended public hearing on case 2528 (Brown Road, parcel 00466250, R1 to C1), where the applicant seeks a light commercial designation to build a convenience store with fuel pumps. Multiple residents spoke in opposition, citing a history of crashes on the nearby curve, litter, noise, and concerns about criminal activity. Goodifredo Cabiar, who lives on Brown Road, said: "A convenience store is only gonna make it worse. The road's too narrow." Another resident, Jennifer Richardson, said that within a half mile there are already two gas stations and raised concerns about prior criminal incidents at those locations.

The applicant’s representative, Yousef Skyeke, described the development team as willing to work with DOTD and parish requirements and said permits and traffic studies would be required: "...we are gonna have to face it at the permit level," he said, adding that integration with any planned roundabout and DOTD traffic mitigation would be part of a permit review. Parish counsel and commissioners identified additional practical concerns: underground fuel tanks and potential future right‑of‑way acquisition for a roundabout could complicate or increase the cost of future road improvements.

After public comment and discussion, a motion to recommend denial of the Brown Road rezoning was put before the commission. Commissioners recorded their votes on the motion during the meeting; the public record in the transcript shows the roll call votes taken and the chair's subsequent procedural remarks about council consideration.

What comes next: All favorable recommendations and conditional recommendations will be transmitted to the Parish Council for final action. For the two matters tied to R1.5, commissioners explicitly made recommendations contingent on the Parish Council reactivating the R1.5 zoning classification; if the council does not reactivate 1.5, the applicants will need to pursue alternate remedies or come back to the commission. The Brown Road applicant will face standard permitting and DOTD review if the council considers any change; residents said they plan to continue expressing safety concerns to the council and to DOTD.

Votes at a glance (as recorded on the transcript) - Case 2523 (LA Hwy 42, R1→C1): Motion to approve (mover: Dana; second: Engler). Recorded roll‑call: Engler yes; Clemens yes; Guidry yes; Wex/Wax yes; Dana yes; Burns yes; Fairs/Farris yes. Chair: "that 1 will move on to the council for their final approval." - Case 2524 (Cochrane Rd, R2→C1): Motion to approve (mover: Clemons; second: Engler). Recorded roll‑call: Engler yes; Clemons yes; Guidry yes; Wack yes; Dana yes; Burns yes; Ferris yes. Outcome: forward to council with favorable recommendation. - Case 2525 / Nan Wesley (R1→R2 request; parcel 0555920): After public comment and discussion of mobile‑home and servitude constraints, commissioners voted to recommend R1.5 contingent on the Parish Council reactivating R1.5 (motion by Clemons, second Engler). Recorded roll‑call on contingent recommendation: Engler yes; Clemens yes; Guidry yes; Wax yes; Dana yes; Burns yes; Miss Perez yes. Item to be forwarded to council. - Case 2526 (LA Hwy 16, R1→C1): Motion to approve (mover: Burns; second: Dana). Roll‑call: Engler yes; Clemens yes; Guidry yes; Weck/Wack yes; Dana yes; Burns yes; Fairs yes. Forwarded with favorable recommendation. - Case 2527 (Jacks Road, AG→R1): Motion to approve (mover: Burns; second: Engler). Roll‑call included an abstention for one member; overall recommendation: forward to council with favorable recommendation. - Case 2528 (Brown Road, R1→C1 — convenience store with fuel pumps): Extended public opposition. Motion to recommend denial made by Commissioner Wax (second Dana); roll‑call votes were recorded in the transcript and the chair made procedural remarks about council consideration following the vote. The transcript captures the recorded roll‑call and public opposition; the matter may be considered further by the Parish Council. - Case 2529 (Beau Sejour / parcel 0100321, R1→R2 to allow division between heirs): Applicant had received a council waiver to subdivide in a named subdivision; commissioners recommended rezoning to R1.5 contingent on the council reactivating R1.5 (motion by Clemons; second by Farris). Recorded roll‑call: Engler yes; Clemens yes; Guidry yes; Wax yes; Dana yes; Burns yes; Farris yes. Forwarded to council as a favorable recommendation contingent upon R1.5 reactivation.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized process constraints: R1.5 is currently inactive in the parish code and cannot be granted directly by the commission; recommendations contingent on council reactivation were used as a procedural path when applicants sought lot sizes between current R1 and R2 standards. Commissioners also noted that subdivision waivers, mobile‑home allowances, and family‑partition remedies may offer alternate routes depending on council action.

The commission closed the meeting after routine procedural items and scheduled a planning meeting to follow. The Parish Council will receive the commission’s recommendations and any contingency language when it considers the items on its agenda.

Ending note: The meeting record shows widespread local engagement on Brown Road and repeated requests from residents that traffic and safety conditions be addressed in tandem with any zoning changes. Commission members asked the council and staff to consider the broader impact of any R1.5 reactivation, including possible precedent effects across multiple districts.