Livingston land use board asks commission to deny zoning text change, requests rezoning of four east-side parcels

The Livingston consolidated land use board voted unanimously at its March 11 meeting to recommend the City Commission deny proposed text amendments to Chapter 30 of the zoning code and asked the commission to revisit rezoning four east-side parcels, three owned by Livingston Healthcare and one owned by the Watson family, back to light industrial.

The motion, moved by Chair Bailey Goodwin and seconded by Frank O'Connor, concluded a lengthy discussion in which board members, staff and members of the public debated whether changing the zoning definitions and allowed uses would create an unintended "island" of restrictions and whether deed restrictions on donated hospital land constrain future industrial uses. Goodwin moved that the board "recommend the City Commission deny the text amendment as proposed and request that the commission revisit the map and zone the four parcels on the east side of Livingston ... to light industrial." Frank O'Connor seconded the motion; the board recorded six affirmative votes and the motion carried.

Planning Director Severson told the board the text amendments were drafted after the City Commission adopted map changes in December so the code's use table would align with the commission's intent. "Staff was directed by the city manager who was directed by the city commission, to once the maps were adopted to make the necessary changes," Severson said, explaining the timing gap between a map resolution that took effect immediately and text amendments adopted by ordinance that have a later effective date.

Several board members raised concerns about the pace and scope of the map change that rezoned parcels near the hospital from light industrial to industrial in December. One member who opposed the text changes summarized research into "spot zoning" and said the December map action appeared rushed and created a more restrictive island around the hospital parcel; that member said, "I ultimately do not support the text changes and think that the commission should consider reversing the decision to zone that as industrial." (Board roll-call and speaker attributions are based on the meeting transcript and roll call.)

Public commenter Jim Watson, who identified himself as a member of the Watson family that previously deeded land for the hospital, told the board that some deeds include deed restrictions he described as "exhibit B." Watson urged the board to consider those deed restrictions and said he was checking title records. "In those deeds ... are the deed restrictions that my father put on the ground," he said.

Staff clarified that some deed restrictions and covenants run with title and are privately enforceable but are not enforced by the city; staff reported they were unable to find "exhibit B" in the annexation resolution materials included in the meeting packet and advised the board that development agreements and private covenants can supersede or constrain certain uses regardless of zoning.

Board members also discussed practical policy options. Forrest Kreizmann suggested exploring a hospital overlay zone to explicitly define appropriate medical-campus uses without changing the broader industrial designation. Several members said they preferred adjusting only the parcels in question (the three hospital parcels and the adjacent Watson parcel) back to a light-industrial designation to avoid creating a spot-zoning appearance.

After discussion the board voted to recommend denial of the proposed text amendments and requested the City Commission revisit and consider rezoning the four east-side parcels to light industrial consistent with the board's stated concerns. Planning staff said the recommendation and the board's reasoning would be included in the staff report that goes to the commission; the board also discussed drafting a letter for the commission packet and encouraging public comment at the commission meeting.

Next steps: the board's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Commission for consideration; staff indicated the commission could consider map changes at its meeting in April (exact scheduling to be set by the commission).