Planning commission unanimously recommends Livingston Parish Council adopt new Unified Development Code with prioritized amendments

The Livingston Parish Planning Commission voted unanimously June 23 to recommend that the parish council adopt a new Unified Development Code, while asking the council to review a prioritized list of amendments to clarify several disputed provisions.

The motion, approved by commissioners present, asks the council to accept the UDC as advertised and to consider follow-up amendments addressing concerns raised at the hearing. Commissioners and members of the public pressed for clearer wording on a fence color rule (Section 405.01), detailed family-partition language to protect multi-generational land transfers without creating loopholes for large-scale development, and a clarification of the replacement-official-zoning-map clause in Section 20203.

Marty Maelen, speaking on behalf of the parish land use council, urged adoption of the advertised UDC and post-adoption cleanups to avoid legal challenges tied to changing advertised language. "If we've advertised it the way it is and that's why it's important to pass it as it is," Maelen said, arguing that amendments can follow through the normal ordinance process.

Several residents voiced worries that some UDC provisions would impose burdens on small landowners. Carl Morris asked for explicit definitions for Class A and Class B mobile homes, saying he did not see those definitions in the copy he received. John Mangus, a resident, urged clarification of Section 405.01 on fence color, noting that the draft’s phrasing could be read to require nonmetal fences to match the color of adjacent buildings — an outcome he said would be unrealistic and costly for homeowners.

Parish counsel explained that language in Section 20203 about replacing the official zoning map is intended to allow replacement of a damaged or lost map but is not a vehicle for substantive zoning changes, which require ordinance procedures. Counsel recommended adding protective language and clear recordkeeping for the official map so the public can identify the legally effective version.

Commissioners also spent extended time on family partition provisions. Speakers agreed the commission should prioritize narrow, targeted amendments that allow legitimate family transfers while preserving subdivision standards and preventing exploitation by developers. Planners and counsel reiterated that subdivision requirements, such as minor subdivision thresholds and drainage studies, remain applicable absent a specific exception.

The commission directed staff to compile a prioritized list of recommended amendments and to advertise future hearings as needed. The motion recommending passage of the UDC to the parish council carried unanimously.

The planning commission forwarded its recommendation and the prioritized list of follow-up edits to the parish council; the council is the legislative body that would adopt the ordinance. No changes to the UDC were adopted during the planning commission meeting itself; the commission’s role was to recommend. The council’s next steps and timeline for considering the commission’s requested amendments were not specified at the hearing.