A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Durham Springs approves rezoning of three lots on Myrtle and Cornett to allow two-family duplexes

August 25, 2025 | Denham Springs, Livingston Parish, Louisiana


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Durham Springs approves rezoning of three lots on Myrtle and Cornett to allow two-family duplexes
Durham Springs — The Durham Springs City Council on Aug. 25 approved an ordinance amending the city zoning code to rezone three lots at Myrtle and Cornett streets from R-1 (single-family residential) to R-2 (two-family residential) to permit duplex residences. The ordinance was identified in the record as an amendment to Section 1.02 of Article 1 of the city’s zoning ordinance (City Ordinance 1001), referenced as RZ-456 and requested by Bridal Brooks.

Sean Hylton of Fairbank Associates spoke for the property owner and described the parcel configuration: three lots (two fronting Myrtle and one on the corner facing Cornett). Hylton said the two Myrtle lots are a little over 100 feet of frontage each and the corner lot is about 74 feet. He said adjacent zoning includes R-1 nearby and commercial zoning (C-2 and C-3) across Myrtle; Planning & Zoning considered the request and recommended approval by a unanimous vote recorded as 6–0. The council opened and closed the public hearing; no members of the public registered opposition during the meeting.

Councilmember Lamb/Liam Williams moved to close the public hearing; Councilman Poole seconded. The council later moved to adopt the ordinance as published; the clerk recorded affirmative votes from Gilbert, Liam Williams and Poole and the motion carried. The ordinance changes the zoning classification to permit construction of two-family duplex residences on the reconfigured lots; the meeting record does not include building plans, infrastructure commitments or a development timetable. The council did not attach supplemental conditions or require additional public hearings in the meeting’s record.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee