Livingston Parish planning commission recommends denying high‑density rezoning along LA‑447; approves several smaller rezones

The Livingston Parish Zoning Commission on June 4 heard a string of public hearings and votes on multiple rezoning requests, ultimately recommending denial of a high‑density residential rezoning along LA‑447 while approving several smaller rezoning requests elsewhere in the parish.

Residents packed the public hearing for case 25‑19 (parcel 0411256), which sought to rezone agricultural land to R‑2. Applicant David Brown said he had revised plans to remove residential driveways onto LA‑447 and add commercial frontage as requested by planners. “We was here… Y'all had requested me to eliminate the residential driveways coming out on 447,” Brown told the commission.

Neighbors urged the commission to reject R‑2 because of heavy traffic and limited infrastructure. Monique Hibbs said the route already bears heavy daily use: “There are 34,000 cars that go up 447 North per day,” and urged commissioners not to add higher‑density housing until road improvements are in place. Dan Garcia, who said he has lived on Arnold Road for 10 years, warned that new development without parks or wider roads could place children and bicyclists at risk.

Planning staff noted the applicant had revised the frontage to commercial and reminded the commission that an R‑2 designation would exclude mobile homes and that final engineering and subdivision review would occur through planning. Commissioners discussed DOTD plans for a roundabout and referenced state funding and an $88 million highway project they said is planned in the area; several commissioners said the roundabout work could reduce the current congestion but that timing is uncertain.

After discussion, the commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the AG→R‑2 and its C‑1 fronting portion on condition of map/subdivision approval; the motion failed on roll call (commission recommendation: 3 yes, 5 no). The companion motion to recommend C‑1 for the frontage portion likewise failed by the same margin.

The commission approved several other rezoning requests. Case 26‑36, an applicant request to lower a four‑lot parcel on LA‑42 from R‑2 to R‑1, was approved by unanimous roll call, a change commissioners said aligns with the parish goal of reducing density in selected areas.

A separate application (case 26‑37) to change a parcel from R‑1 to R‑1.5 — and an extended discussion about the proposed Unified Development Code (UDC) family‑partition rules — generated the meeting’s longest discussion. Commissioners debated UDC language that would permit family partitions with limits (a 3‑lot maximum and a 21,780 sq ft / half‑acre minimum was discussed in the meeting transcript). Some commissioners and members of the public said the draft wording could unintentionally restrict how family property is passed to heirs; staff and commissioners said the UDC language is still being revised and will return to the commission. The rezoning motion for the applicant was approved by majority vote.

In the Jubin Court/Jubin Crossing area, representatives for property owner Mike Roblin requested R‑2→C‑1 for lots adjacent to an existing commercial corridor. Neighbors raised flooding and drainage concerns and questioned road capacity. Planning staff (referred to in the meeting as “Scooter”) said drainage studies, retention requirements and a 20% off‑site flow reduction would be required at the planning stage and that privacy fencing standards apply; commissioners approved the recommendation with one abstention.

The commission also considered an R‑1→C‑1 request at a roundabout location (case 26‑41). Commissioners and residents expressed safety concerns about permitting a gas station or other commercial use so close to the roundabout. The commission voted to recommend denial, citing traffic and safety issues.

What happens next

The Zoning Commission issues recommendations; final decisions go to the Livingston Parish Council. Several items approved by the commission still require subdivision mapping and planning‑stage engineering (drainage studies, right‑of‑way coordination and developer commitments) before any construction can proceed. The UDC family‑partition language discussed at length will return to the commission for further refinement.

Votes at a glance

- Item 5 (Adopt minutes, 05/07/2026): Approved by voice/roll call.
- Case 25‑19 (AG→R‑2 / AG→C‑1 front): Commission recommendation — failed (R‑2 and C‑1 motions failed on roll call; recommendation to deny majority).
- Case 26‑36 (R‑2→R‑1, LA‑42): Approved (unanimous).
- Case 26‑37 (R‑1→R‑1.5): Approved (majority; commissioners debated UDC family‑partition provisions).
- Case 26‑39 (R‑2→C‑1, Jubin area): Approved (7 yes, 1 abstention) — will require planning review for drainage/fencing/roadwork.
- Case 26‑410360 (R‑2→C‑1 adjacent parcel): Approved (7 yes, 1 abstention).
- Case 26‑41 (R‑1→C‑1 at roundabout): Commission recommended denial (unanimous yes to deny on roll call).

Key quotes

“Y'all had requested me to eliminate the residential driveways coming out on 447,” said applicant David Brown as he described revisions to the proposed development.

“There are 34,000 cars that go up 447 North per day,” said resident Monique Hibbs, who urged the commission to wait until traffic improvements are implemented.

“If they put a bunch of concrete over there…where's the water gonna go?” resident Brock Davis asked when developers and commissioners discussed drainage and retention on a site adjacent to Jubin Crossing.

Planning staff said required drainage studies, retention and parish planning review will apply at the development stage, including a 20% off‑site flow reduction requirement for new impervious surfaces.

Reporting note

This article draws directly from the commission’s public hearing record and roll‑call votes. All quotes and tallies in the article are attributed to speakers or to the meeting record. Where figures or phrasing in the transcript were unclear (for example, some dollar figures cited in a brief reference to state capital outlay), the article uses cautious language and notes that engineering, subdivision approval and council review remain required before any development proceeds.