The Livingston Parish Council voted 5–4 on Sept. 25 to rezone a 27‑acre parcel at 35576 Old LA Highway 16 (parcel 0025494) from agriculture/commercial to R‑2 residential, allowing higher‑density housing development on the property.

Planning staff had recommended approval at the parish Planning and Zoning Commission and the item came to the council after that recommendation. The rezone request prompted a lengthy public discussion and a divided council vote. Councilman Ricky Goff moved to approve rezoning to R‑2; Councilman Watts seconded the motion. The motion carried 5 yeses and 4 nos on the final roll call.

Residents who live near the parcel urged the council to deny the R‑2 rezoning, saying the area’s roads and schools could not absorb more traffic. “We urge you to consider the long term well‑being and stability of our community and deny this rezoning request,” resident Linda Garafola told the council, citing property values and neighborhood character. Christie Guilford, another nearby resident, told council members that temporary mobile‑home waivers used after the 2016 floods should not be treated as permanent solutions: “Mobile home waivers were a good thing to do in 2016, but the flood is over,” she said.

Property owner Brian Fontenot spoke in favor of the rezoning. He said R‑2 would best suit his family’s plans and pointed to surrounding parcels he said were already zoned for higher density. He told the council he sought flexibility for his family’s future use of the land.

Council members voiced competing priorities in the debate. Opponents focused on traffic and public‑safety concerns tied to nearby schools and intersections; supporters said the property’s current designations looked inconsistent with surrounding land and that some form of residential zoning was appropriate. Legal counsel reminded the council that zoning decisions must be grounded in public‑health and safety findings and must not deprive property owners of an economic use of their land.

After discussion, the council adopted the R‑2 zoning change. The vote was close: the motion to approve R‑2 passed with five in favor and four opposed. The council did not include specific conditions in the motion; any subsequent development will be required to meet applicable subdivision, drainage and road‑access rules.

The parcel and surrounding area remained the subject of differing interpretations of the parish’s future‑land‑use maps during the hearing, and several council members expressed frustration about inconsistencies between mapped categories and on‑the‑ground lot sizes. Planning staff explained that some map categories (including a “mixed use” label discussed at the public meeting) include multiple zoning types and that applicants/owners may still need to present site plans for higher‑density development.

With the council’s vote, the ordinance amending the zoning for parcel 0025494 will proceed under the council’s normal ordinance process. Council members suggested there may be additional follow‑up between the property owner, planning staff and the affected neighborhoods to address traffic, drainage and school access questions.