Apr 12, 2013 15:56 Developers oppose 2-entrance subdivisions in Livingston Developers oppose 2-entrance subdivisions in Livingston BY BOB ANDERSON| Florida Parishes bureau April 12, 2013 Comments LIVINGSTON — The Livingston Parish Council put aside a proposal to require two entrances to new subdivisions after hearing developers describe problems with the concept. The council also postponed action on a motion to replace the attorney handling the council’s lawsuit against Alvin Fairburn Associates. The state doesn’t allow two entrances within 500 feet of each other for safety reasons, developer Sean Sullivan told the council. No other parish in the state has such a requirement, he said. Sullivan said people don’t want a second entrance to their subdivisions, and he is unaware of the lack of a second entrance being a safety issue. “This is a solution in search of a problem,” he said. Developer Craig Stafford said he has put several years of work into developing a 285-home, curb-and-gutter subdivision that would have underground utilities. However, it would be impossible for him to build the subdivision on Brown Road if the council adopts the two-entrance ordinance, he said. Stafford said his plans call for a boulevard giving access to the subdivision, but he has no road access to put in a second entrance. Councilman Jim Norred said the fact that his subdivision in Watson has only one entrance became a problem when a fire truck blocked the entrance and people couldn’t return home for hours. He said he wasn’t aware of the state’s 500-foot restriction on subdivision entrances and said the council will take any constructive help the public offers on the matter. Other issues coming before the council included: FAIRBURN LAWSUIT: Council members declined to act on a motion by Chance Parent to replace the council’s attorney, Chris Moody, in the Fairburn suit. In that case, the council has sued the engineering company on the grounds that the firm overbilled the parish for road-work planning. Councilman Ricky Goff said he didn’t see any reason to take action on the motion, adding that the parish needs to get closure on the matter. “My goal is to get this case solved,” Goff said. A speaker from the audience, Taryn Creekbaum, questioned Moody’s $175-an-hour fee and the $125-an-hour fee charged by Moody’s office staff. She said that amounts to $300 an hour. Councilwoman Joan Landry said Creekbaum’s figures are incorrect and that the two numbers can’t be added. When the attorney works on the case, the cost is $175 an hour, and when his staff works on it, the cost is $125 an hour, she said. That’s a better cost than the $250 an hour many attorneys would charge, she said. Creekbaum also said she thinks Moody has a conflict of interest in the case because Parish President Layton Ricks signs Moody’s checks and Ricks once worked for Fairburn. Moody said that if the council doesn’t have confidence in him that he would step aside on the case. The attorney said his goal is to bring the case to a close.