June 20, 2023: Coverage of the City Council’s special meeting to discuss the Sucette Harbor project
By Ernest A. Burguières
Ernest A. Burguières is a Mandeville attorney who formerly served as District III Councilman. Mandeville Daily is honored to publish Mr. Burguières’ column with permission which is a combined reporting of the goings on in Mandeville government with his personal commentary.
I think these events are getting more interesting. People are starting to reveal themselves in ways that I don’t think they imagined.
The evening started with Cara Bartholomew, Director of Planning for the City of Mandeville reiterating something that her later comments show that she does not believe; the Council can accept, reject or modify Sucette.
First problem, which ought to be a big problem that only Jason Zuckerman and Jill McGuire seem to be aware of; the exhibits, plans and drawings they have are not current. How can you possibly consider a proposal in which the variables are constantly changing? This should have been finalized at the Planning and Zoning stage where Council would be reviewing a finished product. There was no finished product to review. Whose fault is that? This project went through the Planning Dept. and then to Planning and Zoning for months. What was accomplished? What questions were answered? What questions weren’t answered? Does anyone even realize how bush league this is?
Then Chairman Rick Danielson outlined the Succette topics for the evening: outlined the Sucette topics for the evening:
- Marina use
- Location of hotel
- Density
- Height
- Parking
- Traffic
The Marina
The Marina property is not under consideration but the design, build and operation of the marina on a separate parcel is part of the current proposal. Huh?
In response to Jason Zuckerman’s question about lapsed use (of the marina) Liz Sconzert, the City Attorney, unequivocally stated that once it was a marina it will always be a marina. Period. What about lapse of use? Sconzert maintains it was used as a marina last in 2018. My recollection is that it had not been used as a marina since Hurricane Katrina almost 20 years ago. Just a because a boat may have been parked in the water in Parcel U does not mean it was operating as a marina. Did it have any occupational licenses? Did it pay any sales tax? Did it have a utilities? Did it sell any fuel? Did it remove and effluence? Did it have any paying tenants? Most everyone knows that this harbor had a silting problem before Katrina and lack of maintenance made it virtually unusable.
The bottom line is that even though Parcel D and Parcel U are owned by the same entity only Parcel D (the land) was before the Council. This despite the fact that pretty much all of the drawings and plans submitted to the city are so imprecise that each parcel overflows into the other. Some of Parcel U is on land and contains pieces of Sucette and vice versa. How can the city make decisions on one parcel that have an effect on another parcel that is not under consideration? How can the Council make a decision with such imprecise drawings? Why didn’t Planning and Zoning take this up? Should it be referred back to Planning and Zoning?
Then, a bit of a bombshell. Jason Zuckerman was asking why Parcel U just wasn’t included? He also asked why the marina aspects of Parcel U would not require the review of a conditional use permit? Parcel D includes a lot of features and functions for a marina that is not part of the project and doesn’t really exist anymore. Apparently Cara Bartholomew, Director of Planning has the discretion to require that it go through a conditional use review instead of just applying for an administrative permit with no public hearing. So, Jason asked her if she would require them to go through a conditional use review. Silence. Why? Are you not aware of how controversial this project is and the City’s track record with managing marinas in the east part of town?
There is no information in the conceptual plans about what business the marina office will and will not do. There was vagueness about boat sales and boat repairs. We were initially told that there would be no fuel dock and no effluence removal facilities. Now, there might be both, especially since the CLURO kind of requires it. We also now learn Sucette expect only maybe eight (8) slips to be rented by Sucette residents, the rest (close to 100) would be rented to Mandeville area residents. Wouldn’t this add to the parking pressure? Kind of makes you question what Sucette is trying to do, and why.
The Hotel
The 80+ room, 108,000 square foot hotel that would be bigger than anything between Mandeville and Covington.
Jill McGuire opened the questioning regarding the event center. I, like many people, believed that the event center was a separate building from the hotel that would also entertain weddings with a capacity of over 200-plus people. Confusion reigned. It turns out, or maybe it doesn’t, that the hotel would have a ballroom in its primary building. Or maybe it was a separate structure near the hotel. I do not recall that the question was ever answered. Well in all fairness to Sucette it was not fair for the Council to try and rely on their current drawings.
Then Jason Zuckerman brought up the issue of compatibility. Mariner’s Island, the single family condos across from the 100′ marina entrance was maybe 150′ from the event center. How is this compatible, or fair, to the Mariner’s Island residents, many who are older, who sought out the location because it was peaceful? And, how is it compatible funneling all of this through the narrow Antibes streets?
The Right of Passage/Servitude
This is a feature that is tied to the land that pre dates Copeland’s ownership. When the manmade marina was dug out one of the conditions was that there had to be unfettered access by the public from Mariners Blvd. to the Lake. This is a strip of land that was surveyed and recorded with the Clerk of Court in Covington so that everyone would be on notice of its existence and location. Up until the prior council meeting no one, including Planning and Zoning in their hearings mentioned it. In fact, Planning and Zoning member Nixon Adams, its longest serving member, must have thought he was being generous and enlightened by persuading Planning and Zoning to include a public right of way to the Lake on the eastern border of the property. Nixon, it already existed on the western side. In any event, it was such a significant feature back in the 1998 case study and permit for Al Copeland, sr. that the Planning Department at the time objected to part of Copeland’s plans that showed encroachment on the right of way by some parking spots. Back then their plans were more complete or definite. The Planning Department was not so diligent today.
Density
The elephant in the room. We are told to just whistle past the graveyard.
In a surprise move Councilwoman Rebecca Bush asked Sucette if they could pull back just a little on the number of apartments. NO. According to Sucette, there economic model was so tightly would that it could not tolerate any reduction or change in the plans. Well, there you go. Sucette just admitted that their economic model could not tolerate a 10 unit reduction in apartments which means that it is not compatible with the area.
And then another bombshell. Jason Zuckerman read from an email that local architect, Vaughan Sollberger sent to the council with images showing that the Sucette density was exponentially greater than anything in the City of Mandeville. Then the bombshell. Cara Bartholomew, Director of Planning stated that the only use that is factored into her density calculation is the 200 unit apartment. The hotel is ignored. The event center is ignored. The marina is ignored. The restaurant is ignored. The Byzantine Mandeville CLURO ignores a majority of the people and uses to make you believe that this is a “low density” project that Sucette claimed in their mailer. How stupid are you? We shall see.
Citizen Terri Hamilton asked why a moratorium could not be issued on this project until all of these inconsistencies are resolved involving current dilemmas with marinas. Not going to happen. The train has left the station.
Local attorney Kevin Vogeltanz asked why the Sucette matter was not broken up in to two matters; the re-zoning and the conditional use permit. Cara Bartholomew, Director of Planning and Liz Sconzert, the City Attorney both agreed that the property was already properly zoned and therefore did not need to be re-zoned, despite the fact that the Ordinance 23-16 specifically requests that the property be re-zoned. Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?
Conclusion
This brings us to our conclusion. I can remember when I started highschool there was an extracurricular called debate. In debate you would take one side of an argument one day, and then be expected to take the opposite side the next day. Law school was similar. You learned that there are virtually no cases that are so black And white that the opposition doesn’t have some merit. With Sucette I am afraid that Cara Bartholomew, Director of Planning and Liz Sconzert, the City Attorney have talked themselves into believing, beyond any reasonable doubt, there is only one answer to this Sucette issue. This despite the fact that almost everyone is aware of numerous inconsistencies in the Mandeville CLURO. Last night more of the public started voicing their sentiment about Bartholomew and Sconzert by openly criticizing, mocking and deriding them for their comments that would have been expected from the Sucette attorney, Paul Harrison. In a way I feel bad for Bartholomew and Sconzert. They are so absolutely convinced that their position is the ONLY answer that any attempt to contradict that position is taken as a personal attack. They are stuck in the weeds and can’t figure how to get out.
As city agents they should not take a position on this project. But by insisting that this project is 100-percent appropriate and that no opposition is legitimate they are taking a position, they are advocating, for Sucette.
Maybe the City Council ought to hire independent counsel?


2 thoughts on “ERNEST BURGUIÈRES: The circus does not fail to amuse”