OPINION: Conflicting statements by city officials revealing, troubling

City Attorney admission that building, structures on Parcel U means amendment required to avoid conditional use permit

Planning director contradicts City Attorney with denial that buildings on Parcel U

Site plan shows restaurant building, outdoor seating on Parcel U

Editorial

The Sucette Harbor ordinance as written, including its latest exhibits, would require amendment in order to pass legal muster, so says City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert.

Yes. She said that.

Not in so many words, but she said it all the same. It was the kind of revelation whose significance might have slipped by the casual observer. Mandeville Daily didn’t catch it until after watching the video from the June 20th special meeting for the third time.

What’s more astonishing is that minutes later, Director of Planning and Development Cara Bartholomew would state the exact opposite — on the record. And she and Sconzert sit right next to each other.

Sconzert and Bartholomew have maintained throughout this process of public meetings that Parcel U is “off the table” when it comes to requiring a conditional use permit, even though some council members and others have been jumping up and down in frustration because the latest site plans clearly show buildings on Parcel U. (Critics also allege that Parcel U was taken out of commerce years ago, having its boat slips and bulkheads demolished, hence requiring a conditional use permit for that reason as well. Sconzert has a different legal argument to combat that complaint.)

Until June 20th, anyone who questioned the proposal was told that Parcel U is just a marina, and doesn’t require a conditional use permit. As if they were willfully ignoring the property line between Parcels D and U as well as the developer’s drawings clearly showing buildings on Parcel U.

Nothing to see here, we were told.

But with what Sconzert said on June 20th, everything has changed. So much so that mysteriously, Woodward Interests, the Sucette Harbor developer, abruptly asked for more time to revise something which triggered a previously scheduled meeting for June 29th to be canceled, er, rescheduled, that is.

Sconzert didn’t come right out and say that there is a legal issue with Ordinance 23-16, mind you. She is an attorney after all.

What she actually said was, there are two “issues” at present.

Sconzert said the first issue was that there are indeed structures planned for Parcel U (which would require a conditional use permit) but that this is a minor glitch because it can easily be remedied by the City Council, presumably with an amendment specifying that all building structures must be contained within Parcel D and not on Parcel U. (Parcel D has a conditional use permit as part of the ordinance.)

Really? Then why didn’t they draw it that way from the beginning? These facts admitted to by Sconzert were just as true five months ago as they are now.

This means that the ordinance as written with its current exhibits and site plan, would indeed require a conditional use permit for Parcel U.

And if you take that to its logical conclusion, the ordinance needs to be amended one way or the other: either to specify that no buildings can be on Parcel U, or to add a conditional use permit for Parcel U.

The latter would in effect throw the whole thing back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Rest assured, they don’t want that to happen.

Here are Sconzert’s exact words:

“There’s a little tiny parcel of land that goes along the wedding garden, and there’s a little tiny diagonal corner where the restaurant is set to be. The question is, is because the restaurant is sitting on — as in the conceptual site plan — because that restaurant is sitting on possibly Parcel U and Parcel D, should Parcel U be here (and require a conditional use permit)? And I think that’s just kind of a, that’s a situation where you guys can ask that. Like are you… does it intend to stay on Parcel D and it’s probably, because it’s conceptual, it could be moved and limited to Parcel D (via amendment).”

She’s clearly saying Ordinance 23-16 has a problem, and it must be fixed, one way or the other, if it is to be adopted. There is no other way to parse her statements.

Sconzert even reiterated this assertion in an exchange with Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman moments later when he cross-examined her, probably because he too was astonished at what he had just heard:

Sconzert: “There is a little part of Parcel D and Parcel U, that there’s a restaurant sitting on it.”

Zuckerman: “In the site plan we are being asked to approve, there is a restaurant shown that is over the property line in another parcel (Parcel U), that’s correct, along with outdoor seating?”

Sconzert: “Yes.”

Wow. And if that wasn’t enough, about five minutes later Bartholomew threw out a real head-scratcher.

Zuckerman asked Bartholomew if the city would require a conditional use permit for Parcel U (because previous statements by Sconzert implied such an action is at the discretion of the planning department head).

Bartholomew responded: “So at this point, all the plans that we have seen are only showing the docks on Parcel U. I haven’t seen a plan or anything that shows anything else other than the slips on parcel U and the bulkheads.”

Is she kidding? Did she not hear Sconzert moments earlier say the exact opposite and admit to buildings being in Parcel U on the current site plan? Had Bartholomew not seen the site plan by now?

And why would the developer — if they were working with Sconzert and Bartholomew from the get-go — submit an ordinance and site plan that has such significant problems baked into it, that they are now quite literally having to go back to the drawing board to fix it with only weeks to go before a vote?

In baseball this is called the unforced error. The only question is, whose error?

-30-

---

Related Links:

Sparks fly over property lines, conditional use permit details as council members tangle with city officials at special meeting

Sucette Harbor special meeting rescheduled after delay in updated plans

ERNEST BURGUIÈRES: The circus does not fail to amuse

---