The case for a conditional use permit for the ‘marina’
Editorial
During the last few City Council meetings where the Sucette Harbor project was debated, the City Attorney repeatedly insisted that the parcel of land where the marina will lie, does not need the City Council to approve a conditional use permit as is required for the rest of the property.
But some on the council – specifically Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman and District III Councilwoman Jill McGuire – seem to disagree with this interpretation based on their lines of questioning.
The crux of the matter is the working interpretation by City Attorney Elizabeth Sconzert of a section of Mandeville’s Comprehensive Land Use Regulation Ordinance, or CLURO.
Steel Man Argument: Sconzert’s case
Sconzert, along with Director of Planning and Development Cara Bartholomew, have maintained since the very beginning that a conditional use permit is not required for the marina parcel, but only for the parcel of land where the hotel, events center and apartment structures will lie.
The current ordinance only contains a conditional use permit for Parcel D, not Parcel U where the marina lies. The CLURO has a table of designated uses and procedures that apply to each according to their respective zoning districts.
CLURO Section 7.7 — Table Of Permitted Uses By Zoning District — is a big deal, and anyone who plans to build something in Mandeville is well aware of its implications.
According to the table, each designated use might require a procedure or special approval based on its zoning district in order to have something built.
See also:
Sucette Harbor plans revised to reduce scale, density, plus fix property line issues
For example, Parcel U is currently zoned “Planned District” or “PD” in the table, and the designated use “Marine Service *Marinas” (line 6.4.53) with that zoning requires a conditional use permit, so says Section 7.7.
However — and this is Sconzert’s contention — there is an asterisk after that designated use, which she says means a conditional use permit is not in fact required because there’s an exception for the designated use of marina.
According to the legend for the table (Section 7.7.2 – Use of Symbols in Table of Permitted Uses), the asterisk (*) means “Special Development Criteria” which directs the reader to Article 8 of the CLURO to see if there is a matching criterion.
Sconzert says there is indeed a matching condition at Section 8.2.3.9 “Special Marina Use Criteria” and she even quoted it verbatim at the last meeting on June 20th. In full, it reads:
“8.2.3.9(2b) – Repair of Non-Conforming Docking Structures. Provisions of section 4.2 Non-Conforming Provisions do not apply.”
There we have it. Section 4.2 does not apply. But what is 4.2?
Section 4.2 defines what legally non-conforming is. Basically, it lists a whole slew of conditions that allow a legally non-conforming parcel to be brought up to compliance and in such cases, they lose their permit to operate and generally need to reapply.
This is made clear in 4.2.3(9): “Abandonment or Discontinuance. When the use of a non-conforming development site has been abandoned for a period of six (6) months, regardless of any reservation of intent not to abandon use of the site, such site shall not thereafter be used, developed or improved until it is brought into conformance with the provisions of this Ordinance…”
And “provisions of this Ordinance” would simply mean they have to start over and apply for their use permit, according to the aforementioned Table of Permitted Uses at 7.7.3.
But remember, Sconzert is saying nothing in 4.2 matters. She is asserting that the “Special Development Criteria” of Article 8, as specified by the Table of Permitted Uses at Section 7.7.3, line item 6.4.53 “Marine Service *Marinas” renders 4.2 moot, because the developer is merely repairing existing docking structures.
Everything we’ve laid out here in this piece is Sconzert’s “steel man” argument, as if she were here making the case herself. No trickery.
But it is the opinion of Mandeville Daily that she is just plain wrong, and here’s why:
What does it mean to be a non-conforming marina?
Section 8.2.3.9(2b) — the linchpin of Sconzert’s argument — is only a valid condition for marinas whose “docking structures” have fallen into disrepair, not marinas that had their slips and docks removed before being transferred from one party to another as Al Copeland Jr. did with Parcel U in 2018, giving it to the LSU Health Foundation.
Copeland willfully and voluntarily took Parcel U out of commerce in 2018, when he demolished and removed the slips, hence making it subject to 4.2 “Non-Conforming Provisions,” or more specifically 4.2.3(9): “Abandonment or Discontinuance.”
Section 8.2.3.9(2b) very specifically refers to “docking structures” and not a marina as a whole. And besides, “marina” in the eyes of the CLURO is just a designated use and not an actual thing.
“Repair of Non-Conforming Docking Structures. Provisions of section 4.2 Non-Conforming Provisions do not apply.”
But this section or the CLURO was only intended to allow the owner/operator of an otherwise working marina repair his docking structures without having to get a new conditional use permit.
On which planet can you take what is effectively an empty body of water and build a new marina infrastructure — including docks, slips, bulkheads, fueling stations, etc. — and call it “Repair of Non-Conforming Docking Structures” and get away with it?
Words have meaning.
Parcel U is non-conforming and the Table of Permitted Uses at Section 7.7.3 says a conditional use permit is required to build a new marina infrastructure. Unfortunately, we have a City Attorney who seems to be ignoring the obvious.
Bonus: Parcel U never again has to come before the Council… ever
Sconzert and Bartholomew keep saying that Parcel U has always been a “marina” since before the CLURO was enacted, and its designated use is not changing, therefore there is no need for a conditional use permit.
The only problem with that is, the property changed hands or ownership when Al Copeland Jr. donated it to the LSU Health Foundation. What’s more, as emphasized earlier, the slip and docking structures were removed.
According to Sconzert, it doesn’t matter that the property changed owners, as long as it remains a “marina” by designated use, it does not have to come before the City Council.
Based on this interpretation, if the LSU Health Foundation and Woodward Interests decided next month that they have changed their plans and no longer need Parcel U, they could immediately sell it to someone else, who could then build however many boat slips, docks or whatever they wanted, without a conditional use permit, without an ordinance, without even telling anyone what they were doing.
From here to eternity, it would never have to come before the City Council again… as long as it keeps the designated use of “marina.”
To that, we’ll just agree with McGuire: “That’s crazy talk.”
Past the point of no return
Mandeville Daily believes that Sconzert and Bartholomew feel they are past the point of no return to admit there might be an issue anywhere that could throw a wrench into the works.
Maybe it’s just as simple as this: They honestly and wholeheartedly believe the project is good for Mandeville and it must be adopted at all costs, despite all of us dummies out here who don’t know any better.
If they were to change their position at this late stage of the game, then surely we could expect a lawsuit from the developer.
Until this thing is hopefully voted down by the City Council or perhaps vetoed by Mayor Clay Madden, Sconzert and Bartholomew will continue to make awkward faces, weird contortions, and seemingly impossible leaps in logic during council meetings when confronted with even the most basic observations of fact or contradiction.
-30-
Related Links:
OPINION: Conflicting statements by city official revealing, troubling
Sucette Harbor special meeting rescheduled after delay in updated plans
ERNEST BURGUIÈRES: The circus does not fail to amuse
Mandeville Daily 
One thought on “OPINION: City Attorney’s position on Parcel U is flawed”