Even approval of modest 90-units would open door to much larger development

By Ernest A. Burguières

September 3, 2023

---

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.

---

As we stumble into the homestretch of our prolonged distraction, more subtle thoughts have come to mind for citizens who are concerned about this project.

On its face, the big battle seems to be the prospect of 90-plus apartments, 80 hotel rooms, an event center, a restaurant and a marina. Those are the immediate concerns because that is what was being presented.

But there is another more nefarious potential result.

If the City Council does not separate the issues of zoning change and conditional use approval, then there is a prospect that just one council member may justify in their mind that it is only “fair” that the developer get a shot.

And what if the mayor does not veto this if it passes?

The checker player says it’s over. The chess player says, not so fast. There are more shoes that could drop.

What happens if Sucette gets approval and is not vetoed? Then the developer has some time to decide if there is a smarter play given the economy.

Well, it would now be now zoned commercial. How about several multi-story towers and 1,000 apartments?

Maybe luxury units plus affordable units, to press all of the buttons.

A rooftop restaurant/night club, overlooking the lake.

Think of it… there would be nothing like it on either side of the lake. All of those height, parking, scale, compatibility and density issues fade away as the “planned district” cudgel is used to push a development in to the realm of the absurd. This sleepy time, virgin, coastal community would be forever violated. We would be done.

Sucette spent their first phase time and money to depict a general concept of a hotel, apartments, a restaurant, event center and marina that might attract some people. It was just a concept so the big investments had not yet been made. That could go away as just the cost of a diversion while the real money gears up for the whole enchilada. The chess move.

If the Council (and/or the mayor) want to avoid the risk of unintended consequences, they need to vote no to the re-zoning which is no to the project.

If you care, or if you just want to watch the slow motion train wreck, show up this Tuesday, September 5th, at 6:00 p.m. at the Spitzfaden Center.

By Ernest A. Burguières

August 30, 2023

---

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.

---

On Tuesday, September 5th, the final act of our shared Sucette experience will be unveiled. There will be a council meeting and there will reportedly be a vote!

If you have enjoyed and/or suffered through the Sucette experience over the past year, it may very well come to a head at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, September 5th, in the Spitzfaden Center. If there is a capacity crowd, you ought to arrive early or resign yourself to pressing your nose against the window to watch.

There are several reasons why you may want to attend.

It will be a defining experience.

At center stage will be our five beleaguered council members. The Sucette decision that night may have a significant effect on the political future of the council and the mayor.

We are told that our elected officials are supposed to represent the views and desires of the citizens. Each elected official will have to ask himself; do I side with my friends and constituents, or, do I side with the Sucette developers? Will my vote for Sucette be in the best interest of my friends and constituents? Will I be able to look my friends and constituents in the face and say, what I did is in your best interest? Or will I betray those friends and constituents and side with the Sucette developers? Will the city attorney and the Director of Planning make new efforts to thwart the sentiment of council members? Interesting times.

The mayor and the entire council will be up for election in 2024. Qualifying is in 90-plus days, December 13-15, 2023. The primary is March 23, 2024. The run-off, if required, is April 27, 2024.

Provocative questions abound.

Will the vote on Sucette be political suicide for some? You have to wonder how the constituent contact to each council member has been trending over the past 8 months, for or against Sucette? As a point of interest, I learned that my post entitled, “The August 15, 2023, Sucette Experience” had 4,300 views. The vast majority of comments I received were in opposition to Sucette. The numbers speak for themselves.

If the council votes to approve Sucette, what will the mayor do? Will he veto it? What are his chances for re-election in Council Districts II and III if he does not veto Sucette?

If a council member believes the mayor will ultimately veto any Sucette approval, why would that council member risk the political disadvantage of voting for Sucette?

When the vote comes, who will decide the order in which the council members’ names are called out to vote? Will the first council member called upon to vote set the stage for subsequent council members? What will the strategy be? The last council member on this issue will have the advantage of knowing how his four peers have already voted.

And think of the consequences of a vote in favor. You would have approved a change in the zoning from residential to commercial… forever. If this project is not built, it will still be zoned commercial, then what other commercial venture could be foisted on the citizens? We are supposedly still facing a recession in the next 12 to 18 months. There will be the presidential election of the century. Would a subsequent commercial venture be guided by the B-2 rules or B-1 rules? A car wash? A shopping center? A grand music / entertainment venue? How do you control these future potential consequences at this stage? Who wants to shoulder that risk?

An interesting spectacle.

Our opportunity to participate in this theater of the absurd ought to be a no-miss date. You are not likely to see more intriguing brinksmanship and stress in a local government experience. Come on down and sit in the peanut gallery with the rest of us pilgrims while this sausage is made!

Understanding the differences between B-1 and B-2 zoning districts

By Ernest A. Burguières

July 31, 2023

---

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 was listening to Larry Grundman and Councilman Jason Zuckerman’s comments about the application of the B-2 zoning designation in the Sucette case. What follows was inspired by them.

Something struck me at the last Council Sucette meeting… Director of Planning and Development Cara Bartholomew stated that with Sucette, it was the applicant that selected the use that it wanted to apply to their project. This in turn caused Planning to identify the zoning designation that would allow these uses.

I guess their thinking was the since planned development is theoretically open with no restrictions they could pick any use that they wanted.

---

Editor’s Note:

There are two zoning districts that could come into play here:

• B-1 Neighborhood Business District: Businesses that are in a typical neighborhood.
• B-2 Highway Business District: Businesses that are next to or near a highway or major thoroughfare.

---

What I came to realize from Cara’s comments is that it’s not necessarily the zoning classification they requested, but the uses they requested that could only fall into the classification B-2 for those areas of the property. Since the Planned District classification provides that the development regulations for the zoning classification under which those proposed uses are allowed as a “baseline” to consider departures from those regulations, one must first make the leap to agree that proposed uses under that zoning regulation (in this case B-2, Highway Commercial) are appropriate for that site. They are not.

I don’t recall any real discussion of this particular issue. The applicant in effect gets to select the zoning that they would like to apply and the city must accommodate?

Understanding what B-2 means

The B-2 zoning rules are found in 7.5 of the CLURO:

7.5. – BASE DISTRICT REGULATIONS BY ZONING DISTRICTS.

The regulations of this Article identify the purpose of each of the created zoning districts and shall be considered the minimum requirements, in addition to all other applicable regulations of this Comprehensive Land Use Regulations Ordinance or other laws of the City or state as provided, for the use and development of all land within the separate zoning districts in conjunction with the Table of Permitted Uses By Zoning District included in this Article.

7.5.9.5. Special B-2 Highway Business District Criteria.

1. Access. B-2 districts shall be located on lots with street frontage on major arterial or collector streets only and shall not require travel through existing or proposed residential districts to access the B-2 district.

Additionally, I believe B2 provides for the largest limit on a building, 100,000 square feet, more like what you see in the Rouse’s area or Whole Foods area. It should be noted that at 108,000 square feet the Sucette hotel is bigger than permitted even in B2.

Then I looked at the Planned Development regulations. When you drill down on the language certain things pop up.

7.5.15.1. Purpose of the Planned District.

Planned District applications shall contain a statement by the developer as to how the submitted plan departs from the existing requirements of this Land Use Regulations Ordinance and any other regulations applicable to the proposed use or uses for the district in which the proposed use could be established of right and how each departure improves what otherwise would be required under these regulations.

Have we heard how the Sucette departures improves what otherwise would be required under these regulations? I think I will have to check my notes, I would say, no.

7.5.15.2. Planned District Permitted Uses.

The uses permitted in this zoning district, including signage, shall be in accordance with those uses listed under this district in the Table of Permitted Uses By Zoning District found at the end of this Article and shall be subject to all applicable provisions of this Land Use Regulations Ordinance including any supplemental or special use criteria provided in Article 8 and the Sign Code in Article 10.

7.5.15.4. Flexible Site Planning.

When considering a Planned District application, the unique nature of each proposal may require, under proper circumstances, the departure from the strict enforcement of certain present codes and ordinances

And then under Commercial Uses:

B-2 Highway Business District, provided, however, that commercial uses designated on a site plan providing for a mix of commercial uses and residential uses shall comply with the requirements of the B-1 Neighborhood Business District.

B-1 should be used for Sucette

What does all this mean?

This looks like Sucette can use B-2 Highway Business District, however, if commercial uses designated on a site plan providing for a mix of commercial uses and residential uses then it shall comply with the requirements of the B-1 Neighborhood Business District.

Whoa!

Does that mean that we are not supposed to use a B-2 highway Business District mentality when there are a mix of commercial and residential and then you must use the B-1 rules instead?

This is kind of consistent with Rule 7.5.9.5. Special B-2 Highway Business District Criteria wherein B-2 districts shall be located on lots with street frontage on major arterial or collector streets only and shall not require travel through existing or proposed residential districts to access the B-2 district.

If Sucette has a mix of commercial and residential, and it is not located on a major arterial or collector street and access would require travel through existing or proposed residential districts to access the B-2 district, then it must be relegated to a B-1 zoning designation analysis.

If Sucette is relegated to a B-1 zoning designation analysis then the maximum size building would be 15,000 square feet, the same as in the B-3 area of old Mandeville. It is almost like there was a consistency of thought to not dump a huge departure in size, scale and density into a residential neighborhood. Who would have thought?

Sucette appears to have articulated uses to Planning that could be satisfied by B-2, highway business zoning. The problem with highway business is that it contemplates a business on a highway and therefore has much larger limits on the size of the uses and access. A business on a highway would be like West Causeway Approach, Hwy. 22, Causeway Blvd. and really East Causeway Approach before it joins Hwy. 190. A highway business will need more space for vehicles, especially large commercial vehicles, to routinely come in and out. Higher traffic is expected. And,… there is a limitation on B2 that shall be located on lots with street frontage on major arterial or collector streets only and shall not require travel through existing or proposed residential districts to access the B-2 district. Was this limitation considered? Even in the no rules arena of “Planned Development” was it contemplated that Sucette would not be on a major highway? Was it also contemplated that access would have to be through existing (unusually narrow) residential streets? Apparently not.

When you try to shoehorn a 100,000+ square foot structure into a residential area of narrow streets you have obvious density, compatibility and scale problems. Is this what was contemplated by the Mandeville CLURO? Is this what was contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan? Is this what was contemplated by the Planned Development idea? It seems to go against everything else in the CLURO about small town atmosphere, at least in our old town. An interpretation that fosters this B-2 development into a residential area is a perversion of the rule and concept. Are we talking strict enforcement or common sense of trying to put a square peg in a round hole?

The real problem

I realized that in reality, what’s causing all of the heartache is density, scale, proximity to residential and access to the site.

Sucette is proposing uses with development regulations for properties that are meant to be on a major artery (highway commercial) with truck access, no residential adjacency, etc. On top of that, they are requesting additional departures…increase in area, increase height, reductions in parking, etc. Unfortunately, they ignored the safety valve of access and proximity to residential areas. Plus, they quickly, and quietly, with virtually no discussion, seem to be on the verge of dispensing with five (5) mature (centuries old) live oak trees with no discussion.

The whole issue seems to me to be caused by requesting (demanding?) uses that can only be shoe-horned into B2 Highway Commercial zoning on that site and applying Highway Commercial site development criteria. This is viewing the rules through a tunnel.

If this is a “no rules football” scenario then there is no reason why a 30-story tower or a creosote plant could not be built on this 15 acres. The rules were not intended to be perverted by half-clever sophistry that might appear to allow such an aberration. Sucette is employing a perverted interpretation of the rules that absolutely ignores the context of Mandeville. and at the same time ignoring the common sense safety valve of access and proximity to residential neighborhoods. If this project were in Destin or Panama City, Florida they would never try to located it in an older, narrow area. They would locate it near the highway for visibility and access, something they do not have at Sucette Harbor.

It is useful to think of outlandish applications because it helps to drive home the point that if Planning believes that they have no say so except that once uses have been identified (by the applicant) they must go with the zoning designation that (they believe) fits the uses. If this is the case then the tail is wagging the dog. There is no place in the CLURO that anyone envisioned that a very dense, very tall, over-developed application could be placed right in the middle of a narrow residential area. I even doubt that such a dense proposal could fit on West Causeway Approach or Causeway Blvd., both serviced by four lane highways with a median.

If it were this simple why couldn’t anyone request a zoning change to planned development multi use? What is the argument against this? According to the Director of Planning there is none. How can that be? Doesn’t that lose sight of the big picture of what Mandeville is? This is not Destin or Panama City, and if it were, it would never be located on narrow back streets.

Sucette made comparisons to event centers, restaurants and B&B’s in the B-3 district. The B-3 designation is more like a B-1 designation where the absolute size of a structure is limited to 15,000 square feet. The Sucette hotel is 108,000 square feet. This was never intended in the big picture of Mandeville building and zoning regulations. It is the antithesis of what was intended. There is no comparison.

Is the situation we are in the result of some clever lawyer’s sophistry?

I’m simply asking, why? Why would we not first make the judgment as to whether or not B-2 Highway Commercial Uses are even appropriate for that site, rather than just say “well those are the uses the applicant proposed so we’re using that as a baseline as long as they comply with those – box checked,” or “here’s the minor deviation from those B-2 development standards that they propose.”

The intent of the CLURO

Sucette should at least be reviewed under the B-1 guidelines.

When you do this it is obvious what the CLURO was trying to do is not create the “high volume” highway businesses that would need to attract a large volume of customers that would come and go at the same time and therefore could overwhelm narrow neighborhood roads and keep those businesses instead at or adjacent to highways like strip shopping centers on Florida Ave. (Highway 190).

The CLURO certainly didn’t contemplate such 100,000-plus-square-foot commercial structures deeply imbedded on a peninsula, isolated by a single access point from/to a two-way residential street like Monroe and then on to unusually narrow streets, Antibes West and East in the middle of residential zoning and co-located with residential units. Hello?

The Council looked (subconsciously at first, then openly) at CLURO to give guidance on the apartments density question and should do the same for the commercial aspects. When they do, they will see the departure requested is not 9,000 square feet but 90,000-plus square feet.

The Director of Planning keeps telling us: Developers can put most any uses in a multiple use zone.

But this is not an absolute. What they should say is that they could put in any use that fits in the application process.

The Planning Department is abdicating their role as gatekeeper and protector of Old Mandeville.

-30-

Sucette meeting #147?

By Ernest A. Burguières

July 25, 2023

---

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.

---

This is starting to seem like the movie “Groundhog Day.” It seems like week after week it is the same story.

There was one citizen comment that neatly summarized what was happening in a joke that I will try to paraphrase:

A man was going to have a party in which he requested that his guests bring a dish. One guest brought a beautiful roasted turkey. Unfortunately the host was a vegetarian and explained this to the guest. The guest responded that it was one of the finest turkeys around. But the host said he was a vegetarian. The guest then said the turkey was prepared by one of the city’s most famous chefs. But the host said he was a vegetarian. The guest then said he had sliced off a small portion of the turkey to make it all right. But the host said he was a vegetarian.

It does not matter how you dress it up or how you cut it, it is still a turkey and it is unacceptable.

Indeed.

What got us here?

Discussions of how and why the city should try to jam a highway zoning designation into a residential area that is hidden in a labyrinth of narrow streets far away from a highway.

The usual legal and intellectual gymnastics proliferated from the city attorney and director or planning. They were talking a different language and were apparently immune to the fear and loathing that has become a regular feature of citizen comments about this project.

An attempt was made to equate the 4,000-square-foot or 10,000-square-foot Sucette “event center” or “ballroom” (I don’t know what the functional difference is.) with the less than 2,000-square-foot Maison Lafitte on Lafitte St. How does this compare?

Then Sucette attorney, Paul Harrison, tried to equate local one or two bedroom B&B / VRBO short term rentals in the old town with Sucette’s 80-room hotel. Why, it’s almost identical! What’s the fuss?

Councilwoman Rebecca Bush then lamented how the magical (my word) traffic studies did not seem to take in to account the effect of frequent weddings or other events that could bring 100-200 cars into this tight area all at one time. The traffic study is an academic tool that amortizes traffic over a large period of time, years, which minimizes the effects of potentially frequent big events. It is a flaw in the study that because it is an unknown methodology we are likely powerless to criticize, despite the reality of events.

When asked by Councilman Jason Zuckerman if the reduction of the apartment units from 178 to 90 would correspondingly reduce the height of the building Sucette responded, “we don’t know”. Really? A 50-percent reduction in the number of apartments might not affect the height of a building that is almost twice as high as anything for miles around. Oh, and then what appeared to be a veiled threat that if Sucette is frustrated on height they may have to pull the marina portion of the project. That threat almost sounds like a virtue.

Sucette appears to want to view each component of its project separately when it suits their analysis involving density and scale but falls back to the big picture when they want to talk about the need to look at the big picture that they have divined through the CLURO.

The room was packed as usual and while there were many familiar faces there were also many new ones. Many were wearing red in solidarity with the No Sucette movement. I only counted one citizen that I know was a Sucette proponent although she made no comments. In fact no one but Sucette representatives spoke in favor of Sucette.

Another citizen rhetorically wondered how anyone could sit in judgment over this issue week after week and watch scores of citizens plead with their elected officials to protect them, and not do anything to hurt them.

The vice president of the New Golden Shores neighborhood association who lived on Dona Dr. (a neighbor of Councilman Skelly Kreller) shared the results of a poll on Sucette in which there was a ratio of 12-to-1 against Sucette. I wonder if Kreller participated in the poll?

The public comments wrapped up with citizen Pat Rosenow commenting on the difficulty in being a judge (which he is or was) and how delaying a difficult decision is death by a 1000 cuts. He, like several others, implored the council to separate the re-zoning issue from the conditional use and vote on the re-zoning. Very logical. Re-zoning would be forever. If you think re-zoning is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Mandeville, then vote to re-zone. If you cannot honestly say that re-zoning helps anyone but the developer, then vote no.

For a reason that is not clear Councilman Rick Danielson announced that there would be at least two more meetings on Sucette, August 15th and August 23rd. To discuss what that we haven’t heard already? A turkey is still a turkey.

-30-

By Ernest A. Burguières

July 23, 2023

---

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.

---

Residents of Mandeville were treated to a new salvo being hurled in the battle over Sucette. Beyond the retort that the opposition represents only a few disgruntled people is evidence of a slick mail-out piece opposing Sucette. I can tell you from personal experience that the artwork, printing and mailing represents several thousand dollars of disgruntlement. That citizens in a small town should have to expend such resources to get the attention of their elected officials is in itself remarkable. It make me wonder how an elected official can seriously ignore this effort.

Rumors are swirling about what to expect. Will Sucette succeed in trying to get a do-over of the 90 apartment limit? Will Sucette make substantial concessions on height? Will the event center survive? Will we be forced to tear up tiny little Antibes St. so the Sysco tractor trailer trucks can lumber back to the Sucette pavilion? What will be the tipping point to get that third council vote to approve? Will the out of town interests prevail in ripping the heart out of the quaint coastal village that has endured so far without any high-rise packed apartments or hotels in the middle of their sleepy lakefront enclave? Remember, once you re-zone this to commercial (Planned Development Multi Use in Planner speak), it will forever be commercial.

The money quote on the mailer by Nicole Stanley of Old Golden Shores (Councilman Skelly Kreller’s district and neighborhood):

We bought our property in Mandeville for the ambiance and the quality of life. This project would set a precedent for us becoming exactly what we moved away from in New Orleans. Mandeville has nothing to gain and everything to lose if this development goes through.

— Nicole Stanley, Old Golden Shores

Will we all be able to lay our heads on our pillows if we allow this to go through? Would this be fair to the hundreds of people that would be affected?

If you oppose this, the least you can do is email your elected official. Their names and email addresses are on the flyer. The next meeting is tomorrow night, Monday, July 24th at 6:00pm at the Spitzfaden Center.

Make a difference, it is worth it, if not just for yourself, then for your neighbors.

-30-

By Ernest A. Burguières

July 13, 2023

---

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.

---

Another wild night. A packed house. Two TV cameras. These events really deserve popcorn and wine. And maybe a cigar.

There were several big issues.

First, there will be another Sucette meeting on Monday, July 24th, at 6:00 p.m. at the Spitzfaden Center.

The drama: A night for amendments and conditions

The chair told us that we would discuss amendments to the ordinance and conditions on the property. The Sucette representative provided a few new slides that purported to clarify certain features. For example, we saw a new slide that revealed that the absolute height would be 72′, a figure that some still disagree with. But at 72′ this makes it about double the height of surrounding buildings. Zuckerman believes it might be more.

Sucette made a request that Parcel U, the defunct former marina, be re-subdivided and incorporated into Parcel D, the main Sucette focus.

In what would be a harbinger of future actions Councilman Kreller made a motion that the Sucette Ordinance 23-16 be amended to re-subdivided the property and incorporate Parcel U into Parcel D. Despite a citizen’s question regarding how the addition might affect all of the various previous calculations that only focused on Parcel D, which was kind of sloughed off. It was approved 5-0 by the council despite the fact that Planning and Zoning never looked at Parcel U, I believe because they were told not to.

So now, we have Parcel U in the mix and something called a “Planned Marina District” which I assume brings a host of new issues.

Then Councilman Jason Zuckerman made what at first appeared to be a motion, but upon reflection, was an invitation for a motion. Zuckerman noted that the prior ordinance that governs Parcel D was Ordinance 98-40 wherein Al Copeland Sr. obtained approval for a Planned District Residential zoning for 10 single family homes on the 15 acre plot. In that ordinance was language about how and why the residential designation was in the best interest of the city and its residents. Zuckerman asked if any of the other councilmen wanted to offer a “Whereas” statement in Ordinance 23-16 (the current Sucette ordinance) to the effect that a commercial focused multi use was now in the best interest of the city and its residents. There were no takers. I wonder why (he said rhetorically)? Nobody wanted to openly admit that they supported changing this zoning from residential to commercial. No surprise here.

So, implicit in the fact that there were no takers to Zuckerman’s request was the fact that there was no one on the council willing to openly admit that they favored to endorse an emphasis on the commercial desirability of Parcel D.

The attorney for Sucette, Paul Harrison, commented that such a move by Zuckerman was somehow unfair, that it was pre judging the project and that the 1998 ordinance was flawed. Somehow the desire to maintain a residential zoning and atmosphere is now unfair. I will have more to say on this later.

Councilman Zuckerman then offered a slew of conditions that he wanted placed on the project should it be approved:

• no boat or trailer storage in the marina
• sunken vessels would have to be moved within 10 days
• provisions for an effluence pump out for the boats in the marina
• lighting on the dock at dock level in an effort to minimize the effects of the light on nearby residences
• disallow living on a boat
• violations if not resolved could result in the loss of their conditional use permit which would shut down the operation
  

Local citizen Terri Hamilton made a few additional suggestions:

• all electrical work related to the marina would have to be marine grade
• Dockside electrical connections would have to be between 2′ and 4′ above BFE flood level
• the marina would have 90 days to remove a sunken boat
  

These were all new ideas, much of which was foreign to those not involved in active boating activities. One citizen asked if anyone passing through Mandeville on a boat stayed a few days, a week or a month was violating the living on board idea. No one knew. Another citizen asked in commercial fishing boats like shrimp boats could use the marina. No one knew. What about in-slip boat repairs? No one knew. What about noise? I reminded people that Al Copeland, Sr. was a devotee of offshore power boat racing in boats that used to be called cigarettes. These boats often had one or more large V-8 engines with open exhaust. Very, very loud. Another resident, who was a sailor, shared his experience with the silting problems this marina has always suffered from which may have contributed to its lack of success in what ought to have been a prime area.

Tops’l resident, Tom Whalen, questioned the proximity of a dozen feet or less to a residential area and asked, “why re-zone this property”?

At this point Councilman Kreller made a kind of incredible statement to the effect that if Sucette was going to invest $100 million into this marina project we should trust them to do the right thing. An astute comment I guess,…not.

In somewhat of a surprise to me the council voted 5-0 in favor of these marina conditions.

Then Zuckerman moved onto his next set of motions. Density.

Zuckerman opined that half the property was residential (that is if rent paying apartments is residential as opposed to commercial) and half the property was commercial (hotel, restaurant, marina, event center, restaurant). He then proposed that the 200 unit apartments (which were voluntarily reduced to 180 last time be Sucette) be further reduced to 90 units. This resulted in another round of spirited discussions. The director of planning said the CLURO designation R-3 covered this, but that the council could put any condition they wanted. Sucette objected to the analysis and muttered under his breath that they were told they complied with all the requirements. WHAT? Who told you that? Which prompted Zuckerman to remind everyone that this high density was not in the spirit of the CLURO or what Mandeville has consistently promoted with respect to its residential atmosphere. Local landscaper and former professor, Buck Abby (who was a consultant for Sucette) appeared to try and support Sucette by asking that the whole project be looked at and not just components. This was not a popular opinion.

During this discussion on the 90 apartment unit reduction one citizen asked what the mix would be (1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, 3 bedroom). Another resident, Ralph Whalen, stated that he lived in the Tops’l apartment complex which had 37 units which would still be half the size of the proposed 90 units. A little variance in the scale?

This prompted Paul Harrison, local attorney for Sucette who by this point was visibly angry, to make what appeared to be a veiled threat of litigation by accusing the city of being “arbitrary”.

The vote on the reduction to 90 apartment unit limit was approved by a vote of 3-2 with Chairman Danielson and Councilman Keller being the lone votes to maintain the high density.

Councilwoman Jill McGuire then stepped up to the plate with a motion to limit the gross square footage of the hotel (excluding the square footage of the rooms) to 8,900 square feet. This sought to limit the size of the event center / ballroom. McGuire also made a motion that the impervious portion (that water could not flow through like concrete) would be limited to 61%.

These were both approved by a 5-0 vote.

Councilman Zuckerman then got into the location of the event center which was presently sited on the edge of the entrance jetty to the marina which was about 100’+ from the Mariners Island condos. Thoughts of loud music and wedding revelers filled people’s minds. This prompted the Sucette representative to again object to the notion that this was a “blank slate” project that the council could impose any conditions they wanted because they (Sucette) were told that the plan complied with everything. What? Who told them that?

Another citizen stated that she moved to Mandeville in 1966 when the population was less than 2,000. She asked, why do we have to appease Sucette? Indeed, why?

The architect hired by Sucette then got into a discussion with Zuckerman about why the event center was on the west side of the property so close to Mariners Island and why it should not be moved closer to the lake. Interestingly, she looked visibly shaken and upset.

The vote on this motion to move the event center failed 1-4 with Zuckerman casting the only vote to move it.

Then Councilwoman McGuire made a motion to revise Table 1 in the ordinance which listed all of the limits to apartments, rooms, square footage, boat slips and parking spaces which would bring it in to conformity with changes Sucette had previously made but which did not reflect the changes made by the council that evening.

This vote passed 5-0.

This again prompted the Sucette representative to disapprovingly mutter, rules don’t mean much.

At this point you should be getting a sense that not only did things not go well for Sucette, they were also getting visibly angry. There was a sense that they felt betrayed in their comments.

The final issue was traffic and who would bear the cost of any road projects that might be required as a result of the operation of Sucette. Councilman Zuckerman moved to require that Sucette pay for any required road work. Sucette responded by saying that The Traffic Study (with words written in gold) did not contemplate road work for 20+ years. This prompted me to remind everyone that on day one of operation there were going to be Sysco Foods tractor trailer trucks that would have to make the right turn from Monroe onto Antibes West to service the restaurant, hotel. The turn is too small to accommodate a 60′ long vehicle. This prompted the mayor to state that (I believe) the city could not force Sucette to pay for road reconstruction like was done in the Port Marigny case. In Port Marigny the owner offered to pay for the road work, they could not be required to may for it. This issue was put off for the next meeting.

The conclusion: What happened and why?

Wisdom is a thing that involves time and experience. We see the issue of wisdom crop in the Titanic submarine tragedy. There were reports that the Ocean Gate CEO, Stockton Rush (who died in the accident) once explained how he didn’t hire “50-year-old white guys” with military experience to captain his vessels because they weren’t “inspirational.”

Unbelievable. Does anybody think that is an astute statement?

Talk about ignoring the value of experience and wisdom.

In the case of Mandeville, it has been involved in three prior controversial real estate projects that resulted in litigation; Abraham v. City of Mandeville (1986), et al; Our Lady of the Lake v. City of Mandeville (2011); Port Marigny, et al v. City of Mandeville, et al (2017). All three involved an applicant who tried to push the envelope with a development that caused the community to rise up in an uproar. Port Marigny is an anomaly for reasons that have to do with the details of that case. The common thread with these cases is the consistent resistance by the community to out of scale developments. Al Copeland, Sr. should be added to this as well because Copeland’s original application, Ordinance 95-36 in 1995 was denied. Look at why. It took Copeland three years to gain approval of Ordinance 98-40 in which the city, and the public, fought every inch of the way. Copeland is an example of how the process should work.

This brings up the question; what institutional knowledge do our city attorney and director of planning have with respect to projects like this? Do they know about these historical matters? What did the city learn from these past experiences? Was that experience passed on to our city attorney and director of planning? I don’t know.

Looking over the past 35 years should we as citizens hope that our government officials have a sense for what is possible in this community? Has the City learned anything from these experiences? Should our government officials encourage applicants with projects that might be popular with planners, but not with the citizens and are therefore risky? If Sucette was encouraged to believe that his application was all in order and would be approved, but ignored the known will of the people and the desire of our elected officials to represent what the citizens want, is that a good thing?

Sucette keeps stating that they were misled and that the opposition is only a handful of people. I can’t disagree with this statement because I don’t know what they were told and by whom. What I do know is that the city attorney and the director planning repeatedly told Planning and Zoning and the Council that they had discretion to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions, that they had choices and yet in the next breath they said you must approve this because that is the law. This is a non sequitur. If you have a choice, then, you have a choice. As Councilman Zuckerman said in response to Paul Harrison’s similar admonition, if we don’t have a choice, then why are we here? And the emperor has no clothes.

-30-

By Ernest A. Burguières

July 11, 2023

---

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.

---

This whole discussion about planned development is a red herring. A red herring is a misleading statement, question, or argument meant to redirect a conversation away from its original topic.

Over the past few months the discussion has been sometimes heated and always exhausting.

How big will the hotel be? How many parking spaces? What is included in a marina? How big is the restaurant? All questions that involve a commercial zoned area.

The problem with all of these discussions is that they assume the property is already zoned commercial. It is not. It is zoned residential. It has to be zoned commercial first before you can discuss the details of a conditional use permit for a commercial operation. That is why Ord. 23-16 contains a provision to re-zone this property to commercial.

The terms planned development residential and planned development multi use still boil down to zoned residential and zoned commercial. Planned development is merely a term that provides different rules for executing, but the zoning is either residential or commercial.

So, somebody combined two issues; zoning and conditional use. The Mandeville rules may ALLOW these two items to be combined into one ordinance, but the rules do not REQUIRE them to be combined.

CLURO rule 4.3.3.3. Concurrent Applications:

Application for a Conditional Use Permit and for Rezoning or Planned District zoning for the same property may be made concurrently, subject to the fees applicable to a rezoning or Planned District zoning only. The Planning Commission and Zoning Commission may hold the public hearing on the Rezoning and the Conditional Use Permit at the same meeting and may combine the two hearings. The City Council likewise may hold the two public hearings in combination and may approve both the Conditional Use and rezoning or Planned District zoning by one ordinance.

Clearly, 4.3.3.3. contemplates that a Conditional Use Permit and a Rezoning are two different matters, except it states that they can be made concurrently. In fact, it further states that the City Council likewise may hold the two public hearings in combination and may approve both the Conditional Use and re-zoning or Planned District zoning by one ordinance. No where does it say that you MUST combine these two issues. It is just for the convenience of the person seeking approval, e.g. Sucette.

Combining the two confuses a big issue. Our discussions have focused on the ramifications of the different conditional use issues. What has not been discussed is how re-zoning this property from residential to commercial benefits the health, safety and welfare of this community. Whenever someone applies for a zoning change there is increased scrutiny and a reluctance to change the zoning, especially if it appears to result in spot zoning (a different zoning designation than the surrounding area which is what is occurring in Sucette).

In this instance there has been virtually no discussion of the desirability of changing the zoning from residential to commercial. There has been a great deal of citizen angst and criticism about the various commercial uses, but we have lost sight of the fact that the reason for this angst is it does not fit in a residential area.

Additionally, once you zone this property commercial, it will always be commercial for any project that comes along after this one fails. I do not believe this has ever been discussed. Why not? Plus, it certainly sets a precedent for surrounding properties to request a zoning change to commercial. Are we not allowed to look at the potential consequences of each aspect of a decision? This is certainly foreseeable.

Our brains are geared to a “truth bias:” We automatically tag incoming information as true and must exert extra effort to remain uncertain or to re-label it as false. This bias is not a bug, but a feature. Truth bias turns seeing into believing, so it is a prerequisite for any act of deception. To overcome this tendency we need to curb our enthusiasm and ask ourselves, “what’s missing?’

Our tendency to focus on the information we already have can be amplified further by our preference for consistency. Smoothness and simplicity appeal to us because perfect patterns sometimes do reflect insight.

We are given all sorts of reasons why the specifics of the conditional use are beyond discussion, but that is because it presumes that the property is already zoned commercial. It is not. Implicit in our discussions is that the property is zoned commercial and we do not question this. Why is that? This is the first question that we decide whether we realize it or not. By hiding the decision process with the focus on conditional use with its controversial aspects we do not make the case for why it does, or does not, benefit the community to re-zone to commercial.

Was it sneaky to quietly incorporate the zoning issue into Ordinance 23-16? Possibly. We can certainly see the problem once we start to dissect the decision making process.

By Ernest A. Burguières

July 9, 2023

---

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.

---

This is an interesting case that was litigated in Federal District Court in New Orleans in 1986. Anthony P. Abraham sued the city, the city councilmen individually and the Planning and Zoning commissioners individually. The case shares similarities with the present debate regarding Sucette.

The basis of the suit was a zoning controversy triggered by Abraham’s proposal to construct a condominium project and hotel on Lake Pontchartrain in Old Golden Shores, which is on the west side of The Causeway. The site was the location of the old Golden Shores clubhouse area and it was zoned B-2 (Highway Business District) when Abraham’s building applications were submitted to the city in 1983. Shortly thereafter, the Mandeville City Council met and introduced an ordinance to re-zone the property to R-1 (Single Family Residence District).

The record reflected that the building inspector denied the application because of a failure to comply with several building requirements.

Abraham tried to cure the defects in the original building permit and re-submitted his application and requested that a permit be issued.

The chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the permit be denied because of questions as to whether multi family housing was permitted on property zoned B-2 which was surrounded by single family residences.

Abraham then revised his plans and submitted an application to construct a hotel complex on the site.

During this time there is a strong suggestion that the area residents were very much opposed to this development.

A new temporary building inspector, who had not been confirmed the City Council, approved the application to build a hotel along with several other permits which were pending in November of 1983.

In December, 1983 the Council ratified the appointment of the temporary building inspector, but revoked all of the permits issued by him because he had not been confirmed at the time he issued all of the permits.

At the same December meeting the Council passed a resolution declaring a moratorium on the issuance of any building permits regarding Abraham’s property until a pending ordinance to re-zone that property from B-2 to R-1 had been considered.

At a February, 1984 the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed re-zoning ordinance to Abraham’s property. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the property be re-zoned from B-2 to R-1. Abraham was present at the Commission hearing. Many residents appeared and voiced support for the zoning change. Residents and city officials expressed concern about preserving and maintaining the residential character of the area.

In March, 1984 the City Council acted on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation and unanimously voted in favor of the ordinance to re-zone the property to R-1. This action killed Abraham’s project.

Uncontroverted affidavits submitted by officials of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council reflected that the decision to re-zone the property was based on overwhelming support by the residents of the City of Mandeville, the general welfare of the community, the adverse impact that Abraham’s proposed hotel development would have on the residential character of the neighborhood surrounding the subject property, and the adverse impact of such commercial projects on the density, sewerage, water and roadway systems of the surrounding neighborhood.

Abraham had not sought a zoning variance or any other relief. He did file suit in Federal Court claiming constitutional violations and sought that the R-1 zoning ordinance be stricken plus damages.

The City of Mandeville and the other defendants sought a summary judgment against Abraham seeking to dismiss his lawsuit on the basis of a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision in the case of Shelton v. City of College Station, 780 F.2d 475 (5th Cir 1986) which included a rehearing en banc. (Normally a Fifth Circuit hearing is comprised of a panel of three judges. An en banc hearing is where all of the judges of the Fifth Circuit participate.) The Shelton case involved alleged substantive and procedural due process and equal protection violations just like in Abraham. The en banc ruling was that there was a rational basis for the decision of the local College Station zoning board.

Writing for the majority, Judge Higginbottom stated that:

“[I]n the absence of invidious discrimination, suspect classifying criteria, or infringement of fundamental interests”, all of which are absent in this case, judicial review of municipal zoning decisions “is confined to whether the decisions were ‘arbitrary and capricious’ “.

“[t]his requirement of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment … is met if there was any conceivable rational basis for the zoning decision”.

“federal judicial interference with a state zoning board’s quasi-legislative decisions … is proper only if the governmental body could have had no legitimate reason for its decision”.

The key inquiry”, the Court states, “is whether the question ‘is at least debatable’ … If it is, there is no denial of substantive due process as a matter of federal constitutional law.” Id. That is the test we must apply here.

The Shelton Court summarized the appropriate manner of review of a municipal zoning decision as follows:

“Entailed in the [prior] panel’s conclusion that there are in this case issues of fact for a jury, is the further conclusion that a jury might properly find that there was a rational basis for the zoning decisions. Under the legislative model, which asks whether the factual question was at least debatable, the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment was a fortiori proper. Detailing the record evidence is therefore an unnecessary exercise.”

As a result, the Abraham Court found no evidence to support Abraham’s contention that the denial of a permit for this project was arbitrary and capricious.

The uncontroverted testimony was that the application was rejected for failure to comply with several local building requirements. This provided a conceivable rational basis for the City’s decision. Concern over unresolved questions regarding interpretation of the local zoning ordinance articulated a recognition of the general welfare of the community and provided a rational basis for their decision.

The Abraham Court also found that:

“the Council’s decision to declare a moratorium on the issuance of any building permits regarding plaintiffs’ site until the pending ordinance to re-zone the property had been resolved one way or the other was also a fair exercise of its police power, and was indisputably related to the general welfare. Passage of an ordinance which in effect invalidates a pending building permit is an ordinary and necessary power of local zoning bodies”.

The Fifth Circuit commented that it had previously recognized that:

“[t]he power to channel growth through zoning is ‘one of the firmest and most basic of the rights of local control’ … and where a community expresses that power as part of ‘a rational and understandable effort to deal with a perceived evil’, … a federal challenge cannot be sustained in the district court”.

Local zoning officials and bodies are most familiar with the public needs and with evaluating the peculiar suitability of particular land area uses. This Court has no mandate to supplant or alter the legislative judgment. Further, interim “[i]nterim development controls such as … moratorium have been found to play an important role in municipal planning” because “[t]hey aid in ‘bridging the gap between planning and its implementation into legal measures.’”

The City of Mandeville won.

What is interesting here is that the Mandeville City administration and the Mandeville City Council united around the significant local opposition to this project. Is the state of the law the same today as it was in 1986? I don’t know, but given the detail in this decision it is certainly worth a look. I think the City’s actions in Abraham were much more egregious than any acts taken in Sucette. Some may look to the Port Marigny case, but there are a host of issues that are very different in the way that case was litigated, and its result, that make it a poor precedent for reference.

-30-

July 5, 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.

---

The Sucette Spectacle of Fear continued its plod toward a resolution of some sort. The Sucette people made what they consider to be substantial changes to their plan. They reduced the number of apartments by about 10% by converting some three bedroom units to two bedroom units. (Last week they said they could not reduce the number of apartments, what changed?) They increased parking by cutting out buildings or moving footprints. It is difficult to say because there were no real final renderings of what they want or where exactly they want it. Overlays of different colors would have been helpful. But no change on the height. It kind of looks like they are dialing back on the buildings or services associated with the marina.

The discussion then slipped into the marina that was not being considered but was nonetheless part of the project. (How do you consider and discuss a marina that is on a different piece of property that is not being considered in this application? This may be one of those mysteries of life.) Terri Hamilton commented on the fact that it was merely a body of water at this time and had no clues that it was a marina. Then came the legal gymnastics. The City Attorney proclaimed that it used to be a marina and therefore basically, it will always be a marina under the CLURO. To this a question and comment by Bill Kropog: CLURO Section 8.2.3.9, 2b states that you can maintain a marina by Repair of Non-Conforming Docking Structures. The problem is that there are no docking structures, they were all removed around 2018. The City Attorney disagreed and maintained that potential repair of imaginary docking structures was sufficient to maintain marina status. This is the kind of stuff that gives the law a bad name. Only special shamans can tell us lowly peasants that the true meaning Repair of Non-Conforming Docking Structures obviously refers to docking structures that only shamans can see.

Then another invaluable shaman interpretation occurred when Van Mayhal asked about CLURO 4.3.3.8, this is the section that states:

4.3.3.8. Review and Evaluation Criteria.

The Planning Director, the Planning Commission and the City Council shall review and evaluate and make the following findings before granting a Conditional Use Permit or Planned District zoning using the following criteria:

There are 12 criteria that are listed which are below, but Mr. Mayhal, an attorney but apparently not a shaman, stated that in the law when the word “shall’ is used in a statute you must do whatever follows. (A shaman is a member of certain traditional societies, who acts as a medium between the visible world and an invisible spirit world and who practices magic or sorcery for purposes of healing, divination, and control over natural events.) The simple conclusion to be drawn from the introductory statement above is that all three entities; The Planning Director, the Planning Commission and the City Council must review and evaluate Sucette by answering the following:

1. Comparison with applicable regulations and standards established by the Comprehensive Land Use Regulations applicable to the proposed use and site.
   
2. Compatibility with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites, in terms of building height, bulk and scale, setbacks and open spaces, landscaping and site development, and access and circulation features.
   
3. Potentially unfavorable effects or impacts on other existing conforming or permitted uses on abutting sites, to the extent such impacts exceed these which reasonably may result from use of the site by a permitted use.
   
4. Modifications to the site plan which would result in increased compatibility, or would mitigate potentially unfavorable impacts, or would be necessary to conform to applicable regulations and standards and to protect the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
   
5. Safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonable and anticipated in the area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area.
   
6. Protection of persons and property from erosion, flood or water damage, fire, noise, glare, and similar hazards or impacts.
   
7. Location, lighting, and type of signs; and relation of signs to traffic control and adverse effect on adjacent properties.
   
8. Adequacy and convenience of off-street parking and loading facilities and protection of adjacent property from glare of site lighting.
   
9. Conformity with the objectives of these regulations and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located.
   
10. Compatibility of the proposed use and site development, together with any modifications applicable thereto, with existing or permitted uses in the vicinity.
    
11. That any conditions applicable to approval are the minimum necessary to minimize potentially unfavorable impacts on nearby uses and to ensure compatibility of the proposed use with existing or permitted uses in the same district and the surrounding area.
    
12. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or community aesthetics, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
    

There are meaty subjects in these 12 items. We don’t know what the Planning Director did except that she did not deviate from the Sucette plan. However, there is no evidence that Planning and Zoning reviewed, evaluated or made any findings involving these individual 12 items so we don’t know specifically what they decided, or why. All that we can infer is that because they voted (4-3) to move this on to council that they must have considered these criteria. What? Can an inference be a finding? Is that what is contemplated by 4.3.3.8? If this matter goes before a judge, what can he determine about the review and evaluation process and why a certain decision was made. You really can’t without more information hence the need for a finding on each issue. Maybe nobody thinks this will ever get to court and therefore the City of Mandeville does not need to worry about it? Why wouldn’t you want to be clear about what you did, and why? Maybe I have answered my own question.

Larry Grundman, a persistent critic, lamented the fact that all of the questions mostly raised by citizens in the Planning and Zoning hearings and to some extent, the council hearings, appeared to have fallen off into the ether. Were the questions ever answered? How can anyone tell? If you cannot find the questions or the answers what have you learned? Nothing. Does that mean that the protestations of the unwashed masses (e.g. the citizens) is merely an irritation to those in charge who are on a mission?

I can really understand how citizen questions can be repetitive, tedious and off the mark. But the citizens in a democracy have always been the theoretical owners, the client. Now when you throw in an educated populace, one that is motivated, the questions become more pointed and considered. Especially when their lifestyle is jeopardized.

At this point I made a comment suggesting that some of the responses, or lack of responses by some council people suggested that they may have had a hard time actually visualizing the basis for all of this citizen angst. I implored them to do a field trip to the site and bring the City Attorney and Director of Planning so that the questions and comments of citizens would be less abstract. How will that Sysco tractor trailer truck make that right turn from Monroe on to W. Antibes? The Mariners Island is only 100′ from the event center? How will several hundred more cars and trucks shuffle in and out of this small peninsula of land every day?

The conversation then drifted off with a pronouncement by the Director of Planning that the City of Mandeville of Mandeville could prohibit the sale of Parcel U in order to maintain its tie to the Parcel D development. What?

Then the question of how or why this could be done landed in the City Attorney’s lap who asked Councilman Jason Zuckerman if he wanted to waive attorney client privilege since he was the client. Now attorney client privilege is in place so your adversaries don’t discover your attorney’s confidential communication. Oh, and in this case, in case you didn’t know, you and I are the adversaries.

Local attorney Kevin Vogeltanz tried to remind the council that this property is currently zoned residential, albeit planned development residential which is why in 1998 it was approved for 10 single family homes, which was specifically supported by that council at that time because it maintained the residential atmosphere of the Old Town. No more. We apparently cannot afford to maintain that residential quality. It disappeared not in a specific change in the law or Comprehensive Plan but rather through a lawyer’s interpretation of what should be.

Does anyone get the feeling that all of this planning stuff, and the legal interpretations that support it, might as well be a foreign language that somehow loses sight of the fact that it is supposed to represent the will of the people?

Moving on. Larry Grundman, Brian Rhinehart and Kevin Vogeltanz got up and again asked why nobody was even considering going item by item through the 12 criteria in 4.3.3.8. Crickets.

Then the discussion moved to height. We all might think this is a cut and dried issue. How tall is it? Well, no. Do you measure from the ground, the first floor of a garage, the first floor where people live and walk? Now Councilman Jason Zuckerman is an architect and he works for a big contractor. He has done a few buildings. Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Zuckerman got into a discussion about whether the buildings are 60′, 70′ or 80′. Hoffman talked about “architectural features” at the top. Zuckerman called that a roof. Part of the problem is that the ground is not flat. The elevation may change by many feet in a very small area. If you have to have the first floor above a certain elevation for flood purposes then that can add to the total height of the structure. And so it went.

Then Terri Hamilton got up and shared a photo an engineer friend did that imagined Sucette in place surrounded by Mariners Island and Tops’l, the immediate adjacent condos that are I believe around 35′ high. Well, the depiction envisioned a 60′ Sucette (instead of 70′ or 80″) which literally made it twice as high. It dwarfed its neighbors. Will there be a finding that this is compatible?

The evening finished up with Councilwoman Jill McGuire expressing frustration that she was either getting no advice or conflicting advice from the City Attorney or the Director of Planning. Are we at a point where the Council should hire its own attorney? We may be past that time.

Councilman Jason Zuckerman finished by questioning the vague and over inclusive language of the ordinance. The ordinance purports to “re-zone to the extent necessary”. What does that mean? “All variances are granted”. What variances? They said they weren’t required to get any variances, why are they asking for a blank check on variances?

The next episode will be Wednesday, July 12th Spitzfaden Center at 6:00pm.

-30-

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:

1. Marina use
2. Location of hotel
3. Density
4. Height
5. Parking
6. 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?