Tuesday’s City Council Meeting Agenda

By  | 

From the Central government website 

Tuesday, August 10, 2010 AGENDA 6:00 PM at Kristenwood

The rules for conducting such public hearings are as follows:

1) The applicant will speak first for a period not to exceed 10 minutes. Other proponents will speak next, then the opponents. Each speaker will be allowed not more than three minutes. The speakers are requested to limit their remarks and to avoid duplication in their presentations.

2) The proponents will be allowed three minutes for rebuttal.

3) The Council Members may ask questions and make comments but are urged to cooperate in an effort to spend not more than 30 minutes on any one matter before the Council.

I. Preliminary Business

(1) Call to Order

(2) Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance

(3) Roll Call

(4) Approval of minutes from the July 27, 2010 council meeting.

II. Unfinished Business


III. New Business

1) Mayor’s report and presentations.

2) Selection of Mayor Pro- Tempore.

3) Introduction of the following item(s) (with public hearing to be held at the August 24, 2010 council meeting)


4) Discussion and action regarding the following instrument(s):

a) An ordinance to amend the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year Budget of the City of Central to appropriate the sum of $10,000.00 to the Chaneyville Fire Department. (By Council Member Moak)

b) An ordinance to amend the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year Budget of the City of Central to increase the budget for Economic Development. (By Council Member DeJohn)

c) An ordinance amending the Annual Budget of the city of Central for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 to appropriate $1,100,000 for the 2010 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program for PEC Project Number 10820 and engineering and related services to be paid from the Green Light Plan ½-cent sales tax Street Rehabilitation portion. (By council member Messina)

d) A resolution to establish a system for the adoption of Rules of Procedure of the City Council, to adopt an interim rule on Committees of the City Council, and otherwise to provide with respect thereto." (By council members LoBue and Washington)

e) A resolution to create an ethics committee for the City of Central. (By council member Moak)

IV. Zoning Cases

(1) Introduction of the following item(s) (with Public Hearing to be held at the August 24, 2010 council meeting):


(2) Discussion and Action regarding the following case(s):

a) RZ-04-10 Rezoning This property is located at 9718 Shady Bluff Drive on Lots 1&2, being on the east side of Shady Bluff Drive southeast of the Hooper Road intersection in Section 11, T-6-S, R-1-E, GLD, EBR, LA. The applicant is proposing to rezone from LC1 (Light Commercial One District) to C-AB-1 (Commercial Alcoholic Beverage One District) for a restaurant to serve alcoholic beverages. (Applicant: A. Harold Laird)(Pit Crew Barbeque).

Commission Action:

A motion to recommend approval of Case RZ-04-10 was made by Mr. Wilson Reado, seconded by Mr. Wade Giles. Vote: 7 yeas (Messrs: Bonvillain, Burns, Giles, Johnson, Rauls, Reado, Walker), 0 nays and the motion carried.

b) RV-1-10 Revocation of Drainage Servitude This property is Tract A-1-A-3-B-1, formerly of the O. K. Bozeman Property, located on the south side of Hooper Road between the Alena and Ida Street intersections in Section 82, T-6-S, R-1-E, GLD, EBR, LA. The applicant is proposing to relocate existing drainage servitude in order to further develop the property.(Applicant: Brandon W. Rogillio)

Commission Action:

A motion to recommend approval of Case RV-1-10 was made by Mr. T.J. Johnson, seconded by Mr. Paul Burns. Vote: 7 yeas (Messrs: Bonvillain, Burns, Giles, Johnson, Rauls, Reado, Walker), 0 nays and the motion carried.

c) SPUD-01-09 Small Planned Unit Development Revision. This property is located on Lot 4-B-2-A, being on the west end of Wax Road Extension near the Sullivan Road intersection in Section 68, T-6-S, R-2-E, GLD, EBR, LA. The applicant is proposing the second phase of a Small Planned Unit Development consisting of office, commercial retail uses, and townhomes. (Applicant: Jeff Couvillion)

Commission Action:

A motion to recommend approval of SPUD-01-09 Revision was made by Mr. Graydon Walker, seconded by Mr. Wilson Reado with the following stipulations:

1)Reduce the number of townhomes to 115.

2)Increase green space

3)Increase park size

4)Include documentation regarding restrictions, exterior/interior finishes, and tentative floor plans

5)Include plan to accommodate school buses

Vote: 7 yeas (Messrs: Bonvillain, Burns, Giles, Johnson, Rauls, Reado, Walker), 0 nays and the motion carried.

**Applicant has requested that this item be deferred until the August 24, 2010 council meeting.**

V. Other Business

(1) Public Comment

(2) Announcements

(3) Adjournment


  1. mace wandu

    August 8, 2010 at 2:13 am

    The council approved of 115 new apartments to be built!? that’s not good we are a family oriented city for working middle class and beyond. this reeks!

  2. Jeff Couvillion

    August 8, 2010 at 8:43 am

    The development is NOT an apartment project at all. It is named Vieux Carre at Central Square and is a single family neighborhood designed to meet the needs of working class families and young adults that want to BUY and live in Central.

  3. mace

    August 8, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Like Vieux Carre in mid-city baton rouge? Those “townhomes” are a blight and I most townhomes in the baton rouge area only last 10 to 20 years before they turn into trash or ghetto apartments. most of them are owned by slumlords who rent them out to blacks.

  4. Jeff Couvillion

    August 8, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    Mace. You have shown your true colors!! Vieux Carre at Central Square is a quality single family neighborhood that I will be happy to discuss with you or anyone else personally. Feel free to contact me at your convenience.

  5. Mike Mannino

    August 8, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    This appears to be a quality development and what we should be doing if we allow apartments here. I know this was discussed but dont see it in the requirements. Could you add a deed restriction that requires that these be owner occupied ? That way, they will be taken care of by people who have a vested interest in maintaining their property.

  6. Jeff Couvillion

    August 8, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    Thank You Mike. It will be a fine development and will be great for Central. We will have multiple provisions in the restrictions, purchase agreements and sale documents to ensure they remain single family ownership just as any other subdivision.

  7. Kyle

    August 9, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Mr. Couvillion: Your project seems like a nice one, and it is townhomes and not apartments. I think this is great that you are doing something for the younger people and those who cannot yet afford a $250,000 to $300,000 home.

    Mace: I review your comment as racist. You are an example of what Central should not be!

  8. Donna Dufour

    August 9, 2010 at 9:13 pm

    Kyle, I do agree with you on Mace’s remark. But you know she is saying what many others feel and think.

  9. mace

    August 9, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    Play the race card. That’s what north baton rouge did. Youre only a half mile away from becoming a paradise like them!

  10. Phantom

    August 10, 2010 at 2:43 am

    Hey Jeff

    Maybe you could explain to readers how you have no trouble getting things pushed through Planning and Zonning and City Council. I tought part of the cities plan is to decrease density to allow our infrastructure time to catch up. Such as schools, roads, utility improvements, etc…

    It seems to me that all you have to do in Central to get something approved is to find the right partner.

    For example: Twisted Daiquiri’s had no trouble getting passed through Planning and Zonning but Wildcats had more problems getting approval then any zonning request in central. Amazingly these business carry the same customers and provisions but one had problems one didn’t. I guess if wildcats would have found the right partner they could have kept the name and did with out the public out cry.

    Its obvious to me that planning and zonning needs Mike Mannio and there case. I love how Central holds themselves to a higher stander amoung cities in Louisiana but behind the scences we still follow the goog ole boy system of polictics.

  11. Concerned for Central

    August 10, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Twisted Daiq came before there was an election. The problem with Wildcat Bar, which I MOST others support, came after the election. There was the same opportunity to oppose twisted but there wasn’t the political need at the time. Not many people knew about it. Why did we know about Wildcat Bar. Only one place, Central City News. If you want to talk about partners you should know who fought it the most. It was the new politicians in our city. The people who tried to get a new mayor and city council are the ones who opposed this bar. Central City News and Jr. Shelton were definitely opposed to the new bar. You need to understand that the opposition to the bar was a hot political topic that these people could take advantage of. Some of the opposition was based on beliefs but these people weren’t involved with anything about the city until an election came about. Most of the divisiveness in our great city came after we started an election process. I thought we may be better than other cities about polotics. Unfortunately, we turned out to be worse than many.


    August 10, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Not sure why you stated that there wasn’t a political need to oppose twisted. Politics should have nothing to do with a establishment that promotes reckless and endangerment to the community. For example you cannot smoke in this place. Well a large number of people that drink also smoke. So when someone wants to smoke the only place they are going to go is outside. Do you honestly think these people are going to set the drink down before they proceed to the parking lot to smoke there cigarette. Well I can already tell you I have witnessed people drinking alcohol in the parking lot of this establishment. As most of you know already that drinking in a parking lot of a bar is illegal in many different ways. Not to mention these people are drinking out there unsupervised and possibly letting underage drinking take place. Which the first time a kid gets in a accident and hurts someone and states that he got the alcohol from someone in the parking lot of this establishment LOOK OUT because here comes the lawsuit.

    With all that being said my point is maybe we need people on Planning and Zoning that are experienced in these types of areas. There is something called a Proactive approach to preventing problems before they arise. To me that is what the responsibility of P&Z. Maybe we should quit worrying about who won or lost the last elections and focus on solving actual problems in this city.

  13. Not Mace but

    August 10, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Russell Starns’s kid owns Twisted Daiquiris and thus it was approved.

    It is that simple.


    August 10, 2010 at 6:21 pm

    POINT EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!

  15. Mike Mannino

    August 10, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    I have been supportive of these Townhomes if they were owner occupied. But I found out something tonight that puts a different twist on this. I didnt realize this will back up to Huntley Place and Lazy Lake Drive, right up against some single family residences. I hope Mr Coulvioun will work to address these homeowners concerns in an equitable way. I dont know what that would be, or if its possible but when you start affecting homeowners propert values, more discussion needs to take place. I certaintly would be concerned with the impact.

  16. Donna Dufour

    August 10, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    Kyle and Jeff , let’s come together on this one. I think we’ve been had. Check out Fabian Bilbao comments on Central Exchange FB page (Jeff already knows this), he was already blocked on Non Censored City of Central FB, he banned Fabian for this same type of behavior. I believe Mace is Fabian at it again. He enjoys causing turmoil. Mace Wandu is a Star Wars Character. Just before Non Censored banned him they posted the name Fabian Bilbao was a foreign movie star or something like that. Just ignore the post that remotely resembles his. He may pop up under a different name. Dave I know you can contact him concerning his posts like you have contacted me before. Mace’s post wasn’t worth posting, of course that is not my decision.

  17. Manny

    August 12, 2010 at 9:09 pm

    Why is the developer acting like he is doing the community a service by providing high-density, low income housing? You can buy a decent house with a yard in various neighborhoods in central for $130k. I dont know why you think $250k is the starting point.

    The houses will retain their value, if not increase. The condos will turn into apartments and eventually decline in value. They always do. This isn’t NYC.

  18. Lauren

    August 13, 2010 at 5:06 am

    In my opinion, it is all going to depend how the property is maintained. I live in Morgan Place West and I do not feel that the apartments/townhomes on Joor Rd that back up to my subdivision have any placed a marketability issue on it. The owners of the complexes have done a good job maintaining them. Whether the new townhomes are owner occupied or non occupied, I am quite sure Mr. Couvillion has restrictions in place.

  19. mike mannino

    August 13, 2010 at 7:24 am

    I disagree with you on owner occupancy. I think it is absolutly essential to assuring that these type complexes are kept up. I have high end rentals and I can tell you, even at some of the prices I charge, people just dont take care of what they dont own in most cases. I believe Mr Couvillion is planning to place such restrictions though as a deed requirement. Or at least thats what I understand. I will be at the council meeting to make sure. But there are other issues that have come up concerning the proximity to Huntley and Lazy Lake. At some points, there is less than 100′ from this development to existing single family homes. 2 story townhomes this close to a house, overlooking someones backyard, should be a concern.

  20. Kmason

    August 13, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    People buying in a new development want to protect their investment. A townhouse development of this number will be an asset. I am sure any investor could buy a home in a subdivision and use it as a rental with less headache than a townhouse development with restrictions. I think we should show some concern to the blighted properties we have on our major thoroughfares now. Dense developments are not our issue. These are not the type of properties with knee high grass or junk cars in the yard.

  21. Youre wrong

    August 14, 2010 at 11:56 am

    “kmason” – you are wrong. Condos in areas that are on the rise are the EASIEST way to make a quick dollar. The only reason condos arent everywhere in nice areas is because usually those nice areas want to keep their areas nice for over 20 years and put limitations on high-density development.

    Condos will be great at first, but will be a net-negative in the long run. They just don’t stay nice for as long and also they are a strain on infrastructure. They WILL eventually be mostly rental properties. I guarantee you this. It may take a few years but it will eventually happen.

    I guarantee you that there will not be a restriction stating that a person can’t buy one or two condos and rent them out. You will lose ground to north baton rouge in the long run. I would bet the farm on it.

    Unfortunately, you have bet other people’s houses on it.

  22. Captain Obvious

    August 14, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    Hopefully Mr. Couvillion does a better job with this development than the Bellingrath Lakes development and sticking the Central tax payers with having to fix his sub-standard roads. Not to mention the drainage wasn’t built per plans and possibly the residents or the tax payers of Central might be stuck fixing that problem as well.

  23. Mike Mannino

    August 15, 2010 at 8:50 pm

    Its up to us to hold Mr.Coulvioun to his word. He has said they will be deed restricted. There are other problems with this development such as proximity to existing single family homes but if it goes through, at a minimum, need to have this as a requiremnt in thedeed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *