The headline of an article in last week's Central City News read "Mayor's Plan Would Inhibit Public Comment at Council."  This is simply untrue, because this is not the "Mayor's Plan".  It is instead an Ordinance that the Mayor is required to enforce. The ordinance was enacted by the City Council in 2005 and enforcement of the ordinance was rightfully requested by current Councilman Wayne Messina.  This Ordinance will remain in force unless the majority of the City Council votes to change it.  The Mayor has no authority to change the Ordinance.  The following communication was issued from the office of the Mayor of the City of Central, and clearly spells out the facts regarding the current Ordinance for Public Comment at City Council meetings:

To: Citizens of Central and Members of the Public

From: David Barrow, Executive Assistant

Date: December 20, 2010

Re: Editorial in Central City News – December 16, 2010

An editorial by Woody Jenkins on page 2 in the Central City News, December 16, 2010 edition

titled, “Mayor’s Plan Would Inhibit Public Comment at Council” contained some very misleading and incorrect information regarding public comment at council meetings. This plan is not “the mayor’s plan”, but instead is a plan adopted by a previous city council and included in the city’s code of ordinances. I would like to clarify this matter and give background information as to how this procedure was enacted.  Prior to writing this press release, both Mayor Watts and council member Wayne Messina were consulted to verify information.

    At the October 12, 2010 council meeting, council member Wayne Messina introduced an ordinance titled, “An ordinance to limit the time for comments by council members during a council meeting.” A copy of that ordinance is attached to this memo. This ordinance was proposed by council member Messina due to a nearly 4-hour council meeting that occurred previously in which citizens expressed frustration afterwards about the amount of time that it took to discuss an item by each council member. Council member Messina’s ordinance would limit the amount of time that council members could speak uninterrupted to five minutes with an additional five minutes for rebuttal on any given item in order to move the council meetings along in a timely manner. Additionally, no council member would speak unless recognized by the presiding official, which would be the mayor or, in his absence, the mayor pro-tem.   

    At the October 26, 2010 council meeting, a public hearing was to be heard on this ordinance.  However, prior to discussion, Council member Messina asked that discussion of this item be withdrawn due to the fact that he discovered there was already a city ordinance outlining these same procedures for comments. City attorney Sheri Morris concurred with council member Messina that there were already procedures in place under Title 1, Chapter 1, Part 1 (Rules of Procedure) of the city’s code of ordinances.

    This section, established by a previous city council, states the following:

Sec. 1:7. Conducting of meetings; public hearings.  (a) In view of the many items appearing on the agenda, each councilman will be allowed a maximum of five (5) minutes to express his views on any one subject without interruption from the other members upon initial consideration and five (5) minutes for rebuttal. No member will speak until recognized by the chair. In compliance with R.S. 42:5(d), members of the public will be allowed to speak on any item included on the agenda. Members of the

public who wish to speak, must request permission in writing to do so prior to discussion of the matter on which they wish to speak. The chairman will allocate time to all members of the public who wish to comment.

(b) Any question to be directed from a member of the council to any other person present must be directed through the chair.

(c) The city clerk is to be sergeant-at-arms and shall keep time and advise the chairman as to the time on all speakers. In order to continue beyond the allowed maximum, persons speaking must secure unanimous consent of the council.

(d) A ruling of the chairman ‘that an item on the agenda was not properly placed on the agenda shall be sustained unless overruled by the vote of two-thirds of the members then present. All other rulings of the chairman from which appeals are taken shall be sustained unless overturned by a majority of those members present.

    After this section was discussed, council member Messina stated that there was no need for his proposed ordinance since Title 1, Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 1:7 addressed his concerns and established procedures for public comment for both council members and the general public. The ordinance was then withdrawn, and it was requested by members of the council that the procedures of this section be followed for future council meetings. On Tuesday, December 16, 2010, Mayor Watts announced that these

procedures will be followed for future council meetings. So, therefore, it is not “the mayor’s plan”. It is set of procedures that were previously adopted by council action in the city’s ordinances on November 22, 2005.   

    In a telephone conference last Thursday, council member Messina pointed out that the State Legislature uses a similar procedure at its committee hearings, and this procedure seems to work well.  Citizens wishing to speak on an item must fill out a card prior to the meeting requesting to speak on a particular item. Only those who filled out cards requesting to speak are allowed to speak on an item at the committee hearings of the legislature. The Central Community School System is considering a similar procedure for its meetings as well. The city’s ordinance is generally consistent with the state legislature’s procedures and the proposed procedures of the Central Community School System.

    The statement in the Central City News article which reads, “The Mayor should reconsider his statement, and the council should make sure this idea doesn’t take hold” is misleading. A previous council established these rules by ordinance on November 22, 2005, and members of the current council requested that this law be enforced (and take hold) in order to provide for timely council meetings while still allowing the public the right to be heard.

    By copy of this letter, a request is hereby made for the Central City News to issue a clarification and apology to Mayor Watts for running an editorial with a misleading headline and not presenting all the facts that were discussed openly during a public council meeting on October 26, 2010. A recorded audio copy of this meeting is available to the public.

    Northbound and Southbound LA 37 (Greenwell Springs Rd) in Baton Rouge from Sullivan Rd. to S.JCT. LA 64. One lane may be closed from Monday night, December 27 to Wednesday night, December 29. Lane closures will be allowed from 7:00pm to 5:30am the following day in both the Northbound & Southbound directions while crews work on Asphaltic Concrete mill and overlay work. One lane will remain open to traffic at all times.

     This lane closure has no vehicle restrictions and no detour is necessary.  This lane closure is subject to change depending on adverse weather conditions.

     DOTD appreciates your patience and reminds you to please drive with caution through the construction site and be on the lookout for work crews and their equipment.

By Dave Freneaux

    It was reported in the Central City News that "Councilman Louis DeJohn said that he thinks it would be a good thing if 100 percent of permit fees go to CH2MHILL."  Untrue.  The direct quote of what Councilman DeJohn said is, "I don't think the City ought to get a nickel out of it.  The 10% was originally set up in case they weren't collecting enough money to cover the services without asking us to raise taxes.  After three years I think we can safely say that that money is not necessary.  So, what we are doing is we are taxing the people ourselves."  "If they (the City) have a fee structure in which the City gets taxes, I would appreciate it if we would delinieate it and get it off there."

    It is painfully clear that Councilman DeJohn wants the 10% to be given back to the taxpayers in the form of reduced permit fees, not that it be given to CH2M Hill.  DeJohn spoke earlier in the meeting and defended the 90% of the fees collected by CH2M Hill, pointing out that they do 100% of the work.  DeJohn's assertion is that any fee above what the City has agreed to pay for the services is in essence a tax levied by the City, and he wants that money left in the pockets of the taxpayers.  Mr. DeJohn obviously said nothing about giving 100% of the fees to CH2M Hill, as was stated in Woody Jenkins' editorial in the Central City News.  The audio recording of all Council meetings can be heard, free of charge, any business day, at the City Services office.

    In an interview with Councilman DeJohn late last week the discussion turned to whether the City should be able to require CH2M Hill to accept less than 90% of the permit fees collected.  That is, after all, the deal Central agreed to when the City wanted CH2M Hill to provide the services.  Mr. DeJohn, who owns a large contracting company, likened the situation to a three year plumbing job that someone might bid for $80 an hour.  Using the master plumber on his staff who could handle the job, the contractor would intend to make a $20 per hour profit.  Two years into a three year contract for this job, the contractor trains up a young plumber who is completely capable of doing the job, and instead assigns the young plumber to do the job, meeting all requirements of the contract.  If the contractor recruits and trains the young plumber and pays him $10 per hour less than he paid the Master Plumber, is he required to pass that savings on to the customer?

     The answer is no.  A deal is a deal.  A person purchasing a 50" television for $1,000 in 2008 does not get to bring it back to the store in 2010 and exchange it for the new 60" model which also now sells for $1,000.  A deal is a deal.  When you sign a three year lease on a house you don't get to lower your rent after two years just because you could rent a bigger house for the same money now.  A deal is a deal.  If the City of Central engages in the practice of signing agreements then trying to change the rules it is likely that companies will either avoid doing business with Central, or may at least raise their initial bids in preparation for Central not wishing to live with the deal that was signed.  Fortunately, Central is in the process of deciding what the new contract for City Services will look like.  The argument has been made several times at Council meetings that the best use of the City's time is to focus not on trying to change a deal signed three years ago, but to focus on the deal the City needs to sign less than six months from now.

Update from Project Manager Jeffery Chatelain; Submitted by David Barrow

    Our contractor has completed asphalt patching work and the majority of asphalt milling operations. The milled asphalt surface is what you are riding on now and is required prior to placement of the new asphalt.  The cold weather has delayed progress somewhat since we cannot put down new asphalt pavement if the temperature is below 50 degrees. Weather permitting, the contractor plans to begin paving asphalt after the first of the year.

By Jeanie Barnett-  as seen in the Winter 2010 issue of Neighborhood Connections

    Last week I met with three people representing the Amite River Basin Drainage and Water Conservation District,  Dietmar Rietschier, Executive Director, Lawrence Callender, President and Larry Bankston, attorney.  They were not only very helpful in answering questions, but excited to the degree of passion about the project.  I understand their enthusiasm.  It is not often that a project can be developed that results so clearly in a situation in which there is no real downside.  So many government projects may primarily benefit one group of people, but cost another group of people in taxes.  Some look like a sweet deal, but when you trace the funding, it’s really “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”  For the residents of Central, the Comite Diversion Canal project benefits us and saves us money at the same time.

What is the Comite River Diversion Plan?

    This is the largest flood control project in East Baton Rouge Parish since the construction of the Mississippi Levees in the 1930’s.  The project is a 12 mile channel with a system of drop structures and pumps located between the Cities of Baker and Zachary.

    “The main purpose of the project is to divert 50% of the flood water from the upper Comite River sub-basin during flooding events into the Mississippi River,” Director Rietschier said. “This diversion will result in substantial stage reductions primarily in the north-eastern part of East Baton Rouge Parish, primarily the City of Central.  Approximately 60% of the 100-year floodplain in East Baton Rouge will be affected by this project.”

     If you have any recollection of the flooding here in the 1970’s through 1990’s, you are only beginning to know the potential impact.  In the intervening 30 years since that time, literally thousands of acres of streets, buildings and non-permeable concrete parking lots have been built in the area.  That means that the same conditions, causing the same rise in river waters could translate into even higher levels of flooding due to increased impediments to absorption and run off.

    Expected future stage lowering with project in place:

•  Comite River at Hooper Road

    10 year flood        6.0 feet lower

    25 year flood        5.7 feet lower

    50 year flood        5.1 feet lower

    100 year flood      4.4 feet lower

• Comite River at Comite LA. (Joor)

   10 year flood         4.8 feet lower

   25 year flood         4.8 feet lower

   50 year flood         4.3 feet lower

   100 year flood       3.8 feet lower

How is this project funded?

    In 2000 a 3 mill tax was approved by forward thinking voters in the midst of a drought.  In October, 2010, again, the citizens within the taxing District approved a 2.65 mill tax.  The Federal government required Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development and the Amite River Basin Commission to contribute funds for the project to be approved.  Former Congressman Richard Baker was a champion of this cause. 

     In this multi-jurisdictional project the funding is shared between the U S Army Corps of Engineers (federal) Louisiana State Department of Transportation and Development (State) and the Amite River Basin Commission (local).

What is this going to cost me?

    As an example, if your home is valued at $150,000:                     

A reduction in flood elevation of       Estimated savings in annual flood ins. premium        Cost of a 2.65 mill tax            Estimated net annual savings to homeowner

1 foot  $191.00    $19.88   $171.12

2 feet   $262.00    $19.88   $242.12

    So, as you see, Central residents will benefit from reduction to potential flood damage as well as a savings in flood insurance premiums.  A more subtle, but real benefit is that of the increased property value of all of the land in the City of Central.

Other than flood mitigation, what impact will this project have?

   After a lengthy planning and public participation process, several alternative, minimally invasive routes for this project were identified. Evaluations were done taking into account environmental affect on plant and animal life, archaeological and historical considerations such as, Indian mounds, logistic challenges such as gas line relocations, and cultural and aesthetic impact to the surrounding population. To mitigate wetlands affected by the project within the right of way, 1484 acres of land along the Comite River will be purchased and preserved. The plan also calls for planting trees on 679 acres of cleared land.

How will it be managed and maintained into the future?

    Upon completion there will be a flood plain management plan established by the commission that will outline policies and codes and regulations to be implemented in all local governments to prevent negation of this mitigation.  The East Baton Rouge Government will be responsible for the maintenance of this canal once it is completed.

What’s the hold up?

    The big challenge right now is the ticking clock.  The conditions creating the major flood events of the past are not flukes; they will repeat themselves. 

    The project is moving as fast as the money comes in, yet in the years since Congress approved the canal, costs of construction have risen and projected completion dates have been moved back.  The Corps of Engineers has had to prioritize its resources to address the damage caused to New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina.   The only funds that are up to date are the local match, which has allowed for the continuity of the construction. 

    The slow acquisition of federal funds is a major factor in the delay of the project, but the bureaucracy of acquiring property is also an excruciatingly time-consuming process.

For more information:

http://amitebasin.org/

http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pd/projectsList/home.asp?projectID=9

     Please allow me to take a moment of your time to remind each of you that this Holiday season we, as citizens of Central, have so very much to be thankful for.  I have taken the liberty to adapt a soliloquy from My Town (circa 1638) and make it my own.

            My Central is the place where my home is found,

            my family is located and where my vote is cast.

            It is where my children and grandchildren are educated;

            where my life simply is.  Central has a right to my civic

            loyalty.  It supports me and I in turn support it.

            Central wants my citizenship, not my partnership;

            My friendliness, not my dissensions;

            My sympathy, not my criticism;

            My intelligence not my indifference;

            Central supplies me with protection, trade, friends, education,

            schools, churches and the right to free moral citizenship.

            Central has some things better than others.

            The best things, I should seek to make better.

            The worst things, I should help to suppress.

            Take it all-in-all.

            It is my city

            And therefore entitled to the best

            there is in me.

THANK YOU!

            I extend a huge thank you to all that participated in making our Veteran’s Day Ceremony this year a great success.  Without your assistance and donations this event would not have been possible:

Grace Pentecostal Church

Central Worship Center

Winn Dixie

Oak Point Grocery

Community Coffee

Congressman Bill Cassidy

State Representative  Mack “Bodi” White

To all the volunteer man hours so graciously given to make this event come together, I say thank you!

God Bless our Veterans!  God Bless America!  God Bless Central!

FAMILY, FESTIVITIES AND SAFETY

            During this season of parties and festive gatherings, enjoy yourself and be safe.  As you celebrate, be sure to plan for a safe trip home.  There are several options available to you:

1)  Always designate a driver that will not be consuming alcohol.

2)  If a designated driver is not an option, you may call for the:

     Mockler Beverage Ride Home:

     926-6400      7 P.M. – 3 A.M.

     You will be picked up by yellow cab and taken home only.

     If you are a resident of Central, the meter will begin as you

     leave the Baton Rouge city limits and run until your arrival

     at your home.  Cash payments only.

     Remember you are a vital part of this community and we value  

     your life.  Take care and enjoy your holiday season!

BE SURE TO SHOP CENTRAL FIRST!

By Dave Freneaux

     In the final City Council meeting of 2010, Mayor Watts paved the way to discuss how Central elects Council Members.  The Council is currently elected "at large", meaning that every voter in Central votes for their top five candidates and the top five vote-getters are seated as Council Members.  During the City elections earlier this year, discussion and debate arose as to whether Central should be divided into Districts, like the School Board, with voters in each District voting only for candidates from their district.

    The argument FOR districts is that each area of the City has unique local concerns and a Council member living in that district and elected by the voters from that area would better represent the voters of that district.  The argument AGAINST districts is that Council Members should work in the best interests of the City as a whole, regardless of where they live, and that Districting could lead to political arguments over what services, such as road overlays, to provide to what districts.  Council Member Messina has been asked to chair this committee, which is to look into Districts, Divisions, and Term Limits.  Mayor Watts also has appointed Council Member LoBue to chair a committee to investigate the costs of hiring a full time attorney to serve as Central's City Attorney.  Each of these committees will consist of seven appointed members, one appointed by each Council Member and two by the Mayor.

   In other business the Council voted unanimously to waive attorney-client privilege and release the majority of the legal billing detail from recent montly bills of the City Attorney.  The Council unanimously voted to redact certain privileged information contained in the billing records which may have a bearing on future litigation.  The Council approved an additional $25,000 to complete the drainage improvements needed for the Bridlewood/Beaver Bayou Drainage Improvements.  The City Council will meet again on January 11, 2011.

Submitted by Mayor's Office Assistant David Barrow

WORKSHOP AGENDA: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 9TH, 9:30 AM AT CENTRAL FIRE STATION

I.          Preliminary Business

            (1)        Call to Order 

1. Roll Call 

II.        Old Business

            None

III.       New Business

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

1. Discussion of proposed changes to the City of Central Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to zoning categories, in particular Section 15: Special Regulations for Mobile Home Parks and Individual Sites for Mobile Homes. (Mark Balkin, Zoning Attorney)
2. Discussion of revised street standards to Appendix J of the UDC per the city of Central’s Master Land Use Plan
3. Discussion of proposed amendments to Ch. 19 and Ch. 4 of the UDC as deferred from the November 18, 2010 Planning & Zoning meeting.

IV.       Other Business

            (1)        Announcements

            (2)        Adjournment

Section 15   Special Regulations for Mobile Home Parks and Individual Sites for Mobile Homes.

A.         Mobile homes and mobile home parks allowed by this ordinance must continue to comply with all City ordinances and all other applicable laws regulating mobile homes and mobile homes parks.

B.         Mobile home parks, when allowed as either permitted or conditional uses in the various districts shall conform to the following requirements:

1.          A mobile home park shall be located on a site of not less than one acre and shall contain not more than twenty-four (24) mobile home sites per acre. Individual mobile home sites shall contain an area of not less than one thousand seven hundred and fifty (1,750) square feet.

2.          A mobile home park shall be connected with a street by a paved driveway or driveways constructed in accordance with appropriate ordinances and regulations.

3.          A front yard setback of at least twenty (20) feet in depth shall be provided.

4.          Side yards of not less than five (5) feet shall be provided; however, on corner sites a side yard of not less than ten (10) feet in width shall be provided.

5.          A rear yard of not less than twenty (20) feet in depth shall be provided.

6.          Required front, rear and side yards shall be planted with grass, shrubs, or trees and all planting must be maintained in a manner not obstructing sight distances for vehicles entering or leaving the mobile home park.

7.          The mobile home park shall be separated from the abutting property and the required front yard and on a corner lot from the required side yard on the street side by a solid fence at least five (5) feet, but not in excess of seven (7) feet in height.

8.          Individual mobile home sites shall provide a front yard having a minimum depth of five (5) feet. Appendages, expansions, canopies or attachments to the mobile home shall not protrude into any required yard area.

9.          Individual mobile home sites shall provide two (2) side yards having a combined width of thirteen (13) feet; in no case shall either side yard be less than five (5) feet. Appendages, expansions, canopies or attachments to the mobile home shall not protrude into any required yard area.

10.        Individual mobile home sites shall provide a rear yard having a minimum depth of five (5) feet. Appendages, expansions, canopies or attachments to the mobile home shall not protrude into any required yard area.

11.        Off-street parking space for automobiles shall be provided in the ratio of at least one parking space per mobile home in location convenient to individual mobile homes or groups of mobile homes. Parking is not allowed in the required front yard.

12.        No signs shall be erected upon such mobile home parks except for the one (1) sign at each entrance as set forth below. Such signs shall not exceed ten (10) square feet nor extend more than ten (10) feet in overall height above the ground and shall not project into required yard areas more than six (6) inches.

13.        All mobile home parks located in the City:

             a.          Shall have a sign listing the mobile home park name and address.

             b.          Each sign shall have a map diagram showing the names of all streets in the mobile home park, (private or public).

             c.          Each mobile home in the park shall be numbered with a uniform twelve (12) by twelve (12) inch sign on a four-foot post made of weather-resistant material. Said sign shall be located and maintained in the front of each mobile home giving a clear and unobstructed view from the road giving access and ingress to said mobile home.

             d.          Any change of street names by new owners of the mobile home park shall be submitted to the City planning department and the fire district prior to the name change.

             e.          A copy of the street map of the mobile home park with the names of each street and the number of mobile homes located thereon shall be supplied to the fire district.

14.        All mobile home parks shall have at least ten (10%) percent of its area (not exceeding 1 acre) set aside for recreational use by the park’s residents.

C.        Individual Mobile Homes.

1.          Individual mobile homes, used for construction or sales or leasing offices or for similar purposes, but not for residential use, may be located as an accessory use in any district for such time as active construction is continuing or initial sales or initial leasing at the development (to which the mobile home is accessory) is ongoing.

2.          A single mobile home may be permanently used for office purposes for mobile home parks and mobile home sales facilities as part of a conditional use for a mobile home park or mobile home sales facility.

3.          A single mobile home used for residential purposes is permitted in the Rural/Agriculture District provided it meets all requirements of said district and further complies with the following requirements:

             a.          Lot Area:       Not less than three (3) acres.

             b.          Lot width:      Not less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage on a public maintained roadway.

             c.          Front yard setback:   Not less than one hundred (100) feet.  On through lots, the required front yard shall be provided on both streets.

             d.          Side yard setback:     Not less than twenty-five (25) feet.  On corner lots the side yard on the side of the lot abutting the side street shall be not less than one hundred (100) feet. Further, said mobile home shall be located at least fifty (50) feet from adjacent residences.

             e.          Rear yard:      Not less than twenty-five (25) feet.

             f.           The property has an approved sanitary sewer treatment system to which a manufactured home may be connected.

4.          A single mobile home used for residential purposes may be permitted in the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R/A Districts in the event that a residence is destroyed by storm, fire or other act of God for such period of time required to construct a new residence.  Said mobile home shall not be installed until a building permit for the new residence is obtained and shall only be permitted so long as construction on the new residence is actively pursued.

5.          A single mobile home in conjunction with an existing residence, in any district, may be permitted by the Board of Adjustment in cases of extreme hardship provided that:

             a.          Board of Adjustment action is based on a complete report by the planning department setting forth its opinion as to whether the case is a true hardship.

             b.          Hardship is defined as the need to provide housing in conjunction with an existing residence, business or institution when an additional permanent residence is not justified or feasible, and the need is based upon:

                         i.         The requirements for housing of aged, ill or otherwise incapacitated, or handicapped family members, or wards for which the existing residents are or may become responsible;

                         ii.        The physical or economic need for housing of divorced parents with minor children, for whom existing residents have responsibility or family relationship;

             c.          Any mobile home allowed to be located under the provisions of this Section may not be occupied by or rented to anyone other than the person for whom the permit was applied.

             d.          The approval of any mobile home under this subsection B.6. shall be for a period not to exceed six (6) months.  Upon application, prior to the end of the six (6) month period, the Board of Adjustment may grant additional periods of six (6) months.

Submitted by David Barrow, Assistant to the Mayor's Office

Residential building permit activity in the city of Central picked up during the month of October 2010.  A total of 16 new residential building permits were issued during the month, bringing the total for the year up to 117.  In 2009, a total of 71 new residential building permits had been issued during the ten-month period.  The total building valuation of the 16 permits was $4,250,634.

From these permits, three were issued in Morgan Springs subdivision with an average valuation of $177,393; six were issued in Village Lakes subdivision with an average valuation of $244,729; three were issued in Wisteria Lakes subdivision with an average valuation of $235,148; three on private lots with an average valuation of $288,585; and a five-unit townhome development valued at $678,878.

Many of those building new houses are not new residents to Central.  A large portion are either current Central residents looking to upsize or downsize from their current homes or children of Central homeowners who have grown up and are looking for their first home to buy.

Central’s newest subdivision, Burlington Lakes, located at the eastern end of Hooper Rd behind Amber Lakes subdivision, is nearing final acceptance of the first filing and will feature 68 lots with homes averaging 1600 sq. ft. and selling in the $200,000 price range.    An age-restricted subdivision called The Gates at Burlington, located on Wax Rd near Northwoods subdivision, is nearing completion of infrastructure.  It will feature 53 lots and a clubhouse and will be restricted to people age 55 or over.

Additionally, another phase of the Village at Magnolia Square traditional neighborhood development will start early next year.  It will feature an additional 19 lots.   The second filing of Woodstock subdivision, located off of Planchet Rd, will begin in 2011, bringing the total number of lots in that subdivision to 175.

 Submitted by David Barrow

CITY OF CENTRAL

MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS

Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:00 P.M.

KristenwoodBuilding

14025 Greenwell Springs Road

Greenwell Springs (Central), Louisiana  70739

www.centralgov.com

THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES AND RULES APPLY TO PUBLIC COMMENT:

In accordance with rules of procedure, all items on these agendas are open for public comment. Those members of the public desiring to speak on a particular item should approach the podium and request to speak after the item is announced by the Chairman.

1. A statement setting forth the applicant’s proposal, together with the Planning Commission Staff recommendation will be made by the Planning Director and Staff after which the applicant and the public will be heard. Each speaker, before speaking on the proposal, shall give his or her name and the address and state whom he/she is representing. Anyone speaking as a civic association representative shall document that their presented views are those of the organization. 

2.   Applicant and applicant representatives for the proposal will speak first for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes. Proponents for the proposal will speak second and a period of three (3) minutes will be allowed for each proponent.  Opponents or other interested parties will speak next and a period of three (3) minutes will be allowed for each speaker. There will be no limit to the number of persons who may speak, but speakers are encouraged to avoid duplication in their presentations.

3. Applicant will be allowed a total period of five (5) minutes to offer rebuttal.  Opponents will not be allowed to rebut.

4.   The Commission Members may ask any questions and make comments, but are urged to cooperate in an effort to spend no more than fifteen (15) minutes in discussion of a case after all speakers have been heard.

5.   Items placed on the Consent Agenda by the Planning Commission Staff will not have time allocated for speaking, unless there is a member of the public present at the meeting who wishes to speak on the item. In such cases, the proposal will follow the standard.

1. Planning Commission items are finally resolved by the Planning Commission without further presentation or action by the City Council.  Zoning Commission matters heard tonight by the Zoning Commission, unless specifically stated, will be heard by the City Council of the City of Central on Tuesday, January 11, 2010 at this same time and location for final action, unless the case is deferred by the Commission.  It is important that the applicant for each zoning case attend the Council Zoning meeting as well.

AGENDA

CITY OF CENTRAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Thursday, December 16^th , 2010 6:00pm

14025 Greenwell Springs Road

Central, LA  70739

1. Call to Order
2. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4. Recitation of Rules
5. Approval of Minutes (November 18th, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting)
6. Amendments and Consent Agenda

PUBLIC HEARING CASES (NEW BUSINESS):

7.   SS-22-10          Subdivision with Waivers This property is located on the east side of Droze Road near the intersection of Alford Drive on Lot 3-C-1 of the Jesse Webb Property in Section 37, T6S, R2E, GLD, EBR. The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot into two on an existing private servitude of access with a waiver request of Section 13.6 (I)(4) and Section 4.103 (A)(4) (g)(1)of the Unified Development Code.   (Applicant:  Mickey L. Robertson)

PUBLIC HEARING CASES (OLD BUSINESS):

8.   SS-17-10          Subdivision with Waiver This property is located on the east side of Devall Road on Tract A of the Henry H. Bozeman Tract in Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 2 East, Greensburg Land District, East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. The applicant is proposing to subdivide one (1) lot into two (2) on an existing private servitude of access with a waiver request of Section 13.6 (I)(4) of the Unified Development Code.   (Applicant:  Henry Bozeman)  **Deferred from October 28, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting**

1. Announcements     
2. Adjourn

AGENDA

CITY OF CENTRAL ZONING COMMISSION

Thursday, December 16^th , 2010 6:00pm

14025 Greenwell Springs Road

Central, LA  70739 

1.   Call to Order

2.  Roll Call

3.  Recitation of Rules

4.  Approval of Minutes (November, 2010 Zoning Meeting)

5.  Amendments and Consent Agenda

PUBLIC HEARING CASES (NEW BUSINESS):

1.  None

PUBLIC HEARING CASES (OLD BUSINESS):

1. None               
2. Announcements
3. Adjourn

Planning & Zoning Agenda 12/16/2010