SOUTHPORT — The elected officials in Southport deferred completing its board of adjustment appointments last Thursday, due to alleged outstanding code enforcement violations from one applicant. Meanwhile, another controversial candidate secured a seat due to the mayor’s tie-breaking vote.
At its June 17 meeting, the Southport Board of Aldermen were set to vote on numerous committee appointments. Four seats needed to be filled on the board of adjustment, with five applicants in the running — including Sue Hodgin, Chris Eckert, Jerry Rivenbark, Clark Freise and Loten “Tuck” Masker.
The interview committee, consisting of Alderman Marc Spencer, and board of adjustment Chair Pete Haslip and Vice Chair Jason Robbins, voted to appoint each applicant. The aldermen voted to fill three seats, with Hodgin, Eckert and Masker, but decided to postpone the vote on the final seat. The only alternate candidate was Freise, who was voted as an alternate on the planning board in May and thus cannot be considered for the board of adjustment. According to city policy, committee members cannot hold two positions on regulatory or quasi-judicial boards.
READ MORE: Future of Southport’s Historic Preservation Commission to be addressed next month
ALSO: Southport has a new planning board alternate but not without curt vote
CATCH UP: After delays and debate, Southport planning board member appointed, alternate yet decided
However, alderman Lowe Davis brought up Rivenbark having two outstanding code enforcement violations and suggested it be stalled as well.
“Therefore I suggest that this would not be a good time to appoint this person to the board of adjustment,” she said.
Rivenbark, owner of Rivenbark Construction and Southport’s oldest bar, now called Tiki Tavern, told Port City Daily he wasn’t aware of the violations, only a warning, and said he has reached out to the city to understand what they are exactly.
According to documents from the city, Rivenbark received several notices of violation in 2024 and 2025 from the city for complaints about storage of bulk or massive equipment and construction refuse. All were taken care of, according to the city. Port City Daily asked what the results and remediation steps were but did not hear back by press.
In April of this year, Rivebark received another violation for commercial and outdoor storage of bulk items, which remains outstanding.
Rivenbark explained he was having issues with neighbors near a property he owned on the outskirts of the city. Around the property, he installed a berm — or a raised mound of earth often used to slow, redirect or filter stormwater runoff — and brought in equipment to build an eventual pool, the permit submitted this week. Though he hadn’t begun construction, Rivenbark brought the equipment in preemptively, which his neighbors complained about.
Rivenbark said he got a warning from the city earlier this year about the equipment and another he related back to the bermt. However, the notices issued to Rivenbark suggest if he didn’t file an appeal within 30 days, he would be fined $50 a day. The documents also only cite concerns with industrial or bulk storage and alleged refuse or disposed items, which are not allowed in residential neighborhoods.
It remains outstanding.
Rivenbark explained he told the city that construction and the required landscaping on the berm would happen by the New Year. However, Rivenbark explained breakdowns in equipment and funding led to delays. He said the city “threatened to fine him $50 a day” about a month or two ago.
“I said, ‘Hell, I’ll just write you a check for like $18,000 and change. That should cover me for 365 days,’” he said.
When Alderman Davis brought up potential code violations June 17, members of the audience stood up to speak as well, which Rivenbark said were his neighbors. They commented they had all the paperwork about the code enforcement violations and asked if they were permitted to speak. Hatem and other city officials explained they were not.
While the aldermen seemed unclear on the violations, Spencer described them in relation to “moving tractors.” Mosteller explained, in the future, she wanted to speak with city attorney Brady Hermann about the legality of creating a policy preventing people with outstanding violations from applying for city positions on voting boards. However, she didn’t think it would be problematic for non-voting committees like beautification.
“I don’t know about what the outstanding violations are,” alderman Rebecca Kelley said June 17, noting if it was something simple like a “car parked in their driveway the wrong way,” then it wasn’t worth delaying Rivenbark’s appointment.
However, some aldermen attempted to push more than just Rivenbark’s appointment back — part of a recent pattern with committee appointments and schedules this year. The planning board had a vacant seat for about five months and then a vacant alternate seat for another two. In addition to the board of adjustment’s vacant seat, the historic preservation commission’s fate is up in the air.
Earlier this year the planning board seat vote was pushed back twice with controversy surrounding the re-appointment of Sue Hodgin, a former planning board chair who challenged the aldermen’s decisions being contrary to planning board recommendations during her three years served. Despite unanimous approval from the planning board interview committee, Hodgin’s application was pushed off in favor of receiving more candidates. This was put forth by Davis, who claimed the notice for applications, which went out last October, was off schedule from its normal spring open call and other potential candidates perhaps didn’t see the advertisement. She suggested giving more time and better marketing of the vacancy to allow for more applications.
However, Davis voted for Hodgin’s appointment to the board of adjustment last week, with Mayor Joe Pat Hatem having to break a 3-3 tie, with aldermen Robert Carroll and Karen Mosteller also in favor and aldermen Spencer, Kelley and Paul Gross against.
Hatem and Carroll have both been vocal about Hodgin’s seasoned advisory and policy-related qualifications and the retaliatory actions some aldermen had in thwarting her appointment. Carroll previously called Hodgin’s deferment and then denial to the planning board “governance by vengeance.”
Kelley suggested last week that Hodgin’s board of adjustment vote be considered for deferment to July as well. She reasoned there wasn’t consensus from the interview committee on Hodgin’s appointment, but the suggestion did not succeed this time around; Spencer was the only dissenting member of the three-person interview committee.
Despite Kelley’s suggestion, Hatem moved forward with the vote since a motion to approve Hodgin’s appointment was still on the floor.
Hodgin declined to comment to Port City Daily about her appointment to the board of adjustment until all are completed in July.
The remainder of the board of adjustment appointments will be discussed at the next aldermen meeting on July 9.
Have tips or suggestions for Emily Sawaked? Email [email protected]
At Port City Daily, we aim to keep locals informed on top-of-mind news facing the tri-county region. To support our work and help us reach more people in 2026, please, consider helping one of two ways: Subscribe here or make a one-time contribution here.
We appreciate your ongoing support.
