SOUTHPORT — Two years, two variance requests and multiple site plans: It’s been a long road for a mixed-use project in Southport to gain the greenlight at the intersection of Howe and Moore streets, but the planning board unanimously passed it last week.
Chair Sue Hodgin read off a statement noting the board had no choice, essentially.
“This applicant and council have already advised the city that if this board tables the matter for any other discussion, they will issue a writ of mandamus [a court order requiring a government to perform its duty legally] forcing us to come back and approve his submission,” she said. “We basically find ourselves with our collective backs against the walls because of a procedure failure.”
Andrew Laing, owner of Southport Coffee Co. and Kitchen, and Full House Properties, LLC, wants to convert a downtown Southport property into a three-story mixed-use building, featuring four two-bedroom apartments of 1,000-square-feet each. The building, located at 101 E. Moore St., is already home to the Bull Frog Corner gift shop and candy store. Laing envisions adding to the structure, to be 40 feet in height — allowed under the previous UDO, as it was submitted before changes were made in the central business district restricting building height to 30 feet. By the time construction is completed, it will include two apartments on each floor above the business; Bull Frog Corner will remain operational.
The project is allowed by-right; however, the planning board must ensure the site plan meets all standards in the unified development ordinance to approve the application.
The site plan was put forth in August 2022 and approved by Wes McLeod, a contract planner with the Cape Fear Council of Governments who stepped in to help fill a gap in city staff at the time.
The main sticking point in the plan moving forward has come in parking requirements. With residential units included, city code requires one off-street parking spot per unit. Laing plans to utilize a small dirt lot between the property and a next-door building he also owns for parking. The UDO allows off-street parking to be available from an adjacent property within 400 feet of the property entrance.
The planning board had formed a review committee consisting of Sue Hodgin, Fred Fiss, and Scott Jones to assess the project’s site plan and standard requirements in October 2022. The committee took issue with its parking configuration, parking space sizes, trash receptacles not on the site plan, accessibility to the building, and handicap parking wasn’t delineated. The application was put on hold until a new site plan was devised.
The committee requested a maneuverability study and analysis of the parking lot, completed by Davenport engineers on behalf of the applicant. Southport city staff engineer Tom Zilinek reviewed it and took issue that vehicles would have to make 10- to 30-point turns to exit front-facing onto Howe Street. He also said the study didn’t consider other variables, such as poor spacing conditions from cars opening their doors close to the building or entering and exiting, and section 3.14b in the UDO noting cars cannot back into the public right-of-way.
However, in January 2024 the applicant approached the board of adjustment for a variance request for the lot’s use for four angled parking spaces, one being ADA compliant, and allowing drivers to back out of the lot while exiting.
Planning board members took issue with that section of Howe Street being highly trafficked, not only with cars but also pedestrians. They feared vehicles reversing into traffic would endanger others due to blind spots.
The board of adjustment allowed it with conditional site plan approval, including assurance that appropriate safety visuals would be placed in the vicinity to warn passersby.
Upon its passing, the review committee — now with Kevin Locklin taking over for Scott Jones — requested a look at the procedural measures that took place and re-approached public safety considerations.
During last week’s meeting, a few board members were concerned about the boards not being in lockstep for the safety of citizens. Though the planning board had the site plan before Laing went before the BOA, there’s no rule stopping an applicant from seeking a variance at the same time.
“I think he used the benefits of the system,” Locklin said, “but the system allows it. And I think if we want to improve the system, we make changes to the system.”
The planning board project committee, along with the city manager and staff, as well as the North Carolina Department of Transportation, met with Laing last year after the variance request passed. Another option was suggested — ditch the lot for off-street parking and instead mark four on-street spaces, block off the driveway to the property, and enter an encroachment agreement with NCDOT. This plan would also mandate the applicant install curb and sidewalk to NCDOT’s standards.
However, the parking wouldn’t be exclusively for the apartment residents but open to the public overall. This was something that the planning board committee suggested would fulfill much sought-after public parking needs and would satisfy their safety concerns.
According to city planning services director Maureen Meehan, Laing agreed to the new suggestion in order to move the project along. He went back before the board of adjustment to reconsider lot parking and go with the on-street parking instead; the board struck down his request on Jan. 28, 2025.
Twelve days earlier, a new planning board was voted in and the development’s site plan was up for approval again. Hodgin suggested the board table the vote to its Feb. 20 meeting. She felt it appropriate due to the new board members needing to catch up on its extensive details, not to mention the impending BOA vote.
“This decision is resting fully with the planning board,” Hodgin said at the time, noting it would not go before the aldermen since it was an administrative. “So the buck stops here with us and I think it’s unfair to new members to have a 10-minute introduction and absorption of this information. They should have time to bring back questions for staff after a review.”
Laing’s lawyer, Amy Scaeffer, responded her client was trying to be a good partner to the city, but the hold-up on passing his site plan was becoming laborious.
“We’re going on 29 months for a by-right development,” Schaeffer reminded, adding they complied with everything as allowed through variances, which put the applicant in line with the UDO.
At last week’s planning board meeting, she reiterated the planning board’s rule was administrative to ensure compliance and thought “the board of adjustment or a court would approve that based on compliance with the code.”
She also was clear approval of the site plan is only the first step and assured board members, particularly new ones, it had to go through technical review committee too.
“And get all building permits and meet all requirements for things like fire, ingress and egress, and sprinklers and whatever those requirements are,” Schaeffer explained.
Some of the new board members had questions, such as Larry Ashley, who wanted clarification on the various site plans showing different parking suggestions. He intimated it was confusing and thanked Hodgin for suggesting they take a month to review it instead of new members “shooting from the hip” and thus ensuring they do “everything fairly and above board.”
He asked if the lot had to be marked to let passersby know it was there and if it had to be paved, to which Meehan answered only if it were more than 10 spaces. She added the lot didn’t necessarily have to be marked either. Ashley also wanted to know how to ensure the city had access to the parking on that property forever, even if the owner sells the building.
“We could ask them to make sure there is a deed restriction,” Meehan said.
Hodgin asked if review committee members had comments, as they met on Feb. 14 ahead of the planning board meeting.
Fiss said the parking issue weighed “heavily” with him.
“The primary concern is safety of citizens of Southport,” he said. “With my heart, I cannot approve this; as a planning board member, I know I have to.”
Locklin agreed with Fiss but also with Ashley on the deed restriction. More so, he said the committee and planning board attempted to resolve issues to suit all parties.
“I want to thank the patience of the applicant, and because of the way the system is, everything was done in good faith,” Locklin said.
Hodgin read from a prepared statement from the committee about the project ahead of the favorable vote. She said the committee attempted to bring forth every idea and option for the best parking measures available, yet also noted there was a communication breakdown and some flaws to address among the boards and staff, which she said may be expected in layered government functions but still thought it was a failure to Southport citizens.
Hodgin added that back in August 2022 the application should have never been submitted to the planning board to begin with, since it didn’t meet parking requirements in the UDO. She thought it should have been resolved before coming before the board and said:
“The applicant pursued and obtained for his benefit, as he is allowed by statute and the UDO, a formal adjustment which reconfigured a parking drawing, reducing the required spaces by one and allowing cars to back out into Southport’s busiest intersection. Our review committee believes the city failed us in January and February 2024, whether by staff, council or otherwise, by not giving proper advice on board of adjustment processes and appeal rights post adjustment actions.”
Had the planning board review committee known about the hearing for the variance, she said it would have attended to present evidence about “glaring” safety concerns. She also said if they knew about the 30-day window to appeal, it would have “pressed full court” for the city to do so “in the greater interest for all of Southport.”
“Because of a procedural process failure, we have no way out, we are forced to approve this site plan — we can put forth a motion to approve with conditions,” Hodgin said.
The planning board required for the lot to be added to the deed restriction of 101 E. Moore St. and used as parking in perpetuity, as well as installing visual cues to warn pedestrians and drivers of the busy intersection.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our morning newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
