SOUTHPORT — With air freshener in hand and an arsenal of choice words, Southport’s former planning board chair addressed aldermen after they rejected her reappointment to the board earlier this month.
READ MORE: Southport planning chair not reappointed, political retaliation questioned by board members
Sue Hodgin, who served on the Southport Planning Board since 2022, attended the aldermen’s July 11 meeting to speak to accusations made about her during a meeting one week prior. The aldermen voted 4-2 to deny Hodgin’s return to the board.
Out of eight applications, the aldermen voted in three newcomers, Maria Horton and Doug Leuhe, as well as Ed Ekert to serve as an alternate; all have three-year terms.
During the board appointment meeting, Alderman Karen Mosteller — who was one of two votes in favor of Hodgin’s return, the other being Robert Carroll — noted going with the recommended appointees would bring 75% of the planning board to having less than six months of experience. This didn’t dissuade the majority of the board from voting in new members, some decrying a need for fresh ideas, others saying the planing board should more closely align with the will of the aldermen.
Hodgin did not return PCD’s request for comment during its former coverage but she spoke for 45 minutes to the Southport leaders about accusations she heard during the meeting about being divisive and terse.
“Silencing dissent impoverishes discourse,” Hodgin said. “My contributions to any discussions are not motivated by a desire to fracture or alienate, rather they’re rooted in commitment to honesty, transparency and the pursuit of shared understanding.”
Hodgin said a rational reason wasn’t offered for the aldermen to deny her another go on the planning board and instead said the rejection was “a setup, pre-determined, a political retaliation and that it smelled — it didn’t pass the sniff test.”
Spraying air freshener during certain points of the meeting to punctuate her words, Hodgin called the rejection of her application a “slap in the face” and “a punitive moment.”
The board meeting on July 7 had aldermen appointing members to other committees, to which Hodgin said not one other person that applied for reappointment on any other board was rejected. She added never in Southport’s history has a “standing member of the planning board or its chair” — an all-volunteer committee — been removed from a seat.
Southport city staff couldn’t verify the information.
Hodgin has been outspoken about lack of transparency with some aldermen and the planning board she chairs hasn’t always been in lockstep with city leaders. For instance, the planning board and planning staff worked on bringing a conditional zoning ordinance forth in 2023, but it was denied by the aldermen, as some worried it could usher in overdevelopment. Yet, CZ was brought back this year by the aldermen and tied to an annexation and development agreement with East West Partners and Bald Island Ltd.
“That shows the difference of who has leverage, in my mind,” Vice Chair Kevin Locklin said at the planning board’s May 2 meeting, referring to the developers’ pull over the CZ amendment.
Locklin also spoke in favor of Hodgin’s reappointment to the board of alderman earlier this month, praising her steady guidance: “It’s unequivocal that every member believes in her leadership, her education, her unselfishness, her skill and her knowledge.”
On July 11, Hodgin accused current aldermen of “cronyism,” followed by a spritz of air freshener — to which Mayor Alt asked her to refrain from doing. He thought people in the room, including public commenters, may be allergic. So, instead, Hodgin moved forward stating the word “spray” each time she felt it was needed.
Hodgin called out board members for asking for applications to varied committees through personal social media, requesting people to reach out directly rather than going to the town website to apply. She said two of three people appointed to the planning board recently didn’t apply until the second round of solicitations.
“If these individuals stepped up, as Alderman Kelley stated, why did that step-up not happen until the initial deadline passed?” she asked. “It would have shown their understanding of deadlines, compliance with the posting and a true desire to be helping the town to which they’ve moved. Spray.”
Hodgin suggested votes for committee and board members often are determined before they go before the public and questioned whether the PB appointee interview panel refrained from suggesting her due to liaison comments being taken off the monthly agenda in June. The panel included aldermen Frank Lai and Rebecca Kelley, both liaisons to the planning board as well. Hodgin indicated the planning board was the only committee in the town required to put on its agenda an item for liaison comments.
“Our inclusion was meant to be in cooperation with the aldermen, a time for the liaison to give us any pertinent information from aldermen’s discussions and suggestions for our own subsequent discussions or action,” she explained. “After our May meeting, two different planning board members asked it to be stopped since no productive comments had been offered in several months, though we were all very appreciative of Mr. Lai’s compliments of the board’s hard work.”
Hodgin said she also sent an email to city staff and a text message to Lai — to which she read aloud — about the comments removal but did not hear back from him, presuming there wasn’t an issue.
City spokesperson Chyann Ketchum told PCD: “Liaison comments are not provided for most boards and committees unless the respective board or committee requests liaison comments. That is up to the pleasure of each respective board.”
Hodgin also questioned other instances that could have led to her removal, citing an instance where Kelley was prevented from speaking during the planning board meeting after not doing so in public comment.
“We were following protocol, like we’re supposed to do,” Hodgin said, “and we didn’t hear from Ms. Kelley after, so I’m assuming that wasn’t a game-changer.”
Four planning board members spoke in Hodgin’s favor during the aldermen’s reappointment meeting, including John Bove.
“Sue welcomes input from all the members, provides focus and organization and has an unparalleled knowledge of the history and process that is critical to the function of the planning board,” he said. “To me, it’d be unfortunate if the planning board assignments are made on the basis of politics and not what is best for the residents of Southport.”
Aldermen Marc Spencer was against the planning board members’ input. He called it lobbying and political activism.
“This is the board’s appointment. It is to serve the board, not for these committees to tell us who they want on these boards,” he said during the July 7 meeting.
Yet, Hodgin pointed to the frequency of rallying support, particularly with citizens on social media or who come “one after the other” to speak to both planning board and aldermen meetings to invoke their desires. She said this has been done to advocate for and against parking, the sale of land, rights-of-way, the historic courthouse use for the police department, and the hotly contested conditional zoning ordinance.
“Would one correctly categorize all that as lobbying?” Hodgin asked. “Absolutely yes. But now it’s not OK for commenters to come in and support a volunteer or colleague?”
Hodgin also spoke to the Waterway development, noting she wrote to city staff on April 23 to invite the development attorney to a meeting discussing the project, which would bring almost 1,200 homes to Southport. The request was denied. She said it was a gut-punch to be told by city staff: “Your concerns are not the best use of city money.” Hodgin said she inferred that to mean: hold questions and just sign off.
Another rejection happened recently with the historic courthouse use; the planning board agreed with it being maintained for government needs, including putting council chambers inside. However, Hodgin and the board advised against moving back the police department there, worrying the city’s rise in population — expected to be 10,000 in the next decade — could mean the department would outgrow the shared space. Some advocated for building anew elsewhere.
Aldermen voted 4-2 to move the police department back, with Police Chief Todd Coring in agreement the department could work in the 8,200 square-foot building. The PD vacated the premises in 2016 and the building is undergoing renovations and abatement.
“What does this tell an-all-volunteer board who has done tremendous work on behalf of staff and this city, on extremely important topics, when we see the amounts spent on studies and the recommendations made on them and ultimately see this board reject them and take a different, unadvised path?” she asked.
Still, Hodgin praised her board members for being intelligent and bringing thoughtful consideration to the table. She said the board does question processes and intricacies in the UDO — sometimes even staff and aldermen — because that’s their job.
“I believe that’s what we are supposed to do. I don’t believe that makes us, or me, terse,” she said.
She also said there can be principled disagreements to help move the needle on change and sometimes it comes with “uncomfortable truths.” Hodgin cited the abolition of slavery or extension of voting rights as examples.
“They were a catalyst for justice and progress,” she said. “Diversity of thought is lifeblood of any healthy society. … There is grave danger in conflating unity with silence. When voices are stifled in the name of unity, grievances fester beneath the surface only to erupt in more damaging ways later.”
She added labeling someone as divisive is also “a tool to deflect.”
Mayor Alt interjected asking Hodgin how much longer she would be speaking, in that she had the floor for more than 30 minutes and was holding up others during public comment. Answering she was almost done, Hodgin continued.
“If anyone has taken my comments as personal attacks, those are personal narcissistic misunderstandings on their parts,” she said.
She added the town continues to be divided, something she thought escalated recently and was done with intention. Noting an election season in tow, Hodgin expected it would continue.
The planning board chair also was outspoken during the last municipal election, which had Mayor Alt outpace former Mayor Joe Pat Hatem by two votes. Hodgin stated on public record “there was no real win for Southport in this election.”
At the July 11 meeting, she encouraged constituents to follow the candidates this year. Alt and Hatem will rematch for the mayoral seat.
“See how candidates align in the upcoming election,” Hodgin prompted, noting Southport has become the laughing stock in Raleigh and among other municipalities. “I learned long ago that if you watch someone long enough, they’ll show you exactly who they are. Monday did that for a lot of people. Spray.”
The mayor spoke at the end of the meeting featuring Hodgin’s remarks, noting he is requesting next month that all UDO text amendment changes go before the attorney to ensure compliance with North Carolina law ahead of a planning board vote.
“The legal opinion must be in writing and must be part of the planning board and board of aldermen minutes,” Alt said, adding information in this vein has been hard to track down.
He also said statutory requirements and deadlines need to be followed when it comes to passing a project, in order to avoid potential litigation due to drawn-out processes on the planning board as experienced this year.
Alt mentioned there were five events overall that if changes hadn’t been made, “because they were nice enough not to sue us,” the town would have been held accountable.
In February, the planning board was forced to approve a mixed-use site plan from Full House Properties, LLC, that Hodgin said at the time had “glaring” safety concerns. Though allowed by-right, the project came forth in 2022 but was stalled by requirements of studies and multiple site plans. Hodgin noted there was a communication breakdown among boards and staff, which she considered a failure to Southport citizens. During the planning board’s February meeting, she read a statement outlining the board was required to greenlight the project, regardless of their concerns.
“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,” Hodgin said at the time. “We basically find ourselves with our collective backs against the walls because of a procedure failure.”
Alt said 13 months of “punitive meetings” can’t happen moving forward: “We cannot have endless deliberations. We will get cut off by the state legislature sooner or later.”
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.
