SOUTHPORT — The appointments of new board and committee members in Southport were taken up by the city’s aldermen last week. Though action on one controversial committee has been delayed until July.
The Historic Preservation Commission consists of nine seats, with seven members and two alternates. Four seats are open, with Debbie Barnes, Katherine Hufham, Jim McKee, Carl Ward and Sue Hodgin applying. Commission Chair Charles Drew, Vice Chair Bonnie Bray, and Alderman Lowe Davis were part of the interview process and suggested reappointing McKee and Hufham to their seats, while making Barnes and Hodgin alternates.
However, the aldermen decided instead to wait on the vote.
Alderman Paul Gross questioned the reason for assessing members since uncertainty surrounds the Historic Preservation Commission.
“Why are we going forward with appointments to the HPC today, when the direction that the board appears to be going in is not a quasi-regulatory one but a voluntary advisory committee?” Gross asked.
Alderman Robert Carroll suggested waiting to address appointments: “Can we just place the Historic Preservation Commission until July, considering that we are going to have a monumental vote on that subject at that meeting?”
Carroll’s motion passed 5-1, with Gross dissenting.
While Gross has been outspoken against the regulations the Historic Preservation Commission has put forth, he also had questions that weren’t addressed during June 17’s meeting. Mainly, he asked if a public hearing was needed before repealing the commission ordinance.
The aldermen voted on the Historic Preservation Commission’s founding in 2022, in an ordinance that defines its powers to regulate changes, demolition, and new construction to protect local heritage. Mayor Joe Pat Hatem announced last month the commission would become all-voluntary rather than quasi-judicial.
Because the committee was solidified by city ordinance, a vote is needed to change it. Aldermen Rebecca Kelley pushed for the mayor’s all-voluntary suggestion to be voted on during June 11’s meeting, but it failed and the mayor asked staff to begin researching next steps before taking action.
The Historic Preservation Commission has been a hot-button topic in the last year due to residents in the district rallying against more restrictive rules and regulations, in addition to what’s already required by city code. The public has objected to a commission not voted on by people having regulatory power over property upkeep.
The Historic Preservation Commission started almost four years ago in an effort to strengthen conservation of historic downtown Southport and thwart modernized development. Through monthly meetings, the commission devised a 100-page document outlining regulations and an overlay map of 386 parcels, the majority being residential, that would require further approval by the Historic Preservation Commission or city staff if owners desired to make certain renovations or additions.
The 100-page document and district map were to be voted on by the aldermen; however, it wasn’t received favorably by most constituents during a recent public hearing and town hall, both drawing negative feedback. While everyone agreed that preserving Southport’s history was important, many called the restrictions government overreach. Last fall, one group of residents sent a letter that threatened to sue the city if it passed the historic overlay district, alleging its implementation misaligned with downzoning laws in the state and individual property rights.
Many also took issue with the Historic Preservation Commission consisting of members who didn’t live in the historic district proper. All of this led the mayor to direct staff to begin reviewing what an all-voluuntary commission would mean and bring it back to elected officials for re-consideration.
Fast forward to Thursday, June 17, Gross first asked the mayor for a point of order during discussion about the board and committee appointments. He centered concerns regarding public feedback per a repeal of the Historic Preservation Commission ordinance.
“If the ordinance creates the Historic Preservation Commission for the primary purpose to establish the commission itself, appoint members, define duties, authorize studies, recommendations, etc., then North Carolina law generally does not require a public hearing before repealing it,” Gross said, somewhat answering his own question. “But the council would still need to comply with open meetings requirements and any local procedural rules. But a formal public hearing is not typically mandated by state statute, as we’ve not adopted Historic Preservation Commission oversight.”
“What does this have to do with this agency?” Mayor Joe Pat Hatem asked, as the aldermen were in the midst of discussing potential members for the ABC Board.
Some aldermen asked to broach the topic once they reached the Historic Preservation Commission appointments on the agenda, but not during the ABC Board discussion. Once they arrived at HPC appointments, the motion was put forth to move discussion overall to July’s regular aldermen meeting.
Gross objected that his motion wasn’t taken into consideration. They mayor and others noted it didn’t receive a second.
Port City Daily asked Southport spokesperson ChyAnn Ketchum whether a public hearing will need to be held should a vote to dismantle any HPC ordinance takes place; an answer wasn’t received by press. This will be updated upon response.
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.
