Southport aldermen begin review of wide-ranging UDO amendments, refer details to planning board

Staff presented a package of proposed text amendments and policy references for Southport’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) following adoption of the city’s comprehensive plan. The board treated the presentation as a starting point and discussed which items to prioritize, whether to pursue a full UDO rewrite with consultant support, and which changes to send to the planning board for detailed review.

Planner (staff) Mameha asked members to prioritize short-, mid- and long-term items and noted that major updates had been paused while the comprehensive plan was completed. Members suggested several near-term clarifications and policy options:

- Home occupations: board members asked that administrative approvals for low-impact home occupations include neighbor notification so nearby residents have a chance to comment; staff said statute-required posting and mail notices could be used.

- Parking standards: some members flagged an apparent inconsistency in off-street parking for mixed-use projects (one vs. two spaces per residential unit) and asked staff to return with consistent language and background rationale.

- Accessory structures and setbacks: members raised concerns about nonconforming lots where accessory structures leave minimal rear yards and suggested the planning board consider rear setback protections and whether overhangs should count toward setbacks.

- Mobile vendors and city events: staff said city-sanctioned events would not require additional property-owner letters but independent private food trucks would need permitting and property owner consent in some cases; board members asked for clearer timing/frequency language for required letters.

- Swimming‑pool coping/setbacks: staff agreed to clarify that coping must be at least five feet from the property line (minimum), and to offer language that addresses nonconforming lots.

- Flood resilience and foundations: one alderman urged the board to consider requiring elevated foundations (piers/pilings) rather than slab construction to reduce flood damage; members asked staff to obtain builder cost estimates and said they were concerned about affordability trade-offs.

Members generally agreed the planning board should review the detailed edits and bring recommendations back; staff will provide specific clarifications and counts (for example, numbers of homestays and other use counts) and identify items that may require consultant help or longer timelines.