Southport planning board keeps five-minute default for public comment while adding clarifying procedures

The Southport planning board reviewed a draft of its rules of procedure on Oct. 29 and retained a five-minute default time limit for individual public comments while leaving the board able to extend comment periods case by case.

The change matters because public-comment procedures determine how and when residents can present concerns about zoning and development. Chair (speaker 1) told members the draft borrows language from several North Carolina jurisdictions and that the five-minute limit "limits the speaking time to 5 minutes" while preserving the board’s flexibility to extend by majority vote when warranted.

Discussion centered on practical trade-offs: several members said three minutes is too short to present a complete point, while others warned that repeated extensions could let a few speakers consume large portions of a meeting. "I think 5 minutes is plenty," said one committee member (speaker 3), reflecting views that five minutes gives speakers time to gather their thoughts while keeping meetings efficient.

The board also debated group representation: whether an organization should designate a single spokesperson to avoid repeating the same comments, and whether the rules should explicitly limit group testimony. The chair said he did not want to bar groups from speaking but favored a council-friendly approach that encourages a representative speaker where groups are large.

Members discussed adding a total-item time guideline (examples discussed: approximately 30 minutes per topic) but stopped short of a hard cap. Instead the board favored allowing the chair to manage the flow and, when necessary, continue a contentious matter to another meeting so the public can be heard without unduly delaying applicants.

On emailed input, members proposed a placeholder clause that would allow the planning board to accept emails for reading at meetings but permit screening for inappropriate or personal attacks. A suggested deadline for emailed submissions was offered (examples discussed included 4:00 p.m. the day before an evening meeting); the board agreed to mirror any citywide policy and to have the city attorney review the approach.

The board asked staff to produce an updated draft reflecting the revisions and to circulate it to members; the revised rules will be provided to the Board of Aldermen for informational review when complete. The meeting was adjourned after members scheduled a follow-up and confirmed next steps.