Board of Adjustments pauses decision on ADU at 729 North Atlantic amid stormwater and parking concerns

The Southport Board of Adjustments on Dec. 4 continued consideration of a special use permit for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) proposed at 729 North Atlantic Avenue after public commenters raised flooding, sewer and parking concerns and board members said they needed expert analysis to evaluate those claims.

Wendell, the city planner, presented the application and staff report, describing the lot as roughly 6,500 square feet in an R-10 district and the proposed ADU as a detached structure of about 420 square feet behind the primary residence. He told the board the project meets the UDO’s accessory-dwelling standards (section 3.6), including minimum 5-foot side and rear setbacks and tree-mitigation requirements. "The special use permit has its own specific use standards that we will guide our policy making tonight," Wendell said during his presentation.

A nearby resident who said she was speaking as power of attorney for her parents told the board the neighbors have experienced new flooding and sewer problems since nearby subdivision work and said an additional dwelling would add impervious surface and strain drainage and sewer systems. "Since the subdivision was built next to them, they experienced flooding and sewer issues even with the lowest amount of rainfall," the commenter said.

City staff and the board repeatedly told the speaker that technical claims about causation and infrastructure capacity ordinarily require admissible expert testimony. Wendell relayed that the city stormwater engineer had advised the ADU does not meet the UDO threshold (cited in testimony as about 87% impervious coverage) that would require mandatory stormwater mitigation, but he also said the board could condition approval to require voluntary measures — for example, a rain garden or gutters — to reduce runoff. "Because the structure does not meet the threshold of 87% or greater, they are not gonna be required to do any stormwater mitigation," Wendell said, and added that staff had suggested mitigation ideas the board could request as conditions.

Board members raised procedural and evidentiary concerns. Jason Robinson, a board member, said he was not comfortable making findings about causation without expert evidence and moved to pause the hearing so parties could supplement the record. "I would like to propose that we, just, pause this hearing and continue it at the next regular meeting of the board, to get the opportunity for any and all interested parties to complement the information that’s been presented today," Robinson said. His motion requested that city staff arrange for the city engineer and other expert staff to attend the continued meeting so technical questions could be answered and experts could be cross-examined as part of the quasi-judicial record. The board seconded the motion and approved it by voice vote.

The hearing was continued to Jan. 27, 2026, at 4:30 p.m. Staff said it will prepare additional material for the continued meeting, including explanatory material about legally nonconforming lots and the UDO provisions the board referenced, and will attempt to have the city engineer available to answer questions about stormwater and infrastructure capacity. Wendell told the board he would put a clearer breakdown of what constitutes a legally nonconforming lot and structure into the staff packet for the continued meeting.

What happened next: the board returned to routine business (minutes, package legibility, and roster updates) and adjourned. The continuance means neither approval nor denial of the ADU has been decided; the board instructed that any new expert evidence should be presented at the continued hearing so it can be part of the administrative record and subject to cross-examination.

Details from the record: Staff cited UDO standards for accessory dwelling units (section 3.6 and related sections); Wendell said tree mitigation requires replacement amounting to 9 inches of DBH for a removed 36-inch live oak and that replacement trees must meet minimum diameter requirements and be selected from the UDO’s native-species table. Opponents cited UDO chapter provisions on minimum lot size and parking dimensions for multiple dwelling units and expressed concern about an additional 420 sq ft of roof and possible new pavement increasing impervious cover. The board and staff said plan review and utility reviews would still assess driveway design, parking sizing and sewer capacity if the project advances to permitting, but that those plan-review determinations are separate from the special-use decision unless expert evidence in the hearing record establishes a material impact relevant to the UDO criteria.

Next step: The Board of Adjustments will reconvene the continued hearing on Jan. 27, 2026, and the record may be supplemented then with expert testimony, utility capacity reviews, and staff analyses.