Moore County considers ban on major subdivisions in rural areas as UDO changes take shape

Discussions reflect growing tension between managing rapid growth and preserving the county’s farming heritage and rural character.

This spring, Moore County commissioners began a series of discussions that could reshape how growth is managed across the county, focusing first on potential changes to subdivision rules within the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).

At a recent work session, county planning staff presented proposed updates aimed at clarifying how land can be divided and developed, particularly in Rural Agricultural (RA) zoning districts. Among the most notable proposals is a recommendation to prohibit “major subdivisions” in these rural areas, a move that could significantly impact future development patterns.

Under the current UDO, a major subdivision is generally defined as the division of land into five or more lots, or any subdivision involving the creation or expansion of public or private streets. Minor subdivisions, those creating four or fewer lots without new road infrastructure, are typically approved administratively and do not require board review.

Teen News Videos open the door to fast current event and civics engagement. This is a Sandhills News exclusive feature. Enjoy!

Balancing Growth and Rural Character

On April 14, planning staff framed the proposal within a broader goal to “preserve and protect the ambiance and heritage of the County of Moore.” One frequently cited sentiment during the discussion came from Chairman Nick Picerno, who remarked, “Some of the most beautiful places in the county are subdivisions.”

However, the proposed policy direction reflects a more cautious approach to rural development.

Commissioner Ritter emphasized that limiting large-scale subdivisions in agricultural areas is, in part, about preventing future conflicts between new residents and long-standing farming operations.

“A large reason for avoiding major subdivisions in rural agricultural land is to preemptively avoid nuisance claims by new residential residents against farmers who may be spreading chicken manure, for example,” Ritter said.

Competing Perspectives on Land Use Rights

The debate has underscored a broader tension between development pressures and the preservation of rural land use.

Matthew Parker is an attorney and owns Terrace Ridge Farms. He expressed agreement with the rationale behind limiting subdivisions, while also highlighting the competing interests at play.

“I agree with that reasoning,” Parker said. “Chairman Picerno indicated he would be one of the people who doesn’t want to live next to chicken manure. I respect his right as well.”

Parker went on to frame the issue as one of consistency in zoning principles across urban and rural areas.

“If a farmer buys land in town, zoning rules are likely to prevent the farmer from putting chicken houses next to Pinehurst. Those zoning rules are the political rights of town residents in action,” he said. “By the same token, rural residents have the same political rights to protect rural areas as a natural resource where agriculture can and is encouraged to occur.”

He further argued that restricting large-scale residential development in agricultural zones is not an infringement on property rights, but rather a reflection of community priorities.

“A rural community that chooses to exercise those rights violates no property rights and is no more restrictive than a town that excludes agriculture,” Parker wrote. “The only difference is that preserving space for agriculture is also a food security, natural resource and national security issue.”

Alternative Development Models

In addition to potential subdivision limits, planners are also exploring a “Small-Town Development Model” as a voluntary option for property owners. The model would encourage development patterns that reflect traditional small-town characteristics while maintaining efficient land use.

Other subdivision pathways remain available under the UDO, including exempt subdivisions (typically involving lots greater than 10 acres), family subdivisions restricted to immediate relatives, and limited subdivisions designed for small-scale land divisions with minimal impact.

Examples presented during the meeting illustrated how current rules allow landowners to subdivide parcels into several smaller lots, often without triggering major subdivision review, depending on acreage and configuration.

Next Steps

The county has outlined a timeline for continued review, with additional discussions scheduled in early May. A joint work session between the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board is expected, followed by public hearings in June.

While no final decisions have been made, commissioners indicated that updating the ordinance as initially proposed may be “counterintuitive to the communities as they exist today,” signaling that further revisions and debate are likely.

As Moore County continues to grow, the outcome of these discussions could play a key role in determining how development is balanced with the preservation of its rural landscape.

The next meeting is a special meeting to continue the UDO discussion on April 20 at 9 a.m. with the planning board at the Rick Rhyne Public Safety Center.

April 15, 2026

Jim Pedersen

Submit news tips, events and interview requests to editor@sandhills.news.

Sandhills News is plain-English local government reporting that explains how decisions affect your land, taxes, schools and rights.