Moore County Commissioners weigh growth, water limits in UDO review

The Moore County Board of Commissioners and the planning board met today and decided that the current rules are mostly in line with the Oct. 2025 Land Use Plan (LUP), after reviewing proposed changes to the Uniform Development Ordinance (UDO).

Clashes arose regarding the control of expansion. Chairman Nick Picerno said the comprehensive land use plans were complicated and did not want to add restrictions developers would say were an expensive nuisance. Only a small portion of the county can support major subdivisions. “I thought we lived in the United States of America,” Picerno said, criticizing efforts to “fix a problem” he did not see.

Commissioners agreed on one point: water availability dictates growth. They raised concerns about municipalities expanding rapidly while relying on county infrastructure, especially water, schools and public safety.

County Manager Wayne Vest described subdivision regulations as layered “like an onion” and noted state limits on down-zoning under Senate Bill 382. The law restricts reducing the number of homes allowed per acre, shaping what changes are possible.

Minor Subdivisions Discussion

Debate centered on how many lots should qualify as a minor subdivision. Picerno called four lots “unreasonably small” and said lengthy wait times and layered rules drive up costs. Commissioner John Ritter warned increasing lots would increase rural growth. Commissioner Tom Adams suggested a tiered approach depending on zoning, while Commissioner Kurt Cook emphasized spacing between homes to preserve the county’s rural character.

Vice Chairman Jim Von Canon said he would prefer larger lots and a cap on subdivision size. He pointed to rapid development in nearby municipalities, saying the county is left providing services while cities “jam” in hundreds of homes without long-term planning. He also questioned whether the county should limit water supplied to municipalities to protect the water supply and manage growth.

Planning advisor Robert Hayter who was on the LUP Steering Committee, said the LUP directs growth toward municipalities and gives the county leverage through utility extensions. Much of the northern county is zoned rural agricultural, and only certain mapped areas allow major subdivisions, he said. Water access, or the lack of it in some regions, remains a natural constraint.

No votes were taken on any suggestions.

Other concerns focused on infrastructure and safety. Cook said increased development could strain emergency response times and raise insurance costs. Von Canon cited fire risks when homes are built too close together. Vest and staff said some rules, including spacing and a three-year waiting period between minor subdivisions may need clarification.

Senior Planner Danielle Orloff said cases of developers waiting out the three-year period to expand projects are rare. She also said minor subdivisions can lack road maintenance agreements, leaving property owners responsible for upkeep. Von Canon shared an example of residents relying on his own personal tractor to maintain a deteriorating private road, calling for action to “nip that in the bud.”

Board Attorney Misty Leland said the county can influence annexation decisions through its role as a utility provider but cannot require forcing developers to mandate homeowner road maintenance. They can only recommend mandating.

In the end, commissioners opted for stability. The board agreed to keep current standards for minor subdivisions: four lots, a three-year waiting period before expansion, and at least 500 feet of separation.

Major Subdivisions Discussion

Major subdivisions are limited to designated “purple” areas on the county map, as seen in the first image.

Picerno said additional restrictions would only increase housing prices. Aside from ensuring stormwater systems function properly “needs to be some kind of damages if stormwater drains not working” Picerno said he saw little reason to alter the current approach of allowing development in the three zones. He also supported removing quasi-judicial hearings and special use permits, saying his “main goal is bringing down the cost of these homes.”

Under current rules, conventional subdivisions must set aside 5% of a tract as open space, while conservation subdivisions require 30%, allowing for smaller lots in exchange for preserved land. Orloff clarified wetlands do not count toward that open space.

Von Canon pushed to tighten that definition, saying wetlands should never qualify and that open space should be usable by residents. He also criticized close building patterns, calling 10 feet of separation between homes “ridiculous.”

Ritter questioned how often large projects arise, and Orloff said two subdivisions exceeding 200 homes had been proposed recently, underscoring that large-scale development, while limited geographically, is still occurring.

Picerno reiterated that only a small portion of the county can support such projects.

The board signaled support for simplifying the approval process. Members agreed a major subdivision review board could replace quasi-judicial hearings in many cases. Still, Ritter and Adams favored a tiered system, with projects of about 60 homes handled administratively and larger developments requiring a quasi-judicial hearing.

Picerno criticized the quasi-judicial format itself, saying it relies on expert testimony the board is not qualified to evaluate.

Vest added that once major subdivisions are proposed in areas already approved for growth and utilities, public response often becomes emotional as the reality of change sets in.

The boards will meet again on May 18 at 3 p.m. at the Rick Rhyne Public Safety Center in Carthage.

May 4, 2026

Stephanie M. Sellers

Subscribe to Sandhills News and support this conservative journalism with advertising.

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.