Full Story: Moore County Planning Board shudders by right major subdivisions

After four hours of public hearings on July 9, the Moore County Planning Board rejected Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) recommendations to allow major subdivisions “by right.” This decision preserves quasi-judicial hearings for special use permits and public participation.

The list of UDO recommendations stemmed from the county commissioners’ 2026 spring workshops.

In a meeting with the Board of Commissioners’ Chairman, Nick Picerno, this morning, he said they’d created a diverse committee and spent 18 months reviewing how the UDO matched the new Land Use Plans (LUP). He clarified that Moore County had few major subdivisions in the last 10 years. Holly Grove Pines was the most recent and has 25 homes next to an existing subdivision, McClendon Hills. Picerno has been an advocate for “by right” subdivisions because 75+ other counties use it, because it frees commissioners for other duties, and it would reduce developers’ costs, which would cut home prices. View the articles following this article to fully understand the background.

“There seems to be groups of folks that narrow in on their own little world and that’s how they view the whole county. We don’t have that luxury. We have to view the whole county,” Picerno said about people who believed commissioners were backing out of promises to preserve rural farmlands, when in fact, since 2012 and 2022, the county added 23,000 acres to its farmlands, despite rapid growth in and near municipalities. Picerno has worked on preserving farmlands with UDO and LUP strategies since 2013. “It’s a socialistic idea that one group can control everyone’s land.”

Moore Family Farms is a nonprofit organization. Its website reads, “People move to Moore County, NC for its charm and country life – not to be surrounded by half acre tract houses. Moore County has lost sight of its history, heritage, and charm in a headlong rush toward overdevelopment and urban sprawl. This website chronicles the dangers of this course and charts a path forward.”

While Picerno and Moore Family Farms, and other farmers, as witnessed during the public hearing, have differences in how growth is managed, they also share concerns:

Moore County is seeing population increases.

Farming and rural identity are county assets.

The county’s future depends on today’s decisions.

According to the 2022 USDA Census, Moore County has 802 registered farms covering 106,258 acres of the county’s 446,491 acres. As indicated in the LUP, major subdivisions are highly discouraged in RA-zoned areas.

“We are being responsible to be their voice,” Planning Board Member Hugh Hinton III said at the July 9 public hearing, and the audience applauded. “We’re cutting out more than putting in. We had experts write this book [Land Use Plans] and we’re being asked to gut it.”

The meeting began at 4 p.m. and lasted until 8 p.m. when the board said it will vote on the remaining items during the next meetings on Aug. 6 and Sept. 3, with the highway corridor public hearing.

The planning board made the following decisions on UDO recommendations as consistent or not with the LUP:

Unified Development Ordinance Amendments to Chapter 19 (Subdivisions) (View the individual recommendations for each of the following here.)

Section 19.3.B. (Exempt Subdivision–Submittal Requirements) Vote tied. Will review at the next meeting.

Section 19.6.A (Minor Subdivisions Identified) Vote on keeping the original language declaring minor subdivisions as four lots, and not 10, passed. The recommendation was inconsistent with the LUP.

Section 19.6.D (Minor Subdivisions–Access Requirements) The board voted to keep the safety standards with owners responsible for navigable roads for emergency services noted on the plat.

Section 19.7.A (Major Subdivisions–Preliminary Plat Submittal and Review–Defined) The planning board voted that the recommendation was inconsistent with the LUP and kept the original language.

Section 19.7.C (Major Subdivisions–Preliminary Plat Submittal and Review–Subdivision Review Approval Steps) No changes.

Section 19.7.E (Major Subdivisions–Preliminary Plat Submittal and Review–Preliminary Plat Submittal) The board agreed the recommendation that the preliminary plat must meet “general development standards” and “include applicable statements required in Section 19.16. & 19.17” were consistent with the LUP.

Section 19.7.G (Major Subdivisions–Preliminary Plat Submittal and Review–Drainage) The vote tied, and planning will review at the next meeting.

Section 19.7.J (Major Subdivisions–Minimum Design Standards as Shown on Preliminary Plat–Review by the Subdivision Review Board (SRB) The board agreed to reduce the 15 copies requirement down to three copies.

Section 19.7.K (Major Subdivisions–Preliminary Plat Submittal and Review–Action by the Board of Commissioners) The recommendations were not applicable after voting down subdivisions “by right.”

Section 19.7.L (Major Subdivisions–Preliminary Plat Submittal and Review–Approval Criteria) The planning board listened to the public hearing speakers and voted against recommendations that would omit special permit requirements.

Section 19.7.N (Major Subdivisions–Preliminary Plat Submittal and Review–Conditional Approval), Section 19.7.O (Major Subdivisions–Preliminary Plat Submittal and Review–Denial of Application), Section 19.7.P (Major Subdivisions–Preliminary Plat Submittal and Review–Expiration), Section 19.7.Q (Major Subdivisions–Preliminary Plat Submittal and Review–Appeal) Each of these were placed in a single vote and recommendations were ruled inconsistent because they had voted down “by right” subdivisions. Philosophically, according to the planning board, the recommendation for “by right” subdivisions was a plan for county commissioners to save time by eliminating quasi-judicial hearings, and “by right” would lessen the strain on the community during hearings, and “by right” would break the promise made in the LUP to the citizens to protect the rural ambiance and agriculture that attracts tourism, which the county relies on for its tax base.

Section 19.8.J (Minimum Design Standards as Shown on Preliminary Plat) The board approved prohibiting specific trees.

Section 19.12.A (Major Subdivisions–Final Plat Submittal Requirements), Section 19.12.B (Major Subdivisions–Final Plat Submittal–Action by the Administrator) They ruled the recommendations to replace the county commissioners with a subdivision review board were inconsistent with the LUP.

Section 19.16 (Subdivision Plat Requirements) The vote tied, and they will review at the next meeting.

Section 19.17 (Subdivision Plat Certification Requirements) Planning ruled that the recommendation to require notification on the preliminary plat of the owner’s responsibility for navigable private access roads for emergency vehicles was consistent with the LUP.

Section 19.17.B (Subdivision Plat Certification Requirements–Certification Statements) (Adjust lettering) The board approved stamping a North Carolina Department of Transportation notice with contact information for private access roads, controlled streets and drainage.

The public hearing had 15 speakers.

Danny Harbour said the planning board needed to realize it was making 100-year decisions, and they had the power to remove citizen input if they accepted all the recommendations.

Melissa Davis with the Wildlife Resources Commission asked the board to consider property boundaries next to the 4,000-acre Sandhills Gamelands with Longleaf Savannahs and the loss of rights inflicted by developments bordering the public lands.

Gail Mace asked the board to consider the county’s water situation.

Farmer and attorney Matthew Parker of Moore Family Farms noted the county’s shift from historical flooding to a severe drought, highlighting the need for the board to address infrastructure strain. The East-Moore Water District is for current citizens. He stated Moore County municipalities bought water from Harnett due to Moore’s inability to meet current demand. He linked growth to ineffective stormwater management via greater impervious surface area. Contrary to some beliefs, Parker said farming offers diverse approaches beyond large-scale operations. According to him, Vass, Carthage, and Robbins could be developed affordably, so the rural landscape needn’t be decimated. According to Parker, “by right” would mean commissioners, claiming no growth accountability, would gain rubber-stamp approval and drive growth.

Angela from Vass said they had six new homes sitting unsold for over a year while developers continue building.

Joe Freeman, a farmer who served on the LUP steering committee, said the UDO needs to match the LUP.

Reece, a military veteran and farmer, said the county was founded on self-reliance and they needed to preserve open lands for future farmers because people can’t sustain a family on one acre of land. “We expect you to protect us.”

Terry Bryant, a farmer, said he was not pleased with the idea of slipping in allowances for more development. He asked them to keep density low.

Farmer and attorney Michael Parker with Moore Family Farms raised concerns about: “By law,” Parker said the county commissioners must answer to the public on development rulings. He stated “by right” ended public input. His lack of trust in planning board reviews was exemplified by a county hearing where they ignored 11 vital points for a subdivision. Approved ordinances were unchangeable per down-zoning laws. Moore Family Farms is a nonprofit organization. It’s website reads, “People move to Moore County, NC for its charm and country life – not to be surrounded by half acre tract houses. Moore County has lost sight of its history, heritage, and charm in a headlong rush toward overdevelopment and urban sprawl. This website chronicles the dangers of this course and charts a path forward.”

Jeff Marcus said “by right” subdivisions would not protect military training interest.

David E. said the exempt status recommendations needed further review.

Debbie Emerson said growth increases crime and the expense for expanding law enforcement services.

T, from Seven Lakes, said Keep Moore County Beautiful experienced increased traffic and dump trucks hauling gravel as they cleaned roadsides.

Bob Van Houten, owner of BVH Construction, said he’s lived in the area 28 years, grew up on a farm, and growth could not be stopped. He said the minor subdivision ordinance with four lots did not work.

John Snipes, a native and a farmer whose ancestry goes back to 1914 farmers in Moore County, said it was a First Amendment right to be heard and if not, it is a violation of the Constitution. He used a personal example of needing wider buffers or laws between farms and subdivisions because with the drought, fields had dried and neighbors next to his farm set off fireworks, causing fire hazards.

In the morning conversation with Picerno, when asked about how to solve the fireworks farm and subdivision neighbor issue, he said the farmer could purchase the buffer. “Most of our developments are not in the counties; they are in the towns. Who really has the right to make that decision? I’m for both because they deserve the same justice and treatment,” Picerno said about serving as a county commissioner for all citizens.

Picerno expanded the conversation. He said it was not the right of one special interest group to tell others what to do with their property. He said commissioners wanted to bring down developer’s costs, which would bring down the cost of homes, so people can live the American Dream.

July 10, 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.

Moore Commissioners eye new animal shelter, school funding, water project and land use changes

Moore County land plan swerves from small-town vision to “by right” subdivisions

Moore County’s 2025 Land Use Plan survey finds transparency gaps, rushed approval and risks to rural growth

Moore County outlines next steps for 2025 LUP and UDO updates amid public push for transparency

Moore’s 2025 Land Use Plan lacks a glossary but tightens growth limits