Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners table proposed UDO change to allow major subdivisions in planned developments and gated communities
Summary
After public concern about water, roads and timing of the county’s land‑use update, commissioners voted to table indefinitely a proposed text amendment that would allow major single‑family subdivisions in planned development conditional zoning and in the gated‑community zoning districts.
The Moore County Board of Commissioners voted to table indefinitely a proposed Unified Development Ordinance text amendment that would allow major single‑family subdivisions in the Planned Development Conditional Zoning (PDCZ) district and in the county’s gated‑community zoning districts (7 Lakes and Woodlake).
Planning Director Ruth Peterson described the proposal as two related amendments: (1) add the principal‑use table entries permitting residential major subdivisions in the PDCZ district and permitting residential major subdivisions in the gated‑community districts; and (2) update Chapters 19.9 and 19.10 to rely on the principal‑use table rather than a hard‑coded list of zoning districts. The Planning Board recommended approval, 5‑1.
Commissioners and multiple public speakers raised infrastructure concerns. A resident from 7 Lakes warned that several large parcels near Holly School Road are already under purchase contingencies, described narrow road sections without a suitable secondary exit, and said recent road work and runoff from Highway 211 expansion were causing lake and drainage problems. Another 7 Lakes resident said the area already faces overcrowded roads and school enrollment strain, and urged the county to delay major new subdivisions until water, sewer and roads are planned.
Commissioners stressed similar concerns. One commissioner said the county lacks certainty about future water sources and sewer infrastructure and urged caution, noting that approving zoning now could make it harder to manage growth later. The board discussed whether the amendment would only affect the two named gated districts and whether a future gated district would be covered automatically (staff said it would not unless added to the UDO).
After the public hearing and discussion, a commissioner moved to table the item indefinitely. The motion passed. County staff explained that tabling without a date would require re‑advertising if the board reintroduces the item later; tabling to a date certain would avoid re‑advertising.
Peterson said the amendment applies only to major single‑family residential subdivisions and would not permit apartments, manufactured home parks or multi‑family housing within the gated‑community zoning districts. She also noted the amendment is intended to give additional flexibility for master‑plan proposals in planned developments and would remain subject to subdivision review and other UDO standards.
No final amendment was adopted; the county’s land‑use update and pending state legislation on down‑zoning were cited by multiple commissioners as reasons to pause action until broader planning work and legal clarity are complete.
