Board discusses small‑town model overlay; members raise infrastructure and scale questions

Moore County Planning Board · November 6, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Planning staff presented the 'small‑town model' overlay from the 2025 Land Use Plan — a half‑mile primary town (approx. 640 acres) with mixed uses, interconnected blocks and a surrounding edge area. Board members praised the concept but raised feasibility questions about sewer/infrastructure, the prescriptive land‑use percentages, and the large

Planning staff presented the small‑town model overlay concept from the 2025 Moore County Land Use Plan and sought the Planning Board’s input as they draft implementing UDO language.

Staff described the model as a form‑based option that encourages a traditional small‑town pattern: a primary town area (minimum half‑mile, ~640 acres) with mixed uses (residential, retail, office, civic and a small allocation for manufacturing), no minimum lot size in the core, and an "edge of town" buffer (minimum three square miles) to transition to rural areas. The plan includes suggested approximate land‑use percentages for the core and edge areas and calls for interconnected blocks, street trees, sidewalks, and neighborhood open space.

Board members supported the small‑town goals but raised several practical concerns: the prescriptive percentage breakdowns (for example, small percentages set aside for retail or manufacturing), the large minimum area sizes (640‑acre core, 3‑square‑mile edge), and, critically, infrastructure feasibility (sewer and centralized utilities are necessary for the denser development pattern). Members suggested the county should consider small area plans or pilot projects (the West End area was mentioned) so the model can be implemented incrementally rather than requiring a single large land purchase.

Staff noted the model is drawn from the adopted land‑use plan and recommended drafting flexible UDO language that can accommodate local conditions and a degree of variation. Board members asked staff to return with model small‑area plans, options for infrastructure (e.g., package treatment plants), and draft UDO language that allows phased implementation.

No formal action was taken; staff will continue drafting and return with additional materials and potential pilot areas for further discussion.