Commissioners deny UDO change after packed public hearing from 7 Lakes residents

Moore County commissioners voted Oct. 7 to deny a proposed amendment to the county’s Unified Development Ordinance that would have allowed residential major subdivisions in certain gated‑community zoning districts (GCSL, GCWL) and expanded major‑subdivision allowances under the Planned Development Conditional Zoning (PDCZ) designation.

Planning Director Ruth Peterson opened the reopened public hearing and said the amendment would "allow major subdivisions to utilize existing infrastructure" within existing gated communities and would give "greater flexibility and options for unique and efficient uses of land" if master plans are approved. She said apartments, manufactured‑home parks and multifamily housing would remain not permitted under the proposal.

The text amendment was the subject of a lengthy public hearing that drew homeowners and homeowners‑association leaders from 7 Lakes West, 7 Lakes North and South, Woodlake and surrounding neighborhoods. Jim Christner, vice president of the Southern Lakes West Board, told commissioners the community faces "significant negative impacts" if the amendment passes, listing increased sedimentation entering neighborhood ponds and lakes, additional stress on amenities and infrastructure, and higher maintenance costs that would likely be passed to homeowners. "Another $65,000 or $75,000 in dues is small potatoes for us" compared with dredging and long‑term repair costs, Christner said.

Opponents emphasized watershed protection, traffic and potential loss of amenities. Charlotte Kennedy, president of the 7 Lakes North and South Homeowners Association, said the community contributes about $1.6 million in taxes annually and pays roughly $1,400 in HOA dues per year to maintain roads, lakes and parks; she asked commissioners to consider those investments when weighing the amendment. Several speakers requested legal review of restrictive covenants and deed restrictions that govern access to golf course parcels.

Speakers in favor argued allowing a major subdivision designation provides a path for controlled growth that would bring lots into HOA governance and make them dues‑paying parcels instead of letting parcels be developed piecemeal under minor‑subdivision rules. Jeremy Rust, a 19‑year resident of 7 Lakes West who said he is working with the applicant, said the change would allow the community and a builder to craft setbacks, road standards and architectural reviews as part of a single, reviewed plan rather than face inconsistent development.

Bob Van Houten, who addressed the board during the hearing, said his plan would add roughly 25 homes and that he proposed creating a conservation easement over much of the property to protect open space; he said he would fund roads, utilities and try to work with the 7 Lakes West board on access and uses for conserved acreage.

After public comment and questioning of planning staff about process and probable impacts, commissioners first voted that the amendment was "consistent with the Moore County Land Use Plan." A second motion—to deny the text amendment—then carried. The final vote count was not recorded in the public transcript; the board stated the motion to deny "carries." The board also directed staff to set a public hearing Oct. 21 to consider adoption of the 2025 Moore County Land Use Plan.

What the decision does and does not do: commissioners’ denial preserves the current UDO language that disallows major subdivisions in the referenced gated‑community districts and maintains the existing conditional process for PDCZ rezonings. It does not prevent a property owner from submitting other applications under current rules (for example, minor/exempt subdivisions), nor does it alter the planning board’s earlier 5‑1 recommendation that the amendment was consistent with the land‑use plan.

Commissioners and several speakers urged continued dialogue between applicants and HOA boards. Several residents asked county staff and legal counsel to confirm whether specific deed restrictions or covenants limit future subdivision of golf‑course parcels; staff noted questions of deed and title often require separate legal review.

Ending note: the item is effectively concluded for now; the county will proceed with the Oct. 21 public hearing on the broader 2025 Land Use Plan, and individual property owners or developers retain the right to pursue appropriate applications under the existing ordinance.