BY ANA RISANO
Managing Editor
Proposed changes to the Moore County subdivision codes have raised a variety of concerns from the public and members of the Planning Board, resulting in the dissection of the packet of revisions.
On Thursday, the Moore County Planning Board made several recommendations to the Board of Commissioners regarding the subdivision codes, with some aspects of the proposed changes supported, others not, and a couple needing further review before sending them forward.
Several meeting attendees shared their opposition to the changes or requests for further review because of the complexity of the suggestions. An underlying tie between most of the comments was to keep rural Moore County rural, as the future Land Use Plan adopted last year states.
“When I was appointed to the (Land Use Plan) steering committee, I was appointed to represent the interests of natural resource conservation,” said Jeff Marcus during one of the hearings. “I was there with people representing schools, transportation, developers — all of these different interests. And what struck me was how there was almost unanimous consensus around the overarching goal of the plan, which is to preserve the rural character of Moore County.”
Marcus acknowledged that some of the proposed code changes would clean up language, but several items would create inconsistencies between the county regulatory codes and the Land Use Plan meant to guide the future.
The proposals come on the heels of county discussions on future development and how the codes could be updated. The Board of Commissioners and Planning Board met jointly in May to discuss items like the subdivision section, initiating the groundwork for the reviewed revisions.
The changes include several aspects, including a proposal to update the definition of a “minor” subdivision; allow “major” subdivisions by-right in zones where they are currently permitted if approved through a public hearing process; and other details.
Right now, a minor subdivision is defined as a maximum of four lots, and any proposed expansion cannot happen for at least three years. It also prevents any neighbors from establishing a minor subdivision within 500 feet of the property boundary.
The proposed changes would alter it to “any number of lots that total up to 10 acres, subject to the underlying zoning dimensional standards for that parcel’s zoning district, inside the parent tract boundary and exclusive of adjacent parcel owners.” It further states that no more than four lots could be accessed by an easement, with any additional lots needing to front existing roadways built to state standards.
That would mean a proposed minor subdivision within an RA-20 zone could fit upward of 20 lots, with each lot at least 20,000 square feet. But as board member Ron Jackson pointed out, there would be closer to a maximum of 16 lots because of infrastructure needs and other codes establishing setbacks. He also noted there are few areas with that zoning, the right road frontage and water availability for a feasible project of that scale.
During the public hearing, Marcus said altering this section of code would not protect rural character but rather facilitate more development by making it more attractive and profitable for developers to go into the rural areas and build.
“It’s important to remember that this kind of development can have an outsized impact from just its one footprint,” he said, using an example of taxpayer-funded services having to spread out further instead of being concentrated in one area.
Community member Debi Emerson agreed, saying even though there is tax revenue from additional homes, the cost to run police, fire and additional services would increase as well.
“It will be another crowded place like Charlotte,” Emerson said. “We don’t want that here. All I’m asking is, preserve this place. We love it here, and we don’t want it ruined.”
The majority of the board agreed that more review and consideration are needed for this proposal, with a few back-and-forth suggestions about what the right maximum lot or acreage number is. The board unanimously recommended approval of striking through the part of the definition that mentions any property within 500 feet but retaining the rest of the current language.
Regarding major subdivisions, the majority of the board recommended denial of the main proposed change: permitting such development by-right in three zones classified as rural agricultural but with different lot-size requirements: RA-20, RA-40 and RA-USB.
Currently, major subdivisions are allowed in those areas but must complete a public hearing process for approval. Instead, the changes would allow an applicant to have an administrative review and require the posting of a sign on the property noting a “subdivision decision” with contact information.
Michael Parker, who participated in the Steering Committee for the Land Use Plan, raised several points throughout the meeting, emphasizing that the plan calls for increased resident participation — not less. He also referenced a previous subdivision hearing where citizens identified several missing items that were not checked off with a proposal that went forward for review and the importance of that option of review.
“Eleven different points that were missed by either the Planning Department or the subdivision review board who were at that time tasked with making sure all of these blocks were done so we would know that the regulations we had in place to protect our community and nearby property owners were actually covered,” Parker said. “They were not covered. They were not done. The quasi-judicial hearing helped to uncover that because the public had an opportunity to review that and put it in there.”
Marcus echoed the inconsistency of the proposal with the Land Use Plan. He noted it takes away public input but also the “overarching goal of maintaining the rural character of the community, of protecting the sensitive natural resources of the community (and) protecting military training interests.”
Marcus said areas zoned rural agricultural would no longer be characterized by either of those terms if major subdivisions were allowed by-right.
Board Chair Tyler Brady said, “We’re here to represent the community. And what I’m seeing from the community, much of the community in attendance is not in favor. They’re losing their voice, and we are representatives to be their voice.”
The recommended denial carried through to other proposed changes to the major subdivision codes, including a new definition and updated approval process. Jackson was the sole opposing vote for each.
The board further recommended approval of adding general development standards that relate to life safety to several sections, and replacing a list of recommended native species within planting standards with a list of prohibited species.
One proposed change that received a 4-4 vote was regarding moving when a stormwater management plan must be presented for review from the preliminary plat — early in the process — to the final plat. The tie means the topic will be brought up at the next planning meeting for review.
After four hours, the Planning Board agreed to continue the rest of its agenda to its upcoming meetings. The public hearing on proposed changes to the county highway corridor overlay district was continued to its regular meeting on Sept. 3.
Contact Ana Risano at (910) 585-6396 or ana@thepilot.com.
