P&Z weighs how – and where – Moore County should grow

Development moratorium discussed as county reviews rules governing subdivisions, zoning, infrastructure, growth

8:56 p.m. Sept. 1, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

Moore County’s two development rulebooks landed squarely in the middle of the table Tuesday night.

The Planning and Zoning Commission spent much of its Sept. 1 meeting digging into the county’s Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance, looking for gaps, gray areas, and places where the rules may need tightening before another large residential project comes through the door.

Before that discussion began, the board chose Dexter Golden as chair and Bobby Carroll as vice chair. Jimmy Hammond will continue as secretary for at least one more month, and Tara Groce was welcomed as the commission’s newest member.

Then the books came open.

The discussion eventually reached a possible one-year moratorium on major residential development, but the pause was never really the whole point. Commissioners kept coming back to the same concern: Moore County needs to know its rules are ready before the next big project arrives.

Golden put it plainly. If the county can “get the books to where you feel like everything is really good and we’re protected,” he said, a moratorium could be lifted before the full year is up.

No moratorium was approved Tuesday. Commissioners instead agreed to take their ideas to the Metro Council for input before trying to settle the details.

The Metro Council meets at 6:30 p.m. Monday, Sept. 21, at the American Legion, 119 Booneville Hwy.

A year to shore up the rules

The working idea was a 12-month pause on major residential development while the county reviews its regulations. Commissioners also discussed whether a moratorium could legally extend as long as two years.

Projects already in the rezoning process or already before the county would not be affected under the proposal discussed Tuesday. Any moratorium would first require Metro Council approval, which commissioners said would likely mean two readings. That could put October as the earliest starting point.

Golden made clear that the aim is not to throw up a gate around Moore County.

“We don’t want to stop builders from developing either,” he said. “Because we won’t grow in the county. It’s not that.”

The concern is scale.

A family adding a house or a builder putting homes on a few lots is one thing. A 100-acre tract suddenly carrying 80 houses is another, particularly when the same roads, water system, and schools have to absorb the difference.

Commissioners generally discussed five or more lots as a major subdivision, with four or fewer falling under minor development.

On paper, that sounds simple.

Jeff Ross explained why it may not be.

Four lots can become 13

Ross pointed to a development he was involved with in Manchester. The original plan called for 13 lots, he said, but after officials would not allow the project that way, the property was divided into smaller groups held under different names.

The result, Ross said, was still 13 lots – split among different names.

“If you say five lots or more, I got you there,” Ross said. “But then what’s going to happen? As a builder, I’m going to keep four.”

That brought the conversation straight back to the Subdivision Regulations.

Commissioners read from an existing section – 1-108 of the Subdivision Regulations – covering land that could later be divided again. When the Planning Commission has reason to believe that larger lots may eventually be split into smaller building sites, the regulations allow it to require that the original development account for future public roads and extensions of adjoining roads.

The commission may also require land to be set aside for those future connections.

The language gives the county a tool, but Tuesday’s discussion centered on whether it goes far enough for the development Moore County may see now – particularly when one large tract can be divided, sold, and divided again.

Golden acknowledged that no book will stop every attempt to work around the rules.

“You can try to come around these books,” he said.

Roads and water set the limits

The talk soon moved from lots on paper to what happens when people start living on them.

Highway Department Superintendent Shannon Cauble said access density on some of Moore County’s main roads is already becoming problematic. Add enough driveways and intersections to the wrong stretch of road, and the safety concerns climb with them.

Water has limits, too.

“We can’t keep adding, adding lots and lots,” Cauble said.

Golden added school enrollment to the list, noting that residential growth ultimately puts more students into the county system.

The question is no longer just how many houses fit on an acre, but where the roads, water, sewer, and public services can handle them.

Moore County does not have the same infrastructure everywhere, and commissioners said the rules may need to reflect that.

Housing muddies the line

Commercial and industrial development made the proposed moratorium harder to define.

Commissioners said they do not want to write a rule that would keep a new employer out of Moore County, block a small business from growing, or prevent an existing industry from expanding.

Then there are apartments. They may fall on the commercial side of the zoning books, but they are still housing.

Board member Jim Crawford pointed to a recent social media post from someone looking for a place to rent in Lynchburg. He said the post sat for roughly two days without an answer because there simply were not many options.

“Killing available housing is not really what we’re going to do,” Crawford said.

That left commissioners leaning more toward a pause aimed at large residential development – major subdivisions, townhomes, and potentially apartments – rather than a blanket moratorium covering commercial and industrial projects, though nothing was settled Tuesday.

Big tracts bring council into play

Much of Moore County’s undeveloped land is still agricultural, and commissioners spent time looking at whether that zoning could provide another layer of review.

One idea would send certain agricultural rezoning requests tied to larger development directly to the Metro Council without a recommendation from Planning and Zoning.

The council could then ask the landowner what is planned before deciding whether to rezone the property for denser development.

Golden distinguished that from a parent carving an acre from family land so a son or daughter can build a house. “The council’s going to see this isn’t 100 houses or 80 houses,” he said. “It’s just one.”

Five-acre tracts are another matter. Commissioners said those can generally remain agricultural without rezoning, and the larger lot size naturally limits density.

Commissioners also questioned how much demand there would be for smaller homes sitting on expensive five-acre tracts. That made dense development on rezoned property the larger concern.

The conversation also turned to steering growth rather than simply stopping it.

Manchester and Franklin County were cited as examples of communities that used designated growth areas or geographic development restrictions to guide subdivisions toward places better equipped to handle them.

The Observer addressed location-based zoning as a tool in November 2025.

Moore County already has an urban service district and a 20-year growth plan that, as board member Scott Fruehauf noted, runs through 2029. Those existing plans could be incorporated into the broader review as the commission works through its zoning and subdivision books and the next iteration of the land-use and transportation plan.

Council gets its say

By the end of the discussion, commissioners had plenty of possibilities and no finished proposal.

Should a moratorium cover only major subdivisions? Should townhomes and apartments be included? Should agricultural rezoning get a different path? How does the county keep a 12- or 15-lot project from being carved into several smaller ones?

Golden signaled the board had gone about as far as it could go Tuesday.

“Let’s take what we’ve got here and take this to the next council meeting and get some opinions from the council on how they want us to do this thing,” he said.

Commissioners expect the issue would have to return to Planning and Zoning before any final action. They also discussed giving legal counsel time to review the ideas after the Metro Council weighs in and before the commission meets again.

No development rules changed Tuesday night.

But the books are open, and the commission has started marking the pages it wants another look at.