A Fair Path, Not a Free Pass

Write better rules for tomorrow. Moore County cannot rewrite the rules – or keep paying to postpone an answer.

#Opinion • 6:45 p.m. Aug. 5, 2026

Planning and Zoning is tired of Gateway.

Gateway is tired of Planning and Zoning.

I am tired of writing about it, and you are tired of reading another episode of As the Ordinance Book Flips.

But Moore County taxpayers do not get to change the channel.

Moore County is already paying to defend the dispute. If the county ultimately loses, the cost could grow – and that would leave less money for roads, schools, emergency services, public safety, and other community needs.

Enough.

Moore County left the opening

Gateway first proposed affordable apartments on property where Moore County’s ordinances did not prevent housing at that scale.

That is how Gateway got its foot in the door.

It did not slip through a locked gate. Moore County left the opening in its own ordinance book. County officials provided assurances involving zoning and utility service, and Gateway moved forward.

County leaders may now wish the rules had said something different. ... They did not.

The county later removed apartments from R-1 – a change Gateway contends was made without the public notice required by law.

That dispute went to court.

Gateway returned with 42 townhomes. Planning and Zoning denied the preliminary site plan over the county’s definition of a townhome.

The Board of Zoning Appeals later voted 3-1 that Gateway’s units met that definition, then split 2-2 on whether to overturn the denial.

Gateway prevailed on the definition question.

The denial remained in place.

Traffic moves to the front

Now, after nearly 11 months of tit-for-tat, traffic is the latest point of contention.

Traffic is a legitimate concern. Access matters. Sight distance matters. So does the safety of motorists, neighbors, construction crews, and the people who may someday live there.

But Gateway has a traffic study.

More importantly, Moore County’s code does not require one as a condition of preliminary site-plan approval. Traffic review and state entrance permits come later – if the project is ever allowed to get there.

The county should not pull a later-stage review forward and treat it as an obstacle to preliminary approval.

At the June 2 meeting, Planning and Zoning Chairman Dexter Golden made clear that traffic was not the reason for the denial.

The townhome definition was.

The BZA later sided with Gateway on that question.

Yet here we are.

If the traffic study identifies a genuine safety problem, put it on the table. If improvements are needed, identify them. If TDOT will not permit the proposed entrance, let TDOT make that determination at the proper stage.

But do not move the latch after Gateway reaches the gate.

Another filing, another deferral

Gateway filed a petition for a writ of certiorari Thursday, July 30, asking Chancellor J.B. Cox to review Planning and Zoning’s June 2 denial and the BZA’s July 21 deadlock.

Cox granted the writ that day and directed Planning and Zoning, the BZA, and Moore County to compile and file the administrative record within 30 days.

The civil summons reached the county only hours before Planning and Zoning met Tuesday, Aug. 4.

Mayor Sloan Stewart advised commissioners not to address Gateway’s site plan until they received guidance from County Attorney Bill Rieder.

They deferred it.

Seeking legal advice may have been prudent. No commissioner should wander barefoot into a briar patch with a lawsuit hanging overhead.

Still, the timing raises an eyebrow. The petition was filed Thursday. Four days later, the summons arrived only hours before the meeting.

The commission deferred the plan again.

The summons did not decide the case or establish that either side was right. It formally notified the county that another court challenge had begun.

The result was familiar. Gateway left without an answer. Planning and Zoning left without giving one. The lawyers went back to work.

And the meter kept running.

A fair path, not a free pass

Moore County should defend any lawful decision it believes protects the public. It should not approve a project merely because litigation is expensive or because the community needs housing.

Gateway still must satisfy legitimate requirements involving access, drainage, utilities, fire protection, setbacks, parking, construction, and public safety.

Affordable housing does not get a free pass. But it should get a fair path.

The Tennessee Housing Development Agency identified Moore County as needing more affordable housing. Two developers put forward proposals. Gateway was selected.

Gateway did not wander into Moore County looking for a place to plant a project nobody asked for. It came because the state identified a need here – and Gateway wants to become part of this community.

That does not settle every zoning question or excuse a plan that fails a legitimate requirement. But it confirms the need is real, and the opportunity did not appear by accident.

Moore County deserves that option: a place where young families, working people, and older neighbors can find a home they can afford without leaving the county they call home.

The ordinance allowed apartments in R-1. The county later removed them.

Gateway returned with townhomes. The county disputed whether they were townhomes.

The BZA said they were.

The denial remained.

Now traffic is the newest obstacle, even though Gateway has a study and the county’s code places that review later.

From the outside, this no longer looks like one clear set of rules applied in order. It looks like Gateway keeps reaching the next gate only to find the latch has moved.

Gateway should identify what, if anything, it can change without making the project unworkable.

Moore County should identify every remaining requirement with the same precision.

If 42 homes are too many, what number does the ordinance support? If the entrance is unsafe, what evidence establishes that? If a design change would solve the problem, what change? If the preliminary plan fails a written requirement, cite it.

And if county officials believe no affordable housing development of meaningful size should be built on that property, they should say so plainly and prepare to defend that decision.

No more vague objections, half-answers, or sending Gateway down another road without saying where it leads.

Write tomorrow’s rules better

Moore County’s next 20-year land use and transportation plan should say plainly where denser housing belongs, what infrastructure must support it, and how much growth the county can reasonably carry.

Then the ordinances should say the same thing.

Developers should know what can be built before spending years and millions of dollars trying to build it. Commissioners should know which standards apply before an application lands on their table. Residents should not have to compare competing ordinances and meeting minutes to determine which rules are real.

Write tomorrow’s rules better. Close the holes. Define the terms. Draw the lines.

But do not rewrite history because the old ordinance book left room for Gateway’s project.

That opening belongs to Moore County. The county may close it for the next developer. It cannot pretend it was closed for this one.

Moore County and Gateway should begin serious talks aimed at resolving the dispute. Put every legitimate requirement in writing. Determine whether Gateway can meet them.

Then move the plan forward under those standards.

Or issue a clear denial sturdy enough to defend in court.

Planning and Zoning is tired. Gateway has made clear it is not going anywhere.

And the longer this stalemate holds, the more it could cost Moore County.

We cannot afford another season of As the Ordinance Book Flips.