County, Gateway agree on many facts, split over zoning rules

Court filings show sharp differences over density, traffic, which version of the ordinance controls proposed development

3:02 p.m. Sept. 1, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

Gateway says the Planning and Zoning Commission wrongly denied preliminary approval for its plan to build 42 townhomes on about 5.13 acres along Main Street. Moore County agrees with many of the facts behind the project, but it rejects Gateway’s central claim that the commission acted illegally, arbitrarily, or without enough evidence when it voted down the plan June 2.

The county’s answer, filed Monday, responds to Gateway’s petition paragraph by paragraph. Those admissions and denials show where the two sides agree – and where the case remains sharply divided.

The basic facts are mostly settled

Moore County admits Gateway proposes 42 townhomes on a single, undivided parcel zoned R-1. It also agrees Gateway structured the development under the zoning ordinance’s group-housing rules and that each townhouse structure would be a separate building on its own building site.

The county also agrees Gateway submitted a preliminary site plan, that the plan went before the commission June 2, and that the commission reviewed and voted on it. Moore County admits Gateway’s claims concerning the grade of the project’s internal road, building spacing, roadway design, and public water and sewer service.

Both sides also agree the property borders State Highway 50 and is subject to TDOT rules for highway access. Moore County adds that Highway 50 becomes a county road about 660 feet beyond the proposed entrance and says added traffic could create safety and congestion concerns there.

Which zoning rules control?

At the center of the case is a dispute over the land-area rules used to decide how many units Gateway can build.

Gateway points to Section 5.043 of the zoning ordinance. Under the enrolled ordinance and the copy of the zoning manual originally provided to Gateway, the developer says the 5.13-acre property contains enough land for 42 units.

Moore County admits that calculation is correct under those documents. But the county says those documents did not reflect what it contends the Metro Council approved.

The county says the Metro Council approved changes in August 2025 to double the square-footage requirements for multifamily development and add a 25-unit cap for a development parcel. According to the county’s filing, the signed and enrolled ordinance failed to include those changes because of a clerical error. The county says the same language was initially left out of the zoning manual and was later added to reflect what it says the council approved.

Moore County argues the council minutes and other records are enough to show what was approved and that the doubled requirements should control.

The difference is significant. Moore County admits the property would support 42 units under the enrolled ordinance and the original zoning-manual language. Under the doubled square-footage table the county says applies, however, the maximum is 21 units. Gateway argues the county cannot enforce requirements that were not included in the enrolled ordinance.

The half-acre rule is another point of dispute

The two sides also disagree over a rule requiring at least one-half acre for certain R-1 building sites.

Gateway says that rule does not apply because its 42 townhomes are proposed as group housing on one undivided parcel. Moore County does not dispute that the project is group housing on a single parcel, but it says the commission applied the half-acre requirement to each townhouse building. Under that reading, the property would support 10 townhouse buildings, or 20 units.

The county also says the court does not need to decide that issue to uphold the denial. In Moore County’s view, Gateway fails the doubled square-footage requirements regardless.

Gateway challenges the evidence behind the denial

Gateway says the June 2 decision was not supported by material evidence.

Its petition says no staff report, expert testimony, traffic study, or engineering analysis was presented at the meeting to support the traffic and access concerns. Gateway also says no evidence was offered to challenge its position that each building met the zoning ordinance’s definition of a townhouse.

Moore County denies that the commission lacked enough evidence, but it admits the zoning ordinance contains no express requirement for Gateway to obtain “traffic approval.” The county also says Gateway submitted no traffic study of its own and points to concerns raised by Highway Superintendent Shannon Cauble about traffic safety, congestion, and U-turns that could result from TDOT restrictions near the development.

Moore County argues that reducing traffic hazards and congestion is one of the stated purposes of its zoning ordinance. Based on that language, the county argues the commission could require Gateway to provide a traffic-impact study as a condition of preliminary approval. Gateway takes the opposite position, arguing the commission cannot create a specific requirement that is not written into the zoning ordinance.

The dispute is whether that broad traffic-safety language gives the commission power to require a traffic study when the zoning ordinance does not specifically require one.

Townhouse definition less contested

Moore County admits Gateway accurately described the ordinance’s townhouse definition and that each townhouse structure would be a separate building. The county also acknowledges the Board of Zoning Appeals accepted Gateway’s interpretation of that definition.

Even if Gateway is correct about the townhouse definition, the county argues the project still fails the land-area requirements it says were approved in August 2025.

Moore County denies the commission acted illegally

Gateway argues throughout its petition that the Planning and Zoning Commission acted illegally, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it denied preliminary approval, and Moore County denies those claims.

The county agrees Chancery Court can hear the case and that Moore County is the proper place for it to be heard. It also admits Gateway provided the required cost bond. But the county denies Gateway is entitled to a reversal of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision, its costs, or any other relief requested in the petition.

Much of the factual record is no longer in dispute. What remains is the central legal divide: Gateway says its plan complies with the enrolled zoning ordinance and the version originally provided by the county, while Moore County says the commission properly applied the requirements it contends the Metro Council approved.