Gateway challenges denial of townhome plan

Filing challenges the commission’s reading of density, town lots, traffic requirements, definition of a townhouse

2:15 p.m. July 31, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

Gateway Development Corporation has asked Moore County Chancery Court to overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission’s rejection of a site plan for 42 townhomes on Main Street.

In a verified petition filed Thursday, July 30, Gateway says commissioners denied the preliminary plan without evidence to support their decision.

The company wants the judge to reverse the commission’s June 2 decision and order the commission to approve the plan. As an alternative, Gateway asks the court to send the matter back for another review.

A writ of certiorari allows a court to decide whether a government board followed the law and had enough evidence to support its action.

One property, 42 homes

Gateway proposes 42 attached homes on 5.13 acres owned by Stanley Fanning. The property, listed as Map 038, Parcel 004.04, sits along Main Street, also known as State Highway 50.

The land is zoned R-1. Gateway plans to keep it as one parcel and build the project under the county’s rules for group housing.

Under Gateway’s reading of the ordinance, each home would count as a separate building, even though the homes would be joined in groups of six. Firewalls would run from the foundation through the roof.

Gateway argues that the design meets the county’s definition of a townhouse. The ordinance allows a series of at least three attached buildings, each containing no more than two homes and separated by firewalls.

The site plan shows the homes arranged around an internal road, with access from Main Street. The project would average about 8.19 homes per acre.

The math behind the dispute

Gateway says the county’s density table allows 42 homes on the property.

The tract contains about 223,463 square feet. Under Gateway’s reading of the ordinance, the first four homes require 25,000 square feet. Each home after that requires another 5,000 square feet.

That puts the total land requirement for 42 homes at 215,000 square feet. The property has about 8,463 square feet to spare.

Gateway says the ordinance’s separate half-acre rule for town lots does not apply because the land would not be divided into individual lots.

The petition says commissioners instead treated the property as about 10 half-acre lots, with no more than two homes allowed on each.

Gateway argues the ordinance does not support that reading.

Commission raised traffic and safety questions

The project appeared on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s June 2 agenda for preliminary site-plan review.

Meeting minutes show a long discussion about density, the meaning of “townhouse,” traffic, the proposed entrance, TDOT requirements, water service, and public safety.

Chairman Dexter Golden, Jim Crawford, and Scott Fruehauf voted against the plan. Bobby Carroll voted for it.

The motion failed 3-1, with Jeff Ross abstaining.

County Attorney Bill Rieder then told Gateway it could appeal the decision to the Board of Zoning Appeals or turn to other options under state law.

Gateway says concerns lacked proof

The petition says no traffic study, engineering report, staff report, or expert testimony was presented before the vote.

Gateway also says no one offered evidence to challenge its claim that each home would be a separate building divided by firewalls that meet building codes.

Gateway says it did not need final driveway approval during the preliminary site-plan review. Because the property fronts a state highway, the company says it would seek a driveway permit from TDOT after receiving local approval.

Gateway argues that commissioners based their decision on concerns and assumptions, not proof in the record.

Two ordinance versions remain part of the case

The filing also raises questions about which version of the county zoning ordinance should control.

Gateway says commissioners relied on an unsealed document that includes a half-acre minimum for lots inside the urban service area.

The company says that language does not appear in the county clerk’s sealed Minute Book version of the ordinance.

Gateway also alleges that the added language was not discussed during the Metro Council meetings when the zoning change was considered.

Gateway says the sealed version should control – and that its 42-home plan fits within the density it allows.

Court asked to review the decision

Gateway wants the court to order the commission to provide the full record from the June 2 meeting, including the documents and exhibits considered before the vote.

If the court takes up the case, the judge could uphold the decision, reverse it, or send the matter back to the commission for another review.

The filing contains Gateway’s claims and legal arguments. The documents provided did not include a response from Metro government or the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Even if Gateway wins, construction would not begin at once. The project would still need TDOT approval for its Main Street entrance and any other permits required before work could start.