Gateway plan stalls over townhome question

Planning and Zoning says townhome definition must be resolved before project can move forward

8:11 p.m. May 5, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

A proposed 42-unit Gateway housing development remains stuck at the starting line after Moore County officials and the developer’s representatives clashed Tuesday over a basic but consequential question: Are the proposed units townhomes, or apartments by another name?

No vote was taken during Tuesday’s Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Gateway appeared only as a discussion item after county officials declined to accept the company’s April application while the townhome classification remained unsettled.

Gateway is seeking approval for a 42-unit rental development on property zoned R-1. The company says the layout qualifies as townhomes, which are allowed under that zoning. County officials say the plan may function more like apartments, raising density questions that must be resolved before the project can move forward.

That definition is now the hinge point for the entire project.

Until that question is resolved, Gateway won't be able to move forward with the larger site-plan fight.

One sentence, two readings

The dispute turned on one sentence in the county’s zoning ordinance.

Planning Commission Chairman Dexter Golden read the county’s townhouse definition aloud during the meeting and said he, County Attorney Bill Rieder, and other officials interpret it as limiting the number of dwelling units allowed on a single zone lot.

Gateway attorney Madison Haynes read it differently.

Haynes argued the plan fits the ordinance because each proposed townhome-style space would contain one dwelling unit, with units attached side by side in a series. In her reading, the ordinance allows the kind of connected layout Gateway has proposed.

“What we have proposed is one dwelling unit per one building, townhome door,” Haynes told the commission. “We put six of them together. I don’t understand how that isn’t what that means.”

Golden said he did not see the plan the same way.

“What they have in front of me here, I see apartments,” Golden said. “I do not see a townhouse definition.”

That disagreement matters because Gateway’s representatives say townhomes are allowed under the property’s R-1 zoning. If county officials ultimately classify the proposal as apartments, the project could face a different set of density and use questions.

Gateway says it followed the book

Haynes opened the discussion by asking why the project was not on the agenda for site plan approval. She said Gateway representative Troy Woodis had attempted to file an application on April 21 with a check and supporting documents, but the application was not accepted.

She told commissioners Gateway believes the proposed development meets “every single requirement” of the zoning ordinance.

The project, she said, would add a housing option in Moore County while increasing the county’s property tax base. She also pushed back against the idea that all residents would necessarily be new to the school system, noting that some could already live locally or have children enrolled in Moore County Schools.

“This is an opportunity for the people of Moore County to have an option for housing,” Haynes said.

Mayor Sloan Stewart addressed the question about why the application was not accepted.

“I don't look at the individual, I don't look at the subdivision, or I don't look at the town home, I look at what it's going to cost to the county,” he said.

“So if you want to point the finger denying, right here it is,” Stewart said. “We could go read the [ordinances] book. I read the book, and that's exactly what the book says – [but] the Charter is my Bible.”

County says growth has costs

For county officials, the Gateway debate quickly became part of a larger question: How much growth can Moore County absorb before schools, roads, water lines, and volunteer emergency services are forced to catch up at taxpayer expense?

That concern had already surfaced earlier in the meeting when Director of Schools Chad Moorehead updated the commission on student enrollment. Moorehead said the district gained 44 students this school year compared with the same time last year – a major jump for a school system where an average graduating class runs between 65 and 75 students. The MCHS Class of 2026 is 55 students.

Moorehead said Moore County Schools now has about 865 students. If that growth continues and enrollment pushes past 1,000 students, he said, the district will begin feeling space pressure more sharply, especially at the elementary school, where class-size requirements leave less flexibility.

Golden later tied those concerns to the Gateway proposal.

“We welcome growth,” Golden said. “We welcome it in the right way.”

He said the county is not trying to stop development but must ensure new growth does not overburden existing residents. He pointed to school capacity, water capacity, water loss, fire protection, and road traffic as issues the county must consider.

During the discussion, Metro Utilities Manager Ronnie Cunningham said the system is operating at about 75% capacity, near the 80% threshold that can trigger state planning requirements. Golden also referenced the county’s reported 45% water loss. Cunningham said the water loss is not a factor in this discussion.

Interim fire chief Hunter Case said an engineering review would be needed to determine the required fire flow for a development of that type and whether the county’s system could support it while still meeting daily demand.

Traffic also surfaced. Planning and Zoning member Scott Fruehauf said the preliminary site plan looked good but raised questions about the entrance near a curve and whether TDOT might require acceleration or deceleration improvements.

Woodis said the company is already deep into the TDOT permitting process. He said TDOT had indicated the entrance would allow right-in, right-out, and left-in traffic movements, but not left turns out because of sight-distance concerns.

Highway Department Superintendent Shannon Cauble raised concerns about additional traffic on Main Street, citing existing and potential housing units already in the area.

Townhomes or apartments?

One of the clearest exchanges came when Fruehauf asked why the units should not simply be called single-story apartments.

Haynes said apartments are typically arranged differently, often with interior hallways or units contained inside one larger building. She said the Gateway units would have front and back access, patios, and a layout more consistent with townhomes.

Golden asked whether the units would be individually owned.

Woodis said the units would be owned by Gateway Companies, not sold individually. That answer reinforced the concern for some officials that the development looked more like apartments under another name.

“I think that’s one of the things in my head that makes it still seem like you’re just trying to put 42 apartments in with a different name,” Fruehauf said.

Woodis pushed back. He said townhomes and condos are allowed under R-1 zoning and that the company brought forward a townhome plan because that is what it intends to build.

Gateway says project is not Section 8 housing

Gateway also addressed one of the claims circulating locally: that the project would be Section 8 housing.

Echoing his comments from the Oct. 20, 2025, Metro Council meeting, Woodis said the development would be funded through federal low-income housing tax credits. This program helps developers lower rents in exchange for long-term affordability commitments.

In response to a comment by District 4 council member Peggy Sue Blackburn that night, Woodis emphasized that Gateway’s proposal is not a Section 8 or project-based housing development that directly subsidizes tenants' rents.

“We are not a Section 8 developer,” he said. “These are tax credit properties – we agree to keep the units affordable for 30 years. Tenants still have to pass financial and criminal background checks just like anywhere else.”

On Tuesday, Woodis reiterated that Gateway is not a project-based Section 8 developer and does not receive a monthly government check for tenants. He described Gateway as an affordable housing developer that uses tax credits on the front end of a project, sells those credits, pays down its loan, and then charges a lower rent.

He said the development would be aimed at working residents, including firefighters, police officers, single mothers, college students, and people who want to live or return to Moore County.

“That is not what we do,” Woodis said of project-based voucher housing. “It’s not what we’re wanting to bring here.”

He said Gateway builds a quality product, pays property taxes, and becomes involved in the communities where it operates.

Density remains the dividing line

Toward the end of the discussion, Fruehauf tried to narrow the issue. He said Moore County has not rejected all apartments or all townhomes.

The concern, he said, is density.

“Nobody’s ever said you couldn’t come in and build any apartments,” he said. “Nobody’s ever come in and said you couldn’t build any townhouses. We’re open to apartments. We’re open to townhouses. It’s a density issue that’s been the problem the whole time.”

Rieder advised the commission that it would be premature to move into other possible reasons for approval or denial until the townhome definition is resolved.

Haynes said Gateway wants to know what, if anything, must be fixed before a formal site plan returns. She said the company believes it has submitted a plan that meets the ordinance and wants its application treated like any other applicant’s.

For now, Gateway remains in procedural limbo – not because the county has voted it down, but because Moore County and the developer still cannot agree on exactly what Gateway is trying to build under the county guidelines.

Also:
• Gateway files lawsuit against Moore County
• Moore County files answer to Gateway lawsuit
• Gateway seeks Motion for Judgment
• Judge denies Gateway request for judgment