Seven-lot Tanyard Hill rezoning fails 7-3

Metro Council rejects Denby’s rezoning request, leaving 9.4 acres at 3152 Tanyard Hill Road zoned agricultural

9:51 p.m. Sept. 21, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

The proposed rezoning of 3152 Tanyard Hill Road made it all the way to the last vote Monday night. Then it stopped.

The Metro Council rejected a request to rezone 9.4 acres from A-1 agricultural to R-2 residential, voting 7-3 against the change on second reading Sept. 21.

Voting yes were Peggy Sue Blackburn, Arvis Bobo, and Amy Cashion.

Robert Bracewell, Bradley Dye, Jayson Estfon, Brady Goodwin, Payton Keller, Sunny Rae Moorehead, and John Oosting voted no.

Dexter Golden, who addressed the rezoning conflict earlier during public comments, abstained.

Four Council members – Regina Adcock, Douglas Carson, Brandon Ross, and Shane Taylor – were absent.

Monday marked the first public meeting for the new Council that took office Sept. 1. Four of the six newly elected members – Estfon, Goodwin, Keller, and Oosting — were there for the vote. Adcock and Ross were absent.

The result also reversed where the matter stood a month ago. On Aug. 17, the outgoing Council advanced the scaled-back rezoning 8-5 on first reading.

After months of back-and-forth, Monday’s vote came down to one question: Would the county change 9.4 acres along Tanyard Hill Road from agricultural to residential zoning so it could be divided into lots smaller than five acres?

How it got that far has been the argument for months.

Seven lots, one last vote

During a public hearing before the regular meeting, surveyor Nicholas Northcutt again appeared on behalf of property owner Joseph Denby.

Northcutt told the Council the request was not for a sprawling development. “We’re doing seven lots,” he said.

He also stressed that the rezoning covered only the portion of the property intended for those lots. The remaining land was left out of the request and would stay agricultural.

That was different from the broader proposal the Council rejected in July.

Blackburn also returned to one of the questions raised the first time around – whether the acreage behind the proposed lots might later be developed. She said she had researched the property and found the rear portion too steep for practical development.

Northcutt said that land was not part of the rezoning request anyway. The application covered the road frontage. The narrower request had been enough to get the project moving again in August.

The original proposal failed 11-2 on July 20 after Council members raised concerns about lot sizes, road safety, how much land was being rezoned, and the order in which the subdivision work had been handled.

Denby returned Aug. 17 with the 9.4-acre request, leaving nearly 14 acres in agricultural zoning. That version passed first reading 8-5.

Monday was the second and final Council vote. It failed.

Golden comes with the books

Before the Council ever reached the rezoning, Golden used public comment to answer criticism Northcutt made during the August meeting.

Golden, who chairs the Metro Planning and Zoning Commission, came prepared. He brought county materials with him and laid them out for Council members to see.

His point was simple: Moore County does have rules.

Golden did concede one part of Northcutt’s criticism. The county does not have a simple flow chart that tells someone exactly where to start, what comes next, and what follows after that. “We don’t have something that says go this step, this step, this step in a normal flow-chart mind,” Golden said.

But he pushed back on the idea that Planning and Zoning is working without a system. “We do have a system in place, and we try to abide by it the best we can,” Golden said.

He pointed to the county’s subdivision regulations, zoning ordinance, instructions, checklists, sketch plat requirements, preliminary plat requirements, and provisions requiring plats to meet existing zoning.

Golden also admitted those books are not always easy to follow. “It can be confusing,” he said.

That has been the rub in the Tanyard Hill matter from the start.

The county has rules. Northcutt’s complaint has been that the order of the steps is not always clear.

Where Northcutt says it broke down

Northcutt’s criticism in August was more specific than saying Moore County has no zoning regulations. He said the county’s ordinance does not clearly spell out how someone starts a rezoning request, what has to be submitted with it, or whether the zoning change comes before or after subdivision work.

Northcutt laid out a timeline stretching back to March and said Denby initially tried to seek rezoning before finishing the subdivision work.

According to Northcutt, they were told a plat was needed first. He said they then spent money on surveying, soil work, and other steps before later being told the zoning issue needed to come first.

“There are no protocols or procedures for the submission of a rezoning request in y’all’s zoning ordinance,” Northcutt told the Council in August.

Golden’s answer Monday was that developers and property owners also have some homework to do before they get too far down the road. If someone buys agricultural land and wants lots smaller than five acres, Golden said, the first question is whether the zoning allows it.

If it does not, rezoning becomes part of the process.

Golden also pointed to the Tanyard Hill timeline and said activity on the project had begun in March, while a Planning and Zoning book was not purchased until May 27.

He gave Northcutt some room on that point. Northcutt had worked in Moore County before, Golden said, and the county’s rules had changed.

“We cannot call every developer when this book changes,” he said.

His advice was to check before beginning a new project, ask what has changed, and get a current copy of the regulations.

‘Christine does a fantastic job’

Golden also made clear that part of his reason for speaking Monday was to defend Codes Enforcer Christine Pyrdom. “What she does is a full-time job, and she gives it all she’s got,” Golden said. “She does a great job at it.”

Moore County does not have someone in the Codes office five days a week, and Golden acknowledged that things can get missed. “We can always make improvements,” he said. “We can always get better.”

That part was not far removed from what Cashion said during the August meeting. She defended Golden then, but also acknowledged that the county could clean up its procedures.

Golden said much the same Monday.

What bothered him was the suggestion that Pyrdom or Planning and Zoning had been operating without rules. “The comments made last month, I don’t appreciate those for Christine,” Golden said. “I can take them. That’s fine.”

The rules are there, he said. The county can still do a better job showing people how to work through them.

The argument did not start Monday

The Tanyard Hill disagreement first spilled fully into public view during a special-called Planning and Zoning meeting July 17. The commission unanimously recommended the original rezoning to the Council, but much of that meeting centered on how the project had reached that point.

Northcutt said the applicants had followed the directions they were given by the county office. Golden said the existing A-1 zoning and its five-acre minimum could have been checked before smaller lots were laid out.

Three days later, the Council rejected the broader rezoning 11-2.

Northcutt came back Aug. 17 with his timeline and challenged the suggestion that he had handled the project “backwards.” He said the criticism had hurt his professional reputation and maintained that he had tried from the beginning to figure out the proper county process.

That night, the revised 9.4-acre request passed first reading.

Golden answered that criticism Monday. A little later, the Council took up the land itself.

This time, the rezoning was finished.

The dirt stays A-1

For now, nothing changes on the ground. The 9.4 acres remain zoned A-1 agricultural. That means the seven smaller residential lots proposed under the R-2 request cannot move forward.

If Denby develops the property under its current zoning, the land would have to meet the county’s A-1 requirements, including the five-acre minimum Golden discussed Monday.

Mayor Sloan Stewart said Monday night he was unsure whether the next stop would be Planning and Zoning or the Board of Zoning Appeals. Those boards are not interchangeable.

If Denby comes back asking the county to change the zoning classification, that request would go back through Planning and Zoning. The Board of Zoning Appeals generally handles questions arising under zoning already in place, including certain appeals, variances, and exceptions.

What Denby does next will depend on what he wants to do with the land.

Gateway is a different road

A court challenge is another possibility, but the Gateway Development case now pending in Moore County Chancery Court is not a carbon copy of Tanyard Hill.

Gateway is challenging a Planning Commission decision involving how existing zoning rules were applied to a site plan. On Tanyard Hill, Denby asked the Metro Council to change the zoning itself from A-1 to R-2. Those are different kinds of decisions under Tennessee zoning law, and they do not necessarily travel the same path in court.

So while Denby could explore whatever legal remedies may be available, this is not as simple as filing the same kind of challenge Gateway filed.

For now, the answer on Tanyard Hill is simple. The rezoning failed. The 9.4 acres remain agricultural.

If Denby wants another crack at smaller lots, he still has more work to do with the county.