Gateway, Moore County earn split decision with BZA

Proposed units meet Moore County’s townhouse definition, but Gateway’s site-plan appeal ended in a 2-2 tie

8:02 p.m. July 21, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

“How can anybody in this county rely on what their legislative body is updating and what kind of rules are governing them?”

Gateway attorney Madison Haynes put that question before the Metro Moore County Board of Zoning Appeals on Tuesday as the company challenged the Planning Commission’s rejection of its proposed 42-unit townhome project.

By the end of the hearing, Gateway had won one part of its appeal. The second question – which will determine whether the company can move forward with all 42 units – ended in a 2-2 tie.

The board voted 3-1 that Gateway’s proposed units meet the county’s definition of townhouses. Peggy Sue Blackburn, Patrick Maynard and Chairman Keith Moses voted yes. Houston Lindsey voted no.

The board then split 2-2 on whether to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of Gateway’s preliminary site plan. Blackburn and Moses voted yes. Lindsey and Maynard voted no.

Board member Josh Cook was absent.

Without its fifth member, the board agreed to table the second appeal and schedule a special-called meeting as soon as possible.

Maynard suggested that Mayor Sloan Stewart, who was in attendance, could break the tie. Stewart did not participate. Haynes is an attorney with the Bradley law firm, which is currently involved in litigation against the county.

County records tell different stories

The dispute centers on a 5.13-acre property where Gateway originally planned a 42-unit affordable apartment development.

After apartments were removed from the R-1 residential district, Gateway reworked the project as townhomes. The company submitted its preliminary site plan this spring, but the Planning Commission denied it June 2.

The commission’s position was that the property could hold only 21 townhomes under density requirements adopted by the Metro Council in 2025.

Gateway argues that calculation is based on language that does not appear in the official zoning ordinance it purchased from the county or in the signed-and-sealed ordinances kept in the county clerk’s records.

Haynes presented copies of those records Tuesday.

She said the signed-and-sealed documents match the zoning book Gateway used while designing the project. The company also received the same language in two February emails from County Attorney Bill Rieder after asking for all regulations that applied to development in the R-1 district.

Gateway representatives said they were not given the conflicting version before the Planning Commission considered the site plan.

“The one with the seal would be more accurate,” Haynes said.

Rieder acknowledged that the language he previously provided Gateway matched the zoning book. He called the discrepancy a clerical error and said the Metro Council minutes make the council’s intent clear.

According to Rieder, the council intended to double the square-footage requirements for multifamily development. When the written ordinance is unclear, he said, the board should look to the meeting minutes and legislative history.

But Moses said those records raised more questions.

Council members repeatedly discussed “apartments” when considering the changes, he said. Townhouses and condominiums were not specifically addressed during much of that discussion.

Apartments had also been moved out of R-1 and into the C-1 commercial district. Moses questioned why the disputed changes were placed in the residential section and whether they were intended to apply to townhomes.

Blackburn, a District 4 member of the Metro Council who participated in the original vote, said she understood the discussion to be about apartment complexes – not townhouses.

“I felt like when I was voting on this that we were talking about apartment complexes,” Blackburn said. “I didn’t vote on a townhome.”

Board members also questioned language concerning a six-acre minimum and a 25-unit cap. Moses said he did not find the six-acre requirement discussed in the Metro Council or Planning Commission minutes he reviewed.

“You can’t say that something in an ordinance is inaccurate and say that the other part is accurate when it doesn’t match,” Moses said.

Gateway wins first appeal

Gateway’s first appeal asked the board to decide whether its design meets the county’s definition of a townhouse.

The proposal calls for rows of six attached units. Each unit would have its own entrance and means of egress and would be separated from adjoining units by firewalls running from the foundation to the roof.

Moses walked through the county ordinance and state definition before concluding that the plan appeared to meet the required elements.

Blackburn, Maynard and Moses agreed. Lindsey voted against the appeal.

The 3-1 decision established that the proposed units may be treated as townhouses in the R-1 district. It did not settle how many units may be built on the property.

Tie leaves density question unresolved

Gateway’s second appeal asked the board to overturn the Planning Commission’s denial of the preliminary site plan.

Haynes argued that Gateway followed the rules it was given. The company purchased the zoning book, asked the county attorney to confirm the applicable regulations and designed the project around that information.

Haynes said the county should not use its own conflicting records to penalize the developer.

Blackburn agreed that the county – not Gateway – was responsible for the breakdown.

“Handing them the wrong information is our mistake,” Blackburn said. “It’s not their mistake. The county was inaccurate.”

Moses said the conflicting documents created a “quagmire” that the county must fix.

The question before the board, he said, was whether that confusion was enough to grant Gateway’s appeal immediately or whether the project should remain on hold while the ordinance is clarified.

Blackburn and Moses voted to approve the appeal. Lindsey and Maynard voted against it.

The 2-2 split produced no decision on Gateway’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial. The board then voted to table the appeal and bring it back before a full membership at a special-called meeting.

Until then, Gateway has a ruling that its proposed units are townhouses – but no decision on whether all 42 may be built.