Gateway settlement heads to Aug. 31 legal briefing

Officials will meet with counsel after developer submitted proposed agreement amid its townhome court challenge

1:14 a.m. Aug. 18, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

Gateway Development Corporation has submitted a proposed settlement agreement amid its court challenge over the denial of a 42-townhome site plan on Main Street, County Attorney Bill Rieder told the Metro Council on Monday night.

Rieder recommended a closed attorney-client consultation Aug. 31 to discuss the litigation and receive legal advice about the proposed settlement. He also said members of the Moore County Planning and Zoning Commission should take part.

The case stems from Gateway Development Corporation’s July 30 petition for a writ of certiorari challenging Planning and Zoning’s June 2 denial of its preliminary site plan. It is separate from an earlier lawsuit filed by Gateway at Lynchburg, LP, over the county’s 2025 zoning changes.

Rieder said the proceeding does not seek money from the county.

“The lawsuit does not seek any damages against the county or anything of that nature,” Rieder said. “It’s just asking the court to review and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission.”

Settlement proposal prompts closed legal briefing

Rieder told council members he brought copies of the court petition, Gateway’s proposed settlement agreement, and a confidential memorandum outlining the case and his legal analysis.

The settlement terms were not discussed publicly.

The consultation is planned for Aug. 31, when the council will gather at 6:30 p.m. at the American Legion, 119 Booneville Hwy., for a special-called meeting on the proposed quarter-cent sales tax referendum.

Six newly elected council members – Regina Adcock, Jayson Estfon, Brady Goodwin, Payton Keller, John Oosting, and Brandon Ross – will be sworn in at 3:30 p.m. Aug. 31. Under § 2.02 of the Metro Charter, however, their terms do not begin until Sept. 1.

Rieder said the incoming members should receive the confidential materials after they are sworn in so they can prepare for the discussion. The six will participate in the Aug. 31 closed consultation. Until they are sworn in, Rieder recommended limiting distribution to current council members, the mayor, and Planning and Zoning members.

Rieder said the discussion should be private because it involves pending litigation and legal advice. He stressed that no action could be taken there.

Gateway representatives will not attend the consultation.

P&Z invited into legal briefing

When asked whether Planning and Zoning members should participate, Rieder said they should.

“I would think it would be good for Planning and Zoning to be a part of that meeting,” he said.

Planning and Zoning made the June 2 decision Gateway is asking Chancery Court to review.

The closed portion, however, must remain an attorney-client consultation, not a private deliberation among public officials.

Tennessee law permits officials to provide counsel with information and receive legal advice in private about pending litigation. But once members begin deliberating among themselves over what action to take – including settlement – that discussion must be public.

The Metro Council and Planning and Zoning cannot use the closed session to deliberate toward a common decision. Any formal action on Gateway’s proposed settlement must be taken publicly.

How the dispute reached court

Gateway has proposed 42 attached homes on 5.13 acres along Main Street. Planning and Zoning rejected the preliminary site plan June 2 on a 3-1 vote, with one abstention, after discussing density, the definition of a townhouse, traffic, access, water service, and public safety.

Gateway appealed two questions to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which delivered a split decision July 21.

The BZA voted 3-1 that Gateway’s proposed units meet Moore County’s definition of townhouses but deadlocked 2-2 on whether to overturn Planning and Zoning’s site-plan denial. With one member absent, the board tabled that portion of the appeal.

Gateway filed its writ petition July 30, arguing that Planning and Zoning denied the preliminary plan without sufficient evidence to support the decision. The company asked the court to reverse the denial and order the plan approved or send it back for another review.

Chancellor J.B. Cox granted the writ, bringing the local record before the court for review, but the order did not overturn the site-plan denial or approve the project.

The court action also halted another local review. Gateway returned to Planning and Zoning’s agenda Aug. 4, but commissioners did not discuss the site plan or vote after Mayor Sloan Stewart, following consultation with Rieder, advised them to wait for legal guidance.

A second case remains pending

The writ proceeding is separate from a November 2025 lawsuit filed by Gateway at Lynchburg, LP, over Moore County’s zoning changes.

That case disputes the county’s May 2025 zoning amendment and its effect on apartment development. Moore County has denied Gateway at Lynchburg’s allegations and asked the court to uphold the amendment.

In February, Chancellor Cox denied Gateway at Lynchburg’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, leaving the lawsuit unresolved.

The older lawsuit challenges the county’s zoning amendment. The newer writ asks the court to review Planning and Zoning’s June 2 denial of Gateway Development Corporation’s townhome site plan.