Judge denies Gateway request for judgment

1:13 p.m. Feb. 10, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

A Chancery Court judge on Tuesday, Feb. 10, turned down Gateway at Lynchburg’s request for an early decision in its lawsuit over a proposed zoning change related to apartment development in Moore County.

Chancellor J.B. Cox issued a memorandum and order denying Gateway’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. This means the case against the Metropolitan Lynchburg-Moore County Planning and Zoning Commission and other defendants will move forward.

• Gateway files lawsuit | Moore County answers

Challenge to Zoning Amendment

Gateway filed its lawsuit on Nov. 10, 2025, arguing that a proposed ordinance changing the county’s zoning rules, such as removing apartment development from Residential (R-1) zoning and adding new requirements for housing, is legally invalid. The company says the original zoning ordinance should remain in effect.

The developer sought judgment without a full trial, claiming that county officials failed to follow the required legal steps to adopt the amendment.

Disputed Notice and Meeting Procedures

Gateway claimed there were three main procedural violations:

• Failure to publish notice of a public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.
• Failure to publish notice at least 30 days before the hearing.
• Failure to include the proposed ordinance on a publicly available April 21, 2025, meeting agenda, allegedly violating Tennessee’s Open Meetings Act.

Judge Cox decided that none of these claims were enough to grant judgment at this point in the case.

Upon publication, defendants denied any failure and stated that proper notice appeared in the Lynchburg Times, creating a factual dispute that prevents early judgment.

On timing, the court found that both sides misstated the law: Tennessee statutes require at least 21 days’ notice, and the local zoning ordinance requires at least 20 days' notice, not 30. Records indicated notice published April 23 for a May 19 hearing satisfied both standards.

For the agenda claim, the defendants admitted the amendment was first listed under “Other Committee Reports” at the April 21 council meeting and later as a separate item for a second reading on May 19. However, they denied violating the Open Meetings Act.

Case Moves Forward

Since there are disputed facts in the pleadings and Gateway is not “clearly entitled to judgment,” the court decided not to rule in the developer’s favor at this stage.

The main zoning dispute, and the future of apartment development rules in Moore County, will now continue in court.