Still Waiting on a Place to Call Home

Gateway development was meant to meet a local need. Instead, it has become a dispute over Moore County’s growth.

12:16 p.m. June 1, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

On paper, the Gateway project is not a large one.

Forty-two homes. Income limits aimed at working families. A site just off Main Street in Lynchburg.

In Moore County, though, it has become something much bigger.

The proposal has become a test of how the county handles growth, who housing is for, and whether a project aimed at working families can survive the local approval process.

Gateway Companies says it came to Moore County after the Tennessee Housing Development Agency identified the county as the rural area with the greatest need for affordable workforce housing in Tennessee. The company says the math was clear: local families needed affordable housing, and the county stood to gain new residents, local spending, and additional tax revenue.

More than a year later, the site remains empty.

That is the short version of a much longer fight.

Since then, the project has bounced from planning meetings to court filings and back again, with county leaders raising questions about zoning, infrastructure, and the broader issue of what kind of growth Moore County wants to allow.

Gateway says the project would help working families and provide the county with something hard to find here – more housing without a large footprint.

A Housing Need Gateway Says it Was Built to Answer

Gateway President Josh Mandell said the company is proposing a 42-unit multifamily housing community for working families in Lynchburg and Moore County.

The units would range from about 750 to 1,200 square feet, with rents expected to land between roughly $700 and $900 a month, according to Mandell.

Gateway describes the development as affordable workforce housing, not project-based Section 8 housing. The company says it is meant for households that work locally and need a place they can afford to live.

Mandell said the project would include “high-quality design, full amenity package, and premium interior finishes and appliances.”

Gateway Development Company’s Troy Woodis said the units would be income-restricted to households making at or below 60% of area median income. In practical terms, he said, that means household income of roughly $32,000 to $45,000 a year, depending on household size and floor plan.

He said the development would still use standard resident screening.

“All residents must pass rigorous, industry-standard credit and criminal background checks – the same checks that residents of ‘Class A’ housing must pass,” Woodis said.

That distinction matters in a county where the phrase “affordable housing” can land hard, depending on who hears it.

Gateway says this project falls into the workforce and income-restricted category, financed through the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program rather than direct monthly rent subsidies.

If built, the project would have to remain income-restricted for at least 15 years, with building standards tied to the tax credit program.

Why Moore County?

Mandell said Gateway selected Moore County for two reasons: need and stability.

The need, he said, came through THDA’s assessment of rural housing shortages. The stability, he said, came from Gateway’s belief that Lynchburg and Moore County were the kind of place where a long-term housing investment could work.

“Gateway recognized the unique charm and stability of the Lynchburg/Moore County community,” Mandell said.

Before moving ahead, Mandell said the company and its financing partners studied the market carefully.

“These partners do not make commitments without going through a thorough analysis of a market and its economic conditions,” Mandell said.

The company says it builds in small rural communities and keeps its properties instead of flipping them after construction.

“We do not ‘flip’ properties,” Mandell said. “So, that means we build it the right way, and we only go to stable areas.”

What the County Could Gain

Most of the public discussion around Gateway has focused on what the project might cost Moore County – more traffic, more demand on utilities, more students in schools, and more pressure on emergency services.

Those are legitimate questions, and county leaders have said they need to make sure new development fits the area’s infrastructure.

But Gateway says the county also must count what the project could bring in.

If completed, the development would add 42 homes to a county with roughly 3,200 housing units – an increase of just over 1%. Gateway says that is part of the point: a small addition, not a sweeping change, but one that could ease pressure in a tight housing market.

The project would also bring in new property tax revenue. Based on previously published numbers, Gateway says the development would produce roughly the equivalent of a 1-cent property tax increase once completed.

That figure does not include building permit fees, water and sewer tap fees, or the monthly utility revenue from 42 occupied units. It also does not account for the everyday spending that comes with new households – groceries, gas, meals, school supplies, and other routine purchases that keep money moving through a small community.

In a county this size, that money is not nothing.

That is part of Gateway’s argument: This is not just a zoning fight.

How the Project Reached Court

Gateway’s proposal first moved through local channels in early 2025, when company representatives began asking whether the development could move forward under county zoning rules.

At the time, Gateway argued that apartments were permitted in R-1 Residential zoning. The company also obtained written confirmations related to zoning and utility service before applying for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits through THDA. Gateway says it received those tax credits in July 2025.

By then, Moore County had changed the zoning ordinance.

Under the amended ordinance, apartments were removed from R-1 zoning and moved into C-1 Commercial Highway zoning. The amendment also increased minimum lot-size requirements and capped apartment projects at 25 units.

Gateway filed suit against the county in November, arguing the ordinance change was not properly adopted and should not be used to block the 42-unit project it had already put in motion. The county has denied Gateway’s claims in court filings and has asked the Moore County Chancery Court to uphold the ordinance.

In February, Chancellor J.B. Cox denied Gateway’s early request for judgment, keeping the case alive. The ruling did not decide the full case, but it did find that disputed facts prevented the court from ruling for Gateway at that stage.

For now, the lawsuit remains active, and the project remains unresolved.

A New Design, and a Familiar Dispute

While the legal case continued, Gateway returned with a revised plan, it says, that fits the county’s zoning ordinance as townhomes.

At the May 4, 2026, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, officials questioned whether the revised plan was really townhomes or simply apartments under a different label.

Planning Commission Chairman Dexter Golden said he did not see townhomes in the proposal.

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

Gateway responded that the layout complies with the ordinance, citing individual front and back entrances, firewalls between units, and side-by-side construction in a townhome-style arrangement.

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

No vote was taken.

County Attorney Bill Rieder said the definition issue needed to be resolved before the commission moved on to other questions of approval or denial.

Gateway says the revised plan was submitted in good faith as an alternative, though the company still believes it has the legal right to develop the property as originally proposed.

“Gateway’s position is that it has the legal right to develop the property as currently submitted to the Planning Commission, as well as back in 2025,” Woodis said.

The Infrastructure Questions

As the proposal moved through the process, county officials raised concerns about traffic, water and sewer capacity, stormwater, school enrollment, and emergency access.

Those are the questions that tend to show up when growth gets close enough for people to feel it.

In Moore County, they have become central to the debate.

Gateway says those issues are already addressed in its site plan.

“All of the above concerns have been addressed in our site plan,” Woodis said. “We have submitted a site plan for approval that is 100% in compliance with the Metro Moore Code.”

He said the company submitted its ingress and egress plan to the Tennessee Department of Transportation and received “very few comments,” which Gateway says it incorporated into the site plan.

Woodis also said utility concerns have been addressed multiple times.

“There is no significant impact on water or sewer as stated by Metro Moore Utility director,” he said.

Gateway says it has also completed the required market study, civil and topographical surveys, and stormwater calculations.

County officials, however, say they must consider more than one project in isolation. Their concern is the cumulative effect of growth along Main Street and throughout the county.

Director of Schools Chad Moorehead told commissioners that Moore County Schools had gained 44 students compared with the same time the previous year. He said enrollment was around 865 students and warned that continued growth could put additional pressure on the district, especially at the elementary level, if enrollment exceeds 1,000.

Metro Utilities Manager Ronnie Cunningham said the utility system was operating at about 75% capacity, near the 80% threshold that can trigger state planning requirements.

Gateway says those concerns may be part of the review, but should not be used to block a project, it says complies with the code.

Small County, Big Questions

Some of the pushback on the Gateway proposal has centered on a simple question: Is 42 units too much for Lynchburg?

Gateway says that argument misses the scale of the county itself – and the housing need behind the proposal.

Woodis said there are about 3,200 housing units in Lynchburg and Moore County, meaning Gateway’s proposal would represent just over 1% of the total housing stock.

“A few voices have distorted this project’s impact by focusing on 42 units without any context,” he said.

Woodis said modest growth can be healthy for a place like Lynchburg.

“Lynchburg, and any other great town, always embraces positive, incremental change,” he said. “An occasional new restaurant or store tends to improve a town.”

Gateway says its housing proposal should be viewed the same way – not as a transformation of the county, but as a measured addition that helps meet a local need.

Gateway Says it is Staying Put

One thing has stayed constant: Gateway says it intends to keep going.

Asked what the company would do if Planning and Zoning continues to resist the project, Woodis said Gateway is not leaving.

“Gateway is not walking away from this project,” he said.

He said Gateway believes the process has not always been transparent or consistent with Tennessee law, but that its larger purpose remains the same.

“Gateway’s core business objective is to build quality affordable housing, not to litigate land use disputes,” Woodis said.

Even so, Gateway says it wants to find a cooperative path forward.

“We want to reiterate that it is a priority to Gateway to work in a collaborative, amicable fashion with local leaders and to create a community that everyone will be proud of,” Woodis said.

For now, the Gateway project sits in a familiar Moore County place: tied to housing, taxes, schools, utilities, and the larger question of how much growth the county wants – and where it is willing to allow it.

Until that is sorted out, the site near Main Street stays empty.

And in a county where growth now seems to come with a fight, the Gateway project remains another local question without a clear answer.