Whiskey Creek: A test of Moore County’s own process

The Retreat remains unfinished after years of disputes over utilities, bridge access, zoning, and county requirements

11:54 a.m. June 4, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

The Retreat at Whiskey Creek was supposed to help solve one of Moore County’s oldest tourism problems: More than 300,000 visitors come to Lynchburg each year, according to the South Central Tennessee Tourism Association, but many leave town when it is time to spend the night.

Nearly six years after developer Chip Hayes bought the property, the tiny-home vacation community remains unfinished. Roughly 62 lots in its first phase have sold. Four homes have been built. Water lines still must be extended to the remaining lots. A proposed second phase has not moved forward.

The project is now caught in disputes over utilities, construction access, bridge safety, zoning changes, and county requirements.

The Observer reviewed the project’s public history, correspondence, and engineering documents that Hayes provided to support his account of the utility and access disputes, as well as the calculation behind his estimate of Whiskey Creek’s potential economic impact.

What emerges is not a simple story of a developer asking the county to overlook unfinished work. Moore County has legitimate responsibilities. Roads have to hold up. Emergency vehicles have to reach the property. Utilities have to be installed. Taxpayers and utility customers should not carry the cost or risk of a private development that gets ahead of itself.

But Whiskey Creek did not appear out of nowhere. Moore County created a zoning path for this type of development, approved earlier portions of it, and allowed investment and lot sales to move forward. Since then, the project has been pulled through utility disputes, access fights, a rejected permit later overturned on appeal, and a zoning change that left its proposed expansion subject to a different set of rules.

That is the question hanging over Whiskey Creek now: Did the county simply enforce the rules, or did its own process help slow a project it had already allowed to begin?

A project the county made room for

Hayes bought the Whiskey Creek property in December 2020 with plans to build a vacation-home community around small, permanent, site-built homes.

The idea did not fit neatly within Moore County’s zoning rules at the time. Officials discussed whether RV-style park models could meet the county’s needs, but Hayes wanted permanent homes, which he described as “a better product.”

Out of those discussions came the R-3 and R-3A zoning framework.

Whiskey Creek soon became part of a broader debate in Moore County over growth, tourism, density, and short-term rentals. Opponents warned that Lynchburg could become “the next Gatlinburg.” Supporters argued the county needed more overnight lodging and the spending that comes with visitors who stay longer than a day.

Then-Mayor Bonnie Lewis spoke publicly about the county’s shortage of lodging for tourists and groups. Hayes argued that the development would increase the property’s taxable value while giving visitors another reason to stay overnight in Moore County.

In 2022, earlier portions of Whiskey Creek received final approval under the R-3A framework. The approved concept included tiny homes and contemplated nonresidential amenities such as event space and management facilities.

County officials acknowledge that work under those earlier approvals is vested, and Phase 1 continues.

Phase 2 is another matter.

Officials say the second phase had not been approved before the county changed its zoning rules and must now be reviewed under the current standards. Hayes argues the county understood from the beginning that Whiskey Creek was intended to be a larger development and that the later phase should not be treated as a new idea dropped onto the county after the rules changed.

That distinction has become central to the fight.

When the zoning changed

In September 2024, Metro Council abolished the controversial R-3 zoning category.

The vote did not erase the approvals Whiskey Creek already had. Phase 1 remained under the earlier ordinance.

But it changed the path forward for anything beyond that approved work. County officials say Phase 2 must meet today’s standards because it had not received approval before the zoning change. Hayes says he invested in a larger project that had already been discussed, debated, and accepted by county officials before the zoning category was removed.

The county may have legal grounds to require Phase 2 to comply with current rules. But the order of events still matters.

Moore County created a zoning framework for this kind of development. It approved part of Whiskey Creek. Lots were sold, and money was invested. Then the county removed the zoning category and told Hayes that any later phase would have to clear a different set of requirements.

The MUD fight

One of the first major breaks between Whiskey Creek and the county came through the Metro Utility Department.

In April 2024, MUD officials and Hayes clashed over an unsigned utility contract. Utility officials said development work should not proceed without an agreement in place. Hayes said several terms presented to him had not been made clear during the earlier approval process.

The dispute involved expensive questions: upfront tap fees, sewer connection fees, easement language, grinder pumps versus gravity sewer, and performance bonds.

MUD officials said ratepayers could not be expected to finance infrastructure for a private development. Board member Greg Guinn said he found it difficult to believe a developer would move forward without knowing local utility policies.

That concern is fair. A private development should not become a public utility bill.

Hayes says that is not what occurred. He says MUD later presented an agreement requiring water and sewer tap fees on lots that already had been sold, adding roughly $500,000 in costs he says were not disclosed earlier. He says the dispute delayed construction, increased legal and financing costs, shook customer confidence, and cost the project more than a year.

The immediate problem is no longer theoretical. Water lines still must be run to the remaining Phase 1 lots.

Metro Council has required that Phase 1 utilities – electric and water – reach 75% completion before Phase 2 will be considered. Whiskey Creek representatives say the project is 60% complete.

That gives the project a benchmark. It does not settle who bears responsibility for the years already lost.

Phase 2 remains blocked

By 2025, Phase 2 had become the center of the public fight.

In August, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled the proposal amid questions about bridge safety, access width, lot sizes, zoning compliance, and unfinished infrastructure. Commission Chair Dexter Golden questioned whether the proposed lots met applicable acreage requirements. Hayes maintained that the proposal followed the understanding under which Whiskey Creek had already moved forward.

Officials also pointed to unpaid taxes, nearby residents’ complaints, unfinished infrastructure, and what they described as limited progress on construction.

Whiskey Creek representatives say the unresolved access dispute has also made work harder. They say construction materials must be unloaded on one side of a bridge, then transferred into smaller vehicles before being moved onto the development site.

The county is entitled to require that utilities be in working order before approving additional lots. It is entitled to ask whether emergency vehicles can safely reach the property and whether county roads can handle construction traffic.

But Whiskey Creek can be behind schedule and still have been slowed, in part, by years of disputes over the rules and access needed to complete it.

The bridge report the county does not accept

Access to Whiskey Creek became one of the project’s most visible public fights.

Neighbors and county officials raised concerns about concrete trucks, pavement damage, emergency access, spill risks near Mulberry Creek, bridge strength, road width, and traffic safety. Highway Superintendent Shannon Cauble said some routes were not appropriate for heavy construction trucks.

Phase 1 construction traffic used an entrance at 1075 Main St., also referred to as the Inman property access. Jeff Norman raised concerns about road wear and truck traffic. In June and July 2025, Cauble directed Whiskey Creek to stop using that entrance for construction access.

During a July 1 onsite meeting, Cauble pointed to limited visibility, a curved roadway, the nearby bridge, and the difficulty of safely maneuvering large trucks. Hayes offered alternatives, including flaggers, coordinated deliveries, restricted delivery times, and limited schedules. He says no county ordinance, Tennessee Department of Transportation regulation, or state statute was cited as prohibiting use of the entrance.

Hayes later hired Bhegani Engineering, which completed a traffic study concluding that visibility was adequate, the access was safe, and southbound movements were practical.

The county has not accepted that study. Officials said the county would obtain its own review. No competing county-commissioned study has been presented at a public meeting, and no public timeline has been given for producing one.

Hayes also provided the Observer with a signed Bhegani Engineering assessment of the private-access bridge at 975 Main St. The engineer concluded that the bridge is structurally sound, code-compliant, and capable of supporting expected loads, including those from emergency vehicles and intermittent construction traffic.

The assessment states that each steel girder has more than twice the bending capacity required for standard vehicles, construction equipment, fire trucks, and ambulances. It also states that deflection remains within acceptable service limits.

Bhegani considered an optional retrofit that would add steel plates to two interior girders. The engineer said the work would provide additional durability and safety margin, but was not required for code compliance or expected traffic demands.

That engineering letter does not settle every access concern. A bridge may be strong enough to carry a fire truck, yet the surrounding road still raises legitimate questions about visibility, turning, traffic flow, or emergency response.

But if the county believes the developer’s study is incomplete or wrong, it should explain why and produce the review it says it intends to obtain.

For now, Hayes has placed engineering work into the record. The county has not answered it with its own engineering.

A permit dispute the developer won

This year, the dispute shifted from roads and utilities to the homes themselves.

Planning officials said some newly constructed homes appeared to exceed the 799-square-foot limit under the tiny-home ordinance. The question came down to how the county counted square footage: Did exterior decks and porches count, or did the limit apply only to heated and cooled living space?

Hayes says the disagreement halted the permit for Lot 56 after Christine Pyrdom refused it on the grounds that the structure exceeded the R-3 limit. Hayes appealed, arguing that the heated and cooled area met the requirement and that exterior decks and porches should not count against the cap.

In March 2026, the Board of Zoning Appeals overturned the permit refusal. The board found that the intended interpretation applied to heated and cooled space, not the full footprint, including exterior decks and porches.

For the county, the dispute may show that the ordinance needed clearer language.

For Hayes, it meant another appearance before a county board to defend a project standard he believed had already been understood.

Either way, the permit refusal did not stand on appeal. In a project already marked by delays, that matters.

‘Where’s the money at?’

The sharpest public exchange came during the May 5 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, when commission member Jeff Ross repeatedly asked: “Where’s the money at?”

Ross questioned how Phase 2 could proceed while Phase 1 remains unfinished. Whiskey Creek representatives did not provide a detailed public accounting of lot-sale proceeds at that meeting.

His question goes to a legitimate public concern.

Buyers have a right to know when the project they bought into will be completed. County officials have a responsibility to question whether more lots should be approved before the first phase is substantially further along.

But asked from the dais, that question reaches far beyond the meeting room. Buyers, lenders, investors, and prospective customers may hear it as more than a request for an update.

If county officials are going to raise questions about the project’s finances in public, they owe the public a complete record. Whiskey Creek’s limited progress cannot be examined honestly without also accounting for the utility, access, zoning, and permitting disputes that shaped its timeline.

Work remains – and so do questions

The project now faces a simple, difficult reality.

Water lines still must be extended to the remaining lots in Phase 1. Metro Council has required that electric and water utilities reach 75% completion before Phase 2 will be considered. Access remains unresolved. Hayes has provided engineering support for the bridge and the construction entrance; the county says it does not accept those findings and intends to conduct its own review.

There are also broader questions involving current zoning standards, floodplain concerns, topography, and whether a second phase should proceed while the first remains incomplete.

Hayes must show that Whiskey Creek can finish its utilities, complete its first phase, and deliver for the people who bought lots there.

The county must show that its requirements are clear, consistent, and supported by a record the public can see.

The original argument for Whiskey Creek has not disappeared. Moore County still draws far more visitors than it can house overnight. Visitors who stay eat locally, shop locally, and leave more tax dollars behind than those who drive out at the end of the day.

Hayes estimates that a completed Whiskey Creek could create 25 jobs and contribute roughly $468,763 annually to the local economy, including $99,600 in property taxes, $85,395 in occupancy taxes, and $283,768 in sales taxes. The Observer reviewed the calculation behind those figures.

They remain projections, not guarantees. They depend on the development being completed, attracting guests, and operating at the level Hayes anticipates.

Right now, Whiskey Creek is judged by what sits on the ground: sold lots, four homes, unfinished utilities, disputed access, and a second phase the county will not yet consider.

The questions left for Moore County are not small ones.

Did the county approve more than it was prepared to manage?

Did county disputes help create the delay officials now point to?

And if the county rejects the developer’s engineering evidence, when will it produce its own?

Whiskey Creek still may become the lodging project its supporters believed Moore County needed. Before that can happen, the people who bought in – and the public watching from outside the gate – deserve a clear path from argument to completion.