LOCAL NEWS | By Tabitha Evans Moore | Editor & Publisher

LYNCHBURG, Tenn. — A developer behind a proposed affordable housing project in Lynchburg is asking a Moore County Chancery Court judge to rule immediately in its lawsuit against Metro officials, arguing that a zoning amendment blocking the project was never legally adopted in the first place.

In a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed December 29, Gateway at Lynchburg, LP asks the court to decide the case now – without a trial – based solely on the filings already before the court. The motion argues that even taking the county’s own responses as true, the zoning amendment at the center of the dispute is legally void.

If granted, the motion would invalidate the ordinance that changed zoning rules for Gateway’s property and reinstate the original zoning classification under which Gateway says its 42-unit affordable housing project was permitted.

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for January 12, 2026, according to the filing.

A procedural fight, not a factual one

In court filings, Gateway frames the dispute as a narrow legal question: whether Metro Lynchburg Moore County followed the basic procedural requirements required under Tennessee law when it amended its zoning ordinance.

According to Gateway, the relevant facts are not meaningfully disputed. Instead, the parties disagree over whether those facts satisfy the law.

Gateway argues that the ordinance is void ab initio – meaning it is treated as though it never existed – because required public notice and agenda procedures were not followed. In its motion, Gateway identifies three procedural failures it says are fatal to the ordinance:

• Notice of the public hearing was not published in a newspaper of general circulation in Moore County, as required by law
• The notice that was published did not appear at least 30 days before the hearing
• The proposed zoning amendment was not listed on the publicly available agenda for the April 21, 2025 Metro Council meeting

Gateway argues that because those requirements are mandatory under state law and Metro’s own zoning ordinance, the court can resolve the case as a matter of law, without taking testimony or conducting further discovery.

Legal brief outlines why notice matters

Gateway’s position is further detailed in a supporting Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, also filed December 29.

In that memorandum, Gateway relies on Tennessee case law holding that zoning and land-use notice requirements must be strictly followed. Courts, Gateway argues, have consistently ruled that when required notice procedures are skipped or done incorrectly, the resulting ordinance is invalid – even if no one can show actual harm.

The brief emphasizes that the issue is not whether affordable housing is desirable or undesirable, but whether the local government followed the rules it is required to follow when changing zoning laws that affect property rights.

Gateway argues that allowing such amendments to stand despite procedural defects would undermine transparency and public participation in zoning decisions, which Tennessee law explicitly seeks to protect.

County disputes legal conclusions, not much of the timeline

The defendants – including the Metro Planning and Zoning Commission, Metro Council, and the Metropolitan Government of Lynchburg and Moore County – filed their answer to the lawsuit on December 17.

In that response, the defendants deny wrongdoing and assert that the zoning amendment was lawfully adopted. However, the answer largely disputes Gateway’s legal interpretations, rather than the sequence of events leading up to adoption of the ordinance.

Among other things, the county acknowledges that:

• The zoning amendment was considered on April 21, 2025
• The ordinance was adopted on second reading May 19, 2025
• Notice of the May 19 public hearing appeared in the April 23, 2025 edition of The Lynchburg Times

The county argues that the notice provided was legally sufficient and that no additional notice requirements applied. It also maintains that all statutory and local procedural requirements were followed.

Gateway, however, contends that relying on the April 23 article does not satisfy statutory notice requirements and that the timeline itself defeats the county’s position. Those competing legal arguments are now squarely before the court.

How the dispute began

The lawsuit itself was filed November 7, 2025, after months of back-and-forth surrounding Gateway’s proposed development.

According to the complaint, Gateway planned a 42-unit affordable housing complex on a parcel along Main Street that was zoned R-1 Residential at the time the project was proposed. Gateway alleges it relied on multiple representations from local officials confirming that the project complied with existing zoning and that utilities and infrastructure were available.

After those assurances were allegedly given, Gateway contends that Metro Council introduced and ultimately passed a zoning amendment that removed apartment uses from R-1 zoning, imposed new minimum lot size requirements, and capped multi-unit apartment developments at 25 units.

Gateway argues the amendment effectively blocked its project and was adopted in a manner that violated both state law and Metro’s own zoning ordinance. The lawsuit asks the court to declare the amendment void and to rule that the original zoning remains in effect for the property.

What happens next

At the January 12 hearing, the court will consider whether to grant Gateway’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. If the court agrees that the ordinance was improperly adopted as a matter of law, the case could be resolved without moving into discovery or trial.

If the motion is denied, the case would proceed with further litigation, potentially including depositions, document discovery, and additional hearings.

Beyond the immediate dispute, the case carries broader implications for how zoning amendments are introduced, noticed, and approved in Moore County – particularly when changes affect specific parcels or proposed developments.

The court’s ruling will determine not only the future of Gateway’s project, but also whether the procedures used to amend the zoning ordinance complied with the transparency and notice standards required under Tennessee law.•

About The Lynchburg Times: We’re independent, reader-supported, and proudly homegrown. We hold the history, relationships, and journalistic craft to deliver professional reporting from one of America’s tiniest and most famous towns. Because of that, there are some stories you’ll only read in The Lynchburg Times. Every dollar of reader support stays right here in Moore County, funding local writers, photographers, and storytellers. When you support The Lynchburg Times, you’re not just backing a local news room — you’re preserving the art of storytelling in the South. [Join us here.]