By Tabitha Evans Moore | EDITOR & PUBLISHER

LYNCHBURG, Tenn. – It’s February 2024, and local citizen Kim Lehman stands before the Metro Council during a rezoning public hearing.

“Every day, we lose 2,000 acres of farmland in the U.S.,” Lehman states during her public comments. “To put it another way, on average, 1.4 acres of farmland is lost every minute of every day. Moore County is about 83,000 acres. In less than six weeks, statistically speaking, our entire county could be converted to concrete.”

She’s part of a grassroot movement here in Moore County seeking to prevent our rural community from “losing our farmland to rapid urbanization” and they have the attention of both the Metro Planning Commission and the Metro Council.

On Monday, the Council passed the first reading of a fourth measure intended to tap the brakes of growth here in our tiny county – voting 11-4 to move forward with the Metro Planning and Zoning Commission’s suggestion to move apartment developments from the residential zoning category into the commercial zoning category and increase required lot sizes for those projects. They also recommended putting a 25 unit per parcel cap on future apartment developments.

The issue did not appear on the publicly posted agenda. Metro Planning and Zoning Chair and Metro Council member Dexter Golden brought up the issue during the council member questions or comments section at the end of the meeting.

“I would like to get a first reading tonight on moving apartments out of residential zoning (R-1) and into commercial zoning (C-1), Golden stated. “I’m also seeking to change the lot size of apartments, basically doubling the existing limits. Additionally, I’d like to propose a cap of apartment developments in the county to 25 units per parcel.”

Golden told the group that the genesis of the change spurred from potential water capacity issues inside the Metro Utility Department.

“We’re currently hovering at around 80 percent, and that’s threshold at which the state starts looking at us to have a plan to upgrade the local water treatment plant,” he told The Times. “New apartment complexes in the county could push us over that limit.”

Golden made the motion and Bradley Dye seconded it.

{EDITOR’S NOTE: Public meeting coverage is crucial to the health of any community. This article remains free to all readers thanks to our community partners at Barrel House Barbecue. Please support the local small businesses that support your community newspaper.}

Rural development conundrum

It’s an undisputable fact that the State of Tennessee is experiencing tremendous growth. Since 2010, we’ve experienced year-over-year growth with the largest population increases happening between 2019-2020 in cities like Clarksville, Nashville, Murfreesboro, Lebanon, and Chattanooga, according to University of Tennessee. In some cases, growth is outpacing infrastructure – especially in the suburbs and rural communities that surround big cities resulting in traffic congestion, crowded schools, and public utilities scrambling to meet demand.

“Save our town,” is a refrain being heard with increasing frequency around the state not just in Lynchburg, but there are two sides to that coin, creating a conundrum for local elected and appointed officials.

Some see growth in our small rural town as a net positive. They argue that growth leads to increased tax revenue that could lower the burden for existing Moore County property taxpayers and help pay for much-needed infrastructure upgrades. Others prefer the small, rural atmosphere of Lynchburg and believe that growth can quickly stress existing infrastructure potentially leading to system collapses or the need for costly emergency upgrades. In counties like Metro Moore with a small property tax base, every new strain – whether it’s a new business, a subdivision, or an apartment complex – could mean higher costs for current taxpayers if development doesn’t pay for itself immediately. There are no easy answers.

Fourth initiative aimed at slowing growth

Monday night marked the fourth time in the past 15 months that the Metro Council has made changes to local zoning ordinances at the suggestion of the Metro Planning and Zoning intended to tap the brakes.

In February 2024, the Council voted to increase the required building lot size on agricultural land from one acre to five acres – a change intended to protect large swaths of rural farmland from subdivision developments. The motion passed by a 11-1 vote. Peggy Blackburn, Dexter Golden, Sunny Rae Moorehead, Arvis Bobo, Jimmy Hammond, Shane Taylor, Bradley Dye, Gerald Burnett, Amy Cashion, John Taylor, and Douglas Carson voted in favor. Greg Guinn voted against the motion. Robert Bracewell abstained due to a “perceive conflict of interest.” Marty Cashion was absent from the meeting. {To read our full coverage of that change, click here.}

In September 2024, the Council voted unanimously to abolish the controversial R3 zoning category for high density developments like the tiny home community currently being built along Main Street in Lynchburg. That project will bring 79 new tiny homes into Lynchburg. The move essentially prevents further expansion of that project as well as discourages similar projects from coming into the county. {To read our full coverage of that change, click here.}

Then in February of this year, the Council voted unanimously to place a five-year moratorium on future solar farm developments inside Moore County stating that they’d like time to determine any potential trickle-down effects from the existing Silicon Ranch Solar Farm located along Highway 55 between Moore County and Coffee County before approving additional projects. {To read our full coverage of that change, click here and here.}

Four “no” votes on Monday

Moore County has experienced much growth over the past several years. In addition to the tiny home community, the solar farm, an anaerobic digester, and several small subdivisions, there are now two additional inquiries at the Metro Planning Commission for multi-unit developments behind the Moore County Co-op located on the Fayetteville Highway and a second on farmland located behind the Metro Moore County EMA Building located along the Winchester Highway, though according to Golden neither has officially submitted a site plan to the Metro Planning Commission for approval.

During Monday night’s vote, four Metro Council members voted against the proposed changes: Gerald Burnett, Douglas Carson, Greg Guinn, and Shane Taylor. We spoke to several of them after the meeting and they collectively stated that even though they see the value in proactive, managed growth in the county, they voted “no” for a variety of reasons including the fact that the item got spontaneously added to the agenda during the meeting – allowing for no public notice to any potential landowners who might be adversely affected by the change. They also didn’t feel the proposal details were clearly presented and wanted a written draft of any potential ordinance change prior to the meeting to feel comfortable voting in favor of those changes.

Peggy Sue Blackburn, Robert Bracewell, Arvis Bobo, Amy Cashion, Marty Cashion, Bradley Dye, Dexter Golden, Jimmy Hammond, Houston Lindsey, Daryl Richards, and John Taylor voted in favor of the change.

The item will appear on the agenda in May with a public hearing taking place prior to the regular meeting. The next Metro Planning Commission meeting will take place on Tuesday, May 6 at 5:30 p.m. at the County Building. The next Metro Council meeting will take place on Monday, May 19 at 6:30 p.m. at the American Legion Building.•

{The Lynchburg Times is a non-partisan, locally owned and locally operated community newspaper in Lynchburg, Tennessee and one of the few women-owned newspapers in the state. It’s owned by a native and Tulane University-educated journalist with over 20 years of experience. It’s supported by both readers and community partners who believe in independent journalism for the common good. You can support us by clicking here. }