By Tabitha Evans Moore
Editor & Publisher

LYNCHBURG, Tenn. — The Metro Moore County Planning and Zoning Commission spent much of its April 7 meeting wrestling with two separate issues tied to Retreat at Whiskey Creek tiny homes developments — one involving a long-stalled Phase 2 subdivision plat, the other a zoning language dispute over how to calculate allowable structure size for the tiny home community on the same creek.

In both cases, the commission made clear it is not trying to block development. It is trying to make sure the rules that apply to everyone are applied here, too.

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

Phase 2: Access, infrastructure and a missing bond

The Retreat at Whiskey Creek Phase 2 preliminary site plan was added to the April agenda as a discussion item after sitting in limbo since it was first submitted in July 2025. The commission noted it had never received a final vote — up or down — and agreed to bring it back for discussion, with any formal action to come at next month’s meeting once proper public notice could be given stating that neighbors who live beside the development deserve proper notice of changes that could affect them.

At the heart of the commission’s concerns is access. Under Tennessee code and Metro Moore County’s subdivision regulations, any lot must abut a public road or have a permanent easement of at least 30 feet in width. A creek separates the Phase 2 property from the nearest public street, meaning access currently runs through a bridge — whose state certification the commission said it has not been able to verify.

“That bridge hasn’t grown 30 feet wide in the last 24 hours,” Chair Dexter Golden noted dryly.

The developer told the commission the bridge was state-approved as part of the original Phase 1 plan and offered to provide documentation. The commission said it will need to see that certification in writing before it can move forward with any preliminary approval.

Beyond access, the commission pointed to several other requirements the Phase 2 plan must address: paved and curbed roads, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan permit, floodplain identification, and completion of a topographical review that was submitted to the county’s engineering consultant but has not been confirmed as the current version of the plan.

The commission also pressed on the status of Phase 1 itself. A previous agreement — made in good faith with the Metro Council — called for 75 to 80 percent completion of Phase 1 infrastructure before Phase 2 moved forward, so contractors could roll from one phase to the next without interruption. The developer said Phase 1 utilities are roughly 50 percent complete.

Golden drew a direct line between the Phase 1 experience and the commission’s caution going forward.

“We want to make sure going forward there are performance bonds in place,” Golden said. “We do not want to have property owners on the property for multiple years with no development being done. We want to see it done the right way.”

Golden acknowledged that the subdivision regulations book — which spells out requirements for bonds, access, road standards and more — was not properly enforced during Phase 1. He said that is not a reason to repeat the oversight.

“This book was here before me and before you came,” he said. “We want to make sure this book is followed.”

The commission directed staff to confirm the legal advice from County Attorney Bill Reider regarding which lot size standards apply — the current ordinance or the version in effect when the Phase 2 plan was submitted in July 2025 under the amended Vested Rights Act. The commission said it hopes to have that guidance in hand for the May meeting, when the item is expected to be placed on the agenda for a formal vote.

Structure size dispute heads to council

In a separate matter involving a different phase of the Retreat at Whiskey Creek, the commission took up a zoning language dispute that has already made its way through the Board of Zoning Appeals.

The issue centers on how to calculate the 799-square-foot maximum structure size in the R-3 zoning district. When a developer applied for a building permit for a home with a covered but unheated porch, the permit was denied on the grounds that the porch pushed the structure over the limit. The developer appealed, arguing that “square footage” in common practice refers to heated and cooled living space and does not include open-air porches or decks — the same standard used in real estate listings.

The BZA agreed with that interpretation, overturning the permit denial. But it limited its finding to that single permit and asked the developer to return for individual hearings on each of the four remaining lots until the underlying language is clarified.

The commission agreed Tuesday that the R-3 language as written is ambiguous, and that clarifying language should be sent to the Metro Council. The proposed fix is straightforward: explicitly define structure square footage in the R-3 district as heated and cooled area only. Though Chair Golden stressed that their pause involved making sure any decks and patios did not encroach on utility easements or neighboring lots.

“This group does not want to obstruct anything from being developed. That’s not what we’re here for,” Golden stated. “But, what we are here for is to make sure that the proper steps are followed. We want to see growth in the county, and we want to see it done the right way. The first phase of this, in my opinion, I do not believe was done the right way because this book was completely overlooked.”

The commission also noted its remaining concern — that even with a clear definition, a 799-square-foot home with large decks or accessory structures could still approach or exceed the 20 percent lot coverage limit. Members said any clarifying language should preserve that guardrail.

County Attorney Reider, who has been involved in discussions on both matters but who was not in attendance at the meeting, is expected to draft proposed language for review at the May planning meeting. From there it would go to the Metro Council for a formal vote.

The commission estimates the council will see the proposal no earlier than May.

Also on the agenda

In other business, the commission approved minor land divisions for Whitney Ross and Brandon Ross, sending both to the Metro Council for rezoning recommendations. A combined lot plan for Andy Best on Hilltop Circle — a two-parcel consolidation designed to resolve a landlocked tract — was also approved.

The commission discussed ongoing compliance issues with the Silicon Ranch solar project, including concerns about construction entrances being used beyond what was approved and questions about buffer setbacks near Five Points Road. A representative said Silicon Ranch’s contractor is actively closing off unapproved entrances with chain-link fencing. The commission also asked for an update on road damage from construction traffic and invited the company back to next month’s meeting with a progress report.

The commission voted to ask Reider to draft a formal stop-work order process, noting the county currently lacks an enforceable mechanism to halt non-compliant construction activity. Members also agreed to research windmill ordinance options before the May meeting.

The Metro Planning Commission meets on the first Tuesday of each month at the County Building located at 241 Main Street in Lynchburg at 5:30 p.m. •

About the Lynchburg Times: The Lynchburg Times is Moore County’s locally owned, independent news source. Our reporting is supported by readers, small business partners, and underwriters who believe community journalism matters. If this story was valuable to you, consider becoming a supporter at lynchburgtimes.com.