Planning commission recommends rezoning and approves site plan for Saint Simons Christian School after public debate on buffers, drainage and access

The Glynn County Island Planning Commission on Feb. 25 recommended approval of a planned‑development amendment to allow Saint Simons Christian School to add property and amend development standards and approved a companion site plan for an 18,608‑square‑foot addition, including a gymnasium and supporting parking.

The commission’s action followed a lengthy public hearing in which dozens of neighbors and school supporters testified about impacts ranging from playground noise and nighttime events to drainage and construction access. Commissioners attached conditions including a minimum 8‑foot perimeter fence and a prohibition on Pine Street construction access during work, and the school’s representatives committed to those measures on the record.

The rezoning application, filed as ZM‑24‑15, would add parcels to the PD district ZM‑1754 and revise the PD text to permit school facilities, gymnasium, recreational fields and related infrastructure while restricting other commercial uses on the parcels included in the amendment. Planning staff said the current proposal reduces the previously proposed building footprint (earlier iteration: about 24,572 square feet) to 18,608 square feet and limits expansion into the Glen Haven neighborhood to a grassy playground area on lots along Pine Street (identified in staff materials as 301 and 303 Pine Street).

School attorneys and engineers told the commission the revised plan responds to neighborhood concerns by removing previously proposed two‑story classroom wings, keeping building additions on the existing campus, and holding Glen Haven lots R‑6 (residential) except for the limited playground area. Taylor Haley, attorney for the applicant, told commissioners the school wants to limit traffic to Coquina Circle and use the Glen Haven adjacency only for a playground and emergency access.

Neighbors who opposed the rezoning said they feared incremental commercial encroachment, tree removal, light and noise, and unresolved drainage problems in the area. Multiple residents said they were not contacted directly about the most recent plan revisions and asked the commission to require more explicit guarantees—such as deed restrictions or specific buffering—before approving a PD amendment that they described as effectively open‑ended.

Engineering and drainage were recurring themes. Representatives from NSAFE (an engineering firm that submitted letters on behalf of residents) and several residents urged the commission to require full stormwater calculations and downstream analysis before approving a zoning change; engineers for the applicant and county staff said drainage calculations and construction‑level plans will be submitted and reviewed at the construction‑plan stage and that, based on their analysis, existing downstream infrastructure can accommodate the proposed development. County staff and the county engineer said they will review those plans under the county’s normal permitting process.

During the public hearing the school’s headmaster and several parents described the campus growth, current enrollment (the school stated an enrollment of about 75 students), and the need for classrooms, a gym and additional student support spaces. Sea Island Company’s president and CEO also spoke in support.

The commission’s motion to recommend approval of ZM‑24‑15 included modifications: a minimum 8‑foot wood fence along the back perimeter (the school committed on the record to an 8‑foot wood fence and said it was obtaining quotes to possibly increase to 10 feet) and no access, parking or construction activity from Pine Street during building. Commissioners specified that any emergency access gate would be breakaway/crash‑gate style and limited to authorized use.

The companion site plan (SP‑24‑17106) for 1060 Coquina Circle, which shows the 18,608‑square‑foot addition, underground detention if required, revised buffers (a proposed 25‑foot modified buffer in some areas) and additional grassed parking near the soccer field, was approved later in the meeting after discussion about drainage review and construction plan review procedures. County staff confirmed that some on‑site pervious parking areas are currently uncounted in official parking totals and that the PD text change would adjust parking calculations; engineers for the school said they plan to provide full drainage and construction plans for county review during the permitting phase.

The commission recorded motions, seconds and a vote to recommend the rezoning with the stated modifications and to approve the site plan; specific roll‑call tallies were not read into the record for the rezoning recommendation, and the site plan motion was recorded as approved.

Discussion: commissioners expressed concern for neighbors’ quality of life but also noted that the proposed use—an expansion of a pre‑K through eighth grade school—was more compatible with the neighborhood than other potential commercial uses. County staff reiterated the permit and review steps that would follow the approvals, including construction‑plan drainage review and public‑records availability for submitted engineering materials.

The commission’s approvals are recommendations and procedural steps; final zoning actions and any subsequent permitting will follow county review and, if required, additional public notifications.

The applicant and county staff were directed to: provide construction‑level drainage documentation to the county as part of the construction plan package; confirm public access to those records via the county’s permitting portal; and honor the on‑record commitments about fencing and construction access.