Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Site Plan Reapproval topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reapproves River Ford 170‑unit site plan after developer seeks updated permit
Summary
The Mainland Planning Commission voted 6–0 to reapprove the River Ford site plan (SP‑25‑8), a previously approved 170‑unit multifamily development whose horizontal work and utilities have begun; the developer sought reapproval after the prior plan expired while infrastructure work was under way.
May 6, 2025 — The Mainland Planning Commission voted 6–0 Tuesday to reapprove site plan SP‑25‑8 for River Ford, a 170‑unit multifamily development whose prior approval had expired after construction activity paused.
“Here's the site,” Christopher Carey, Glynn County planning and zoning staff, told commissioners, and he said the site plan had previously been approved in 2022. Carey explained the county’s rule that building permits with vertical progress can grandfather a project, noting that applicants must pull a permit for at least one apartment unit to be grandfathered.
Developer representative Jake Lemmings, a civil engineer on the project, said utilities are installed and grading work has proceeded: “The construction has begun on the side ... utilities are installed, and, you know, they're working on the horizontal.” Lemmings told the commission the owner delayed vertical work pending market conditions and returned when ready to pull building permits, at which time they discovered the site plan had expired.
During public comment, Julian Smith of Old Canal Road spoke in favor of the project and highlighted proximity to shopping and services, but he raised pedestrian‑access concerns. Smith said, “I reside at the dead end of Old Canal Road, and I own some undeveloped property overlooking the canals. I speaking in favor of this application,” and added, “I'm only sad that the sidewalk ... there's no sidewalk connecting at this point.” Smith urged the developer and county to consider a footbridge or other crossing to connect the development to the canal path.
A commissioner moved to recommend approval of SP‑25‑8 as presented; a second was recorded and the commission voted 6–0 to reapprove the site plan. The transcript did not list mover or seconder names. The approval permits the developer to pursue building permits; the transcript included no construction schedule or permit timeline.
