Planning board recommends denial of PD text amendment for Sand Hill Road project

6429679 · October 15, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The planning board recommended denying a planned development (PD) text amendment that would have increased density for a Sand Hill Road development now that the county can provide water and sewer; the applicant proposed an optional higher‑density plan enabled by public utilities, but the board voted for denial of the amendment.

The Effingham County Planning Board on Oct. 14 voted to recommend denial of a proposed amendment to a Planned Development (PD) text for a large Sand Hill Road development. The applicant sought to update the PD to reflect that county water and sewer would “will‑serve” the project, allowing a higher‑density option (approximately 580 lots versus roughly 500 lots under the land‑application septic option).

Planning staff described that the original PD text accounted for private well and septic systems and that, because the county obtained a will‑serve letter for both water and sewer, the PD text must be amended to reflect the utilities and the higher-density option. Staff also listed the PD requirements: preliminary plat approval by the Board of Commissioners, compliance with the county water resource and stormwater ordinances and flood‑protection chapters, buffer standards (section 3.4), a prohibition on lots backing onto Sand Hill Road, capped cottage lots at 50 percent of the development, 1,500‑square‑foot minimum home size, and inclusion of a covered bus stop.

During the hearing, board members and staff discussed open‑space calculations, wetlands on the site and a pending flood study; the applicant said the project still meets the PD open‑space requirements and pointed to preserved wetlands and amenity areas. One board member moved to approve; that motion failed for lack of second. A subsequent motion to deny the text amendment carried on a majority vote. The Planning Board’s recommendation for denial will go to the Board of Commissioners for consideration at the Nov. 4 meeting.