Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Riverbend Subdivision topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents and Tribal Descendants Urge Delay of Riverbend First Plat, Cite Archaeological and Flood Risks

Chatham County Board of Commissioners · October 20, 2025
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

Scores of public speakers, including tribal descendants and archaeologists, told commissioners they want a full archaeological survey and reconfiguration of lots before approving the Riverbend/Laurel Ridge first plat; planning staff and the board agreed to gather more information and table a final decision.

Commissioners heard extensive public comment on the proposed Riverbend Estates at Laurel Ridge first plat, with multiple speakers urging the board to deny or delay approval until a comprehensive archaeological survey is completed and flood and access issues are addressed. Tribal descendants and archaeologists said the Mitcham site and surrounding landscape are culturally sensitive and warned that large‑scale earthmoving could irreparably damage undiscovered burials and other sites.

"I rise to urge you to not approve the River Main Estate subdivision without requiring a full archeological survey of the entire development footprint extending until 2056," said Crystal Cavalier Keck, speaking as a descendant and representative of regional tribal communities. Planning-board minority members also recommended removing or redesigning specific Phase 6 lots (26–28) and reconfiguring lots that encroach on floodplain areas. Planning staff noted the project's environmental-impact assessment (EIA) went through county peer review and received a SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office) comment letter stating no historic resources would be affected, but public speakers and several commissioners said additional on‑the‑ground archaeological work and flood‑resilience checks were warranted before a final vote.

After extended discussion, commissioners asked staff and county counsel to pursue specific follow-up (including more archaeology documentation and negotiation on potential plan adjustments) and tabled the final decision to allow additional review; the board was reminded that statutory timelines (the ordinance’s 65‑day review clock) apply if a formal decision is delayed beyond the procedural window. The planning board’s written minority report and multiple public statements asking for ground‑level archaeological and GPR assessments were entered into the record.