A chronology of the public record, with related but distinct proceedings kept separate.
The chronology includes earlier annexation and boundary records because residents have questioned whether they are connected to Project River. The documented sequence is shown without drawing conclusions about intent that the records do not establish.
City minutes document a 4.93-acre annexation proceeding at 9227 Frontage Road. The record is relevant to the later boundary chronology but does not by itself establish a Project River connection or intent.
Sources:RIV-003
Cleveland City Council Resolution 2025-26 ratified the amended Twenty-Year Growth Plan for Charleston/Cleveland/Bradley County, including an expansion of Cleveland’s Urban Growth Boundary. The parcel-level effect on later Project River annexation questions still requires mapping and legal review.
Sources:RIV-035
Local sourced reporting documents that Bradley County adopted data-center rules in April 2026, which later became part of debate over zoning jurisdiction and annexation. The documented sequence does not establish motive; claims about why annexation occurred require separate evidence.
The development team presents the concept and answers pre-submitted questions. Local reporting says no data-center operator contract had been signed.
Sources:RIV-021
Open-house format; building-trades supporters emphasize jobs while many residents raise environmental, infrastructure, annexation, and process concerns.
Sources:RIV-022
The city announces suspension of direct Project River meetings while a third-party engineering review is pursued and says the Sept. 21 Planning Commission meeting is canceled.
Sources:RIV-001
The City of Cleveland’s official Agenda Center and calendar label the Sept. 21 special-called Planning Commission meeting canceled, so no Planning Commission vote occurred there. Cleveland-Bradley Free Press separately reports that the developers withdrew six formal campus requests that day; No primary withdrawal filing is included in the current official source set.
The city annexation page had previously listed a separate 385.58-acre Wright Brothers Construction request and a Sept. 28 hearing, but the final Sept. 28 City Council agenda did not list that request. Placeward does not infer a vote, approval, denial, or reason for the omission from the agenda alone.
The City’s Sept. 18 announcement suspended direct Project River meetings while an independent engineering review is pursued. A separate 385.58-acre Lower River Road annexation request had been publicly listed for a Sept. 28 hearing, but it does not appear on the final Sept. 28 City Council agenda. The agenda omission alone does not establish a vote, approval, denial, or reason for the omission.
