Jackson County denies special-exception request for Wynwood RV Resort after residents cite safety and school proximity

The Jackson County Board of County Commissioners on Jan. 15 denied a developer’s request to build an RV park on Pontiac Loop, a decision that followed more than an hour of public comment from neighbors who said the site sits too close to Cottondale Elementary School and a city park.

Residents who spoke at the public hearing argued the proposed RV park would bring traffic, security risks and noise to a predominantly single-family neighborhood. "This is not a fit for our community," said Carol Christie, a Pontiac Loop resident, adding that the site would sit "less than 500 feet" from Cottondale Elementary and is "adjacent to the park." Christie told the commission she collected and verified more than 400 petition signatures opposing the project.

Other residents raised similar concerns about traffic queuing at school pickup times, limited local law enforcement and the safety of elderly neighbors. "My biggest concern is the safety and security and well-being of our youth," said Kendrick Gardner, a resident who lives nearby. Several speakers noted Cottondale has a small local police presence and asked how Jackson County could respond if incidents occurred.

The applicants, Caitlin Ayugi Summers and her husband, described a scaled-back plan and said they had cut the original proposal by more than half. "We did originally ask for 55," Summers said. "We are only requesting to start with 8 RV sites for phase 1." She outlined proposed park rules including a single monitored entrance, perimeter fencing, security cameras, quiet hours and license/plate recording at check-in.

Planning staff told the commission the county planning commission had recommended denial when the item was considered Dec. 1, citing community safety concerns raised by residents. "The planning commission recommended denial," said Kim Cole Sweezy of community development, noting safety was the main reason for the recommendation.

After discussion among commissioners about compatibility and potential to consider a smaller phased project, one commissioner moved to deny the request. The motion was seconded and carried. Commissioners expressed sympathy for the applicants’ desire to build a small business but said the proposed site and size were problematic for immediate approval.

What’s next: The board denied the special-exception request and did not adopt the general development order as presented. The applicants may revise the scope, consider alternate sites, or return with a materially different application; commissioners suggested a smaller initial phase could be reconsidered in future filings.

Reporting note: Quotes and attributions in this article come from speakers who addressed the commission during the public hearing; some speakers identified themselves by residence or municipal role (for example, Curtis Benefield identified himself as Cottondale mayor pro tem).