Commission recommends denial of Palmetto Point Phase 3 sketch plat after residents cite traffic, safety and continuity concerns

The Ocean Springs Planning Commission on May 12 recommended denial of the Palmetto Point Subdivision Phase 3 sketch plat after a long public hearing in which residents pressed commissioners on traffic safety, neighborhood continuity and other site‑planning issues.

Planning staff said the proposed phase would add 10 single‑family lots on annexed property that retains Jackson County A3 zoning; the staff summary noted the smallest proposed lot would be 18,047 square feet and that the sketch plat met Jackson County lot‑size requirements but that the city and county zoning frameworks differ. Staff also placed one late opposition letter from the Palmetto Point HOA into the public record.

Multiple residents told the commission they were not opposed to development per se but said the proposed access location, narrow local roads, and the way the lots were carved out would substantially change traffic flows and neighborhood character. "You add a road, you add 10 houses, you add construction crew in there tearing up our roads for at least 10 months," said David Lawrence (speaker 17), representing nearby homeowners, and Wes Feldman (speaker 20) urged the commission to wait and encourage the developer to rework the plans so the new lots tie into the rest of the subdivision rather than bisecting it.

Residents also raised confusion created by similar street and subdivision names, inconsistent setbacks and design that they said would not match the older parts of Palmetto Point, and possible wildlife concerns; one resident noted nesting bald eagles in the trees and asked that such habitats be checked during permitting.

Applicant and engineer Freddy Fountain (speaker 2) replied that wetlands mitigation had been completed, that some lots and roads were established under prior county approvals, and that re‑configuring phase 2 at this stage would impose substantial delay and financial costs because phase 2 is nearing final plat and sale closings. He said the developer was open to changing the subdivision or street names to reduce confusion.

After deliberation several commissioners said the Phase 3 layout did not feel contiguous with phases 1 and 2 and voiced concerns about the proposed access and unresolved questions about turnaround/rights to access an adjacent parcel for a fire‑department turnaround. Commissioner Marshall moved to recommend disapproval, citing key considerations raised by residents that were not addressed in the packet; the motion carried. The commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Aldermen, which is scheduled to consider final action on June 2.

What happens next: The developer may return with revised plans and additional documentation (street naming, access agreements or a replat) before the Board of Aldermen; residents were urged by commissioners to submit a concise joint list of concerns to the planning department ahead of the aldermen meeting.