Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning of former high school site for general residential use
Summary
The Atoka City Council approved rezoning of the former Atoka High School property owned by Grace Fellowship Church from R-1 (single-family) to R-2 (general residential), clearing the way for the planned sale and proposed duplex housing project reported to be for survivors; one councilmember abstained.
The Atoka City Council voted to rezone property described as Lots 1 and 2 and the west 50 feet of Lots 3 and 4, Block 86—formerly the Atoka High School site—from R-1 single-family residential to R-2 general residential on a motion approved by roll call with one abstention. The change was requested by Grace Fellowship Church Inc. and forwarded with a favorable recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The applicant told the council the church acquired the high school property through a trade and later negotiated a verbal agreement with a contractor representing the Choctaw Nation to sell the site if the zoning change were approved. “We ended up reaching an agreement … they representing the Choctaw Nation, would hopefully buy our property for a certain dollar figure,” the applicant said, adding the proposed project would be duplexes “for battered women.”
A resident who identified himself as Tim spoke during the meeting’s public comment period and opposed the rezoning. “I’m against it,” he said, citing concerns about crime and other impacts in the neighborhood. The applicant and other council members responded that the Choctaw Nation has built similar facilities in other counties and that the project could increase patrols because the tribe has its own police department.
Council members said the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval; the council then voted. Roll-call results recorded Miss Pogue: yes; Mister Sherrill: yes; Mister Cathy: yes; Miss McGee: abstain. The council later adopted Ordinance No. 6-15 to effect the rezoning.
The applicant characterized the sales arrangement as contingent on the rezoning and described the agreement with the contractor as verbal; no binding contract or sales price was presented at the meeting. The Planning and Zoning minutes were discussed but a copy of the P&Z vote record was not supplied to council in the packet, and the applicant said one commissioner had abstained at P&Z. The council did not take additional conditions or add development restrictions on the record beyond the zoning classification change.
No formal appeal or protest from immediate neighbors was presented at the public hearing, and council members emphasized they were following the P&Z recommendation in making their decision.
