Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects Sun View request to rezone R-1 parcels for duplexes amid neighborhood safety, access concerns
Summary
Atoka City Council voted to reject a request from Sun View Development LLC to rezone a group of R‑1 lots to R‑2 for duplex construction after multiple neighbors raised concerns about access, drainage, lighting and possible high turnover of transitional housing.
The Atoka City Council voted to reject a rezoning request from Sun View Development LLC that would have changed several R‑1 (single‑family) lots to R‑2 (multi‑family) to allow duplexes.
The decision followed an extended public comment period in which residents described the proposed site off Fifteenth Street and Gin Road as a narrow, wooded area with drainage problems and limited emergency vehicle access. “It’s a lot of woods up in this area…there’s a pond back there,” resident Lisa Colbert said, arguing the site was not suitable for families in transitional housing. Riva Crawford, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, said the developer had told the commission the units would be duplexes intended to be sold to the Choctaw Nation and used for displaced families on a short‑term basis, a point that increased neighbors’ concerns about turnover.
Council members debated the planning commission’s referral and whether the change would constitute spot zoning — creating a single R‑2 parcel surrounded by R‑1 zoning. Councilman Sheryl moved to reject the application on that basis; the motion passed on roll call. One councilor voted against the rejection. The council recorded objections from multiple homeowners about illegal dumping, suspected drug activity on the parcel and insufficient road width for emergency responders. Kunta Hobson, speaking on behalf of a neighbor, also detailed construction and utility problems he said followed earlier developments by the same builder.
City staff and the mayor noted that infrastructure improvements (road, drainage, sewer) would be required if any development proceeded and that costs for those improvements would typically be borne by the developer. Several residents suggested alternate locations closer to services would be more suitable for transitional or affordable housing. The council’s motion to reject the rezoning was explicit; no approvals or conditions to redevelop the parcel as currently proposed were adopted.
The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended referral to the council without recommendation. The council’s rejection leaves the property in its existing R‑1 designation; any future rezoning or development application would require a new application and public hearing.
