The City of Muskogee’s public works committee heard hours of testimony on a proposed land‑use amendment and rezoning for a roughly 17‑acre parcel at 4801 West Oak/Montlumkey Street, where developers propose a multi‑phase, long‑term RV park marketed to adults 55 and older and veterans.

Staff said the proposal requires a change to the 2025 Muskogee comprehensive plan's future land‑use map before formal rezoning; staff recommended the land‑use map amendment. Developers told the committee the park would include full hookups, a six‑foot privacy fence, gated security, background checks and a 10‑year vehicle‑age rule for units. The developer described phase 1 as 26 concrete pads near the VFW hall and said later phases would add concrete roads, an office, laundry and storm shelters.

“We are a Christian based 55 and over adult and veteran friendly RV park,” developer Austin Autyton said during the presentation, describing week, month and year leases and stating they planned to be HUD- and HOPA‑compliant and to provide storm shelters and shuttle services for residents.

Residents, veterans and neighborhood representatives raised repeated objections and asked the committee to either deny the applications or table them until the city clarifies zoning categories. Speakers cited limited direct notice to nearby property owners, potential declines in property values, uncertainty about long‑term financing and whether a future owner could convert the property to lower‑cost mobile homes once the R‑5 designation is in place. The DAV chapter commander and other neighbors said they were not given timely direct notice and fear negative economic and safety impacts on nearby veterans' services.

“...we were never notified. We were never told, never received any notification,” Amy Lynn Stoffer, a nearby resident and DAV commander, said, adding she feared negative economic effects on the veterans’ building and the neighborhood.

Multiple speakers urged the council to split the broad R‑5 classification into clearer subcategories for tiny homes, RV parks and mobile homes, saying the single R‑5 category currently covers very different uses. Others asked for a financial feasibility study, specifics on stormwater detention locations, and firm commitments that roads and infrastructure will meet city specifications before occupancy.

Staff and the developer said planning‑commission conditions include a requirement that, if the development fails or the owners sell, the property would be rezoned back to C‑1 (local commercial). Staff also said streets would be built to city specs and that notifications followed state law, but several residents asked the council to consider broader outreach methods beyond newspaper posting.

Council members acknowledged the volume of public concern and suggested staff produce clearer information about definitions (what R‑5 can and cannot allow), notification processes and potential impacts on property values. The public hearing was closed with no final council action taken that night; councilors and staff signaled further review and potential future hearings or code changes to clarify how R‑5 is applied.

The proposal appears again on future agendas for formal action after staff and council consider the public comments and potential ordinance language changes.