A Kingfisher man who was denied by the city commission to have a property rezoned on Main Street is now asking the courts to overturn that decision.

Mike Matthews filed a civil lawsuit Wednesday in Kingfisher County District Court against the City of Kingfisher, the city commission and the commissioners, individually.

Among the relief requested in the petition is Matthews asking the court to vacate the city commission’s vote on Sept. 8, which denied Matthews’ request to rezone the property at 1000 S. Main St.

Matthews - and more specifically Matthews Properties LLC, which is also listed as a plaintiff in the suit - purchased the property at that address with the intention of building a retail strip mall.

The Kingfisher Planning and Zoning Board members voted unanimously in May to deny Matthews’ request to have the property rezoned from residential to general commercial and indicated the zone request was “too broad.”

Matthews resubmitted his request and sought a more specific C-4 commercial zone.

The P&Z board voted 4-1 in July to approve the request, which then sent it to the city commission for final approval.

At the Sept. 8 meeting, Linda Garcia, the city’s community development director and building inspector, recommended against the request, stating “spot zoning” exceptions should not be made for specific commercial properties.

Later, Commissioner Kyle Mecklenburg and Vice Mayor Jeff Wittrock voted in favor of rezoning the property.

Mayor Geoff Covalt and Commissioner Dawn Taylor voted against it.

Commissioner Tammy Sammons, who was appointed to the city commission and sworn in just minutes prior to the vote, abstained.

The 2-2 vote denied Matthews’ request.

Matthews’ petition states the vote came “after irregular and arbitrary proceedings” that included not advising Sammons that an abstention was the same as a “no” vote in a tie, the “spot zoning” rationale wasn’t consistent with previous city moves or its comprehensive plan and that city officials and the city attorney “prejudiced the fairness of the hearing.”

Jared Harrison serves as the city attorney.

The petition also calls the commission’s move “arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law” in its request for the court to review it.

Matthews claims he was denied due process and fair hearing procedures, the “spot zoning” rationale was supported by substantial evidence and was inconsistently applied compared to other similar properties in the city and that the decision “was tainted by personal conflicts of interest and bias among officials involved.”

Matthews is asking the court to accept jurisdiction in the matter; review the commission’s decision; declare the commission’s actions were arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law; and vacate the commission’s denial and remand it back to the city “for a new, lawful and unbiased hearing.”

Matthews’ attorney of record is R. Charles Wilkin of Wilkin Law Firm PLLC of Tulsa.

As of press time of this edition, the court had not set a hearing in the matter.

The Times & Free Press reached out to city officials and others named in the lawsuit, but had not received a response by press time.