Decatur County approves 295-foot Verizon tower after rezoning and special-exception votes

The Decatur County Area Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a rezoning and related special-exception requests to allow construction of a 295-foot guyed wireless communications tower on property owned by Richard Charles and Kimberly May Revellman west of 247 East County Road 500 South in Marion Township. The petitioner said the tower is intended to fill a local Verizon service gap.

Verizon representative John Marcela said the company had tried to colocate on nearby facilities but identified a “significant service gap caused by insufficient infrastructure.” "Verizon has determined within the area of a significant service gap caused by insufficient infrastructure," Marcela said. He described a tower 295 feet tall with the carrier equipment mounted at about 290 feet and said the height received an FAA determination of no hazard. "Towers over 200 feet require lighting," he added, and he said the design is being built to accept future colocations.

The request required rezoning a roughly 100-foot-by-100-foot parcel from A-1 to A-2 under Decatur County ordinance section 9-20-3, and a subsequent BZA filing sought the permanent special exception and variance under the county zoning provisions referenced on the record. Marcela responded to a board question about a previously reported distance to the nearest residence, saying the engineer had rechecked the measurements and that the corrected distance was 2,187 (as stated to the commission). He also gave a tentative schedule: if approvals and permitting proceed promptly, permitting would follow and APC Towers aims to begin construction before winter; the contractor estimated a 30-to-45-day construction period.

The plan presented to the commission shows a guyed tower with radial anchors; Marcela said the tower design accommodates multiple carriers. The petitioner and the commission discussed lighting and FAA review; Marcela said the FAA issued a no-hazard determination for the proposed heights.

The Area Plan Commission voted to approve APC petition 2025-9. The roll call recorded in the minutes listed members voting yes on that petition (for the APC hearing the record shows Tom Cherry, Paul Stone and others voting yes). The subsequent Board of Zoning Appeals action on the related variance and special-exception application (BCA 2025-2 on the agenda) also carried on the record.

Members of the commission and staff said applicants should coordinate with county offices to complete permitting and the building/billing process after the approvals; petitioners were instructed to contact the county office to proceed. No formal appeals or additional conditions beyond standard permitting requirements were read into the record at the time of the votes.

Questions or permit conditions that remain to be completed include final permitting documents, inspections and any utility or easement agreements required before construction. Petitioners were reminded to stay in touch with the county office for the next steps.