Haysville council approves conditional use for new wireless tower after competing claims over nearby site

Haysville City Council on Feb. 10 approved a conditional-use permit to allow construction of a wireless communications tower at 200 West Grand Avenue, after public comment from representatives of both a tower owner and the carrier that plans to use the new structure.

The planning staff presented the resolution, noting the planning commission recommended approval. City staff said attempts to co‑locate AT&T equipment on an existing SBA Telecommunications monopole on the northwest corner of Baumann and Grand had failed because the property owner and AT&T could not agree on a placement for ground equipment. The resolution as introduced describes a 150‑foot tower; during the council motion a council member verbally described the tower as 50 feet, an inconsistency recorded in the meeting transcript.

Why it matters: Council approval clears a zoning hurdle for an antenna site the applicant says is needed to expand wireless coverage in Haysville. Members of the public and industry representatives used the council meeting to present competing accounts about whether the new tower was necessary or whether co‑location on an existing structure remained possible.

During public comment, Daniel Sparacino, an attorney with Stinson LLP speaking for SBA Telecommunications Towers, told the council the SBA monopole at 133 Baumann Avenue is a 50‑foot tower already hosting T‑Mobile and Verizon and that space remains for an additional carrier. “We have an alternative available,” Sparacino said, and he asked the city and AT&T to consider collocating on the existing SBA facility; he also offered a letter from SBA’s site manager, Susan Mulvaney, which he said he would distribute to council members.

Representing the applicant and AT&T’s site efforts, Glenn Clockey said the carrier had evaluated the SBA tower repeatedly and was unable to find acceptable ground space for required equipment. “It’s cheaper. It’s faster. There’s no reason for us to just ignore a site that’s sitting there,” Clockey said, adding that AT&T had been working on the site for about four years and that his team “don’t wanna wait another year and a year or two years.”

Planning staff told the council the planning commission’s recommended approval included conditions listed in the staff memo; council members asked whether approval would prevent further negotiations with SBA and AT&T. A city staff member replied they would defer to the applicant on that point; the applicant said they intended to build the tower and wanted to get construction underway.

Councilperson Pardon moved to accept the resolution authorizing the conditional use permit; the motion was seconded and the council voted to approve the item. The meeting transcript records affirmative votes from Brewster, Walters, Barton, Benner, Pardon and Thompson on the motion.

The record: The introduced resolution text refers to a 150‑foot tall tower; the motion recorded at the meeting used a 50‑foot figure. The transcript contains public comments from both a representative of SBA Telecommunications Towers and from the applicant’s agent describing differing reasons why collocation could not proceed. The transcript does not record a finalized engineering height in the motion text that reconciles the two figures.

Looking ahead: With the conditional‑use permit approved, the next steps will be permitting and any building/site plan review required by the city. The transcript does not state a construction timetable or final, reconciled tower height.