Pataskala board denies variance for proposed 150-foot cell tower near school campus

The Pataskala City Board of Zoning Appeals denied a use variance on May 12 for a proposed 150-foot wireless monopole at 4210 Main Street SW, a triangular parcel beside the Licking Heights Local School District campus. Staff told the board the tower would be only 49 feet from the west property line while the code requires setbacks equal to 110% of tower height (about 165 feet), creating a required area variance in addition to a use variance.

APC Towers representative Tanya Rogers told the board Verizon had identified a mounting coverage and capacity gap in the city’s northern area and had tried multiple landowners before securing a lease with the school district. Rogers said a new tower is a last resort: "Building a new tower is never a first resort for Verizon. It is extremely expensive and it is extremely time-consuming," and she described the proposal as a 150-foot galvanized monopole with a 4-foot lightning rod, three equipment pads inside a 60-foot lease area, a 6-foot chain-link fence with one foot of barbed wire, and 26 evergreen trees proposed for screening.

A technical witness for the carrier explained how network capacity and signal propagation drive siting decisions and said poor service at the school and a risk to emergency calls were drivers for the project: "Imagine school events, football games — if calls do not go through, it becomes a catastrophic problem," the representative said.

Resident Mark Banger, who gave his address at the public comment period, urged the board to consider whether the school district stood to gain revenue from the lease and questioned why other locations were not used: "They don't care if it's across the road from houses. That's my issue," he said. The applicant and staff said the packet did not include payment figures and that the district initially declined the proposal before later signing a lease agreement.

Staff cited applicable code sections in its review (including section 1293.04 for conditional use rules and section 1293.08 for tower setback requirements) and reported no departmental objections; it emphasized, however, that the proposed west setback of 49 feet would require an area variance because of the tower height. Board members examined the variance criteria in section 121.07B, debating whether unique circumstances and minimum-variance standards were satisfied and whether granting the variance would alter neighborhood character.

A motion to approve the variance, conditioned on obtaining city and Licking County building permits within one year, failed on roll call and the application was denied. Staff told the applicant the city would follow up about next steps; the applicant has the option to revise the proposal, pursue a rezoning, or seek alternative sites or technologies.

Pataskala’s board emphasized the narrow distinction between technical network need presented by the carrier and the zoning standards that protect residential neighborhood character and required setbacks. The denial preserves the current residential zoning limitations on wireless towers at this location.