PataskalaOH.com

Local government

Pataskala Development Tracker

Where selected development and land-use proposals stand in the City of Pataskala’s review process, based on official City records.

Last reviewed: October 10, 2026

This page follows a small number of significant development and land-use proposals through the City of Pataskala's review process. Each entry gives a dated status, a timeline of official actions and the City records they come from.

It is not a list of every application, permit or construction project in the city. If a project is not listed here, that does not mean there is no application or development activity. PataskalaOH.com is an independent local platform and is not affiliated with the City of Pataskala.

How to read this tracker

What is included

We track rezonings, planned development districts, larger commercial and residential proposals, significant subdivision actions and projects that need approvals from more than one City body, once an official City record identifies the application. We do not track routine residential variances, sign permits, individual conditional uses, minor lot changes, zoning permits or every item on a Commission or Board agenda. Changes to the text of the zoning code are covered in our news reporting and in the planning and zoning guide, not here.

Every status has a date

A status describes what City records showed on the date given. It is not a live feed. Written records often follow a meeting by weeks: the minutes of one meeting are usually posted in the packet for a later one. Where a meeting has taken place and no record of the result has been posted, the entry says so and does not report a result.

One project, several approvals

A single project can need separate approvals from different bodies. Approval of one application is not approval of the whole project, and a Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation on a rezoning is not a City Council decision. For who decides what, see Planning and Zoning in Pataskala, Explained.

Status terms

Awaiting record of Commission action
The application was on a Planning and Zoning Commission agenda for a meeting date that has passed, and the City had not posted minutes or a decision letter showing the result when we last checked. It does not mean the application was approved, denied or tabled.
Scheduled for Commission
The application is listed on a posted Planning and Zoning Commission agenda or public notice for a future meeting.
Tabled
The body voted to set the application aside without deciding it. A tabled application can be brought back, revised or withdrawn.
Commission approved (this application)
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve an application it has the power to decide, such as an overlay review, a replat or a development plan. It covers that application only, not every approval a project needs.
Commission recommended approval
On a rezoning or code amendment, the Commission voted to recommend approval. This is advice to City Council. Nothing changes unless Council acts.
Commission recommended denial
On a rezoning or similar application, the Commission did not recommend approval. The recommendation goes to City Council, which makes the decision.
BZA approved (this application)
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve a variance or conditional use. It covers that request only.
Before City Council
The matter has reached City Council as proposed legislation or a noticed public hearing, and the City records we reviewed do not yet show a final Council vote.
Council approved
City Council’s signed minutes or a signed ordinance show a final vote to approve.
Council motion to adopt failed
City Council voted on a motion to adopt the proposed ordinance and the motion did not pass, according to the City’s official meeting video or minutes. The ordinance was not adopted at that meeting. This status describes that vote only. It does not say whether the proposal could return to Council or be filed again in another form.
Council denied
City Council’s signed minutes show a final vote on a motion to deny the application.
Council accepted recommendation to disapprove
City Council’s signed minutes show a vote to accept the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation to disapprove an application. This is the wording of Council’s own motion. It is used where the minutes record that vote and no separate motion to deny.
Withdrawn
A City record lists the application as withdrawn. A withdrawn application is no longer under review. A new application could be filed later.

Staff reports are not decisions. A recommendation or suggested condition in a City staff report is never shown here as an action by the Commission, the Board or Council.

Active tracked matters

Aldi grocery store at Pataskala Pointe

0 E Broad Street, north side of E Broad Street east of Corylus Drive (Parcel 064-069330-00.000)

Status as of October 7, 2026: Commission approved (this application)

On October 7, 2026 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved overlay application TCOD-26-004 with the two conditions listed in the City’s staff report, according to the City’s official video of the meeting. This approves the store’s overlay application only. It is not a building permit, and it does not mean construction is complete, that occupancy has been approved or that the store has opened. The City had not posted minutes of the meeting when we checked on October 27, so no vote tally is given.

What is proposed

A grocery store of about 20,436 square feet with 93 parking spaces on about 2.825 acres of the 23.77-acre Pataskala Pointe site, a planned eight-lot commercial subdivision that the City’s staff report describes as under construction. The store’s site design needs Transportation Corridor Overlay approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Applicant: Aldi (through Ken White of DLZ Ohio, Inc.). Property owner: CCAC Properties, LLC. “Aldi at Pataskala Pointe” is our label. The City’s application is Transportation Corridor Overlay District Application TCOD-26-004.

How to read the status

Three separate applications are involved, and each has a recorded approval: the Pataskala Pointe subdivision application (May 6, 2026), one sign variance (September 9, 2026) and the store’s overlay application (October 7, 2026). None of these is a building permit, a certificate of compliance or permission to open, and this entry does not describe the store as approved to open.

What has happened

  1. May 6, 2026 · Planning and Zoning Commission · FP-26-003

    Voted to approve application FP-26-003 for Pataskala Pointe, an eight-lot commercial subdivision, with five conditions. The agenda lists the application as a Final Development Plan. The motion recorded in the minutes approves “an Amendment to a Preliminary Development Plan for Application FP-26-003.” Both descriptions are the City’s. Four members voted yes, and no opposing votes are recorded.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. May 6, 2026 agenda; May 6 minutes as posted in the June 3, 2026 packet.

  2. September 4, 2026 · Application filed · TCOD-26-004

    Overlay application for the store filed with the Planning and Zoning Department, according to the application form in the staff report.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. TCOD-26-004 staff report, October 7, 2026 packet.

  3. September 9, 2026 · Board of Zoning Appeals · VA-26-023

    Voted to approve a variance allowing a secondary wall sign larger than the code’s limit, on the condition that permits are obtained within one year. Five members voted yes, and no opposing votes are recorded.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Board of Zoning Appeals packets. September 9, 2026 agenda; September 9 minutes as posted, unsigned, in the October 13, 2026 packet.

  4. October 7, 2026 · Planning and Zoning Commission · TCOD-26-004

    Voted to approve overlay application TCOD-26-004 with the two conditions listed in the staff report: the applicant must address all comments from Planning and Zoning, the City Engineer, the Public Service Department and the West Licking Joint Fire District; and “No Certificate of Compliance shall be issued, and no business operations shall commence, prior to the completion of the intersection improvements at Broad Street and Healthy Place.” No vote tally is given because the City has not posted minutes.

    Source: City of Pataskala — official video of the October 7, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. City of Pataskala video of the October 7, 2026 meeting; TCOD-26-004 staff report, October 7, 2026 packet.

What happens next

  • According to the City’s staff report, after overlay approval the applicant moves to construction plans, which City staff review administratively, with no further Commission hearing unless the site layout changes significantly.
  • The staff report also says the subdivision has not yet been platted, so the store’s lot does not yet exist, and that the lots can be created after the public improvements are finished and accepted by City Council.
  • One of the conditions of the October 7 approval, as written in the staff report, states: “No Certificate of Compliance shall be issued, and no business operations shall commence, prior to the completion of the intersection improvements at Broad Street and Healthy Place.”
  • In recent packets the City has posted the minutes of one Commission meeting with the packet for a later meeting. The October 7 minutes had not been posted when we checked on October 27.

Applications

  • TCOD-26-004: Transportation Corridor Overlay review. Planning and Zoning Commission.
  • VA-26-023: Variance (wall sign size). Board of Zoning Appeals.
  • FP-26-003: Development plan for the Pataskala Pointe subdivision. Planning and Zoning Commission.

Limits of the record

  • The October 7 decision is taken from the City’s official meeting video and the conditions from the City’s staff report. Minutes had not been posted when we checked on October 27, 2026, so the vote tally is not stated.
  • The overlay staff report gives the date of the sign variance as September 8, 2026. The Board’s agenda and minutes are dated September 9, 2026, which is the date used here.
  • City staff reports identify the store’s lot differently: the overlay staff report refers to Lot 5, and the earlier variance staff report refers to Lot 1 with a larger acreage. No lot number is given in this entry. The 2.825-acre figure is from the October 7 agenda and the overlay application; the staff report’s text also gives 2.835 acres.
  • The subdivision site is given as 23.77 acres in the October 7 agenda and as about 24.1 acres in the May 6 agenda.

Related coverage

Official sources

Last verified against City records: October 27, 2026

Upton Crossing

8600 E Broad Street, 0 E Broad Street and 0 Taylor Road, about 66.3 acres

Status as of November 2, 2026: Council motion to adopt failed

At its November 2, 2026 regular meeting, City Council took up Ordinance 2026-4525, the Upton Crossing rezoning, on third reading. In the City’s official video of the meeting, a motion to approve the ordinance is made and seconded, a roll call is taken, and the presiding officer announces that the motion fails. The ordinance was not adopted at that meeting, so it did not rezone the property. Council’s minutes of November 2 had not been posted when we checked on November 4, 2026, so no vote tally is stated here. The City records we reviewed do not say whether the proposal could return.

What is proposed

A request to rezone about 66.3 acres from General Business and Medium Density Residential to a Planned Development District for Upton Crossing, described in the Commission’s August 5, 2026 records as a mixed-use development with 67 single-family lots, multi-family housing and two commercial outparcels.

Applicant: Joe Thomas Jr., Metro Development. Property owner: Reyno Holdings Co.. “Upton Crossing” is the name used in the City’s records. The rezoning application is ZON-26-001 and the proposed legislation is Ordinance 2026-4525.

How to read the status

The Commission’s vote is a recommendation. The decision on a rezoning belongs to City Council. Under the City Charter, passing a zoning ordinance that differs from the Commission’s written recommendation takes the vote of at least two-thirds of Council’s membership.

What has happened

  1. May 6, 2026 · Planning and Zoning Commission · ZON-26-001

    Tabled. Four members voted yes, and no opposing votes are recorded.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. May 6 minutes as posted in the June 3, 2026 packet.

  2. July 1, 2026 · Planning and Zoning Commission · ZON-26-001

    Removed from the table, then tabled again. On the motion to table, five members voted yes, and no opposing votes are recorded.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. July 1 minutes as posted in the August 5, 2026 packet.

  3. August 5, 2026 · Planning and Zoning Commission · ZON-26-001

    After a public hearing, a motion to approve the application failed, with all six members present voting no. The City’s decision letter of August 6, 2026 says the Commission recommended denial and that the recommendation would go to Council as Ordinance 2026-4525.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. August 5 minutes as posted in the October 7, 2026 packet; August 6 decision letter attached to the October 5, 2026 Planning Director report in Council’s packet.

  4. October 5, 2026 · Council public hearing · Ordinance 2026-4525

    Council public hearing noticed for 6 p.m., with a first reading of the ordinance listed on the regular agenda. At the regular meeting, Council’s signed minutes record that the ordinance was read for a first reading. A first reading is not a vote to adopt. The ordinance as posted in Council’s packet shows an introduction date of October 5, 2026 and no adoption date. Like any proposed rezoning ordinance, its text is written as it would read if passed: it would approve application ZON-26-001 and rezone the property.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Council agendas and minutes. October 5, 2026 public hearing notice, Council agenda and Ordinance 2026-4525 as posted in the packet; signed minutes of the October 5, 2026 Council meeting.

  5. November 2, 2026 · City Council · Ordinance 2026-4525

    Listed on the regular agenda for a third reading. In the City’s official video, the ordinance is read, a motion to approve it is made and seconded, a roll call is taken, and the presiding officer announces that the motion fails. Council’s minutes of the meeting had not been posted when we checked on November 4, 2026, so no vote tally is given.

    Source: City of Pataskala — official video of the November 2, 2026 City Council meeting. City of Pataskala video of the November 2, 2026 Council meeting; November 2, 2026 Council agenda.

Applications

  • ZON-26-001: Rezoning to a planned development district, with a preliminary plan. Planning and Zoning Commission (recommendation).
  • Ordinance 2026-4525: Rezoning ordinance. City Council (decision).

Limits of the record

  • City documents give two different multi-family counts. The Commission’s August 5 minutes, its staff report, the August 6 decision letter and the development text attached to the ordinance say 288 units. The Commission’s August 5 agenda and the October 5 Planning Director report to Council say 355 units. No document we reviewed explains the difference, so no count is stated above.
  • The August 5 motion was worded as a motion to approve rather than to recommend approval. The decision letter describes the result as a recommendation of denial, and the ordinance describes it as a recommendation of disapproval.
  • The 6 p.m. hearing is taken from the notice and agenda issued before the meeting. The October 5 first reading is confirmed by Council’s signed minutes of that meeting.
  • The November 2 agenda lists the ordinance for a third reading. No City record of a second reading was reviewed, so no second-reading date is shown here.
  • The November 2 result is taken from the City’s official meeting video. Council’s minutes of November 2 had not been posted when we checked on November 4, 2026, so the vote tally and the wording of the motion as recorded are not stated.

Official sources

Last verified against City records: November 4, 2026

Hollow Road rezoning (former golf course)

10391 Hollow Road SW, southeast corner of Hollow Road SW and Alward Road SW, about 160 acres (Parcel 063-141936-00.000)

Status as of October 7, 2026: Commission recommended approval

On October 7, 2026 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning, with no conditions, according to the Director of Planning’s October 19, 2026 report to Council and the City’s official meeting video. This is a recommendation to City Council, not a rezoning: the property remains zoned Planned Development District unless Council adopts a rezoning ordinance. The City had not posted minutes of the meeting when we checked on October 27, so no vote tally is given.

What is proposed

A request to rezone about 160 acres, a former golf course, from Planned Development District back to Agricultural. According to the City’s staff report, the current zoning carries an approved plan for a 32-lot residential subdivision, and the concept plan filed with this request shows nine new residential lots plus a remainder tract. The staff report notes that a rezoning to Agricultural would not necessarily bind the owner to that concept plan.

Applicant: Plan 4 Land, LLC. Property owner: AV Investment, LLC. “Hollow Road rezoning” is our label. The City’s application is Rezoning Application ZON-26-004. City records call the earlier approved plan for the site “The Meadows at Highlands,” with small variations in spelling.

How to read the status

The Commission can only recommend on a rezoning. The application now goes to City Council for the decision, by ordinance and after Council’s own public hearing.

What has happened

  1. July 6, 2022 · Planning and Zoning Commission · ZON-21-005

    Voted to recommend approval of the earlier rezoning of the property from Agricultural to Planned Development District, with one modification. Six members voted yes, and no opposing votes are recorded.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. July 6, 2022 minutes as posted, unsigned, in the 2022 folder.

  2. October 2023, as stated in the City’s 2026 staff report · City Council · Earlier rezoning

    The City’s 2026 staff report says City Council adopted an ordinance in October 2023 rezoning the property to Planned Development District, with a development text and preliminary plan. The report does not give the ordinance number or the day, and we have not reviewed the ordinance itself.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. ZON-26-004 staff report, October 7, 2026 packet.

  3. July 12, 2024 · Staff action (administrative) · Construction plans

    The 2026 staff report says construction plans for the 32-lot subdivision were submitted on this date, have not been approved, and that no construction has taken place on the site.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. ZON-26-004 staff report, October 7, 2026 packet.

  4. September 2, 2026 · Application filed · ZON-26-004

    Application to rezone the property back to Agricultural filed, according to the application form in the staff report.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. ZON-26-004 staff report, October 7, 2026 packet.

  5. October 7, 2026 · Planning and Zoning Commission · ZON-26-004

    Voted to recommend approval of the rezoning from Planned Development District to Agricultural, with no conditions. No vote tally is given because the City has not posted minutes.

    Source: City of Pataskala — official video of the October 7, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. City video of the October 7, 2026 meeting; Director of Planning’s Report to Council, October 19, 2026, in the October 19 Council packet.

What happens next

  • According to the staff report, after the Commission’s recommendation the application goes to City Council for a final determination. No ordinance number or Council hearing date appears in the City records reviewed through October 27, 2026.
  • The staff report says that if the rezoning is approved, the adopted development text and preliminary plan for the 32-lot subdivision would no longer apply.

Applications

  • ZON-26-004: Rezoning. Planning and Zoning Commission (recommendation), then City Council (decision).

Limits of the record

  • The October 7 recommendation is confirmed by the Director of Planning’s October 19, 2026 report to Council and the City’s official meeting video. The Commission’s October 7 minutes had not been posted when we checked on October 27, 2026, so no vote tally is reported. No Council ordinance number or hearing date for this application was found in the official records reviewed through October 27, 2026.
  • The same Director of Planning’s report says the November 4, 2026 Commission hearing was canceled because no applications were submitted for it. This application was not scheduled for that meeting.
  • The October 2023 Council action is reported here only as the City’s 2026 staff report describes it. The City’s Council pages post legislation and minutes for 2025 and 2026 only, so the 2023 ordinance was not available to review.
  • City documents give the remainder tract as 64.26 acres in the staff report and 62.86 acres in the application.

Related coverage

Official sources

Last verified against City records: October 27, 2026

Recently resolved matters

These applications reached an end point in City records during 2026.

Aligned data center application at Broad Street and Mink Street

Southeast corner of Broad Street SW and Mink Street SW, about 89.4 acres (Parcel 063-141426-00.000)

Status as of August 25, 2026: Council accepted recommendation to disapprove

At its public hearing on August 25, 2026, City Council voted to accept the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation to disapprove the application. Council’s signed minutes record seven yes votes and no other motion on the application. The minutes do not use the word “denied,” so this entry uses the wording of Council’s motion.

What is proposed

A Planned Manufacturing application for data center structures and related site improvements. The Commission’s February 2026 agenda lists four structures, and its June 2026 agenda and Council’s hearing notice list three.

Applicant: EMH&T. Property owner: Aligned Data Centers. Our label. The City’s application is Planned Manufacturing Application PM-25-001. Commission agendas list EMH&T as applicant and Aligned Data Centers as owner.

What has happened

  1. February 4, 2026 · Planning and Zoning Commission · PM-25-001

    Removed from the table, then tabled again. On the motion to table, seven members voted yes, and no opposing votes are recorded.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. February 4 minutes as posted in the March 2026 packet.

  2. April 1, 2026 · Planning and Zoning Commission · PM-25-001

    Removed from the table and heard, with the minutes noting a proposal to reduce the number of data center structures from four to three, then tabled again. On the motion to table, seven members voted yes, and no opposing votes are recorded.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. April 1 minutes as posted in the May 2026 packet.

  3. June 3, 2026 · Planning and Zoning Commission · PM-25-001

    A motion to recommend approval with four conditions did not pass. Two members voted yes and five voted no. The minutes record that “the motion was denied.”

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. June 3 minutes as posted in the July 1, 2026 packet.

  4. August 25, 2026 · Council public hearing · PM-25-001

    Council held a public hearing on the application. A motion “to accept the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation to disapprove the application” passed on a roll call with seven yes votes.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Council agendas and minutes. August 25, 2026 public hearing notice; signed minutes of the August 25, 2026 Council public hearing.

Applications

  • PM-25-001: Planned Manufacturing application. Planning and Zoning Commission (recommendation), then City Council (decision).

Limits of the record

  • This entry records the City’s action on one application. It does not say whether a new or revised application could be filed.
  • The application was already tabled when the Commission took it up on February 4, 2026. Its earlier history is not shown here.

Official sources

Last verified against City records: October 10, 2026

Redwood multi-family proposal on Mink Street

6197 Mink Street SW, about 46.9 acres (Parcels 063-140952-00.000 and 063-141630-00.000)

Status as of October 7, 2026: Withdrawn

The Commission’s October 7, 2026 agenda lists the application as “Withdrawn – no action needed.” No Commission vote on a recommendation appears in the records we reviewed.

What is proposed

A request to rezone about 46.9 acres from Agricultural and Medium Density Residential to a Planned Development District, with a preliminary plan for a 204-unit multi-family development.

Applicant: Redwood USA, LLC. Our label. The City’s application is Rezoning Application ZON-25-003, filed by Redwood USA, LLC.

What has happened

  1. June 4, 2025 · Planning and Zoning Commission · ZON-25-003

    Tabled at the applicant’s request. The minutes say the Licking Regional Water District was unable to serve the site with sewer and that service was estimated to be about three years away. Four members voted yes, and no opposing votes are recorded.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. June 4, 2025 agenda and applicant’s request to table; June 4 minutes as posted in the July 2, 2025 packet.

  2. August 5, 2026 · Planning and Zoning Commission · ZON-25-003

    Staff reported the applicant wished to stay tabled while awaiting sewer service. The Commission reached a consensus, without a vote, to tell the applicant to either withdraw and reapply or proceed with the application as submitted.

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. August 5 minutes as posted in the October 7, 2026 packet.

  3. October 7, 2026 · Planning and Zoning Commission · ZON-25-003

    Listed on the agenda under old business as “Withdrawn – no action needed.”

    Source: City of Pataskala — Planning and Zoning Commission packets. October 7, 2026 agenda.

Applications

  • ZON-25-003: Rezoning to a planned development district, with a preliminary plan. Planning and Zoning Commission (recommendation).

Limits of the record

  • The withdrawal is shown on the agenda. No withdrawal letter is in the packet, so the date and reason are not stated here.
  • A City notice lists a “Mink Street Concept Plan” for the Development Committee meeting of October 19, 2026. The City records we reviewed do not say what site or proposal that concept plan concerns, and nothing here should be read as connecting it to this application.

Official sources

Last verified against City records: October 10, 2026

Understanding the process

Our guide, Planning and Zoning in Pataskala, Explained, explains which body handles each kind of application, when City Council votes, how public hearings and notices work and how to follow a case yourself. Upcoming public meetings are in our events listings.

Sources and methodology

Every status and timeline item on this page comes from an official City of Pataskala record: an agenda, a public notice, a staff report, meeting minutes, a decision letter, an ordinance or a department report to Council. Our own articles are listed as related coverage and are not used as the source of a status. Commission and Board minutes are cited from the copies the City posts in its meeting packets, which are generally unsigned. Vote counts are our count of the members the minutes name.

Entries are re-checked against the City's posted records after Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Development Committee and City Council meetings. A status date or a last-verified date changes only when the records have been read again. Where City documents disagree with each other, the entry says so and the claim is narrowed to what the documents support.

If you find something here that differs from the City's official records, follow the official source and let us know so we can correct it.