Development commission tables proposal for 24‑unit building at Lindora Drive after large resident turnout

Columbus Development Commission members on Jan. 9 tabled a rezoning application for 497 Lindora Drive (z24‑024) after more than a dozen neighborhood residents and Greater Southeast Area Commission leaders told the panel the two‑story, 24‑unit apartment building would clash with the neighborhood’s Eastland plan and reduce green space.

The vote followed nearly an hour of public comment, including residents who said the site has been vacant for decades and that the community had already planned a different future for the parcel. The applicant, represented by agent Dave Perry, said the site has been C‑4 commercial since 1963 and that the proposed two‑story, all one‑bedroom building is designed to respond to the neighborhood and Eastland planning objectives.

Why it matters: The Lindora Drive parcel sits inside a long‑established single‑family area and adjacent to Mayberry Park; neighbors and the Greater Southeast Area Commission argued the Eastland plan’s vision calls for a neighborhood node with small businesses, civic uses and park activation rather than an infill apartment. Neighbors also raised concerns about parking spillover during community events and the loss of usable green space.

Residents pressed several themes. Walnut Heights resident Doug Hatcher said the owner has a track record of poor lot maintenance and warned the building would “look down on the residents across the street and lower their property values.” Amber Demosz, speaking for others who could not attend, urged commissioners to preserve the neighborhood’s existing green space and criticized the building’s appearance as inconsistent with nearby housing. Mark Harper, vice chair of the Greater Southeast Area Commission, said the proposal “disregards that vision and disrupts the integrity of this traditionally single‑family neighborhood.” Angela Barnes, chair of the same commission, said the community had worked with the city on an Eastland plan and the parcel was not intended for this type of multifamily building.

Applicant response and staff notes: The applicant team — including Elias Duarte (TGen, president) and attorney Ron O’Brien — said they met repeatedly with neighbors and the area commission, explored alternate concepts such as a ground‑floor commercial use or a coffee shop, and that the site has remained undeveloped for decades. Planning staff noted the Southeast Area plan supports “mixed use 1” at this location, which can allow residential-only or residential‑above‑commercial forms; the applicant said the limited AR‑1 (LAR1) being requested would tie the project to the submitted site plan and limit height to two stories.

Commission action and next steps: After extended discussion and recommendations from the chair about increased buffering and on‑site landscaping, the commission voted to table the application to allow the applicant to revise the proposal and return with stronger buffering and neighborhood commitments. The motion to table passed on roll call with the following recorded votes: Johnny Morrison — yes; Tate McClatch — yes; David Carey — yes; Janice Keith Shanklin — yes; Maria Conroy — yes; Sheriff Patrick Fitzpatrick — yes. The commission instructed staff and the applicant to work on landscaping, screening, and other design changes and to continue outreach to area stakeholders.

Quotes: “For 42 years the C‑4 site has been vacant,” the applicant’s agent said. “This building has been designed very carefully for the neighborhood.”

What’s next: The applicant will revise the site plan and limitation text to address landscaping and buffering and return to a future meeting; no final rezoning decision was made.