Residents and area commission oppose 24‑unit Lindora Drive apartment plan; Development Commission tables rezoning

The City of Columbus Development Commission on Jan. 9, 2025, tabled a rezoning application from TGen Incorporated to rezone a 0.92‑acre vacant parcel at 497 Lindora Drive for a two‑story, 24‑unit apartment building.

Applicant representatives described the site as vacant and commercially zoned (C‑4) since 1963, and proposed a limited AR‑1 zoning that would tie the project to a site plan and two‑story building form. David Perry, agent for the applicant, said the proposal is “a 2 story 24 unit apartment building, all 1 bedroom units,” and argued the design was tailored to be compatible with the neighborhood.

Opposition at the meeting was substantial. Doug Hatcher, a Walnut Heights resident, submitted photographs and said the current parcel owner “bought it knowing it was commercial. He bought it with the intention of wanting to put in apartments,” and urged the commission to consider the owner’s past property maintenance when weighing the request. Amber Dimash and other neighbors said the development would reduce neighborhood green space used for recreation and would increase congestion near Mayberry Park. Amber Dimash said, “Destroying a single family neighborhood by placing an apartment building smack in the middle of it is not the solution.”

The Greater Southeast Area Commission urged denial. Mark Harper, vice chair and zoning chair for the Greater Southeast Area Commission, told the panel the proposal “conflicts with the Eastland plan,” saying the parcel was intended for neighborhood‑serving commercial or two‑story mixed use and not multifamily housing inserted into an interior single‑family block. Angela Barnes, chair of the Greater Southeast Area Commission, said the community had “worked hard” on the Eastland plan and “this is not part of where they think housing should be added in that plan.” The applicant and his attorneys responded that the Eastland plan allows mixed‑use or single‑use residential on such parcels and that the parcel has been vacant for decades.

Commissioners pressed both sides on design, buffering and parking layouts. Several commissioners suggested the applicant reduce the apparent massing, increase landscaping buffers along the property edges and present a revised parking layout that reduces the width of the internal circulation aisle to free room for screening. Applicant counsel Ron O’Brien and developer representatives said they had previously met with neighbors and the zoning committee and had considered alternate concepts (including a coffee shop) but concluded those uses were not viable.

After more than an hour of public comment and cross‑examination, the commission voted to table the application and directed the applicant to return with revisions addressing landscaping and buffering along the residential edges, a more compact parking/layout solution and clearer commitments about building form and community engagement. The transcript records that the application was tabled by commission motion and subsequent roll call; the meeting record shows the table action carried but does not include a final numeric vote tally in the transcript excerpt provided.