Neighbors object as Upper Arlington approves plat amendment tied to National Church Residences redevelopment

Upper Arlington — Neighbors told the City Council that a proposed amendment to the North Bank Office Park plat would strip enforceable protections from adjoining property owners and improperly benefit the city as part of redevelopment of the National Church Residences campus. After public comment and legal explanations from city staff, the council voted to approve the ordinance at first reading.

Nick Davis, a resident who spoke during the public-comment period, said the change is “not a routine adjustment” and argued Ohio law and local plot language require unanimous consent before removing restrictions that run with the land. “The municipality cannot both benefit from and approve the removal of private deed restrictions that protect neighboring property owners,” Davis said, arguing the city’s financial and regulatory interest in the transaction creates a conflict of interest that, in his view, requires a different legal process than a routine administrative plat correction.

Diane Coulter, a neighboring property owner, told the council her plats contain identical language to adjacent lots and warned that changing only one set of plats would create “unforeseen problems” and remove homeowners’ ability to enforce lake-maintenance obligations. Coulter said she and other residents had consulted private attorneys, could not find a written lake-maintenance agreement, and that neighbors were “prepared to move forward with litigation” if the plat language is changed.

City staff and the city attorney responded that the plat amendment itself does not convey property to the city and that any transfer would occur later under the developer’s development agreement. City Attorney Tony Schulman told the council that the plat language in this file differs from many standard plats because it explicitly provides the city authority to make changes. Schulman acknowledged lawyers may disagree over application of the case law cited by residents but said staff’s reading of the recorded plat language supports the city’s ability to proceed with the amendment.

After public comment and staff explanation, the chair called for a vote and announced the ordinance approved at first reading. The record reflects an abstention earlier in the consideration and a subsequent roll-call style verbal vote in which the chair declared the motion carried.

The ordinance was introduced as an item postponed from an earlier meeting; the council set no further hearings on the item in the present record. The transcript record shows the ordinance referred to as ordinance number 37-2025 at introduction and later recorded with a different numeric label in the vote announcement; that discrepancy appears in the meeting record and is noted here for clarity.

Next steps: the record does not show a final conveyance or a fully executed lake-maintenance agreement. Staff said any transfer to the city would likely occur after completion of development phases and that the city would work to document maintenance responsibilities if and when transfer happens.