Upper Arlington council overturns zoning board denial of National Church Residences site plan

Upper Arlington City Council voted on Nov. 17 to adopt Ordinance No. 39‑2025, reversing an Oct. 1 Board of Zoning and Planning (BZAP) decision that denied National Church Residences' major site plan and a single setback variance for a proposed headquarters and future senior housing on Northbank Drive.

The council hearing opened with a staff overview of the legislative review process and a reminder that, because BZAP had denied the application, overturning that denial required a two‑thirds council vote. Director Gibson summarized the project history, noting the office‑park zoning refresh in 2022, NCR’s community outreach this summer, staff’s recommendation of approval with conditions, and the 3–3 tie at BZAP that produced the denial.

Joe Miller, speaking for appellant National Church Residences, told council the proposal includes a four‑story, 57,000‑square‑foot headquarters and two future senior‑housing buildings, and that the plan complies with the Unified Development Ordinance except for one setback variance. Miller urged the council to treat the matter as legislation governed by UDO standards and Ohio law, argued the sanitary‑sewer easement on the site creates a practical difficulty that justifies a variance, and cited an estimated project investment of roughly $85 million (he said NCR might place it closer to $100 million).

Residents who spoke during a 25‑minute public‑comment block pressed the council from both sides. Nick Davis, representing Concord Village residents, said recorded plat covenants require homeowners’ agreement to alter shared lake property and urged council to deny the plat amendment; he warned neighbors would seek legal relief if the city proceeded without their consent. Several Concord Village residents, including Diane Cochran and Jim Fisher, disputed staff and developer cost estimates for sewer relocation and urged the council to defer to BZAP’s findings or require NCR to redesign the plan. Cochran testified that a sewer relocation could be about $300,000 (she cited that as roughly 0.35% of an $85 million budget), while engineer Joe Tribble said he had identified alternative sewer options and disagreed with earlier statements that relocation was infeasible.

Other residents, and some council members, voiced support for the redevelopment. Bill Westbrook, a local developer, and Liz Stumpf, a board of education member speaking individually, emphasized economic and community benefits including senior housing, job retention and long‑term revenue for schools. Several council members said they were sympathetic to neighborhood concerns but concluded the plan fits the Pan Mix Office District (PMOD) standards adopted in 2022 and met the UDO's criteria for major site plan approval, leaving the sanitary‑sewer and easement configuration as a practicability issue that warrants a variance.

In rebuttal, Miller disputed the claim that the plat could not be amended without homeowner consent, citing Ohio Revised Code chapter 711 and UDO provisions that allow council to approve modifications. Miller also argued that partial sewer relocation would introduce significant additional costs, private‑utility coordination and schedule risks — potentially taking over a year — and said those factors made the requested variance necessary.

After legal and technical clarifications from the city attorney and Director Gibson about how the plat amendment and the development agreement relate, council members debated whether moving the building footprint 10–20 feet would materially change neighbors’ views. City engineering staff estimated such changes would represent a roughly 10% increase in distance from affected houses. Several council members noted the developer’s concessions on massing, green space and access management and said they would support the ordinance.

Council took a voice vote and the president announced the motion carried; the ordinance reversing BZAP’s denial was adopted. The special meeting then adjourned. The separate plat amendment and subsequent implementation details remain on the council’s agenda and may require further administrative steps.