Council Zoning Meeting, Oct. 5, 2026

Columbus Documenters are trained community members paid to report on public meetings. Want to become a Documenter? Check them out here. Learn more about Signal Columbus. And if you are looking for news that connects the Statehouse to your house, check out Signal Statewide.

Documenter name: Nyshia Gentry

Agency: Columbus City Council

Date: Oct. 5, 2026

See more about this meeting at Documenters.org

---

Summary

• Columbus City Council held a Zoning Committee hearing to review an appeal from Town High Plaza LLC to demolish buildings at 171-191 S. High St. and 200 Wall St. The Downtown Commission previously denied the demolition request after a 3-3 tie vote.
• Attorney Kevin Dunn argued that the buildings have been unsafe since 2019 and that demolishing them would improve public safety and make the property easier to redevelop. However, Joshua Cartier, representing the City’s Planning Division, argued that the proposed plan to leave the property as a grass-covered vacant lot did not meet downtown design guidelines.
• Council Members Rob Dorans, Tiara Ross and Nicholas Bankston raised questions about building safety, demolition requirements, and whether the property could be restored. City Council did not make a decision during the hearing and will issue a written decision after reviewing the arguments and official record.

Follow-Up Questions

• When will Columbus City Council issue its final written decision on the demolition appeal for the South High Street properties?
• If the demolition is approved, what plans does the property owner have to redevelop the land, and how long could the property remain vacant?
• What steps will the city take to address public safety concerns if the demolition request is denied and the unsafe buildings remain standing?

Notes

Meeting time: 6:30 – 7:06 p.m.

Meeting link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF527D6F94123C17B 

Council President Shannon Hardin called the meeting to order. The city clerk conducted roll call, and council approved the journal.

Administrative Appeal

Council Member Rob Dorans, Chair of the Zoning Committee, opened the hearing for Administrative Appeal No. AA0001-2026 , involving Downtown Commission Case No. COA 2600161.

The appeal concerns properties located at 171-191 S. High St. and 200 Wall Street, owned by Town High Plaza LLC.

The applicant filed a notice of appeal on April 2 and filed the complete record with the City Clerk on May 1.

Chair Dorans explained that the hearing was limited to evidence already included in the official record. No new testimony or evidence would be accepted.

He added that council would not vote on the appeal during the hearing. Instead, council would review the arguments and issue a written decision within a reasonable timeframe. That decision would serve as the final appealable order.

Town High Plaza’s case

Attorney Kevin Dunn of the Plank Law Firm represented Town High Plaza LLC. He requested that three minutes of his allotted 15 minutes be reserved for rebuttal.

Dunn asked the City Council to overturn the Downtown Commission’s decision denying a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for demolition.

The commission voted 3-3, resulting in the application being denied. Dunn said that commission members should resolve their disagreement.

He cited Columbus City Code Section 3359.23(2), explaining that it allows demolition without a proposed replacement building when an acceptable maintenance plan is submitted and approved.

The property owner’s maintenance plan calls for clearing the site, grading the land, planting grass seed, and maintaining the property through regular mowing.

Dunn explained that several city divisions had already reviewed proposals and provided technical sign-offs on the work.

He also clarified that the neighboring Ohio National Bank building, which is owned by the same property owner, was not included in the demolition request. The owner intends to preserve that historic building.

Dunn said that the buildings had been under unsafe building orders since 2019, several years before Town High Plaza LLC purchased the properties in February 2023.

He described extensive damage to the buildings, including fire damage and a large opening extending from the basement through the upper structure.

He said the buildings would require a specialized demolition process, referred to as a “hot demo,” because of asbestos and floors that could not be safely accessed.

Dunn also discussed previous enforcement actions involving the properties.

According to Dunn, the city dismissed a code enforcement case in 2022 to help facilitate the sale of the property and eventual demolition by a new owner.

However, the city later filed another enforcement action seeking receivership and abatement of the unsafe conditions.

Dunn argued that it was unfair for the city to seek demolition through a court-appointed receiver while denying the property owner permission to address the same unsafe conditions through a private contractor.         

He maintained that allowing the owner to complete the demolition would address public safety concerns and potentially avoid additional costs.

Council’s questions for the owner

Dorans questioned how much discretion the Downtown Commission has when reviewing and interpreting maintenance plans under the city’s design guidelines.

Dunn acknowledged that the commission has discretion but argued that it was applying the guidelines too restrictively.

According to Dunn, the commission was effectively rejecting any demolition application that did not include plans for a replacement building.

He argued that this interpretation conflicts with the city code, which specifically provides an alternative allowing a maintenance plan when no replacement structure is proposed.

Council Member Tiara Ross asked whether any court had formally determined that demolition was necessary or that rehabilitating the buildings would be economically unfeasible.

Dunn said no court had made such a determination.

However, he said the buildings were a complete loss and posed ongoing public safety concerns.

He cited existing unsafe building orders, building conditions and communications with city officials to support his position.

The city’s case

Joshua Cartee, deputy chief counsel representing the City of Columbus Department of Development’s Planning Division, presented the city’s position.

Cartee said the proposed maintenance plan did not meet the requirements of the Downtown Design Guidelines.

He explained that the 2013 Downtown Design Guidelines focus on the design, appearance, and use of properties within the downtown district.

Cartee said a vacant lot containing only grass would not provide meaningful design features.

He also discussed comments made by Downtown Commission Vice Chair Jana Maniace during the original review.

According to Cartee, Maniace suggested that the applicant consider adding features such as public art, benches or landscaping that could make the vacant property more acceptable under the design guidelines.

However, the applicant asked the commission to vote on their original proposal for a cleared and grass-seeded lot.

Cartee said that the Downtown Commission has historically discouraged vacant lots and surface parking lots when there is no clear plan for productive redevelopment.

He said council should affirm the commission’s denial unless it determines that the proposed grass-seeded lot satisfies the maintenance requirements of the city code.

Cartee said that the vote outcome could have been different if the commission’s seventh member had been present.

He explained that there are three ways demolition can be authorized within the downtown district.

1. A Certificate of Appropriateness from the Downtown Commission.
2. A demolition order issued by the Environmental Court.
3. An emergency demolition order issued by the city’s chief building official.

He explained that although the buildings are currently subject to unsafe building orders, they have not been placed under an emergency demolition order. An emergency order would require a determination that the building poses an imminent threat to public safety, he said.

In those circumstances, the need to protect public safety would take priority over the Downtown Commission’s design review process.

However, because no such order had been issued, the property owner could not proceed with demolition without the required approval, he said.

Council’s questions for the Department of Development 

Dorans asked whether the Downtown Commission had meaningfully considered the proposed maintenance plan or whether the application had been rejected primarily because it lacked a redevelopment proposal.

Cartee said that the commission interpreted the downtown design guidelines as requiring more than an empty, grass-covered lot.

He stated that the guidelines are intended to encourage productive land use and prevent downtown properties from remaining vacant without a development plan.

Council Member Nicholas Bankston asked whether the condition of the buildings and the possibility of intentional neglect had been considered by the commission.

Cartee said that intentional neglect had not been a major focus of the commission’s discussion, although members were aware of the property’s deteriorating condition.

Council members also raised questions about neighborhood safety, public health and the effect of leaving deteriorating buildings standing.

Cartier explained that the commission could consider those concerns, but its review had focused primarily on design guidelines and the expectation that downtown property should have a productive use.

During rebuttal, Dunn said that the buildings were already considered unsafe before Town High Plaza LLC purchased them in 2023.

He reiterated that unsafe building orders had been in place since 2019.

Dunn referenced testimony from Michael Simpson, president of NAI Ohio Equities, who discussed the property’s redevelopment potential.

According to Dunn, Simpson believed that removing the damaged buildings would make the property one of the more desirable redevelopment opportunities in downtown Columbus.

Dunn also referenced testimony from property owner Mr. Sax (no first name given) concerning challenges associated with the existing structures.

Those challenges included difficulty investigating environmental conditions and determining the status of underground fuel storage tanks beneath the buildings.

Dunn explained that these unknown conditions made it difficult to attract development partners or fully evaluate future redevelopment opportunities.

He said removing the deteriorated structures would create a blank slate and allow further environmental testing, site investigation, and planning steps toward redevelopment rather than simply creating an unused vacant lot.

He also argued that the site’s location along South High Street makes it attractive for future development once the unsafe buildings are removed.

Meeting adjourned

Chair Dorans thanked representatives of Town High Plaza LLC and the City of Columbus Department of Development’s Planning Division for submitting briefs and presenting their oral arguments.

The meeting concluded.

---

If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, please email us at columbusdocumenters@gmail.com with “Correction Request” in the subject line.

Documenters notes are free and publicly available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (CC BY 4.0). They may be shared, remixed, or reused with appropriate credit to Documenters.org and the local partners. For full guidance, see: https://www.documenters.org/creative-commons/